CORRUPT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE. 97.

Because of having to spend much time in the confines of my flat, I decided to spend some of that time looking at certain aspects of how the IPO illegally and criminally took away the registered Trade Mark 'Viper' from me and for some unknown reason gave it to a crook, who had been my agent for my sports car kit- which from early 1986 I had called 'Viper'. I manufactured this car in kit form and fully built, from Jan 1986 to 2002. 

In this blog you will see the full story of how that agent in 1991, when he heard Chrysler were attempting to register that Trade Mark, had offered to sell them the T/M for a cool £500,000 posing as the legal owner of that Mark. Also by this time he had decided not to continue being my agent but to steal my chassis designs and the Trade Mark name and copy the kit and car and sell the copies himself. So he obviously told Chrysler he owned the T/M, knowing full well he did not and that is termed; making an application in 'bad faith' and we used this fact again and again to the IPO and at the last  hearing held in 2010-only to be ignored.

Now the fact is, that I owned it (unregistered until I won against Chrysler in 2002) the trade mark was well known in the kit car trade and is also well documented in many magazines with endless adverts and write-ups it was also featured in videos about Cobras in the UK and was also featured on BBC and ITV news, when we secured a multi-million pound order for a 100 cars a year to Japan. A replica of an Aston Marton Volante car was featured on Top Gear (Read the recently out book: 'Snakes Alive- the cream of British Cobra replicas in the 80's ' by Peter Filby who is a well known Kit Car expert and author who ran the kit car magazine 'Which Kit' for many years, where the history of my company and car featured prominently) Yet Chrysler still attempted to register the T/M and I had to oppose them. Eventually they failed and I won registration, but for some reason the IPO I now know, thought I should not have won. But strangely enough they never said they thought this at the time and right up to 2010. But as you will see in this blog, from 2002 immediately after they had to give me registration, after I got rid of Chrysler, they embarked on their crooked efforts to take it off me- see all the history of this-all in this blog if you read it all.

They finalised this effort to divest me at the 2010 hearing ( a hearing brought about by my crooked ex agent by the name of Robert Busbridge, where he wished to make my registration invalid) where the IPO now said openly that they had made a mistake back in 1996-giving me registration. It became obvious that in their arrogance and cheek that at this hearing that they were going to use it to rectify this mistake. All their corrupt practices since 2002 greatly cost me large losses of money, health and how it meant my business became now worth carrying on. At the beginning of their decision document by hearing officer, he said this: "The Marks, goods of the two parties are identical. The registration of the Trade Mark 2070139 (my registration Reference number after the Chrylser hearing) was accordingly granted in violation of the provisions of Sections 5(1) (2) (a) and should be declared invalid under sections 47 (2) (a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act (1994) In fact I did not register it under the 1994 Act but under the 1938 Act, yet this doesn't seem to matter to them and they applied the later 94 Act-is this legal? I wonder, as the 38 Act could be very different to the 94 Act, but no matter, as since 1992 they have consistently behaved incompetently and illegally, so this is just normal behaviour by them and it's too late now. 

So at the time I'd had enough of the bastards, having had to endure 20 years of criminality and incompentcy from both the IPO and my crooked ex agent and the Dorset Police. I'd borrowed just over £6K to fight that 2010 hearing and suffered more incompetence from an alleged IP specialist lawyer, who failed miserably when up against the mighty IPO and their bottomless pit of tax payers money. The only way I could stop the IPO corruption was to fight them in the High Court and they knew this and knew I had no money to do it. So basically I gave up and never went further legally and so never even looked at whether their excuses re the parts of the TMA they said gave them the right to do what they did, was 100% right.

That is until now when trying to find something to do because of COVID, I started to look back at what those bastards in the IPO did over those many years and which were entirely illegal. With special attention as to how they deliberately smeared my integrity by making many lies to the Dorset Police and to each other in internal documents I got hold of etc- all about me and very personal too. They all showed a complete BIAS against me and civil servants in such cases are supposed to be unbiased in how they deal with any such cases.

From the records I still have and I still have all of them, I could see again the TMAct validations they claimed to have that enabled them to  rip away the very registration I had legally proved, gave me the rights to that TM- 'Viper'. Section 5 of the TMAct basically says that a trade mark application can be refused if there, at the time it was made, there was another entity using the same T/M and the goods were very similar or the same and already registered or I was guilty of passing off', as someone else had earlier rights due to use or registration.

Now here it is as plain as can be, that this is yet another IPO set up. THE FACTS ARE; at the time I started making my Cobra Replica kits and cars in Jan 1986, -there were no other car manufacturers using the T/M 'Viper' I did not engage as an agent- the Busbridge brothers- until Feb/March 1988 and when I did, I gave them the right to use the T/M for advertising purposes only-AS MY AGENTS AND NOT IN THEIR OWN RIGHT !! THAT IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS AND THIS IS NORMAL WITH ALL COMPANIES THAT USE AGENTS FOR THEIR PRODUCTS.

It was only when one of the brothers - Robert saw that in 1991 with Chrysler coming on the scene, it gave him the opportunity to make claims to them that he was the only company using the T/M and he wished to register it as well.  SO WHERE WAS THIS OTHER EARLIER REGISTRATION OR EVEN USE OF THAT MARK BY OTHERS,THAT THE IPO WERE NOW USING AS AN EXCUSE TO TAKE AWAY MY REGISTRATION???????? The Busbridges never used my Mark until around Feb/March 1988 and Chrysler never started advertising and/or importing their Viper Yank type sports tank, until well into the 90's!!

Now one should ask why Chrysler did not use the parts of the 1994 TMA that the IPO now used against me (even tho it would have had to be in 1990, when they applied-IT WOULD COME UNDER THE 1938 TMA that they would have to use and did that have the same provisions as the 94 TMA ??) They were at that time the 3rd biggest car manufacturers in the World and had the money to use Londons best IP Lawyers which they did use. THIS IPO EXCUSE STINKS.

Section 47 again is merely a repeat of Section 5 re earlier rights, registrations and use, which as I have pointed out - could not exist as NO ONE WAS USING, EITHER REGISTERED OR UNREGISTERED-THIS MARK - 'VIPER' BEFORE I STARTED TO USE IN IN JAN 1986.

So it is another example of how DEVIOUS CIVIL SERVANTS USE ACTS AND PARTS OF THEM WITH LOADS OF SECTIONS-SUB SECTIONS-AD INFINITUM, TO BLIND AND CONFUSE ALL AND SUNDRY. We, when I was in the Forces used to say that this kind of devious behaviour was 'BLINDING THEM WITH SCIENCE'  In this case blinding everyone with endless legal sentences in endless sections and sub sections. Knowing no one will be in a position to argue the toss, unless they APPEAL, - AFTER THE DECISION DOCUMENT CAME OUT MONTHS LATER AND THIS 2010 ONE TOOK AGES TO GET OUT - which they knew I could not afford to make-so they would get away with their subterfuge, illegality and corruption.. 

These kinds of acts are being done by devious corrupt civil servants all day long and not just to me and you can see endless examples that luckily make the papers and once again I say; we may as well be living in RUSSIA. !!!!!!!!  

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE IPO TO TAKE AWAY MY TRADE

 MARK-VIPER-AND BY ANY MEANS.

I will now show how they achieved this and their illegal and corrupt methods that they used-they
will be seen in all the various stages of my fight with them and which kicked off right after they awarded me T/M in 2002. This was right after my fight with Chrysler, when they tried to register my Mark.

It is my contention that there was more than meets the eye to that fight but as with cases like this, I as a mere ordinary member of the public with very limited resources and clout, cannot prove what may have gone on between Chrysler and the IPO. However the FACTS of that battle and it was a battle, show that all was not squeaky clean. For a start why did the IPO deliberately allow theChrysler application case go on for over 6 years when their application and my opposition was pretty straight forward? When questioned years later why this was so, their incredible excuse was that it was not a straight forward case and 'unusual'. It could not have been more straight forward! Was Chrysler doing what many American companies do-using their clout to influence governments and their departments like the IPO? After all they were putting in a huge investment into setting up sales in Europe and organising a one make race series for their Viper V10?

So unfortunately I have to start the story after the date I eventually won my fight against Chrysler as they at last gave in and that was January 2002. The IPO then had to award me the Mark and if they had not they would have been breaking their own regulations. However IMMEDIATELY after they did that, they allowed Robert Busbridge who had been my London agent for my Cobra Replica – which I called  “Viper”, to oppose my registration and to also put in an application for him to register the T/M Viper. As the two applications were similar I was able to get the IPO to roll them both into one case.

To show how ‘suspect’ their allowing Busbridge to oppose my registration can be seen in a number of ways. Firstly they knew EXACTLY who he was and his HISTORY, as he appeared as a witness in the Chrysler hearing put in by them to denigrate me with accusations of me forging our agency agreement. They knew from my evidence in that case that he had been my agent from 1988 to 2001 when I sacked him and that he had tried to sell the rights to my Viper T/M to Chrysler for £½ M.  Now he was telling the court that I was a forger who had forged our agency agreement. This in order to show the court I was not to believed in anything I said.

However through what was said in the Chrysler hearing, they KNEW he had only started to have anything to do with the T/M Viper from 1988 onwards and that I had started to use it from Jan 1986, and even then it was as MY AGENT and was thus given the right to use my T/M, but only as my agent. Now it is incumbent on the IPO to study applications and the evidence presented, to make sure it was a bona-fide application. I have it in writing from the IPO that this is the case. Had they done this they would have seen that this was a CLEAR case of his application was being made in ‘bad faith’ as he obviously knew of my use of the T/M from 1986 onwards and during the time he was an agent of mine (1988-2001) he was only using it as my ‘agent’. So here we see the beginning of questions as to the honesty of the IPO and what were they up to?   

Then when they allowed him to go ahead despite my strong objections and comments on this irregularity, he obviously put in two evidence/statement documents backed up with reams of alleged documentary evidence, to back up his application. Another requirement of the IPO is to look at this evidence and the statements to check they are relevant as per Procedural Rules on Evidence. Here we see a second example of how biased the IPO were, as the vast majority of his evidence in all forms was totally irrelevant and highly derogatory to me. I believe that too shows that the IPO were up to no good and biased against me as evidence that is derogatory should not be allowed. For I was then obliged to counter Busbridges lies and forged documents he put in, instead of me having to just stick to relevant facts and IP law. To understand all that went on at that hearing you should read my book ‘Justice Denied’ and the chapter on that hearing.

In that book in Chapters 13, which dealt with all the evidence both I and Busbridge put in and in Chapter 14 which deals with the actual hearing. You will see all the ways the IPO through their Hearing Officer Reynolds, went against me at every turn. I believe that this hearing was a complete set up and I also believe that that can be readily seen in those chapters of the book as well. If you actually read the transcript of that Reynolds hearing you will see just how biased and a complete set-up it all was.

At this juncture it should be pointed out that in 1999 Busbridge attempted to have me jailed and thus out of his way,(maybe Chrysler had a hand in this?) by getting the Police to charge me with forgery, perjury and perverting the Course of Justice. You will see that he was totally unsuccessful in this and I WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY! Yet you will see that Busbridge in his Reynolds evidence for making my registration invalid, which it was allowed to stay in, he made much of this 'forgery case' in order to denigrate me and impute that my evidence was not to be  believed.  Why did the IPO allow that to stay in? Not only that, why did Reynolds actually and outrageously tell me when he was handling the hearing to have my registration voided, make reference to the fact that I had been charged with the forgery of our agency agreement document? When I protested that it was irrelevant to the case and should not have been allowed in AND IN ANY CASE I WAS FOUND ‘NOT GUILTY' he said that if the Forgery case had been carried out as a ’Civil Case’ I would have been found guilty. This astonishingly shows how biased he was and must have gone to the trouble to read up on the forgery case, even though it was a completely different case and NOT EVEN HEARD BY THE IPO, BUT IN A COUNTY COURT IN DORSET !!!! Thus this shows yet another example of IPO bias against me and how this hearing was a set-up.

Another example of how the IPO allowed in irrelevant evidence by Busbridge was the fact that I had taken out legal action against Busbridge for breach of copyright law for copying the Viper chassis I had designed. I WAS ABLE TO GET Legal Aid for this and took on a local large & well known Bournemouth law firm to handle it all. But the lawyer I had to deal with turned out to almost certainly, not to be a lawyer who specialised on IP matters and law. For he spent ages on the case getting nowhere, and Busbridges lawyer running rings around him. After around two years he then told me that EU IP law said that copyright only lasted 10 years and I had designed the Viper Jaguar based chassis in 1986 and it was now 1996 so I was out of time and had to drop it. Of course this was an outright lie, but I did not know that at the time and I trusted him, for after all he was a lawyer and then I trusted that lawyers knew what they were doing and yet I found out much later that copyright lasted 100 years !! I DON’T TRUST ANY LAWYERS ANY MORE - SINCE THEN !!

Reynolds made the snide remark that my action against Busbridge for Copyright breach ”had petered out”. Thus making it seem that I had had a weak case and had had to drop it….far from the case and as before-IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE HE WAS HEARING. He had said it to belittle me and my case and make me appear to be a flaky and underhand type of person whose written evidence was not to be taken any notice of. THUS ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT REYNOLDS WAS BIASED TOWARDS ME AND WISHED TO BE ON THE SIDE OF BUSBRIDGE.

There are so many ways that Reynolds showed his bias against me in that hearing that I will not go over each one of them. The two above I mention were so bad that they have to be pointed out as supreme evidence of how biased he was and therefore as he was acting on behalf fo the IPO, they too were biased and had directed him to behave the way he did. However there is yet one more example I should add; Busbridge in his evidence to try and show that my assertion, that because he had in 1993 gone bankrupt, he could no longer claim to own any asset such as a non registered T/M. So he claimed that whilst he was working off his bankruptcy, he had at the beginning of it had ‘assigned’ the non registered Viper T/M (can a non registered T/M be assigned? ) to a third party-a limited company he had set up with his wife -(favourite trick of criminals). I had pointed out that (a) how can a bankrupt do that (b) the limited company records showed he was listed as a company director of that company which was against the law as he was a bankrupt and he only came off when I complained about that to Companies House. (c) That Busbridge had taken many years to tell the IPO of these alleged ‘assignments’ and well out of the time limit for doing so, even if it had been legal to do this-which it wasn’t. Then incredibly on point (d)- he let the IPO know all about these alleged ‘assignments’ but not before his last act was to assign the T/M back to himself-just in time for the 2004 hearing- and the IPO swallowed all that !! THE POINT HERE IS THAT REYNOLDS AND THE IPO SHOULD HAVE SEEN ALL THIS AS BEING ALL ILLEGAL-SO NOT TO BE ALLOWED INTO THIS CASE AS EVIDENCE. This shows more bias towards Busbridge and against me.

After I inevitably lost this Reynolds case, I made such a fuss to the IPO about all their illegality over  the illegality of those alleged assignments, that they eventually decided to have another one of their Hearing Officers look at the whole case again. Now to show how underhanded the IPO were being-they never told me of this and the next thing is I hear, A YEAR OR MORE LATER, that they in 2005 will hold this hearing about the assignments. But I was not told what date or where it would be held or the exact date. This again shows up the corrupt nature of the IPO over all of this. For I should have been able to attend this hearing AS IT WAS ABOUT MY TRADE MARK !! and the hearing would not have been held had I not, in effect, made the IPO have to carry it out. So it was MY RIGHT to be at that hearing especially as they allowed Busbridge to attend it, so able to indulge in more of his lies and I was therefore not able to point them all to the criminal actions Busbridge had indulged in at that Reynolds hearing and to whoever was officiating at that hearing.

When I was eventually told what that hearing had decided (It was heard by a Mr Landau) I was ecstatic as I had WON AS HE FOUND BUSBRIDGE HAD NO RIGHTS TO THE T/M. Yet that feeling never lasted more than 5 minutes, as the IPO then inexplicably allowed RB to put in a request to appeal it! From here-on in, one can see just how corrupt the IPO are and what they were up to. For as most people should know; that even get an appeal for any legal matter, one has to (a) show fresh evidence (b) show that in law the Judge made mistakes and so on or that new evidence had since come to light. One simply cannot just say “I don’t like what the outcome was because I lost so I want an appeal”. Yet the IPO ignored all that in giving him an appeal, because his reasons 5or 6 of them, showed no reasons that could stand up in law for getting an appeal. So yet another example that the IPO simply did not want me to win anything and would do anything to stop me. What they now went on to do, made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS THE CASE.

IT CAN BE CLAIMED BY ME THAT FROM THIS POINT ON THE IPO WOULD STOP AT NOTHING TO TAKE MY T/M AWAY FROM ME & GIVE IT TO RB AND THEY WENT AND PLANNED A STRATEGY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN ACTS THEY KNEW I WOULD BE POWERLESS TO STOP IN-ORDER THAT THEY COULD WORK THIS.
 
1/ They told RB that his appeal could be heard by a third party and that they would be totally INDEPENDENT from the IPO. This person is called ‘THE INDEPENDENT PERSON’He chose that route.

2/ They made sure that this person who would be picked out by the Treasury Solicitors, was some one they knew very well and who they could get to ‘arrange things’ to go their way. The Barrister that was picked, a Hobbs QC, was a person who spent all or practically all of his professional life hearing various IP court cases in their courts. This is easily seen when you research his work history and what he officiated in. They obviously worked out with him a strategy they would use during that hearing, together with their Head of Law Office-a Mr James who also would be present,. (very unusual for this to happen) so the two of them would make sure the outcome was an IPO one.

3/  Any hearing decision document should be reported to all concerned within no more than a couple of weeks or even less. Yet the IPO DELIBERATELY withheld it from me for over a year and lied and lied to me and my MP as to why this was so.

When I eventually was told the outcome of that hearing, it was no surprise. In actual fact there had been no decision as the IPO & Hobbs had pursuaded Busbridge to drop his appeal !!!!! See the book ‘Justice Denied’ for all the facts on all this and see the CRIMINAL actions the IPO & Hobbs QC carried out at that bogus hearing. Read my blog:- “I am raging Mad” and see all the facts on that AND read the Transcript therein. You will see exactly what these corrupt bastards did. They knew that there was no way I would be able to appeal their actions and that’s why they made sure they kept their actions from me for over a year and refused me attendance to that bogus appeal hearing. It was no appeal hearing but merely a get together where the IPO through James and the ‘Facilitator’ Hobbs and the perpetrator Busbbridge could concoct a way to get round the Landau decision which had messed up the IPO’s desire to strip me of my legit T/M. Here you should know that the IPO Hearing Officers are supposed to be INDEPENDENT of everyone including the IPO. Most are and no doubt Tuck at the Chrysler hearing was, as was the H/O Landau. He put a spanner in the works of the CORRUPT IPO !!

In that transcript you will read some of the remarks that Hobbs made which make it clear the the IPO wanted rid of me-for some unknown reason.  I have annotated in the margins my comments of all the things said which were all illegal ‘advice giving’, but the most telling anti-myself remark made by Hobbs QC and to Busbridge and is seen on lines 1-3 page 33 is:- “ I have looked at, as you know the Registry (IPO) record, the case details, the case history, ( here he is actually stating he has read ALL the notes on all my fights in all the 3 hearings, from day one)….the long sordid history.

You should concentrate on that word-”SORDID” for what he is saying and implying is that everything I did and said in the two hearings I was involved in- were ‘sordid’ !! The Collins Dictionary states that this word means-’dirty, foul, squalid, degraded, vile and or base. Not only is it illegal for a judicial person to make such comments against a person who had been denied the ability to attend this hearing and therefore was not able to defend himself against this attack, but it shows that Hobbs is anti and heavily biased against myself (as would be the IPO by implication) and he is FOR the Appellant. How illegal is all that?? Not to mention that he trying to destroy my integrity AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF FROM HIS ATTACK AS I HAD BEEN DENIED ATTENDANCE- I WONDER WHY??? If the above remarks by Hobbs were not terrible enough, he then on line 5 says “I have the history at the same time relating to Chrysler on a mark which was 265 (Ref No) and this looks like a complete and utter mess to me” 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED HERE THAT THE TWO ABOVE COMMENTS MADE BY HOBBS QC WERE ABSOLUTELY 'ILLEGAL' - For Judges hearing any case are not allowed by law to come out with personal opinions and in this case they were opinions on matters that were not part of the 'appeal' he was supposed to be hearing.
For what he is again relating to is my opposition hearing against Chrysler and he is saying in his grand opinion that it was all a ‘an utter mess’ and if it was which I do not think for one moment it was-whose fault was that? Certainly not mine or my legal team. Yet the IPO obviously think it was and they were prepared to make me pay for it in order to correct a cock-up they obviously now thought they had made-up or rather that things never went the way they wanted and here I am sure they had struck up a deal with Chrysler.  The IPO have made it clear through Hobbs that they thought I was ‘sordid’ as seen in the above pronouncement and so they had no compunction to set out TO OVERTURN MY VICTORY. Starting with the corrupt 2004 Reynold hearing and then the Hobbs hearing. The fact that even if they had made a legal mistake in their hearing officers decision (Tuck) in 1996, who found for me- was it all MY FAULT? Then you should understand the fact I was going to lose all the monies they forced me to spend right up to 2010 and after, (around £20K) plus the ruination of my business and life - this was just all ‘tough titty’ was obviously what all in the IPO thought.

Now the point here can be made that the hearing vs Chrysler, was totally put together by my legal team, so how was it ‘sordid’ as everything they did and said was entirely ‘LEGAL’? At the 2004 hearing re Busbridge trying to make my registration void, all I did and said, was trying to show that all the statements put into his evidence by Busbridge were lies (perjury) and five of his documents were forgeries (with proof of that) -so how was all that ‘sordid; as one has a RIGHT to DEFEND ones position and in the way I was forced to do so.

When the IPO allowed Busbridge to oppose my T/M registration in 2002 from then on, I complained to the IPO as to why they did this, giving them my reasons. Obviously they did not like this but IT WAS MY RIGHT TO DO SO!  Much later on , through the Freedom of Information Act I required the IPO to furnish me with any letters, emails or notes they generated which were mentioning myself. It was a long shot as I wanted to see what anti myself remarks they had made against me. Strangely enough I was amazingly successful as I got a number of them sent me.

1/ In the earliest note dated 7th Jan 2004 2004 the writer (an AH) who was obviously an IPO worker probably working on the papers generated when I opposed Busbridge’s application to register my Trade Mark. He was seemingly making notes for a file they had on this ‘Viper’case and so any other IPO worker also working on this case would know what type of person I was. I had rung and spoken to him about the incompetence of the IPO in how they were handling this case. All that is OK but what was not OK is that he said; Mr Cook-”He seemed upset”. This as if one had no right to be upset at how the IPO were making mistakes etc and totally and ruinously affecting my business and livelyhood.
Comment; Then there was a second note below the first one by another IPO worker-a B.Povall, which related to him phoning me back-once again the emphasis is on how I felt and then at the end stating that I put the “phone down abruptly” and this once more is emphasis on how the writer had a bad opinion of me and on a ‘personal’ basis. How it can be deducted how I put the phone down is beyond me and it shows that he was more concerned with showing me up in a poor light rather than just relating what the conversation was about.   

2/ The second copy note was dated 25th Feb 2004 and this time by an unknown IPO worker. It states:   "There is a great deal of history between X (Busbridge) and the Registered Proprietor Mr Cook (I being the registered owner of the Trade Mark ‘Viper’)  
Comment; It should be noted that at this date, I had had limited contact with the IPO on any  personal level. I only had put in my evidence documents to Busbridges evidence statements, which were full of lies and forged documents and personal slights against me, which the IPO should not have allowed into evidence. So yes, I was annoyed and rightly so, as it showed incompetence and or bias. So these comments being made about me 'personally' when anyone in the IPO at that date had virtually no contact in any way with me. IT SHOWS WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE IN THE IPO AND AT AN EARLY STAGE OF MY CONTACTS WITH THEM....WHY WAS THIS??

The FACT is that by saying there is ‘a great deal of history’, he is passing a personal opinion because it implies there was bad blood between us and how could he really know that? And on a matter that should not have been his business. How was he aware of any ‘history’? - for to know that - (Did Busbridge speak with people in the IPO giving them his opinions about me?) if it was correct, he would have had to have read the reams of evidence RB put in and all my replies in my own evidence. This person would have to be a prominent person in that case and not just a clerk who would not spend ALL their time just on one case or in depth. That shows ‘BIAS’ against me and in any case what did he actually mean by ‘history’ ? It also shows the writer wishes anyone who would later on read the file-they should know all these personal feelings about me and to colour their opinions and further actions in this case and maybe to my detriment.
Then to say “Mr Cook can be very difficult’ again shows an extreme bias against me, especially as the writer does not qualify why I may be ‘difficult’. Of course what I think the IPO thought about me was formed by my not letting them get away with all their incompetence and bias against me and the slowness of all they did which was affecting greatly, my business. This by constantly pulling them up about all that. Also I was not backward in telling them what my opinions and thoughts were on all that-AS WAS MY RIGHT TO DO SO-AS THEY WERE MESSING UP MY LIFE & BUSINESS! PLUS AT THAT DATE AS I HAVE SAID, I'D HARDLY HAD THAT MUCH CONTACT WITH THE IPO-SO WHERE IS ALL THIS COMING FROM.??

3/  Now the action moves to how the IPO made anti Cook comments to the Dorset Police in order to colour how they viewed me and to get them to drop my request that they investigate all the perjury and forgery committed by Busbridge, in all the hearings he appeared in and gave evidence in. Between 2004 and 2009 I had complained to the IPO again and again that they investigate this, but was always ignored and denied. Yet in 2009 they said that at the last hearing set down to be heard in 2010, they would deal with it all then.
Just prior to that hearing I went to the Dorset Police with a large file showing all the cases of these criminal actions that he committed, when and where they were committed, the reasons he did that and the documentary evidence to back up all my assertions. They refused to deal with it as the IPO told them what they had told me and that was - it would be dealt with in the 2010 hearing. So I had to wait until I saw they indeed kept to their promises.

Of course the hearing did not even touch on any of that,  and I knew it would be so. So I then went back to the Police and asked them to now deal with it as the IPO had not done what they promised.
The Detective, a Sgt Brimicombe predictably went back to the IPO and now I was faced with
the IPO slagging me off to Brimicombe and telling outright lies to him about perjury- mainly to denigrate me and influence Brimicombe against me. My FIOA request was designed to try and find out EXACTLY what Haywood had verbally said to Brimicombe...but of course they never coughed that up-predictably. They were absolutely successful in this brainwashing of Brimicombe and I was then faced with a very belligerent and hostile Brimicombe who refused to investigate. His attitude was astonishing and he also threatened me that he walk walk out of the interview room !!!! when I tried to educate him on perjury etc. Note that the Met & Dorset Police were happy back in 1999 to charge me with perjury and forgery and even go as far as getting into a County Court at GREAT cost to the public, yet now they were doing all they could to deny me justice.

Now I knew that the IPO had sent Brimicombe a number of emails and one had told him that perjury hadn’t been committed and THAT IT WASN’T A CRIMINAL ACT BUT A CIVIL MATTER !! Again under the FOIA I requested copies of all emails and letters between the Police and the IPO. In the copies I got  was an email which clearly was designed to denigrate me, which is what in this document I am trying to show. It was from a Mr Haywood of the IPO to this Sgt Brimicombe and said; “Please see the attached document and below as requested, and a link to Mr Cook’s blog. Some of the entries I found extremely shocking and offensive, so beware if you read it.”…..HOW CLEAR AND DAMNING IS THAT AND CLEARLY DESIGNED TO COLOUR THE MIND OF THE POLICE AND GET THEM TO DROP AN INVESTIGATE THAT WOULD HAVE CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THE IPO FAILED IN LAW TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL MATTERS!!!!!!!
Needless to say it worked and all my complaints about that to various bodies were all whitewashed and I got nowhere...ALL VERY SHOCKING BUT THE NORM IN BRITAIN TODAY!!
Of course my blog was started in 2008 to show the Public all the criminal actions of the IPO and ALL bodies including the Police and could only be ‘Shocking’ to all those bodies. I don’t deny my language it’s forthright, to the point, pulls no punches and some of it can be swear words to emphasise my anger etc. SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT THE British Establishment hate people like me who show them up for what they really are.

Finally the hearing in 2010;  Salthouse, the hearing officer in this hearing made remarks that again showed that the IPO had a bad opinion of myself and at this hearing were not afraid to voice them; the first evidence of the opinion of the IPO about me and this case can be seen by what him saying that the IPO had made mistakes in the past. He can only be referring to the fact that the IPO thought I should never have won against Chrysler and that was their mistake, because that is the ONLY hearing that I ever won in the 10 years between 1996 and 2010. So the only time the IPO could have made this mistake!!

At the beginning of that hearing Salthouse the Hearing Officer stated that the IPO were sick of this long ongoing case and once and for all wished at this hearing, to put an end to it all. Of course those words NEVER APPEARED IN THE TRANSCRIPT - I WONDER WHY?? 

He later on in the decision document said that the Trade Mark Viper stated that the Trade Mark Viper would be taken off me and it would be "as if it had never been awarded to me" Doesn't that just show that the IPO had indeed been of the mindset that at the 1996 Tuck hearing where I won against Chrysler had been a big mistake (but of course no reasons as to how it was a mistake have ever been forthcoming from the IPO) and so the IPO makes a mistake that ruined the life of a person and that is just "Tough Shit Lad" TO HELL WITH THE RULE OF LAW AND THAT THE UK JUSTICE SYSTEM IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD AS WE ESTABLISHMENT JOHNNIES ARE FOND OF TELLING THE PEASANTS AROUND THE WORLD-PASS ME THE SICK BUCKET !! 

 
So this last hearing which I viewed as my last chance to get JUSTICE and that was why I took on an IP Lawyer at a cost of £6500 which I had to borrow off my son. It again turned out that one has NO CHANCE TO WIN AGAINST THE STATE WHEN THEY DECIDE TO GET YOU. ON THAT SCORE A BARRISTER I CAME ACROSS TOLD ME THAT IN HIS EXPERIENCE IF YOU UPSET HIGH UP MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE--THEIR FURY WILL KNOW NO BOUNDS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WILL DO-JUST  AS THEY DID AGAINST ME- UK JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND ALL MY EFFORTS SINCE 2010 TO APPEAL TO EVERY POLITICIAN THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM INCLUDING RIGHT UP TO THE JUSTICE MINISTER BUCKLAND HIMSELF !!, PLUS ALL THE JUSTICE SYSTEMS AVENUES TO APPEAL SUCH CRIMINALITY, BUT I HAVE GOT ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

For the British Establishment have bandied together to deny me any JUSTICE and all my attempts and the results can be seen in depth in my blog and with all with documentary evidence that backs up all I claim.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Corrupt MoJ & Gov Legal Dpt Continued. 88.

In my last and latest posts you will have read how my efforts to get justice from firstly the MoJ then through my complaining to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, when the MoJ failed to deal with my request and getting the usual unmitigated lies and obfuscations and typical twisting of the FACTS to refuse to act.

I sent on the 12th Feb, in my 8 page letter of complaint about the activities of Barrister Hobbs QC and what he did, to the Gov Legal Dpt and requesting they investigate it all. On their website they state that they will reply within 10 working days and then they would either give you their response or will tell you when they can. As I correctly thought would be the case, they have a month later, not even replied in any way.

In the last month the IPO have stated and confirmed that even today when they need an 'Appointed Person' to officiate at an Appeal Hearing, which was what Hobbs did, they get the A/P from the  Treasury Solicitors, now named the Government Legal Department. (YET THE GLD TOLD ME IN AN EMAIL RECENTLY THEY DO NOT DO THIS......so more lies from them) As I said in my last post it would them that I would now go to with this complaint about Hobbs and his unlawful and criminal actions.

Now on the GLD website they state that all lawyers and Barristers they use, actually work for that department, so they are not 'independent workers' and so it follows that as they are employees, the GLD MUST be responsible for their actions (as would the then Treasury Solicitors would have been)
Of course way back in around 2008 I complained to them about Hobbs and was fobbed of with the usual set of lies etc and all that and subsequent efforts of mine to get justice through a whole set of different bodies that all, only resulted in the usual lies as to what exactly the complaint was and how they could do nothing.

I sent the comprehensive complaint with all the detailing of what it was all about AND ACCOMPANIED BY a number of copies of documents that backed up my assertions and allegations. It went by registered post and was received by a GLD person called MARK on the 12th Feb.

I will put all these 8 documents onto this blog and will be seen on the right hand side of the first page or here, shortly  However I will now make comments on the highlighted lines that can be seen on those documents:- DOCUMENT 1. This is a letter sent me by the CEO of the Parl Ombudsman in reply to me asking them to investigate the MoJ for refusing to first of all, investigate Hobbs for his criminality and then stating they have no jurisdiction yet not stating why that was so. Then to cap it all ignoring my complaint about that.
You will see they say that the MoJ was correct in saying they have no jurisdiction. and they said that the MoJ had told me what route to take. They ignored my telling them that the routes they told of, were all rubbish and I'd told them anyway that I'd taken them all-to no avail. Then they state as you will see in the highlighted lines that if I wished to go back and request they should look into thisclaim they had no jurisdiction, then I should get back to them which I did but this was ignored in their subsequent reply......see Document 2.
DOCUMENT 2.
In this cover up document of three pages of waffle, you will see on page 2. (highlighted) that they, like EVERY liar in every government department I have complained to about Hobbs, again lie about how the MoJ cannot investigate Barristers as they are independent. Yet as I have said above in the case of Barristers working for the MoJ or the GLDpt, THEY ARE EMPLOYEES  and NOT independent workers who can just do what the hell they like as they are INDEPENDENT, which is the case when they work out of various CHAMBERS. ( A chambers is really only a collection of barristers all working out of offices at one location and are just a set of self employed high up lawyers, much like a bunch of plumbers or electricians all banding together in one workshop)
They also kindly say that the MoJ said I should complain to the IPO, and this despite me telling the MoJ that I had done that in 2007 and got nowhere as they used the same old lies. So just another web of lies, obfuscations and fobbing you off to get rid of you.
DOCUMENT 3. Proof that Barristers WORK for the GLD and are therefore EMPLOYEES.-IN ANY CASE NO MATTER WHETHER THE BARRISTER IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY OR AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GLD-THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO WORK UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND HOBBS BROKE THE LAW-ESPECIALLY AS WHAT HE GOT UP TO ''PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE' AND THAT IS A 'CRIMINAL ACT' AND THUS HE IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR THIS 'CRIMINAL ACT' !!!!!! OF COURSE THE LAW ESTABLISHMENT WILL DO ANYTHING TO COVER ALL THIS UP.....THE UTTER BASTARDS !!!!!!

DOCUMENT 4. Proof that a complaint will get a reply of sorts within 10 working days (14 days in fact)
DOCUMENT 5. Is my 8 page complaint sent into the GLD. The documents I sent in with that letter are:-
Doc 1.The IPO Hearing Officer Mr Landau and his summing up of the hearing in which he said Busbridge could not claim my Trade Mark. Can be seen elsewhere in this blog.
Doc 2. The IPO CEO's ( Mr Marchant) letter to me stating that the Landau decision meant I'd won.
Doc 3. Busbridges Appeal reasons (all rubbish and not legal so he should never have been given an appeal)
Doc 4.The IPO's Mr Colombo letter to me in which he explains the legal requirement to be met to be given an appeal.
Doc 5. The opinion of a Barrister called Antell reiterating the legal requirements needed to get an appeal.
Doc 6. The actual Hobbs bogus appeal hearing TRANSCRIPT.
Doc 7. Copy of the 'Self Litigants Handbook' which details what a Judge or Barrister hearing any court case and what they cannot do IE-GIVE ADVICE as Hobbs did.
Doc 8 Copy of the terms of service for 'Appointed Persons' which includes that they must not be biased, which Hobbs was and could be seen in the transcript to be so....by slagging me off and so on!!
Doc 9. Show that GLD Barristers are employees.
Doc 10. Letter from Mr Marchant, the then IPO CEO telling me the bogus Hobbs appeal hearing had been postponed (which is unlawful)
Doc 11. An Email from Colombo to Busbridge giving him advice-which is unlawful.
Doc 12. Another letter from the IPO to Busbridge giving him advice-unlawful.
Doc 13. Yet another letter to Busbridge giving him unlawful advice.
Doc 14. The Barrister P.Bush document in which he gives his opinion of most of the UNLAWFUL goings on at that bogus Appeal Hearing, officiated by Hobbs.
Doc 15 A Barrister called Simpson, who states that right at the beginning of my battle against Busbridge and Chrysler in 1992 should have been conjoined. This proves that the IPO had been up to no good.
Doc 16. GLD employment facts.

IF YOU READ THE WHOLE OF MY LETTER TO THE GLD, THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WILL BE EXPLAINED  AS TO RELEVANCE. MANY ARE ALREADY LISTED ON THIS BLOG, EITHER ON THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILE OR CONTAINED WITHIN VARIOUS POSTS.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 69.

 

THE IPO

You may well ask what have they got to do with the Corrupt Dorset Police. Well no doubt you have not read all of this blog for if you have you will know it started because of the corrupt way the IPO were dealing with me over the stealing off me, of my Trade Mark Viper, by my ex agent and aided by the IPO. The Dorset Police came into the equation when I went to them in Sept 2009 to ask them to investigate the perjury and forgery committed by Busbridge in any number of IPO court hearings. You will see despite my pointing out to the IPO that this was going on and they should investigate and that included me making to their CEO a Formal Complaint that they were ignoring criminal acts and refusing to investigate them, they refused to lift a finger.

So after the final debacle of a corrupt hearing held in 2010 where I was told by the IPO they would deal with these criminal acts.....they of course never even touched on them. So then I was obliged to go to my local thoroughly corrupt mob of criminals in uniform and beg them to investigate.  It was when they started treating me as if I were a criminal that I included them onto this blog.

Well this last week I have suddenly got time on my hands so I started to sort out all the bundles of files on all this very unsavoury behaviour by the IPO and the DPA. (Dorset Police Authority) Hopefully when I win the lottery I can  use them to sue the ass off all those bastards who ruined my thriving business and stole all my designs and Trade Mark. Fat chance but I can dream on. Anyhow doing this has brought back to me just how corrupt all these BASTARDS are. Reading all the evidence of that and what they did has once more enraged me and made me as mad as hell. Reminded me just how helpless British people are when trying to fight the ESTABLISHMENT !!!(When they don't have the money to do so, and they tell us we live in a democracy ???)

I read the emails and letters I did managed to drag out of the IPO through the FOIAct. In a couple of them we have two totally corrupt and criminally minded bastards from no less than the LEGAL OFFICE of the IPO, telling the useless and corrupt cop in Bournemouth Police, a Sgt Brimicombe all the lies and bad mouthing about me, that he could think of. All that of course was done to colour him against me, paint me as being this and that, so he would be put off DOING HIS JOB  and being independent and looking at the reams of documentary evidence I'd given him. So this IPO asshole by the name of Colombo tells Brimicombe that I write this blog and......STATES THAT HE FOUND THE ENTRIES EXTREMELY SHOCKING AND OFFENSIVE SO BEWARE IF YOU DO READ IT. He then gives him my URL so he can read it which I know he did.
Now, this even now when I re-read it some years on, brings it home to me just how CORRUPT THE IPO ARE !!! and just how they did every dirty trick in the book to stop me from ever getting JUSTICE AGAINST THE ROTTEN, CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL BASTARDS !!!! HOW THEY WERE UTTERLY DETERMINED TO TAKE OFF ME MY T/M AND GIVE IT TO THIS CROOK BUSBRIDGE.

You see I pull no punches in this my blog AND I CONTINUE TO DO SO. So why do I do this? Why did I call all those bastards in the IPO that and call them criminals.......because I WANTED THEM TO TAKE ME TO COURT, maybe on libel charge or dream up some criminal charge to heap upon me. That way I would have been able to get legal help, to show up in court just how corrupt and criminal they all are and were. For which I had no money (and they knew this)  to take them to court. Of course they have never done that for they know they would lose.

So here are their names once again for the World to see:- JAMES - HEAD OF LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE IPO. ......COLOMBO - LEGAL DPT.....HAYWARD - LEGAL DPT.


I also vainly hoped some legal entity would read all I showed in this blog and would volunteer to help out them all. Of course in this country unless your story gets big and in the news....you have no chance. The papers only want salacious stories and boring stories about some old bloke whose had his life made a misery at the end of it.....just isn't the type of news they look for. I KNOW FOR I TRIED AGES AGO AND GOT NOWHERE.

Corrupt Police & IP-How they aided a crook.51.

As I told you in my last post, today I got the decision from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As expected a TOTAL WHITEWASH. Everytime you contact them they go running to the IPO, and they feed them full of lies because it is obvious they will NEVER admit to any wrongdoing. It is a total farce, but one I wanted to go through so I could show you that YOU WILL NEVER GET JUSTICE WHEN YOU HAVE TO RELY ON ANY GOVERNMENT BODY. They all band together and cover each others arses.
One interesting statement he made was that even though I gave the IPO evidence of perjury and Forgery, they did not believe me, or the evidence of Kunzli or Martin as apparently we are all liars. Yet Robert Busbridge is an angel, whiter than white and they can believe everything he says. Rather than give the evidence to the right authorities to decide whether these crimes were committed, I am damned by the IPO who act as Judge and Jury and without so much of actually examining my evidence closely
Look at copies of all my letters to them on this last futile act and see their reply. See the evidence in emails and documents I gave them that proved that the IPO had promised to deal with this perjury in Jan 2010, which they reneged on. Some of these are already on this site and the latest will be added to the documents link in due course.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 46.

We can now easily see that the Intellectual Property Office since 2004, when the first hearing by Reynolds took place and right through to this last Invalidity hearing in front of Salthouse, have overseen hearings that were riddled with faulty decision making, and the ignoring of their own TMA Law or their Rules.

1/ REYNOLDS; Would not accept a perfectly good evidence document that would have demolished Busbridges case, Would not accept a valid legally made evidence statement made by my solicitor for a higher Court. Had he accepted it would have shown beyond doubt that Busbridge was my agent.

Made several wrongful statements in order to back up his decision. Saying I had abandoned the mark/ I had not controlled the advertising of Busbridge and he could take over the T/M after BRL ceased business even thought there was no evidence they owned it/ ignored the law on abandonment/ saying wrongly that I had not used my T/M during my relationship with Liarman and that gave him the right to it, when the evidence showed otherwise.

2/ FOLEY: He proceeded to look at the application under the TMA Section 64 (1) when he should have proceeded under 64 (5).

Made mistakes by saying it was not an error in the Register when it was an error.

Said he will not revisit previous hearings, then spends much time doing this.

Said I made an application for Rectification when I never did.

He ignored partnership laws which said that Liarmans take over of his brothers assets were illegal.

Obviously did not understand how the IPO should react to bankruptcy.

Made unsubstantiated claims about Martin Busbridge accepting an indemnity. (Which can be shown by Martins later Affidavits)

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 45.

I have today been notified that indeed Busbridge did not offer up any statements of evidence for the Hobbs appeal. I find this astonishing as what he said in his Statement of Grounds was utter irrelevant tosh and certainly not valid legal argument to get an appeal. In fact it wasn't even legal argument but just him whinging about how hard done by he was.

This explains why Hobbs merely referred to the fact that he had read it. Now had this been a pukka appeal hearing and not the corrupt party it was, Hobbs would have referred to those grounds in at least some ways. As it was irrelevant crap he kept away from saying anything about it.

It pretty much nails this hearing as the utterly corrupt tea party it was, designed solely to allow the IPO's golden boy, Busbridge to get away from having his trade mark taken from him as Landau said it should, and eventually to be able to allow them to take away mine. That would then stop me from suing them as they knew I hadn't the money to do that, unless some fairy God Mother came along in the form of a kindly IP lawyer who thought his profession was being brought into disrepute and wanted to do the right thing in the form of a civic duty, and help me right all the despicable things the IPO have done and allowed to be done by Liarman. Pigs might fly.

So on this theme I have to tell you once again how unlikely that seems to be. For I have been trying for some time now to find a lawyer who would just answer a series of 17 legal questions I want answers to. If I could get these answers I could then show that legal minds have looked at certain aspects of the whole history of the IPO's actions since 1992 and they have broken rules again and again. (if I am right of course and I think mostly I am)
So I approach no less than FOUR lawyers with whom I had been associated with over the past ten years. Either they had given me legal assistance by answering questions or they had represented me when I was bringing my fight against Chrysler to a head. I reckoned it better to try and use people who knew me. The first gave a terse "NO way" the second wanted me to pay him tens of thousands so he could start a legal action against the IPO and Busbridge and refused to answer just the questions. The third said they were too busy, and the fourth hasn't replied.

I think that most lawyers are only interested in the big picture, the big money spinning case. Wasting time answering a few questions is not their forte. Or it could be that they just do not want to take on the IPO as it may give them black marks in their future contacts with them.
Maybe they think that their is some case going on because I keep getting asked what case am I involved in, and this spooks them as they do not want me spouting their remarks, as they may have got their questions wrong. All the questions I think are quite straight forward and deal mainly with questions of law as it stands. Whatever it further brings them down in my eyes.

In this country as say opposed to the USA there is virtually no Pro Bono work done and I think that speaks volumes for the way British lawyers regard the poorer part of the British Public and that their hearts are wallets and not hearts. Of course I will get my answers one way or the other and then I will be able to present a case for suing the IPO.

Another interesting subject I can report again, is that I have just read a very interesting book called "A country fit for criminals" The name of this book really caught my eye when I saw it in my local library. It is written by a very experienced man who spent most of his life in prison work and work with the Probation Service. Here are some interesting and true quotes that relate to my case:-

1/ WHILST WRITING THIS BOOK WAS CONTACTED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAD BECOME DESPERATE IN THEIR SEARCH FOR PROTECTION FROM CRIMINALS. ALL SPOKE OF THEIR TOTAL FAILURE TO GET LOCAL POLITICIANS, MP'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS, POLICE OR INDEED ANYONE TO TAKE NOTICE OF THEIR DESPERATE SITUATIONS.

2/ THE ROTTING INFLUENCE OF THIS EVER GROWING MOUNTAIN OF CRIMES WHICH ARE NEVER DEALT WITH FROM PSYCOLOGICAL, LEGAL OR JUSTICE STANDPOINT IS FAST UNDERMINING OUR FAITH IN LAW AND ORDER AND OUR BELIEF IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

3/ ALL GOVERNMENTS SINCE THE 60'S HAVE GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO INTRODUCE POLICIES THAT HAVE ENCOURAGED CRIMINALS TO BECOME MORE CRIMINAL. NUMEROUS OBSTACLES HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE WAY OF ARRESTING AND CONVICTING THEM.

4/ WHEN I STARTED AS A POLICE PROSECUTOR EVERYONE WANTED TO PROSECUTE. THE POLICE WANTED TO PROSECUTE, THE COURTS WANTED TO DEAL WITH CASES AND MAGISTRATES WANTED TO SENTENCE. NOW NO ONE WANTS TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS.

5/ PROSECUTORS MUST ALWAYS THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE INTERESTS
OF A CRIME WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE AN OFFENDER. HOWEVER IN PRACTICE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION RESOLVES SO MUCH AROUND COSTS AND THE NEEDS TO SAVE MONEY THAT THE VICTIMS ARE RARELY GIVEN THOUGHT.

6/ THE PURPOSE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CRIME AND PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR THOSE VICTIMISED BY CRIMINALS.

7/ OVER 90 PER CENT OF OFFENCES ARE GOING UNPUNISHED.....THE GOVERNMENTS DETERMINATION 'TO FILTER OUT' AS MANY OFFENDERS AS POSSIBLE FROM THE JUSTICE SYSTEM BY WHATEVER MEANS, IN ORDER TO CONTROL EXPENDITURE, RATHER THAN BRING THEM TO JUSTICE.

All those statements cover my situation in one way or the other and they show just how this country has deteriorated in my lifetime. This CONMAN BUSBRIDGE had played this system as it is now and has got away with it at each turn. So from day one when he could see that he could lie to everyone in authority and get away with it, it emboldened him to go on and commit more lies because he knew he would be believed and no one would dig even a little and expose his lies. The lies just got more and more bold and outrageous and now we have reached the end and he was able to con the IPO completely all along the line and they have been more concerned about a criminal than me, THE VICTIM!! (As shown by the remark Annand said when she said she was really sorry for all the cases he had had to go through!!)

There is on the web a similar story to mine which I came across yesterday. A chap the same age I me had been conned out of his IP but this time not by a member of the public, but by no less than members of a government department......Business Links. Now I know something about these people as I too aproached them some years back to see if I could get funding to expand my business. I personally thought it was just another smoke and mirrors case, all talk and no action. I never got anywhere and dropped them as yet another example of government uselessness.

However in his case he gave them his business plan to prove he had a viable proposition. He too needed funds to be able to start it. These Link assholes saw it was a good viable project and stole all his plans while telling him that is not a goer. They are now operating a viable and ongoing business that is based on his plans. He like me has been totally unable to get justice, due to the fact that in this asshole of an unequal country of ours that favours the criminals and the feckless and the rich, there is no longer any legal aid. There is more to his story than I have put here and if you are interested go to his website www.tfc-training.com/intellectual_property_theft.htm

Corrupt Police & IPO- How they aided a crook. 44.

In my last post I mentioned that Annand said that she thought that Foley had first of all applied the wrong Trade Marks Act to this appeal, then she did not agree with the way Foley had talked about previous hearings when he should only be dealing with rectification and not revisiting old hearings, nor did she agree with his bringing up the question of Insolvency, you have to wonder about the veracity of any of the hearings I have been involved in.

I have long thought that our justice system stinks, no matter what arm of it you look at. I guaranty that if you presented any long and complex case to say 6 different hearings or Court cases and the people involved in those hearings or court cases were in each case totally different, yet they were presented with exactly the same evidence, you would get 6 different interpretations and 6 different results.
The same seems to happen in IPO cases because IP law and rules are to my mind, so mind bogglingly complex and open to different interpretations depending on who is hearing them It also appears to me that because of the endless rules it would take a hearing officer with a mind like a computer to be able to remember all these laws, let alone what they all mean.

Each hearing as I say has shown to me that each hearing officer did not have a handle on the evidence before him nor any overall understanding of all the laws that could apply to that case. So in the Reynolds case he made gross errors in interpretation of the laws and failed to treat good evidence in a way it should have been.
Landau obviously took a completely different look at the same evidence and came up with a completely different decision.
Hobbs seemed to also think that what Landau decreed did not tally with his ideas as could be seen by what he and James discussed in the 32 pages of case history many of which covered the same grounds as Landau did, but came to different interpretations
Foley it appears made mistakes as I have pointed out and Annand said so, so her interpretations were different to Foley's and she saw what Landau had covered and said in a different way too.

This all makes me believe that all these people don't know what the hell they are doing. Then when you look at all the mistakes various IPO workers have made over the years as well and that is evidenced in all my letters and paperwork I have from day one in 1992 to 2010. All in all this lot are an incompetent rabble who it is hard to have any faith in at all. And that is on top of the fact that I believe that the IPO have worked all these hearings to come out with the results they wanted, anyway. This for the reasons I outlined in the last post.

I am busy researching for info on how appeals should be conducted as I have intimated. I have told you already how the T/Sol are prevaricating on whether to let me know what evidence Busbridge put in to the Hobbs appeal and whether they have guidelines for judges hearing appeals. Once I get what info I need, then I will be putting it all together and showing how the Hobbs appeal was definitely crooked.
I have already sent in my complaint about the Hobbs behaviour at that hearing and his slagging off of me and how the OJC and the ombudsman have whitewashed my complaints to them, to no less than Ken Clarke MP, the Head Of the Justice Ministry and this through my MP. I will push my MP for him to act on my behalf on this as I am determined to bring this rat Hobbs to book.
Next stop if all that fails is the media with my evidence.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 42.

I have in this blog talked about so called evidence given into all the hearings by the conman RB and how most of it was irrelevant trash and denigratory to myself. How the IPO allowed all this nonsense. Now I have unearthed an IPO document which states:- "The information declared in the documents should be strictly confined to the points at issue" So once again you see that throughout all the hearings in this case (some 7) RB filled ALL his evidence statements with irrelevant nonsense and denigratory trash about me. -WHY.
In his last lot of so called evidence statements (for his Invalidity action against my registration) he even sent them a thick wad of copies of the pages of this very blog. Yet Lord Wolf has said "poorly drafted and elliptically worded documents can lead to confusion and to a waste of time and resources for both parties"
So why have the IPO consistently ignored what RB put into ALL his statements? This at complete variance with their own rules and laws ???
I have also talked about the corrupt way the Hobbs Appeal Hearing was conducted and I am now researching just what is allowed to be heard and how an appeal has to be conducted. I have asked the Treasury Solicitors to provide me with any guidance documents as to how an appeal should be conducted. So far they are dragging their feet on that one and we all know why. So we shall see.
I have also got RB's Statement of Grounds for that case. He lists 6 reasons for appealing and NOT ONE OF THEM HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION REASONS THAT LANDAU GAVE IN 2005 FOR RB TO LOSE HIS REGISTRATION!!
So much for Statement of Grounds should only contain statements that are strictly to do with the points at issue. Once again why did the IPO and the T/Sol ignore that?
I have also asked the T/Sol for a transcript of my own appeal against the Foley decision. Prof Annand had said she was only going to look at the issues in hand which is what she should have done. When I get this (if the T/Sol don't invent lies for not being able to provide this) I can then compare how the Hobbs appeal was conducted as opposed to how she conducted a similar appeal hearing. I will report on that when I can.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 41.

Now to the reasons why this corrupt mob, the IPO, must have decided to act they way they did.
As in the previous post where I have said they kicked off in 1992 by behaving in a strange way.
First they refuse to accept bona-fide evidence from my Patent Agent that Busbridge had been an agent of mine and therefore had no legal claim to my Trade Mark. Then they ignore our evidence that his partnership was no longer in being and that as the application he had been made in the partnership name, surely this now meant the application had to fail.
Then they had held back Busbridges application to register and let mine proceed even though he had applied first. So by the end of the nineties and into early 2.000's I was mightily pissed off with this mob and this feeling was further exacerbated when they allowed Busbridge to put in an application to make my Trade Mark Invalid. So in late 2001 I started strongly complaining to the IPO and their Chief Executive Officer.
I made it plain that I thought that the IPO were incompetent and that they were costing me money in lost profits by having allowed Busbridge to be able to trade with my Trade Mark. So they from that date were on notice that I was of a mind to sue them. What they did not know is I really had no means to be able to do that. I simply could not afford to do it and if I had, I would have done it long ago. In fact had I had 'Loads O' Money' I would have shut Busbridge up, back in 1992 and have dealt with the IPO too.
I have the belief that this could be one of the reasons why the IPO wanted me out of the way. Also you have to believe that civil servants are well known for wreaking revenge on people they see as a threat or they want to shut them up. You read story after story of the tricks they pull to do this, so I would not be the first. They are renowned for wanting their own way and will do anything to get their own way. So a powerful argument there, for their behaviour.
Then you have to ask questions about what was the relationship between Chrysler and the IPO
in the beginning. I know full well what American companies are capable of doing having been in business there. The Yanks are the most corrupt of the so called leading and most civilised nations. They will stop at nothing for the almighty dollar.
Chrysler wanted to register their sportscar, which in the USA they also called Viper, in the UK and Europe. They probably thought they would sell loads here and they had a race series lined up for it, to promote it in Europe & the UK. So they would not be happy that their efforts in the UK were being thwarted. They had the money and the services of top UK IP lawyers to do what was necessary to GET IT REGISTERED. What we have to ask is how far were they willing to go?
In my mind and knowing Yanks intimately as I do, I wouldn't trust Chrysler as far as I could throw the fat bastard Yanks. The way they dealt with me over about 10 years was execrable and typically Yanky. They twisted and turned and you couldn't trust their word for one second. It would certainly answer my thoughts and questions as to why the IPO behaved the way it did even from early 1992. Maybe one day I will prove it, and you can be assured I will not stop trying to find out.

Corrupt Police & IPO-How they aided a crook. 40.

In my post, of two back, where I talk about my local Police, I need to show you just how these devious civil servants work. When I had a meeting with this useless copper called Brimicombe and he had a fit of the intimidation's against me because I wouldn't let him get away with saying perjury had not been committed, he let the cat out of the bag.
He said "I have read all your blog" and it was said with the tone of voice that telegraphed that he thought negatively about it. I would say that in his mind, after he had read it, he thought one or all of the following:-
1/ I was a nutter hell bent on revenge against the IPO and or Busbridge.
2/ What I have said and how I have said it in this blog is outrageous.
3/ That I was telling lies and none of what I have said is true.
4/ That what I have said and how I have said it shows I am a real nasty character and should therefore be dealt with by them as such.

Now what you have to understand here is how did he know I had a blog running on the IP issues?
For what I have not told you is that Busbridge in his efforts to blacken my name, as he has done consistently since day one, sent the IPO a copy of my blog in amongst his so called evidence at the last hearing in January 2010. He said he was doing this as an act of civil goodness to show the IPO what an awful character I was. He made a point of telling the IPO that I had said nasty things about them. Well I damn well would wouldn't I? For that is the whole point of the blog.....to expose the IPO AND LIAR BUSBRIDGE for what they all are.
Of course the IPO can damn well do nothing about my blog....free speech and all that, and no doubt thought that this blog is not being seen by too many people and that it would have no effect. On that score they are right, but all that is about to change as I am about to make every effort to up the ability of this blog to be seen by many more people.
Back to the Police and the IPO. So the IPO tells this copper that I have the temerity to have this blog and you can just imagine what else they tell him about me as I have said already. I can imagine the torrent of personal abuse and lies against me they will have indulged in. All this to brainwash the copper against me as a person! Hence why his attitude towards me on a personal basis from when I first starting talking to him, changes to the present time and this fit he had against me.
It also explains why they decided they would not investigate it and thought up all these feeble lying excuses to do this.
This act by the IPO, of course, can be said to be an act of perverting the course of Justice. The IPO simply do not want to see me have success in any way in bringing them all to book for their lies, corruption, incompetence, failures to carry out their own Laws and Rules etc. I go even further, I now believe that in the early days there is a good chance they deliberately put my opposition application to oppose Chrysler's application to register my Mark, in front of Busbridges similar application which he PUT IN JUST BEFORE MINE. Now I am sure that their rules would say that the earlier application would be heard first. That would make sense for DO NOT FORGET I LOST MY REGISTRATION OF MY MARK THIS LAST JANUARY 2010 ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUSBRIDGE APPLIED TO REGISTER THIS MARK BEFORE I DID!!! So why wasn't this same law applied at the beginning, back in 1992?????
If you look at the course of events starting at that time, at the actions of the IPO as to when they let me and Busbridge have our applications heard, it is all out of order. WHY DID THE IPO LET ME HAVE MY APPLICATION TO OPPOSE CHRYSLERS APPLICATION TO REGISTER MY MARK VIPER, BEFORE THE APPLICATION BUSBRIDGE ALSO HAD PUT IN TO DO THE SAME???????
The Rules have to be that the person who put in the FIRST application had it heard FIRST!!
had that rule been applied in 1992, the outcome of this long saga of lies and corruption would have turned out very different and I say the IPO knew it would and it would have inevitably turned out in favour for me. By twisting things it seems that they were able to work it, minus a few glitches like the Landau decision which fucked up their schemes, to have it turn out the way they wanted it to.
I say this is yet another act of corruption by the IPO and that there were forces at play here that I have yet to find out what they were.
Then you have this alleged appeal hearing that took place in 2005 before this Judge Hobbs. This was supposed to be an appeal by Busbridge against the decision of Landau who said Busbridge had to lose his registration as I have outlined before. Now an appeal hearing is supposed to follow a pattern. Busbridge would have had to put in his statement of Grounds of Appeal, in which he outlines the LEGAL reasons he thought the Landua decision was not lawful. He may also have put in other statements of what he saw as facts to be considered by Hobbs in support of his appeal.
At the hearing Hobbs should have gone over some of those statements and asked for clairifications if needed, ask Busbridge did he want to add verbally to any of those statements, and so on. If you read the transcript of that hearing it is quite clear that this was no APPEAL HEARING! It was nothing mnore than a MEETING between the IPO in the figure of Mr James, who is a big wig manager of the tribunal section and Hobbs the hearing Judge and Busbridge.
Straight away you have to ask, why had the IPO sent such a senior figure to the hearing as James? I say it is because this hearing has been worked out in advance by the IPO and Hobbs, who let us not forget IS NOT INDENDENT, AS HE SHOULD BE as he is virtually an employee of the IPO because of all the work he does for them, that the hearing will be a discussion and not an appeal hearing. (This is against all the Rules for appeal judges)
Why do I say this? I believe that the IPO simply did not want it to be an appeal hearing even though Busbridge had asked to appeal, because they wished Busbridge to be able to circumvent the decision of Landau and this would be a means to surrupticiously achieve this under the guise of this being an appeal hearing. It would be dressed up as such but was really just a way of guiding Busbridge towards a path were he could go down and achieve eventually, a registration in his own name and Landau could be forgotten as if it had never happened.
So this is exactly what happened. Hobbs and James engage in spending two thirds of the time that hearing took in giving advice to Busbridge under the guise that they were only talking about case history. But a proper appeal hearing does not discuss case law. Case law would show up in the decision document AFTER the appeal had been heard and the hearing officer is making out the reasons for his decision. By doing this Hobbs & the IPO can tell Busbridge, verbally, what his legal position is by by mentioning similar cases. Hobbs even makes a point of asking Busbridge after they had finished if he UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT. That gave the game away as what he really was asking is, "Did you understand all the hints we gave you in all those talks?" But these arrogant bastards didn't give damn as this meeting was not attended by anyone who could blow the whistle. No ordinary IPO employees, only their top man who is in on it and of course Hobbs, who no doubt would do anything in order to higher his cred with the IPO.
Then Hobbs goes into giving Busbridge loads of advice which as I have said is illegal. All designed to show him what track he must take to circumvent the position he is in. James even openly states that if he takes this track and asks the IPO to take a stance, "THEY WILL NOT STAND IN HIS WAY" NOW IF ALL THAT IS NOT CORRUPT, I AM A MONKEYS UNCLE!
And as I have told you already Hobbs even throws in some insults about me for good measure, knowing I could not answer or fight back. No doubt they all thought I would never find out about all this. (Again against the Rules for Judges)
Further proof that this is what really happened and is shown by the reluctance and the lies of the IPO when I kept asking what had happened with this hearing and what was the decision. I was lied to as was my MP as to why there was a delay in finding out what the decision of the appeal was. In actual fact there was to be no decision as Busbridge had been advised to drop the appeal and go off on the path he had been advised to do so by Hobbs. The IPO wanted to keep that quiet for as long as possible so Busbridge had the time to do what he had to do. So it all came to pass that he was successful in being able to ignore the decision of Landau and to eventually get his registration of my mark and to eventually get the IPO to take my mark off me in last January.
NOW IF ALL THAT IS NOT CORRUPT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS!! and that is why I am saying that the IPO, Mr JAMES AND JUDGE HOBBS ARE ALL CORRUPT.
What needs to be answered is why did the IPO not want me to have registration. I will tell you why I think that is, in the next post.

Corrupt Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 34.

The hearing was as I expected. A no nonsense, bruiser type bother boy, hearing officer, called Salthouse. He was no doubt hand picked by the IPO to make sure that the Busbridge brothers did not come to blows or indulge in endless slagging each other off. And of course to make sure the hearing was conducted to the good of the IPO.

I thought that Robert Busbridge showed his usual colours of a cringing, snivelling liar, trying to belittle his brother and of course me. He told his usual lies of how he was a saint and saviour of the customers of Brightwheel Replicas after it had ceased trading, when of course by my taking on the brothers as my agent after this event, it gave those customers somewhere to go, and they benefitted beacuse this of course gave Cobretti business. He also tried to pin the bankruptcy of BRL on me, when he knew full well that the company had ceased trading due to my partners closing it down AFTER I had resigned. The hypocrosy of this evil man knows no bounds, for he completely ignores his own bankruptcy and the effects on HIS creditors.Well I hope the IPO ignored all that kind of irrelevant crap. However they have form for not ignoring it and being swayed by his lies.
My lawyer did a very good job of laying out case law regards the partnership and the non legal way it finished, thus making the application by only one partner, for registration, void. He also gave many reasons why the application for the Invalidity of my registration should fail, all based on law. How the two main reasons Busbridge relied on for this application, namely passing off and he having a prior right to me, where all legally wrong. Pointing out that it was he that was guilty of passing off my product and trade mark not the other way round.
I will attach the skeleton argument to this blog soon, so you can all see our argument.

Now this Salthouse made a comment at the beginning of this hearing which ABSOLUTELY LAID IT OUT INTO THE OPEN WHY TEH IPO HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME OPPOSING MY EVERY MOVE FROM 1992 RIGHT THROUGH TO THIS 2010 HEARING. HE SAID THAT THE IPO WERE WELL AND TRULY FED UP WITH MY CASE WHICH HAD GONE ON FOR SO LONG AND TAKEN UP SO MUCH OF THE IPO's TIME THAT THEY WERE GLAD THAT THIS SHOULD END IT ALL. THAT IT WOULD RECIFY A MISTAKE THEY HAD MADE. (Now the never said exactly what he meant by all that but it is clear to me what he meant).

 For what he was saying was that as far as the IPO were concerned the Hearing Officer who heard my opposition case to Chrysler over registering my Trade Mark, had made a mistake and obviously that would have given Chrysler the case and my Trade Mark. I have long thought that there was jiggery pokery involved in that case and I have as you will see, said that I always thought that Chrysler bent arms in the British Government to get this Trade Mark (that they already had registered in all of the EU, given to them). Don't forget that they would have spent an enormous amount of money to set it all up to sell their 'Viper' in the EU & the UK. I wouldn't mind betting that the Hearing Officer who heard that case was under orders to do that. Now he was quite an old bloke ready I think fcoming up to retirement. Just maybe he didn't follow orders of being old stock so wouldn't get involved in non legal goings on-hence why Salthouse SAID A MISTAKE HAD BEEN MADE WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED and waffled on some more about this-see the transcript and you will see what I am saying. IT ALL STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN-ONCE AGAIN.

Of course now we have to wait for the IPO to issue their decision, but I have absolutely no faith in them whatsoever, as I have constantly said. They have an agenda which is best known only to them. Once that decision is given, of course if it does go against me, I will appeal it. We will know exactly what had been in the IPO minds all along and we will then have their mindset out in the open and will be able to fight it. I got the impression that their minds were already made up prior to the hearing and the hearing was just window dressing. For they have read the written evidence and as they said have read all the previous hearings, so what was said at this hearing was nothing new.
Of course one big thing that the have to address, and we made sure we made comment on that, and that is the question of all the lies and perjury eminating from Robert Busbridge. We made sure we pointed out that the IPO had specifically said they would deal with that at the hearing.
Of course we made sure that his lying and dishonesty and making applications in bad faith, were highlighted. Of course now we had a second witness to all the dishonesty namely Martin.
I personally cannot see how the IPO can find for Robert based on his obvious lying and bad faith, and partnership law and IPO law that were not adherred to. But as I have said over and over again-the IPO have shown time and again they have an agenda on this case that is hard to fathom. So we will see.
In the meantime Robert Busbridge will be sweating it out, and if his demeanour at the hearing is anything to go by, which was not so cocky as before, he will be sweating it out.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 33.

THE 2010 HEARING BEING A DUAL HEARING ON MARTINS APPLICATION TO RECTIFY THE BUSBRIDGE REGISTRATION AND ROBERTS APPLICATION TO MAKE MY REGISTRATION INVALID. 28th January 2010. 9.30. London.

At last we are at a position were both I and Martin MAY get justice at last? Firstly Martin can get to see the fraudulant application to register a Trade Mark that did not legally belong to the Busbridges, and made in his name without his knowledge, get reverted to being listed at the IPO as having been made in the partnerships name and not as Robert Busbridge was able to fraudulantly get changed by perjury to only his name. Then the Landau decision at last enacted and the Registration will not be allowed to be renewed and will fall by the wayside.

If that happens then Roberts cheeky application to have my legal registration made invalid, will automatically be thrown out.

On top of this there is the perjury committed by Robert, not once but dozens of times, in order to gain registration. I as you will know if you have read this blog from the beginning, I have complained about his blatant perjury to the IPO and they said they would deal with this at this hearing.......WE WILL SEE, but as I now have a supposed expert lawyer representing me this time, maybe the IPO will now see that they will not be able to continue with their blatant disregard for justice and for not following the laws and rules. However I cannot help wondering if they even give a stuff, and will just go on blundering ever deeper into their cover up of their past injustices and maladministrations. For if they do find for me and Martin then they will be admitting that they made mistakes in the past. Those of you that understand the mindset of civil servants will know they JUST HATE ADMITTING THEIR MISTAKES AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO GO ON HIDING THEM. So watch this space for maybe a miracle will happen or maybe it will be business as usual?
I will want to see Robert Busbridge charged with PERJURY & PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and if the IPO refuse to do this, then I will push the Police to do it. I am absolutely determined he is not going to get away with it, especially when he wasted over £100,000 of Public money, in having me charged with forgery and perjury, this by fraud.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 32.

In my post of the 13th Oct I alluded to the appeal hearing back in 2006 that Busbridge had heard in front of this odious man. Now I have disliked the British judiciary ever since 1971 when I first had contact with the wonderful British judicial process, and funnily enough that concerned a QC. Ever since then as I am an avid reader of the press I have been able to see that far from us having this wonderful legal system that politicians and people in the ruling classes would have us believe is the best in the World, I have only contempt for it.
Let us face it ALL Judges almost without exception, belong to the upper classes. They do not live in my World and they are totally out of touch with it. They are a cossetted class who are given time and again to handling cases like the buffoons that they are. They are supremely arrogant and nowadays they seem to believe that it should be they who rule this country. They have become incapable of handing down consistent, sensible sentences to the extent that some seem in need of being sectioned. I could ramble on but will desist as I am sure you get the picture.
Of course barristers belong to the same set as it is they who later on become Judges, so my ire is also directed to that useless section of our wonderful justice system, and this arrogant Hobbs QC is part of that mob. If you read the transcript of this appeal hearing which never issued a conclusion as the liar Busbridge dropped the appeal. Now why did he drop it? Simply because he was given advice by Hobbs and the IPO bloke also in attendance, as to how he could circumvent the decisions made by the Hearing Officer Landau, who said he was not entitled to the mark and it could not be renewed.
Of course giving advice in a case is 'ILLEGAL', but no matter for these arrogant oafs in ermine, are Kings (and some no doubt Queens) in their legal state. No one is able to say a dicky bird to them, and so they know they can do whatever they like and get away with it.
This explains why during that hearing the illustrious Hobbs felt he could with impunity, say that he thought that my opposition case to Chrysler was 'Sordid'. Now this opposition case had absolutely nothing to do with the appeal hearing he was chairing. So why did he say it? If you read right through the whole 'sordid' transcript it will be obvious as to why he said it. For it is glaringly obvious that he was showing extreme bias towards Busbridge and this was part of that.
Of course for any judge or other judicial person, to show bias is 'ILLEGAL' YET AGAIN HE FEARS NO ONE AND BLUNDERS ON WITH IT.

