Monday, 16 June 2008

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook.

As I have already mentioned, the hearing for me to at long last oppose the Registration of the Mark VIPER had been made for Feb 1998, some six years after I started proceedings. This in itself is a bloody disgrace and not a good advertisement for ever using this useless body of incompetent civil servants who grandly call themselves, The Patent Office. The only thing patent about them, is that they are patently useless. If they call this JUSTICE then I call them a lot of ignorant twats. For if your a small business who are being ripped off of your Intellectual Property by some low lives, who are making money off your back, then SIX YEARS IS A LIFETIME AND IN THAT TIME YOU CAN BE DECIMATED AND OUT OF BUSINESS...FULL STOP!!!!!!!

The hearing took place in a building in the city of London which was vaguely like a Court. However these kind of proceedings are not conducted in the same way as a full blown High Court case. Thank God for that, because if they had, that would have been yet another imposition. Even so the Hearing Officer as he was called did come over as a typical pompous upper class twit. As did the really over bearing and even more pompous legal twat employed by Chrysler. But then they could afford the best of the pompous and full of themselves and he was called Mr Morcom. ( sounds like a character out of Dickens).

I will not go into every thing that was said and every argument made as that would make this discourse too long and boring the the reader. Suffice it to say that Morcom waffled on and on about the same subject, ad infinitum. Basically he just tried to bang on about the lies that Busbridge had told them about how they owned the Mark and I had never owned it, and how I had forged this agency document. He got me in the witness stand and tried his best to get me to admit it was a forgery. Just what this had to do with the legitimacy of the application by Chrysler, I fail to see. They filed it on Jan 12 1990, and anything that applies to before that date, is irrelevant. In anycase the agency document had not been put into my evidence against Chrsyler, because I had merely sent it to them to show them that Busbridge was lying when he said he had made Vipers since 1988. They went on then to admit it into evidence, as proof that I was a liar and a forger.
I refused to admit to anything and refused to offer any explanation as to their assertions that it was a forgery and how they came to that conclusion. I told them that as far a I was concerned, I sent an agency agreement document asking them to sign it and send a copy back. When I got the signed copy back I filed it without further thought, end of story. If it had been any type of forgery then it had to be one that they had made. Chryslers Mr Morcom made no comments on any of the documentary evidence that I had supplied, backing up my claim that I had thought of the Mark back in 1986 and had used it copiously since. That I had owned it and not any of the two companies I ran. BL and BRL.
So when MR King was able to have his say, he stressed all this overwhelming evidence that showed my connection with the Mark and he commented on many of the documents showing this. He showed up their attempts at denigrating me and asked why they had shown not one jot of evidence that they had used the name prior to 1990 or were even at selling such a named vehicle at Jan 1990 or for some time after.
The hearing did not last for that long, say for at the most and hour and a half. I was on tenterhooks for months after as to how it would go, as in such cases in this country you can never tell how some dotty Judge or Magistrate or whoever, is going to see it. One sees so many bizarre judgements that I for one have no faith in British justice, British judiciary or anything else to do with Courts.

This came in March 1998, quicker than I thought it would be. A lot of legal waffle is in it, but what it broke down to was that the Hearing Officer on the evidence shown by me came to the conculson that I had proved prior usage and on the face of it I had the strongest claim to the Mark. So he found for me and Chrysler lost out. Oh how that must have stung those cocky Yanks and their pompous legal farts, that crook of a thief Busbridge must have been spitting bricks. Gone were his chances of geting a big payout.
Talking about payouts those Yanky bastards made an off the day we were to go into the Court, of £5,000 for me to drop my oppositon. My bloody legal bill was for much more than this. Then after the decision they had another go saying that they were still considering doing a deal with me. Of course it was all Yanky bullshit and they never made any deal then or at anytime in the future, as you will see.

No comments: