Intellectual Property Office_How they aided a crook. 24.

After sending the Head of the Law Section several emails asking him to tell me why the decision of the hearing that took place in 2005 had not been enacted and Busbridge thus being stripped of his registration. This is what should have happened, yet to tell me exactly that would be an admission that the IPO had acted wrongly and can you ever see that happening? He sent me replies which were just waffle and evasion and it was obvious he did not want to answer the question.
I kept on by pointing out how he was not looking at the facts and what that hearing officer had decreed and why, and that I wanted an answer. He then gave me an answer that was pure civil service disengeniousness and totally untruthful. I replied to that effect and all he could say in a final reply was that he had answered my question, and that was the end of it---'Go away pest', which of course he hadn't.
Now I have sent a letter to my MP and more or less told him I expect him to help me for once instead of acting like he couldn't care less, which is what happened when we met a couple of weeks ago when I asked him about a Judicial Review. Telling me in that disinterested way he has, that I should do it myself, spoke volumes about just how interested he was.
So I wait to see how he responds for he could help me if he wanted to by asking the IPO awkward questions.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 23.

In my last post I talked about a Georgina Downs and the problem she was having with another Government department and the six year she has had to endure fighting the lousy bastards over people being poisoned by insecticides. She won at the High Court and as I said the bastard government appealed. Today I heard that bizarrely she has lost that appeal.
I tell you that trying to get Justice against politicians and their lackey civil servants AND THE JUDICIARY is absolutely impossible. To hell with JUSTICE-it simply does not exist in their minds. Apparently all the evidence she put forward at her High Court win was not even considered at the appeal and the useless judges hearing it, only would listen to evidence that someone else has come up with. (which no doubt coincided with what the Government wanted to hear) How corrupt is that, and how bizarre, as she rightly pointed out.

It's like I said, people like her and me just cannot win and right now I am having the same old trouble with the Intellectual Property Office refusing to answer my highly embarrassing question that they do not want to answer. Way back in my posts I told of the hearing back in 2005 when a hearing officer called Landau found for me and said that Busbridge should lose the trade mark, as it should not be renewed as of 1999. He appealed that decision but dropped the appeal. In any other world that would mean that the decision would then be enacted. It wasn't, and Busbridge then went on to engage in other means of attack. What he did should have had no bearing on that original decision.
Put it this way, if someone is accused of murder, is found guilty, then appeals, but for reasons known only to them, drops the appeal, do you really think he would be allowed to walk free? No way, he would be sent to prison to serve the original sentence. (More like he would stay in prison as he would never have been allowed out anyway, even to appeal) That is not how the IPO work.
I have sent some emails to their Law Section to ask why it was the decision was not carried out
and all I have had is the Head of that section playing silly buggers with his answers. He is obviously unwilling to answer the questions at all.
I also posed the question as to what their procedures are when perjury is committed by Busbridge in a recent written statement of evidence he made in trying to now get my registration made invalid. I told him that I had the transcript from my criminal case in 2000 when I was accused by Busbridge of perjury and forgery, which I was found not guilty, in which Busbridge admits to several points made by my barrister, and yet in his 2005 sworn statement to the IPO, he tells the opposite, knowing full well he is lying. Would this bloke answer that....would he hell. Prevaricates and pretends he doesn't understand the question. So I continue the battle for TRUTH and JUSTICE.
Next stop if they will not come up with the answers, is my useless MP again, and this time it will be in writing so I cannot get the heavo after 5 minutes is up at a personal meeting, like last time. That letter is going to be VERY blunt.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 22.

I have long talked about trying to get a Judicial Review, which anyone can ask for should they think a judicial process has been carried out incorrectly. I certainly think most of what the Intellectual property Office has done has been incorrect and perverse, and as I have reached the end of all of the processes, I could ask for one.
However it is not as simple as that as you need to know the procedure for doing so and the case you put forward for one must be legally correct. One can be a litigant in person, but it is not as easy as you may think. First of all you have to get your request in no more than 3 months after the cessation of the last process, and that is not long enough for the amateur lawyer. Then you have to know how to put it all together in a way that will be legally acceptable AND will cover ALL the legal points you think have been incorrectly dealt with. In such a complicated case as this, you really need an I/P lawyer to do all this.
As I have pointed out many times, in this wonderful country of ours justice is only available for the rich. The peasants with little or no money can whistle, because how can a peasant afford fees of £300 per hour to £500ph ? Seeing as the Labour Party since it's been in power, has destroyed legal aid for the peasants it was always supposed to represent, it is impossible to get legal aid for such a legal case. No I/P lawyer will do ANY work on I/P on legal aid, so effectively your stuffed.

I did contemplate doing as a litigant in person, but first of all I thought I would get the advice of one that has gone down that route. Some years ago in Sussex a young woman called Georgina Downs went to Court to get J/R over farmer spraying insecticides next to peoples houses and poisoning them. She had lived next to a field and the farmer had done this to her family with bad effects on all their health. I found a website she had and got in touch with her. I spoke at length with her over how she was able to do it and what had happened .
Basically after that conversation it was obvious that what I would have to go through would be a none starter for me. She was a young person when she started (around 20) and it had gone on for 6 years plus and was still unfinished. Firstly it would take up to a year to even get started, then it could get delayed due to the tactics of the opposition (in this case the IPO) and even if you won, they could go for an appeal.
Plus she had had the help of a barrister who she found who worked on reduced fees. She had spent untold time researching the legal side so she herself could do all the legal legwork. So it had taken over most of her life. In my case all this, I decided was too much to pay. Being 68 now, I certainly did not want to have this TAKE OVER all of my life and what may be left of it. Hence why I wanted an I/P barrister to do that.
Knowing the way all civil service departments work, the IPO would make it as difficult as possible and as slow as possible, and they of course have a bottomless pit of money they can draw on. The tax payer of course funds them and you just know that if they lost they definitely would use the taxpayers money to appeal. So it costs them nothing and they do not want ever to be found to be in the wrong. So I decided that I would reluctantly have to let the injustices heaped upon me, go. Even if it sticks in the craw to let them and that lying bastard Busbridge get away with the outright theft of my I/P and all the rest.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 21.

As I said in my last post, this pathological liar has lied his way into achieving his ultimate aim of stripping me, with the aid of those complete wankers at the IPO, of my stolen I/P rights. Busbridge, has now reactivated the Invalidity action to have my Registration declared invalid, which he had started in 2003 prior to the hearing when he applied to register my Mark. It was put on hold until all the actions that have gone on since then, which the IPO have seen fit to believe him on each occasion. Now they are all at an end he has been able to ask for it to be reactivated. The so called evidence he put forward with application was once again laughable. However the IPO like most British civil service and justice departments seem always to believe the criminals and discount anything the victims of the criminals, say. If you read his rambling page by page never ending diatribe of lies and rubbish, non of which were backed up by evidence, you would have to wonder just how any hearing officer of the IPO could believe such obvious trash. But as you have read they did. The hearing officer Reynolds who is well known for being useless in I/P circles, unbelievably declared that I had "abandoned" my trade mark in 1990/1991 to Busbridge. This despite all the evidence I showed that I did no such thing. He chose not to even get his head around the fact that no one who half a brain would abandon a trade mark which they had used for 5 years, putting huge effort into building up, who also had entered into a 10 years battle with a huge multi national company, Chrysler, at high cost, to stop them from pinching the trade mark. Why would anyone having done all that just throw it all away in 1990/1991??????? He poo pooed the evidence I showed of all the orders and invoices between me and Busbridge in 1990/1991 showing me supplying the liar with kits and many parts. So by trashing my rights at that point, I end up not being able to retaliate and appeal because I could not afford up to £50K to do so. (who can except the rich....THIS IS BRITISH JUSTICE AT WORK ONCE MORE) So the other endless hearings were a result and which got me nowhere.
So now I am into the SIXTH hearing when I will once again put forward THE TRUTH, backed up by hard documentary evidence, which will be once gain ignored by the IPO. They of course cannot afford to find for me no matter what I say or show, for they cannot be seen to have made any mistakes in the past hearings. To find now for me will do this. However I will just have to go ahead with this.
What this piece of lying trash is saying is that it was I who stole the trade mark off him and the kits I sold amounted to my "passing off "HIS designs and trade mark". One of his many lies is that he has traded with the mark VIPER since 1987. It is well documented that I did not even take him on until 1988 as my agent and during 1988 to 1991 it was I who manufactured the kits and supplied him as my agent. It is not possible, legally, for anyone to claim when acting as an agent, that the trade mark of the company they act as agents for, can be claimed by them. So it is clear that he was NEVER in a position to use my trade mark until the point when he stole my designs and my trade mark in mid 1991, and even then he was not able to manufacture his copies of my product until late 1991 and even early 1992 as it took him that long to set up suppliers of the chassis and body.
So it will be a long slog to write out my evidence to the contrary of his lying allegations, and one cannot help wondering is it all worth it to eventually have whatever I say and show, to be trashed once again by the corrupt IPO lot.

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

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

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

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

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 19.

Now who was this woman Professsor Annand, who heard this appeal. On researching her I see that at least since 2001 and up to 2006, she heard no leas than around FIFTY ODD CASES FOR THE IPO, as a hearing officer. This for the IPO and the Treasury Solicitor. My first thought is that the Treasuries job is to see that they spend as little money as possible. If she finds for me that opens the door to me suing the IPO and we cannot have that, can we? So I am not holding my breath. For we have a person who has worked for the IPO for years and one has to ask where are her loyalties? She may even still be paid for by the IPO for all I know. I am sure the UK Public are well aware of all the gross cases where government departments judge themselves. The list includes Politicians, Dentists, Doctors, Police, solicitors etc, to name a few. Then we have all these supposedly independent OMBUDSMEN. What a joke they are, independent my backside. My MP of a few years ago who was old enough to be in the know, told me to never waste my time going them as they were all a waste of time. How right he was. So the person who heard this appeal did not fill me with any hope whatsoever and within minutes of the appeal starting, her words spelled out what the outcome was going to be.

The hearing Officer Foley, who heard the application to rectify the register and to change the details that the IPO have of both Martin Busbridge and Robert Busbridge as being the registered owners of the Mark Viper, to that of only Robert Busbridge. You may ask, "well so what, does it matter who is registered as the owner" I say it is important, because at a previous hearing Hearing Officer Landau said clearly that Robert was just not legally able, to even apply for the registration as he had never bought out his brothers 50% of the business and its assets. He said that the registration of the mark had to be annulled. Now several devious avenues down the line, the IPO have manipulated things to now put all that on its head, and to now arrive at a situation where they have manipulated everything to Busbridges advantage, and they have found excuses to say that he was perfectly and legally able to steal his brothers half of the business. I had hoped that this Annand person would be looking at what Landau had said, and asking why it was never carried out. Obviously she never had the guts to do that, for her job was to make sure the devious ways the IPO had concocted to allow Busbridge to keep his registration, carried on uninterrupted. So I hope you can see why I tried to stick in my oar and stop the registration ever being in only Roberts name.

To recap the decision of Foley in a nutshell I lay out his reasons:-
1/ He said that by Robert giving his brother an indemnity for future debts etc, this gave RB a right to MB's half of the business. This even though no such legal indemnity was ever sighted, and it was said that it was reasonable to assume it was given. Evidence here, goes out of the door, as the IPo don't do evidence.
2/ RB was therefore entitled as registered owner to apply for the registration which was up for extension in 1999, to be extended.
3/ Adverts showed RB carried on business on his own from 1992 when the partnership broke up and right to present time. Completely ignoring the facts that from 1993 t0 1996 he was a bankrupt and not legally able to trade, that from 1996 to 2000 the companies that were used to trade with the name Viper, were not owned by him but his wife.
4/ There were no laws re bankruptcy which said that his asset of a trade mark application had to go to the Official Receivers. This even though I had several letters from various high up managers including the IPO & CEO, that said had the IPO known he was bankrupt they would have contacted the O.R over the application.

I put in my statement which held all my replies, to everything Foley had brought up in summing up his decision. I put in this document 14 pages and 21 paragraphs which all scrupulously dealt with only what Foley had spoken about. I showed the inconsistencies and the mistakes he made. I kept to only what Foley had dealt with and said.

After having put in this statement, I realised that one of the main planks of his reason to allow
RB to alter the registry, was over the business of his bankruptcy and the letter he had got from the Insolvency Service in 2007, which said they were not interested in the asset of the trade mark. Yet when I had asked them many times for information they had always told me they were unable to answer any questions as to what they believed or did in 1992, could not be answered as all the files had been destroyed due to age. Yet here they were, able to categorically say they were never interested in it. How did they know this with no files to look at? Yet here is Foley using this to say RB thus owned it.

I decided that I had to ask to be allowed to put in extra evidence and to ask the I.S questions and to get them to clear up why they sent this letter. I had only been given 28 days to get in my statement of appeal. I knew the I.S would take months to reply. I compiled another statement and argument, showing the replies I had got from the I.S and I believe they showed that this letter could not be relied on as credible evidence. I sent it in.

Professor Annands summing up and decision document is only 11 pages long and most of that is taken up with typical IPO waffle. Going over and repeating the story that we all know already:-
Page 1 deals with the Act that says an application for rectification can be made.
Page 2 ditto
Page 3 ditto then how RB applied and what he said.
Page 4 ditto
Page 5 what the registrar said in a letter to RB and his reply. How the IPO sent a letter to Martin Busbridge even though they did not know where he lived and just posted it to his supposed last address. How the registrar wrote to me.
Page 6 general comments on that letter and how I applied for an appeal. My application to apply to put in further evidence.
Page 7 At last a reference to the actual appeal hearing but only to what she thought of my extra evidence which was to trash it as it in her opinion had no effect on the appeal, even though it concerned one of the three planks of the reasons for the decision of Foley. That's the way the IPO work. She even states that Martin had no part in RB's bankruptcy. So what! as it was RB that was doing all the applications to keep the Trade Mark and it was Foley that brought up this for one of the reasons for his decision.
Page 8 She states my reason that I thought the H>O was wrong to allow the application because there was no evidence that Martin gave up his part of the business. Hurrah she actually agrees that I was right about my complaint the Foley had strayed into the other hearings instead of keeping to what he was only supposed to be dealing with. She then reverts to repeating what Foley had stated in his summing up
Page 9 ditto, She states my criticising Foley for making constant references to what Hobbs QC said in his hearing where he pontificates on law.
Page 10 ditto and Annand simply agrees that whatever Hobbs said, that was OK and that Foley referred to what he said was also OK. (One has to remember here that Hobbs was supposed to be dealing with an appeal against what Landau had decided. Which he ignored and instead pontificated on his vast knowledge and gave Busbridge endless free advice on how to stitch me up. All perfectly OK by IPO standards. To me it smacks of Hobbs is a big wheel in Intellectual Property and Annand is sucking up to him..... Fuck me, what do I matter. She then says I criticised the fact that there was no evidence for the alleged indemnity. Then she says that even that being so. that's OK according to according to same case law, which she does not elucidate us with.
Page 11 More waffle re what the Registrar has to look at when in 2007 RB applies for rectification. She says there was evidence that RB had continued to trade ( completely ignoring my evidence and statements about this alleged trading being all mostly smoke and mirrors and lies) How a letter was sent to a supposed address of Martin in Spain, etc. Then her CONCLUSION that my appeal is dismissed.

90% of all her document is waffle and going over what we already know as it is on the record.
My two statements to her re my appeal plus the accompanying documentary evidence to back up a lot of what I said, are all ignored. This even though 100% of what I talked about and dealt with, was all in reply to what Hearing Officer Foley had written in his summing up and decision.
Not to mention what evidence Busbridge had put into the original application and my statement and documentary evidence in reply to all that. Was all that bullshit to be ignored, because it was the basis on which the application case was based on.
Quite frankly it all smacks of a rush job where the outcome had been preordained, for the IPO know they can say anything and they know that, what the hell can I do about it. They probably guess that at the end of the day, what can I do about anything as they know I am penniless, to all intents and purposes.
Further on this line, I was surprised that during the short 3/4 hour so called hearing, Annand did not ask either myself or Busbridge any searching questions. I mean, I posed many questions as the the reasons Foley used, and to the evidence of Busbridge which he relied on. She should have cleared up my queries. So it all smacked of not a hearing to go into the questions as to the rightness of Foleys statements and really amounted to no more than a retrial of the application heard by Foley. She had her agenda and what went on at the Foley hearing was of no consequence. If she had said that the Foley hearing was flawed and his approach was all wrong
and she was going to start from scratch, that would have been more honest. However doing that would have meant I would then have wanted to put a fresh opposition statement in and I would have wanted Busbridge to do likewise.

One thing that Annand did say on page 6, para 12 shows me how her mind was working. She puts in what I think is a snide remark as to why did the Registrar send me a letter telling me of the "update". This was telling me that Busbridge was putting in for a rectification and. She remarks in words that are implicating that this appliaction was nothing to do with me as wasn't a party to those proceedings.. So why should the IPO be letting me know? She even says that my opposition to Busbridges original application to register the mark in 2004 had been decided in his favour and I had not appealed. She is implying that I should therefore mind my own business.
Well Madam, I had a big interest in what went on over Busbridges registration for I too have registration for the EXACT SAME MARK, and I had that on the basis of usage going further back than Busbridge. The IPO knew that I would be opposing anything he did to solidify his position, and that was my right to do so. I should NEVER have been in an ex parte situation where I could not openly see what was going on. The law says ANYONE can oppose his rectification application and as I say, I had good reason to do so. But it shows that her mind was made up on this whole story and it also shows her biased attitude towards me.

People like her in governmental positions annoy the hell out of me. None of them have ever run a business or a welkstall. They have no understanding of the "real World" the world of business and what i have been up against. I bet her attitude would be vastly different if she had had a business and had designed something, which was then stolen from her thus giving her the aggro I have had for 17 years.

However even poor people can if they try hard enough, get JUSTICE. It all depends on your tenacity. Plus today we have the power of the web.
At the end of the day this exercise was only held because before I can even apply for a Judicial Review of the whole sorry saga from day one, I have to show that I pursued it to the very end. It matters not to me whether the Trade Mark Viper is registered to Martin, Robert Busbridge or Mickey Mouse. What matters is that it was allowed to be registered to anyone else at all, when I by all laws, and MORALLY, had the rights to it going back to 1986. Full Stop!!!!!! It should never have been allowed to go ahead to a bankrupt, then after I had got registration, by proving use prior to the start of use by Busbridge, it should never, on the evidence heard before Reynolds, have been given to Busbridge. What Reynolds said in his decision was a travesty of justice, and it was compounded by the fact that under archaic rules of the 1938 Act, I would have to be a rich bastard to be able to afford to appeal it. In fact had I been rich I would never have lost that hearing in the first place., and that bastard Reynolds made it perfectly plain that he hated having to hear a hearing made by two non legal people. I guess he hated me the most, judging by his remarks, so made sure I lost. BRITISH JUSTICE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 18.

Of course it was a foregone conclusion that I would mount an appeal against the perverse decision by Hearing Officer Foley, last year. The reasoning he used to allow the rectification of the Trade Mark Registry to amend their records and show that Robert Busbridge owned the Trade Mark Viper, was flawed in a number of areas.
Firstly saying that a bankrupt person need not lose an application made to register a T/M is perverse, especially when you have their own CEO saying they would. Secondly saying that in a partnership that breaks up, the partner that continues with the business would automatically be said to have legitimately taken over the other partners 50% share of the assets, merely by allegedly giving a indemnity against any future problems, even though no such legal document exists to prove that took place, is also perverse. So here we go again in this 17 year fiasco of incompetence and snail like progress that you can only get with British civil servants, thus forcing me into another legal fight.
This time it will be an appeal by me in front of what they call "An appointed person" who is supposed to be independent, but who in reality, really is a servant (indirectly) of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) I have a 6th April date in front of a Professor of Law at a university, who takes such appeals. I do not have much faith that they will be truly independent. QC Hobbs who heard the appeal by Busbridge in 2007 turns out to be a big wheel with the IPO and used by them all the time, and this was shown in this case, when I got the transcripts of that hearing. It was just a biased hearing which turned out to be no more than a "free advice session" to advise Busbridge on how to stuff me up and get round his legal problems and the decsions that went against him. In my case this person happens to be a woman. So we shall see, but I am not holding my breath.
To get a Judicial Review you have to exhaust all avenues to get your justice, and after this appeal I will have done that. So then it will be a matter of trying to find a lawyer who will take my case on, as in this wonderful country of ours where only the criminals and immigrants get unlimited free legal aid, white indigenous Brits like me who are not criminals, can go fuck ourselves. Only the rich get justice as they can afford it. On top of this, lawyers these days are only interested in heaps of dosh and people being able to access to justice, is a foreign field to them. Will I be able to find an enlightened lawyer.........place your bets now!!

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 17.

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

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

I will not relate in full what the decision said otherwise you will all fall asleep as it's very long. Long on waffle and obscure ramblings which make it look like he's doing a full and thorough job.
Which of course he isn't. In short Busbridge was applying to be able to say the following:- Back in 1992 he and his brother applied to register my trademark Viper, this as a partnership trading as Cobretti Engineering. Less than a year later the partnership broke up because Martin Busbridge had applied for a loan for the business, and due to his brothers uselessness, it was all wasted in quick order and Martin was up for losing his house. His marriage fell apart and he rowed with his brother Bob over it all and he did a runner never to be seen again.
Shortly after this in 1993, Bob goes bankrupt. So we have here the fact that the application (to register) should be now out of date. The business Cobretti Engineering was defunct and Bob was a bankrupt and the application was for an asset (the trading mark) could not be owned by him. He did not do anything to change the wording of the application at that time. He and his brother had in early 1992 approached Chrysler posing as the bona fide owners of the mark, to sell it to them for between £500,000 and a £million. So of course Bob hid this fact from the Insolvency Service (IS) and they being as useless as the IPO never even had a meeting with Bob it was all just a paper exercise, as bankruptcies in 1992 were running as high as now (it being the last recession we had) so my complaint with the IPO, if you have read all of this blog you will know, is that they, even though I told them of the bankruptcy back in 1994/5, did buggerall, and have gone on doing buggerall about it despite my continually banging on about it ever since.
I also had a go at the IS in 1994/5 about the hiding of the asset and they did nowt as well. (TYPICAL OF ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, DON'T YOU THINK?)
When Landau came up with his decision saying that as Bob never got Martin to sell him his 50% of the business, he never owned it all, so the application was never his to forward onto registration. Plus his bankruptcy meant that the asset of the mark would belong to the I.S. So in effect Busbridge had to lose the registration of my Mark,which he had conned the IPO in 2004  (the Reyolds Hearing) into giving him. So he appealed this, and off we went on another round of time wasting.
Back in 1992 when Bob knew he was heading for bankruptcy and he says he started a new company which he called Autotrak Ltd. He says he assigned all the assets of Cobretti Engineering to that company, but he still continued trading as Cobretti Engineering upto to his bankruptcy in 1993, thus hoodwinking the public that they owned all the assets, but which he now had hidden. This of course is illegal, to knowingly shift assets out of a business that is trading without any hope of avoiding bankruptcy. (the I.S. did not cotton onto that one) The assignment was kept quiet for obvious reasons and it wasn't until 2002 that he then notified the IPO that he had allegedly done it. I firmly believe that an assignment was never made in 1992 and he only went through the motions of belatedly doing it 10 years later, on legal advice as he just had to show the IPO that at the time he made the application or soon after, the mark was assigned to Autotrak Ltd, and wasn't with Cobretti Engineering.
Of course I protested very loudly about all this and pointed out that IPO law said that they had to be notified within 6 months of any assignment and that wasn't obviously done, plus all the paperwork was very suspicious and not legal. This was at the hearing where Busbridge was applying to register the mark and this back in 2004. H/O Reynolds said the assignments would have to be looked at and Landau when he did this, did not touch on the assignments, because as he said the application had to fail on the breakup of the partnership and other facts.
So Busbridge appealed his decision but only on the business of the alleged assignment, and his appeal would be heard by an 'appointed person' who turned out to be a prominent QC, and not to the High Court. (as I would have been forced to do-over appealing the application to register hearing by Reynolds). This really annoys me because I had to let the appeal go and lose the case to Busbridge just because I could not afford to go to the High Court, yet Busbridge makes an appeal to do with the same case, or a continuation of it and he has a later (after 1994) rule applied to him which means he can use the free option of seeing an appointed person and not a normal IPO Hearing Officer, who I found out later is employed by the Government Legal Department.
After waiting about 8 month, that meeting with this QC took place. Again because of stupid IPO rules I was refused to be part of that process, yet it was to do with a case that I was involved in...can you believe this? What a cosy little meeting that turned out to be and I wasn't at all confident it would go my way. I expected to get the decision of it in about two months-yet month after month went by and no decision. I kept on to the IPO and all I got was that it was before an 'independent person' (not in their employment) and they had no say in the matter. I even got my MP (Chris Chope) onto it after 9 months of waiting and he got the same brush off from no less than the IPO CEO. This all happened at the end of 2007/ beginning 2008.
I heard from the IPO in January that Busbridge was now putting in an application to 'rectify the register' and have it recorded that the application should now read that it is in the name only of Bob Busbridge trading as Cobretti Engineering. This of course flew in the face of Landaus decision which had never been activated due to the appeal. The appeal decision had not been heard either, as in May 2008 I am told that back in September 2007 Busbridge had dropped his appeal to the QC and to me this should have meant that the Landau decision should now have been enacted. But the IPO would ignore all that which is outrageous. Even more outrageous was the fact that all this meant that the IPO had deliberately lied to me and my MP by saying the decision had not been made and nothing they could do, yet it had been dropped all the time!!!
THIS SHOWS ONCE AGAIN WHAT THE IPO ARE ALL ABOUT AND NOT ONLY THAT -THE FACT THAT BUSBRIDGE WAS EVEN ALLOWED TO APPEAL THE LANDAU DECISION GOES ABSOLUTELY AGAINST ALL THE LEGAL RULES-IF ONE CAN APPEAL A LEGAL DECISION OF A COURT. THE RULES ARE THAT TO BE ABLE TO OBTAIN AN APPEAL YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE NEW EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE ORIGINAL DECISION. LIKE NEW WITNESSES HAVE COME FOWARD WITH NEW EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SHOW THE DECISION WAS WRONG OR THAT THE JUDGE IN THE HEARING MADE LEGAL MISTAKES OR EVEN FELL ASLEEP IN THAT HEARING OR WHATEVER. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT JUST SAY "I DON'T LIKE THE DECISION AND I WANT IT HEARD AGAIN" YET THE IPO GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO APPEAL AND IF YOU READ BUSBRIDGES WRITTEN REASONS AS TO WHY HE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN APPEAL.....THEY ARE A NONSENSE . WHY DID THE IPO IGNORE THE RULE AND GIVE HIM AN APPEAL?????  AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE IPO HAD AN AGENDA TO STOP ME FROM EVER KEEPING MY TRADE MARK FOR ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THIS MUST BE THE CASE AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY OTHER REASON FOE ALL THE CORRUPT ACTS THEY CARRIED IN FROM DAY ONE TO THE END.

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

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

The decision in a nutshell was on only two points. 1/ Because when the partnership of the Busbridges broke up and they drew up an agreement saying that Bob would take responsibility for all the debts, THIS ALSO MEANT THAT MARTIN WAS HANDING OVER THE BUSINESS TO HIS BROTHER AS WELL AND SO NO NEED FOR IT TO BE ASSIGNED OR SOLD.

 2/ On the business of the bankruptcy even though by law the Receiver should have taken over that asset, because Bubsridge came up with a letter from the Insolvency Service dated only in August 2008 in which they said they had had no interest in the asset, this meant that he was in the clear over all that. This is again an outrageous decision and shows a biased favouritism by the IPO towards Busbridge, as I showed that this letter was not worth a light and not legal.

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

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

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 16.

7th Oct.2008.

I decided I had had enough of them holding me up so decided to send in to their general enquiries an email just asking them how long would one normally expect to have to wait for a hearing officer to come up with his decision. I never told them my name. They came back with what I THOUGHT THEY WOULD SAY, NAMELY AROUND TWO MONTHS! This because the previous two decisions both took only two months.

So now I went back to Raoul Colombo the manager of the Law Section and reminded them that it was now 6 MONTHS since the hearing and I was beginning to wonder if there was something underhanded going on with the Patent Office, taking this long. This got them going and after continually telling me he couldn't do anything, now he promised a result by mid October.

However knowing the way the P.O works, by not keeping to their own laws and rules, I am not holding my breath as to what the final decision is going to be. As far as I am concerned it is a quite simple situation. He appealed the original hearing decision saying he had no right to the trademark and giving all the legal reasons, and his appeal reasons were dropped and he changed tack and asked for the records of the original application to be allowed to be changed. (this after
16 years) He wanted the original application in the name of the defunct partnership to be changed to just his name. How he can have this allowed I do not know as the previous hearing officer clearly said that as the partnership collapsed, and he did not have his brothers permission to take over his half of the business and it's assets, and that as he had gone bankrupt anyway, so the application was therefore dead. SO HOW CAN THE RECORDS BE CHANGED? especially 16 years later.

I bet the PO will concoct some excuse as I doubt if they want it to be seen that they have ignored my protestations about all this for 16 plus years, and never did anything. So they need to restore my non existent faith in them.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 15.

Yesterday I sent an email to the P.O asking why it was taking their hearing officer, so long to come to his conclusion. To remind you Busbridge appealed against the decision of the last Hearing Officer, Landau, that he had had no right to apply to register the Trade Mark Viper. He quoted many legal reasons for coming to that concusion.
Busbridge appealed but dropped the appeal and then tried a different tack to nullify that decision. It did not work, and so now this hearing officer should complete his report. However I am constantly wondering, what has he got to think about? The previous H/O made his decision, the appeal was dropped, so inevitably the decision then HAS TO STAND!! So what the hell has he got to spend FOUR MONTHS thinking about?? But then the P.O is like that. EVERYTHING TAKES FOREVER.
I wonder if they are up to something, maybe marking time until a time limit is up, or something like that? I don't trust them, for if this guy confirms the last decision it makes the P.O look incompetent as why didn't they come to that decision in 1992/3? The decision of the first H/O
took two months and it's been four now, so watch this space.