What would you think on reading all this crap? You I am sure would be hopping mad, in fact 'raging mad' So it is that is how I feel. So I, on not getting anywhere with the T/Sol, sent in my written complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints. Let me say straight up, that I have nothing but contempt for ALL THE BODIES THAT HAVE BEEN SET UP TO SUPPOSEDLY DEAL WITH COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC, AGAINST VARIOUS GOVERNMENT BODIES. THEY ARE ALL AN OUTRAGEOUS WASTE OF TIME, ARE MERELY WINDOW DRESSING TO GIVE THE ILLUSION THAT THE WONDERFUL BRITISH POLITICIANS CARE ABOUT HOW WE MERE PEASANTS ARE DEALT WITH BY GOVERNMENT AND ITS ENDLESS BODIES.

I remember well that my MP back in the nineties, telling me that all these Ombsbudsmen are useless and a waste of time, and so it is with the OJC. For after the usual two months wait, I get a letter from some clerk, who I wonder what credentials she had, who threw out my complaint. The reasons she gave showed that she had not even read the transcript, and she completely ignored a lot of the complaints I had outlined in my letter. THIS IS WHAT ALL THESE USELESS CIVIL SERVANTS DO WITH COMPLAINTS. THEY CHERRY PICK A FEW POINTS YOU MAKE, WHICH THEY FEEL THEY CAN BULLSHIT THEIR WAY AROUND, IGNORE THE IMPORTANT POINTS, FILL THEIR LETTERS WITH HEAPS OF CIVIL SERVICE WAFFLESPEAK, THAT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A ROW OF BEANS, AND THEN TELL YOU TO BUGGER OFF. (In as many words)

ANOTHER POINT THAT ANY READERS OF THIS BLOG MAY PONDER ON, IS THAT NO MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM HAS EVER MADE ANY COMMENT ON THIS STORY AND I HAVE SENT MY BOOK 'JUSTICE DENIED' TO OVER 50 I/P LAWYERS, THE ADDRESS OF THIS BLOG, AND HAVE ASKED IF ANY LAWYER COULD READ BOTH. AS IT WAS IN MY OPINION A HORROR STORY SHOWING UP WHAT THE IPO AND I/P LAWS ARE ALL ABOUT AND HOW THE PUBLIC ARE SUBJECT TO NOT BEING WELL SERVED, ESPECIALLY IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE ON LAWYERS TO FIGHT THEIR CASE. LAWYERS WHO ARE THE MOST OVERPAID IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM, APART FROM MAYBE LIBEL LAWYERS. NEVER GOT ONE REPLY FROM ANYOF THEM.

Keep watching this blog if your interested in seeing the outcome of the forthcoming hearing re Busbridges attempt to make my Trade Mark registration invalid and my accusations of gross and persistant acts of perjury. His registration having been gained by perjury, fraud and perverting the course of Justice. Not forgetting his brothers accusation that Busbridge also committed perjury at the hearing that dealt with the application to correct the register. Do not forget I went to my local Police about the perjury and the IPO told them that they were best placed to deal with it. SO WE WILL SEE JUST WHAT THEY DO, OR MAYBE JUST WHAT THEY WILL NOT DO!!!

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 31.

Again it has been some time since I last updated and this is because as we all know all government departments only move at snails pace. Even though I complained months ago about the provable perjury of Busbridge, they have refused to act only saying that they will deal with all that at the Invalidity Hearing which has taken until now for me to even get a date for it.
As I said in previous post I have taken on an I/P lawyer and he contacted the IPO to get them to agree to have a telephone conference to discuss the rolling up of three actions into one hearing. This was then made into two actions, namely the application by Martin to rectify the register again due to his brothers lies made throughout all the hearings. Martin sent the IPO a statement in which he laid out all his complaints as to what had happened throughout the various hearings which started in 2004 with his application to register the T/M. Especially Roberts application to rectify the register to read that he was now the only registered owner of the mark.
So the IPO turned this into an application to rectify made by Martin. Of course even though I am inextricably linked to all this, I was to be once again kept out of it. So at this conference which took weeks before it happened on the 17th Nov, my lawyer asked that I be allowed to be part of this process and that we wanted the application made by Busbridge to make my registration of my mark, made invalid, to be heard at the same time.
The IPO agreed to this but let us face it, it was no magnaminous decision as they really could not refuse, unless they wished to make it look like they were complete assholes. We were all given until the end of Dec 2009 to get in all our statements and evidence, then a hearing to be heard on the 28th January 2010. So this is now going to be very interesting and I am going to find out just what the IPO are really all about. Are they going to continue to deny me justice and ignore all my evidence once again, or are they finally going to start applying themselves, for now I HAVE SOMEONE ACTING FOR ME THAT CANNOT BE FOBBED OFF. (SO I THOUGHT BACK THEN) For it is not only me who is saying that all the statements made by Robert are lies, but his brother is confirming that all I have said was true and it was all lies.
The main lies being that there was a signed agency agreement in 1989, that they were agents, that they stole my trade mark off me as well as my car designs, that I did not abandon my mark to them, that Robert applied for registration in both their names without Martins knowledge, that Robert did try to sell the mark to Chrysler for half a million, thus giving him the reasons for all his actions, and he did that again without his brothers knowledge. That he lied in his statements saying he never knew where his brother was and the last known address of Martin in Spain, given the IPO in a sworn statement, was made up. Plus a multitude of other lies told in every statement he ever made in all the five hearings to date.
So now we have the task of replying to all the statements Robert has made in the two cases and demolishing them. As with all his statements they are full of vacuous waffle that have nothing to do with the cases and they still contain lies as he just cannot help himself from lying as he is a pathological liar.
So for those of you who are really interested in this unbelievable case, especially anyone who is in I/P, keep looking in as the end is hopefully on the horizon.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 29.

Well they turned out to be just another duplicitious time wasting buch of scumbags, so they can join the rest of their scumbag cousins in in the civil service. THEY KEEP ME WAITING 5 WEEKS AND THEN SEND A WAFFLING LETTER FULL OF EXCUSES, BUT END IT ALL BY SAYING THAT THEY CANNOT IN ANY CASE HANDLE COMPLAINTS AGAINST QC's. THANKS A HEAP, YOU WANKERS. BUT IT IS NOT JUST THEM TAKING ACTION AGAINST HOBBS. - WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HEARINGS I LISTED THAT ARE ALL TAINTED BY PERJURED EVIDENCE FROM BUSBRIDGE AND NOW CONFIRMED BY HIS BROTHER????????

Now I have to start all over again outlining the same complaint to another bunch of civil service tossers called the 'Office for Judicial Complaints' and no doubt yet another one of those useless quangoes that are set up to protect all the of the civil service. Want to take bets on what they will do.....close ranks behind one of their own (Hobbs QC) and he will get off scott free.

Of course the T/Sol gave this Hobbs character a copy of my complaint so he's had weeks now to cover his arse. His comments beggar belief, he obviously thinks I am just a peasant who simply cannot affect his 'Highness' in any way. Him being a big wig in the so called 'justice' world. He has the affrontery to say,' I considered to be conducive to the attainment of a just and fair outcome to the proceedings then pending before me' The high and mighty tossers think they are so high they cannot never be criticised. The last thing his so called appeal hearing was, was a properly conductive, fair and unbiased hearing. As I have complained, it was nothing but a biased cosy talk where the appeal was not heard, but ways were discussed how the applicant (Busbridge) could cheat me out of my Trade Mark.

I am not going to repeat what happened in that appeal hearing as it is commented on in previous posts. The the writer of the letter a P.Barber, whoever he is, goes on to list why my complaint had no merit. All rubbish and arse covering, of course. I will just have to go through the motions again with this next lot.

On the IPO front I am still getting the run round as whenever I ask for points to be cleared up whoever I am dealing with always acts dumb and I never am given the answer I ask for. Like when I asked why a Gittings was trying it on with my complaint of inaction when I gave him documentary evidence that Busbridge had committed perjury in his statement, which was put in as evidence at his registration application and my opposition to that, he then says it is part of the Invalidity action, yet to be heard. This he does because even though that statement has nothing to do with the application of invalidity, Busbridge threw it in to that case, to muddy the waters. So now I have gone back and insisted that the act of perjury had already been carried out in 2004, what are the IPO going to do about it, and to stop making excuses. So far SILENCE.

However things have moved on somewhat further on the other front. By that I mean that my complaint letter to the CEO which has been on hold, has now be widened to include an affidavit from none other than Robert Busbridges brother, Martin. This I told you about in my last post, and now the additional letter of complaint plus a copy of the affidavit has been sent out. It will be interesting to see just what the CEO does about this. But one thing is for sure, I am out to really get this shower, one way or the other. They have bent over backwards for this lying git for 18 years now, and now I have shown just how they have aided and abetted him to get away with PERJURY, FRAUD, FORGERY, PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, OBTAINING A TRADE MARK THAT HE STOLE FROM ME BY THESE METHODS AND THAT THEY UNSTINTINGLY WENT ALONG WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE AND LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT ALL, TO MY HUGE LOSSES OF PROFITS, BUSINESS AND HEALTH.
If the CEO does what I think he will do and rubbishes it all, it will just go on in other ways until I get JUSTICE.
Of course I have now given a dossier to my local Police about all the Busbridge perjury and the fact that his lies got the police to instigate an action of perjury and forgery against me, which cost the tax payer some huge amount only for them to lose big time. SO HE COMMITS PERJURY TO HAVE THE POLICE CHARGE ME WITH PERJURY  & FORGERY AND BACK IN 1999 'You couldn't make it up' as the Daily Mail writer is always saying about civil servants and the like. I have no faith in the police at all, and I bet you they will try to squirm out of doing everything. I will not let them get away with it, for it is possible to force them to act. SO THE FIGHT IS NOW HOTTING UP.