Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 20.

THE IMPLICATIONS TO ALL WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OF THIS CASE.

I believe that what this case shows, and I do not doubt that out there, there probably are many more such unreported cases, that in this country those who have designs, trade marks, copyrights, patents etc, simply cannot rely on the Intellectual Property Office to protect their rights or treat them with competence and honesty.

So you can understand exactly how you could end up like me, having had my I/P stolen from me by a cheating agent, then suffering 17 years of endless hassle via the IPO, losing over £750K of profits, losing my health and having to retire 5 years early with a business worth SWFA, I am going to give you a quick run down on the main points. I am sure many will not have read the full story so this brief rundown will help:-
1/ 1986 I and my son and staff design a kitcar and give it the trade name Viper. Like many small businesses I am too busy and short of cash to immediately register the mark. However I am still covered legally by common law.
2/ In the beginning of 1988 I take on an agent Cobretti Engineering, in London, for the South East.
3/ In late 1989 I have to get rid of two partners so start a new company. I retake on the agent, but this time I will only manufacture the product and make fully built cars, while the agent Cobretti will handle all the retailing of the kits UK wide.
4/ In mid 1991 Cobretti decide to repay all the business I put their way, by copying my designs and also pinching the Trade Mark. They attempt to cheat Chrysler by saying they own the mark but will sell it to them for anything up to £500K.
5/ I find out at this time that Chrysler want to register my trade mark.
6/ I also find out that Cobretti also want to register my trade mark.
7/ I have to cover myself and also register my mark.
8/ I first of all have to oppose Chrysler who had their application in before Cobretti. Cobretti's application is put on hold until my case (I am claiming prior use from 1986)
9/After a snail like 10 year case I win against Chrysler.
10/ Thinking that it was a foregone conclusion that the Cobretti application would be dropped by IPO because I have had use since 1986 and now have registration, was a foolish naive thought for they immediately reinstate their application.
11/ Now I have to fight them. I had paid for legal representation with Chysler but cannot stretch to this, this time so am forced to do the case myself.
12/ An application hearing is set for mid 2004 and I will be opposing. It is very apparent that the miserable hearing officer Reynolds doesn't like hearings where the applicants and opposers represent themselves. I lose and am given perverse reasons for losing.
13/ The reason given was that in the infinite wisdom of Reynolds I was deemed in 1990 when I retook on Cobretti as an agent that I had abandoned my mark. I was incredulous as the reason given was that this was because I had not advertised my product and used my Trade Mark in doing so. I had allowed Cobretti as retailer to do this thus they had "taken" over my mark. What a load of cobblers and crap!! I can think of many manufacturers who have agents who retail and advertise their products, yet have never heard of a single case where one has thus lost thier T/M. Think of Ford or Vauxhall etc. I did have evidence of my advertising my mark and I had made five fully built cars for customers in the period 1990/1991. What were they called???
I also had all the orders and invoices to and from Cobretti and the mark was shown on some of those. All ignored by the ignoramus Reynolds
15/ As any appeal would have to be done through the High Court at great cost (at least £50K)
obviously I had to let it all go. BRITISH JUSTICE IPO STYLE!!!
16/ 2005. A hearing was ordered by the IPO to look into alleged assignments which I had queried the validity of, this at the application hearing by Reynolds. Another hearing officer Landau (probably the only honest H/O in the IPO) found that Busbridge had no legal right to the mark. This because when he and his brother split up their partnership in 1992, Robert did not buy out his brothers share, so he had no rights to register the mark and it was declared null and void. He also referred to his bankruptcy.
17/ Busbridge appealed over the assignments, but he was allowed to appeal to an independent QC rather than as under the 38 Act to the High Court. This service is FREE. He drops his appeal after getting loads of free advice from this QC on how he can stitch me up.
18/ By any rights you would think that the original Landau decision would now be enacted. Not on your life!!!!!!! Not when the IPO are concerned.
19/Busbridge now puts into motion the advice. Apply to have the records of the original registration application to be changed to ONLY HIS NAME and dropping the name of his brother. So Hey Presto he is now the legal owner of the Mark, even though I too have it registered. So what is the point of having a    T/M when the IPO allow two people to have same Mark for identical products. All my evidence for this application to be denied is ignored by H/O Foley. I can appeal.
20/ At the appeal again all my evidence is ignored and I lose again thanks to the corrupt ways of the IPO who as far as I am concerned had decided way back because I had complained bitterly for their actions or non actions. Someone had decided I was to pay for being cheeky enough to make waves for civil servants. I was doomed to lose as they knew I had no clout or money to get expert legal help to really show them up.