Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook.

In my last post I said what has happened to me over the past 19 years is an injustice. Whoever is reading this blog now may not have read all of it and the story from the beginning. So for those I am going to do a breakdown on just what an injustice this has been. One in very brief form, so I will list the ways injustices have been done, starting from May 1992;

1/ The IPO accept the application from Busbridge (RB) to register what is my own trade mark I used from 1986 (and this unknown to me straight away) and in the name of himself and his brother Martin (MB). Yet a few weeks later the partnership breaks up in June 92 and yet RB asks the IPO a few weeks later to do a minor change to the names shown on the application, but still it will show the two names even though the partnership has broken up and no longer exists.

I notify the IPO and ask why they still have the application in the name of a none existent partnership........IGNORED. Their mistake No 1.

2/RB applies to the IPO to oppose Chryslers application to register the same mark (VIPER).

3/ I oppose the same application but even though I have applied AFTER RB, it is my application that is allowed to go ahead and even though the RB opposition IS NOT WITHDRAWN that is allowed to slumber on with no action. Mistake No 2 as RB's opposition should have been the one to be going ahead before mine.

4/ In 1993 RB goes bankrupt.......I notify the IPO and ask why are you now allowing an application to go ahead when not only is there no partnership but the remaining bloke (RB) is now bankrupt......The IPO IGNORE ME AGAIN.......Mistake No 3.

5/ My opposition to Chrysler starts going down the path to an eventual hearing and the IPO puts the application of RB to register, on HOLD until my case finishes!!! Why, because he applied to register before I did, as my slow Patent Agent who thinks that as I can prove I had usage going back to long before RB can ever do so, have precedence. Why did the IPO not let RB's application go ahead instead of putting it on hold????????? Mistake No 4. My own application went in in 1996.

6/I eventually win against Chrsyler after 10 years of time wasting by Chrsyler at great cost to me, and I am GIVEN REGISTRATION STRAIGHT AWAY.......Mistake No 5. (bear in mind that RB has an application to register before me)

7/ I am almost immediately told by the IPO that now they will let RB's held up application to register, go ahead. I am put in the position that I am forced to oppose it.

8/ Around this time RB puts in an application to have my registration made invalid on the grounds that he put in an application before me. I complain that we have now parallel actions and surely they should hear my opposition first as if I win then the other is academic. They agree. Mistake No 6. For now it should have been obvious to the IPO that by their own rules as RB applied before me, on paper he has the strongest claim? Even though his application should never have been allowed in the first place due to his bad faith and having been allowed to continue in the face of the partnership breaking up and being bankrupt. Of course to the IPO, these are of no consequence to them, as they care not a fig for the real law (partnership law for one) Mistakes No 7. ( more mistakes will also be seen to have occured later on as to whether he should have been allowed to keep up his application)

9/ At the opposition to his application to register hearing, despite masses of evidence that I was the legal owner and registered on the evidence of my use back to 1986, ( Do not forget that common law states the first to use a mark is the legal owner of it) the vacuous hearing officer gives RB registration. At this point I have to say that his decisions DID NOT INCLUDE THE OBVIOUS ONE IN THAT HE APPLIED TO REGISTER BEFORE ME.... no he uses a series of incredible other reasons which are laughable. As I am not rich I cannot afford to oppose in the High Court, and have to let it go. Their mistake again in giving registration to a crook who lied over 160 times in his evidence and who they believed ....Mistake No 8.

10/ In that hearing I at least got the IPO to look at a legal point over alleged assignments of the mark by RB and another hearing was held in 2005 when this time a decent uncorrupted hearing officer points out that the application had been made illegally, as the other partner (MB) had not given up his rights to the 50% of the partnership assets etc etc. One to me (so I thought)

11/RB can appeal and does.(2006) He is heard before a ******* barrister called Hobbs and when you look up his history he is a big wheel in IPO circles. It seems that he is revered and can do no wrong. Now if you read the transcript, he breaks all the rules of Judge by giving RB free advice and showing clear bias, and sets RB off on a track whereby he is told he can circumvent the last hearing officers decision. Big mistake No 9. I have reported this corrupt bastard but I will give you good odds, the ruling classes will be banding together to protect the fucker. Mistake No 10. This **** of a judge gives the game away because he makes remarks about me and what he thinks about my action against Chrysler, and I am not even part of this appeal nor has that action got anything to do with this appeal. More on this in the next post.

12/ The crook RB can now go on to apply to rectify the registry records and get his brothers name booted off. Which of course he does. (2008) He wins of course and all my evidence is ignored once more. The more this goes on the more I can see that the IPO have an agenda to not let me win, despite whatever evidence I supply. So of course he wins again. I believe their reasons are biased and corrupt. Mistake No 11.

13/ Of course I now have to appeal (2009) even though I know by now that I will not win. I don't and any good evidence I give of past incorrect actions etc, are ignored. Mistake No 12.

14/ I am at the end of the line now and RB has registration and of course now the IPO can and does let RB reactivate his Invalidity action which he had started way back in 2002. This time I think I must take on a lawyer to make sure that this action is led by someone that can get all the past corrupt actions of both the IPO and RB corrected. His evidence is is correct and is based on the invalidity of the application of RB in the begining way back in 1992. However even though I warn him that I believe the IPO would not let me win, as to do so will open the way for me to sue them for all the corrupt actions they have committed since 1992, he obviously thinks he will win. Of course we lose AGAIN! and ALL our evidence is totally ignored!!! Mistake No 13. (Unlucky for me) The IPO use the IP law which apparently says that the first to apply, even if the application was illegal and corrupted , has precedence. Now I ask why did the hearing officer back in 2004 when I opposed his application to register the mark, use this law???? It stinks to high heaven. Everything that we used as evidence that this action should fail due to perjury and bad faith, breaking of partnership laws etc, is ignored.

So what we have here is a crook that comes along and pinches your designs and products AND trade mark. In other words he pinches your whole business!! The IPO back all his illegal actions and believe absolutely all his hundreds of lies that he tells in absolutely every document he puts in as evidence. Everything you say is ignored and even questioned as to whether it is true. They intimate you are a forger of a document (the agency agreement between you and RB) that you
have been found not guilty of in a court of law. The obvious forgery and perjury of RB is ignored even though you have consistently complained about it, and even though the IPO say they will investigate at this last hearing....and do not do so!! It reeks of corruption, because they are plainly biased and they obvioulsy have this agenda to not let you win in any way. Even when you have legal representation who concurs that I have been shamefully treated and that the actions of the IPO are unbelievable.
This means that the course of getting justice is a joke and brought into disrepute. That a governmental department is prepared to ignore obvious and persistent acts of perjury and forgery and perverting the course of justice. What does that say about the IPO?????
What does that say about all the members of the public who create I/P in copyright, trade marks, design rights, or patents, getting protection from crooks who wish to steal their I/P ?? How can they get protection from a bunch of incompetent bastards who when they know someone is going to sue them for incompetence, do everyhting they can to do them down and stop you from doing that. Tell me what is the point of the IPO??????? They are like EVERY CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT IN THE LAND....UTTERLY USELESS, INCOMPETENT AND ANTI THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE!!!!!

NOW DO NOT FORGET THAT THEIR CORRUPTION IS FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FACT THAT MARTIN BUSBRIDGE WHO TURNED UP IN 2009 AND WHO CONFIRMED WHAT I HAD BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, ABOUT RB BEING MY AGENT, WHICH THE IPO DISBELIEVED, HIS EVIDENCE IS DISMISSED AS THE RAMBLINGS OF A PERSON WHO IS OBVIOUSLY HAS AN AGENDA OF HATE AND ANGER AGAINST HIS BROTHER. ALL HIS EVIDENCE OF HOW HE WAS DONE BY RB OUT OF HIS SHARE OF THEIR BUSINESS IS ALSO IGNORED. ALL THE LEGALITIES ABOUT HOW RB TOOK OVER ILLEGALY THE ASSETS OF THEIR PARTNERSHIP ARE DISMISSED WITH QUESTIONABLE CASE LAW, WHICH MY LAWYER SAYS WAS INCORRECT. IT IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE.

No comments: