Corrupt Police & IPO-how they aided a crook. 70.

For those who haven't read all of this blog, IPO stands for Intellectual Property Office, which is a thoroughly corrupt British government department that robbed me of my Intellectual Property. It was what they did over a 10 year period that prompted me to start this blog. Their last act of sheer corruptness ended in 2010. All their corrupt acts over that 10 year period are listed in this blog and in the book I wrote about it all, which can be downloaded off this page.

So why do I bring this up again. Well over this holiday period I had much time on my hands, so decided to sort out all my boxes of files to do with those unsavoury 10 years. