Whilst I wait for the snail IPO to come up with a decision on a decision, if they ever do, a thought crossed my mind.
The brainless Hearing Officer, Reynolds, at my opposition to Busbridge registering the Mark said I had lost the rights to the Mark by not keeping control of the advertising of same. (at around 1991) Now even if he was right about that, and you have read my thoughts on that, I feel some questions aught to be asked:-
1/ Why did he not recommend that my own registration be squashed?
2/ If that was the case why did the IPO in 2002 allow me registration?
3/ If that were the case why did Chryslers expensive and learned lawyers who knew what my trading history had been,(don't forget their hearing was held in 1998, well after 1991, and who had Busbridge advising them on everything that he and I were doing trade wise) not apply for my registration to be declared Invalid?
4/ If that were the case why did the IPO allow Busbridge to have registration, thus create
a situation where two individuals having the very same Mark for the very same category, and products? Which I beleive is in contravention of their own laws?
It is all another example of the baffling and inconsistent way the IPO work.
The brainless Hearing Officer, Reynolds, at my opposition to Busbridge registering the Mark said I had lost the rights to the Mark by not keeping control of the advertising of same. (at around 1991) Now even if he was right about that, and you have read my thoughts on that, I feel some questions aught to be asked:-
1/ Why did he not recommend that my own registration be squashed?
2/ If that was the case why did the IPO in 2002 allow me registration?
3/ If that were the case why did Chryslers expensive and learned lawyers who knew what my trading history had been,(don't forget their hearing was held in 1998, well after 1991, and who had Busbridge advising them on everything that he and I were doing trade wise) not apply for my registration to be declared Invalid?
4/ If that were the case why did the IPO allow Busbridge to have registration, thus create
a situation where two individuals having the very same Mark for the very same category, and products? Which I beleive is in contravention of their own laws?
It is all another example of the baffling and inconsistent way the IPO work.
No comments:
Post a Comment