Compliance & Legal

1. What Certelo Claims

1.1 Proof of prior existence

Certelo provides cryptographic evidence that a specific file, producing a specific SHA-256 hash, existed at or before the blockchain timestamp recorded on the Electra Protocol at the moment of submission. This is mathematically verifiable.

1.2 Tamper evidence

Any modification to a file after timestamping, by even a single character, pixel, or byte, produces an entirely different hash that will not match the on-chain record. Certelo provides mathematically certain, one-way tamper detection.

1.3 Decentralised, independent verifiability

The on-chain record exists independently of Certelo and can be verified by any party with blockchain access, including in legal proceedings, without depending on Certelo's continued operation.

1.4 Client-side privacy

All hashing occurs in the user's browser. The original file never reaches Certelo's servers. No registration or personal data submission is required for the timestamping service. Payment data is handled by an independent third-party processor. Certelo receives only a payment confirmation, not personal payment details.

2. What Certelo Does NOT Claim

Proof of authorship: a timestamp proves the file existed, not who created the idea inside it.

Proof of originality: Certelo cannot verify whether an idea is novel or unique.

Legal ownership: a timestamp does not establish IP ownership under any legal system.

Patent equivalence: Certelo is not a substitute for formal IP registration.

Legal admissibility guarantee: evidentiary status varies by jurisdiction. See Section 5.

eIDAS QTS: Certelo timestamps are NOT Qualified Electronic Timestamps under eIDAS Article 42. See Section 5.2 for QTS options.

Identity verification: Certelo does not verify the identity of the person who submitted a file. See Section 3.3.

Control over payment data: Certelo does not receive, control, or take responsibility for personal or financial data collected by the payment processor.

Control over optional analytics: Google Tag Manager is an optional browser path on public pages. Google operates it under its own terms after you choose Accept analytics.

3. How to Correctly Describe Your Certelo Proof

3.1 Recommended language

"This file was timestamped on the Electra Protocol blockchain on [date] via Certelo, providing cryptographic evidence of its existence in this exact form at that time."

"The SHA-256 hash of this document was anchored to the blockchain at [timestamp], demonstrating prior existence as of that date."

"This Certelo certificate establishes that this document existed and was unmodified as of [date]."

3.2 Language that must NOT be used

"This proves I invented this idea." Certelo does not prove inventorship.

"This is equivalent to a patent." It is not.

"This guarantees I own the rights to this." Certelo does not confer rights.

"No one else had this idea before me." Certelo cannot verify uniqueness.

"This is legally protected." Certelo provides evidence, not legal protection.

"Certelo verified my identity." Certelo does not verify user identity.

"This is a Qualified Electronic Timestamp." It is not a QTS under eIDAS Art. 42.

3.3 Supplementary evidence protocol for court use

Because Certelo operates without registration, the on-chain record does not by itself establish who submitted the file. Users who may rely on their Certelo proof in legal proceedings should retain:

Payment receipt or order confirmation from the payment processor, showing the transaction date and time.

Browser history, screenshots, or screen recordings of the submission session at certelo.io.

Internal communications (email, chat, project management tools) referencing the file and its submission.

IT system logs if the submission was made from a company network or device.

Witness statements from colleagues who observed the submission.

Combined with the Certelo proof certificate, this supplementary evidence creates the strongest possible position in any jurisdiction.

4. Relationship to Intellectual Property Law

Certelo is a complementary tool, not a replacement for formal IP protection. Most valuable when:

Establishing a defensible date of conception prior to filing a patent application.

Documenting the state of a trade secret at a specific date.

Providing a timestamped record in R&D documentation and innovation workflows.

Supporting a position in disputes where timing of creation is contested.

For formal IP protection, consult a qualified patent attorney in your jurisdiction: UK, IPREG; EU, European Patent Attorney (EPO); US, USPTO-registered attorney; Australia, IP Australia; Brazil, INPI; Japan, JPO; China, CNIPA; India, IPO India.

5. Blockchain Evidence: Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction

5.1 United Kingdom

UK courts have discretion to admit blockchain timestamps under the Electronic Communications Act 2000. The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce 2019 Legal Statement supports recognition. Authentication steps: (1) present the Certelo proof certificate; (2) provide technical explanation via witness statement; (3) present supplementary identity evidence per Section 3.3. Note on the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023: ongoing developments may further strengthen the digital record framework under English law.

5.2 European Union

eIDAS Article 25(1): electronic timestamps cannot be denied legal effect solely because they are in electronic form. EU courts cannot automatically reject Certelo timestamps. Certelo timestamps are NOT QTS under eIDAS Article 42; they do not carry a legal presumption of accuracy. For QTS-level timestamps, contact hello@certelo.io. eIDAS 2.0 (EU Digital Identity Framework, 2026): Certelo monitors this rollout.

5.3 United States

FRE 901(b)(9): baseline admissibility in all 50 states. FRE 902(13)-(14): potential self-authentication. Strongest state laws: Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. §34-29-106), Vermont (Rule 902(13)), Arizona (A.R.S. §44-7061), Illinois, Tennessee.

5.4 Australia

Admissible under the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth). Australian courts apply a pragmatic approach to digital evidence. Certelo timestamps satisfy ETA authentication requirements with technical documentation.

5.5 Brazil

Admissible under Marco Civil da Internet (Law 12,965/2014) and the Code of Civil Procedure. Brazilian courts increasingly accept digital evidence. Strong position with technical documentation and supplementary evidence.

5.6 Canada

Admissible under provincial and federal electronic commerce legislation (Uniform Electronic Commerce Act framework). Canadian courts are receptive to digital evidence across provinces.

5.7 Japan

Admissible under the Code of Civil Procedure and electronic commerce regulations. Japanese courts are technically sophisticated and increasingly receptive to blockchain-based evidence.

5.8 Singapore

Admissible under the Electronic Transactions Act (Cap. 88). Singapore courts are among the most technology-forward globally. Certelo timestamps carry solid evidentiary weight.

5.9 South Korea

Admissible under the Electronic Signature Act and general civil procedure rules. South Korea's highly digitalised legal environment makes it receptive to blockchain evidence.

5.10 India

Admissible under the Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. A Section 65B certificate may be required alongside the Certelo proof for court admission.

5.11 South Africa

Admissible under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECTA). South African courts recognise electronic evidence under this framework.

5.12 China

Supreme People's Court Internet Courts Rules (2018) explicitly recognise blockchain-stored evidence. China provides the strongest statutory recognition of blockchain timestamps globally. Data localisation context: see Privacy Policy Section 11.9.

5.13 Russia

May be admitted under the Arbitration Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code. Blockchain evidence recognition is developing in Russian commercial courts. Sanctions compliance applies; see Terms of Service Section 18.

5.14 All Other Jurisdictions

Certelo timestamps are mathematically verifiable cryptographic records satisfying the technical foundation for electronic evidence admission in virtually all modern legal systems. Universal principles: authenticity (SHA-256 + blockchain anchoring), integrity (hash changes on modification), reliability (public decentralised blockchain), independence (verifiable without Certelo's operation). Users should consult local legal counsel. Supplementary evidence per Section 3.3 strengthens the position globally.

6. Technical Limitations and Risks

Blockchain finality: once submitted, on-chain records are immutable. Cannot be deleted by Certelo or any party.

No identity link: the record contains only hash and timestamp. Retain supplementary evidence per Section 3.3.

File responsibility: modifying a file post-timestamping produces a different hash. Preserve original files unchanged.

Hash function security: SHA-256 is NIST-approved. In the event of future vulnerability, Certelo will notify users.

Platform continuity: if Certelo ceases operation, on-chain records remain. Retain proof certificates independently.

Payment processor independence: Certelo does not control data held by the processor.

Optional analytics independence: Google Tag Manager operates independently. Its data handling is governed by its own privacy policies and your Change analytics choice in the footer at certelo.io.

Sanctions: Certelo is subject to UK sanctions. Service availability may be affected in certain jurisdictions.

7. No Legal Advice

Nothing in these documents, the Certelo platform, or any Evoblox communication constitutes legal advice. Evoblox is a technology company, not a law firm. For any legal matter, consult a qualified legal professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

8. Contact for Legal Enquiries

Contact: hello@certelo.io

EVOBLOX Ltd t/a Certelo | 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ

Company No. 16253695 (England and Wales) | certelo.io