Tuesday, 25 November 2008

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook.

After much pushing the Intellectual Property Office had to come up with a decision on the application Busbridge made to rectify their records. Normally a Hearing Officer will come up with a decision within two months and this time it has taken the current one (a Mr Foley) 11 months.....I wonder why? In total it has taken the IPO a total of 1year and 11 months from the time Busbridge applied to appeal the decision of HO Landau who found for me, to issuing this decision. It is my opinion that the IPO has deliberately and cynically held up proceedings in the hope I would in the meantime kick the bucket. Them knowing that I had had a heart attack in 2002 and the possibility is that I could have another one. That way they get a thorn in their side, out of the way. They know full well that I want to get a full Judicial Review of the whole case going back to 1992, and looking into all their cases of continual maladministration. they know that before I can even apply for a J.R I have to exhaust every avenue of complaint through the IPO. So by getting their own H.O. to issue yet another perverse decision in favour of Busbrdige, means I have to waste even more time appealing it. So that is exactly what they have done.

Having employees of their own look, at applications and appeals, is the same of the Police, the solicitors, barristers, judges, doctors and dentists etc all regulating themselves. We all know what a fantastic biased job they all do....don't we?

I will not relate in full what the decision said otherwise you will all fall asleep as it's very long. Long on waffle and obscure ramblings which make it look like he's doing a full and thorough job.
Which of course he isn't. In short Busbridge was applying to be able to say the following:- Back in 1992 he and his brother applied to register my trademark Viper, this as a partnership trading as Cobretti Engineering. Less than a year later the partnership broke up because Martin Busbridge had applied for a loan for the business, and due to his brothers uselessness, it was blown and Martin was up for losing his house. His marriage fell apart and he rowed with his brother Bob over it all and he did a runner never to be seen again.
Shortly after this in 1993, Bob goes bankrupt. So we have here the fact that the application (to register) was now out of date. The business Cobretti Engineering was defunct and Bob was a bankrupt and the application was for an asset (the trading mark) could not be owned by him. He did not do anything to change the wording of the application at that time. He and his brother had in early 1992 approached Chrysler posing as the bona fide owners of the mark, to sell it to them for between £500,000 and a £million. So of course Bob hid this fact from the Insolvency Service and they being as useless as the IPO never even had a meeting with Bob it was all just a paper exercise, as bankruptcies in 1992 were running as high as now (it being the last recession we had) so my complaint with the IPO, if you have read all of this blog you will know, is that they even though I told them of the bankruptcy back in 1994/5, did buggerall, and have gone on doing buggerall about it despite my continually banging on about it ever since.
I also had a go at the I>S in 1994/5 about the hiding of the asset and they did nowt as well. (TYPICAL OF ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, DON'T YOU THINK?)
When Landau came up with his decision saying that as Bob never got Martin to sell him his 50% of the business, he never owned it all, so the application was never his to forward on to registration. Plus his bankruptcy meant that the asset of the mark would belong to the I.S. So in effect Busbridge had to lose the registration of my Mark,which he had conned the IPO in 2004 into giving him. So he appealed this, and off we went on another round of time wasting.
Back in 1992 when Bob knew he was heading for bankruptcy and he says he started a new company which he called Autotrak Ltd. He says he assigned all the assets of Cobretti Engineering to that company, but he still continued trading as Cobretti Engineering upto to his bankruptcy in 1993, thus hoodwinking the public that they owned all the assets, but which he now had hidden. This of course is illegal, to knowingly shift assets out of a business that is trading without any hope of avoiding bankruptcy. ( the I.S. did not cotton onto that one) The assignment was kept quiet for obvious reasons and it wasn't until 2002 that he then notified the IPO that he had allegedly done it. I firmly believe that an assignment was never made in 1992 and he only went through the motions of belatedly doing it 10 years later, on legal advice as he just had to show the IPO that at the time he made the application or soon after, the mark was assigned to Autotrak Ltd, and wasn't with Cobretti Engineering.
Of course I protested very loudly about all this and pointed out that IPO law said that they had to be notified within 6 months of any assignment and that wasn't obviously done, plus all the paperwork was very suspicious and not legal. This was at the hearing where Busbridge was applying to register the mark and this back in 2004. Reynolds the H.O said the assignments would have to be looked at and Landau when he did this, did not touch on the assignments, because as he said the application had to fail on the breakup of the partnership and other facts.
So Busbridge appealed his decision but only on the business of the alleged assignment, and his appeal would be heard by an appointed person who is a QC, and not to the High Court as I would have been forced to do over appealing the application to register hearing by Reynolds. This really annoys me because I had to let the appeal go and lose the case to Busbridge just because I could not afford to go to the High Court, yet Busbridge makes an appeal to do with the same case, or a continuation of it and he has a later (after 1994) rule applied to him which means he can use the free option of seeing an appointed person (QC).
After waiting about 8 month, that meeting with this QC took place. Again because of stupid IPO rules I was not part of that process, yet it was to do with a case that I was involved in...can you believe this? What a cosy little meeting that turned out to be and I wasn't at all confident it would go my way. I expected to get the decision of it in about two months yet month after month went by and no decision. I kept on to the IPO and all I got was that it was before an independent person and they had no say in the matter. I even got my MP onto it after 9 months of waiting and he got the same brush off from no less than the IPO, CEO. this all happened at the end of 2007 beginning 2008.
I heard from the IPO in January that Busbridge was now putting in an application to rectify the register and have it record that the application should now read that it is in the name only of Bob Busbridge trading as Cobretti Engineering. This of course flew in the face of Landaus decision which had never been activated due to the appeal. The appeal decision had not been heard either. Then in May 2008 I am told that back in September 2007 Busbridge had dropped his appeal to the QC and to me this should have meant that the Landau decision should now have been enacted. But the IPO would ignore all that which is outrageous. Even more outrageous was the fact that all this meant that the IPO had deliberately lied to me and my MP by saying the decision had not been made and nothing they could do, yet it had been dropped all the time!!!
THIS SHOWS ONCE AGAIN WHAT THE IPO ARE ALL ABOUT.

Busbridges application to rectify made in Jan 2007 was eventually heard in July 2008 and I have been waiting again ever since for the decision. One reason for this long hold up, was the
incredible and I believe illegal decision to grant over six months for Busbridge to FIND HIS LONG LOST BROTHER, MARTIN!!! This so he could persuade him 16 years after the event, to grant him 100% of a defunct partnership and thus allow the rectification process to go ahead. Of course it would get rid of Landaus reasons for not allowing the registration of the mark to continue. I find this so outrageous and possibly illegal that it can only have been allowed by the IPO as they favour Busbridge winning so they can be proved to have acted properly over the bankruptcy etc etc. To make it so I had lost. All this strengthens my desire to have a Judicial Review of all the goings on by the IPO. Of course he would never be able to find his brother and even if he did I doubted he would ever get him to agree.
Lets face it the break up was monumentally done with bad blood, and Martin had never been seen or heard of in 16 years being abroad most of this time, yet the IPO gave him all this time at my expense. Of course he did not find him or get his 50% of the partnership and application to register. So application had to be now looked at. I had given all my reasons as to why it should be denied and I had my say about all the documents Busbridge had put in as so called evidence.

I had to keep on to the IPO yet again over a slow decision coming forth and eventually after all this pressure as now they could not use the excuse that it was an independent QC, they came up with it last week. Well I never expected them to find for me, and true enough they didn't. Yet again a deeply flawed decision full of mistakes about the facts and the reading of the evidence that Busbridge came up with. So now I have to waste yet more time in appealing this and I have quickly drawn up the appeal with a long statement and documentary evidence.

The decision in a nutshell was on only two points. 1/ Because when the partnership of the Busbridges broke up and they drew up an agreement saying that Bob would take responsibility for all the debts, THIS ALSO MEANT THAT MARTIN WAS HANDING OVER THE BUSINESS TO HIS BROTHER AS WELL AND SO NO NEED FOR IT TO BE ASSIGNED OR SOLD. 2/
On the business of the bankruptcy even though by law the Receiver should have taken over that asset, because Bubsridge came up with a letter from the Insolvency Service dated only in August 2008 in which they said they had had no interest in the asset, this meant that he was in the clear over all that. This is again an outrageous decision and shows a biased favouritism by the IPO towards Busbridge, as I showed that this letter was not worth a light and not legal.

First it was never proved that the asset had been assigned away from Cobretti and when I asked the I.S. first in 2004 and again in 2007 to let me have all the facts about the bankruptcy, they replied that they had destroyed all the files and could make no comments either way as they simply could not remember. Yet after this, for Busbridge they can suddenly remember with remarkable clarity that they had not been interested in the mark asset. It is painfully obvious that the I.S are as big a bunch of liars and cheats as the IPO and who know their handling of the bankruptcy was deeply flawed and they want shut of it. So here I am still some way off getting Justice which I wonder if I will ever get. Will I be able to get a Judicial Review on legal aid???
Certainly no barrister if they have read this blog has offered to help, but as I've said that does not surprise me at all as they seem to only want fistfuls of money to even look at you let alone speak to you.

One last thing is that the decison of this last H.O, Foley, shows that the cosy meeting between Busbridge and the QC, was probably not legal either. It is clear the QC gave Busbridge much legal advice as to how he could take steps to win, by dropping his appeal and applying for rectification and saying and showing certain facts and documents. This when he should have stuck ONLY to hearing Busbridges reasons as to the legality of the assignment. As it was all he seems to have done is discussed with him all sorts of other matters and the assignment was not dealt with. He obviously advised Busbridge to drop the appeal and take the other steps he did. Surely this is illegal as well. Hence why it is imperative I get a Judicial Review into all these shonky goings on from 1992 to date.

No comments: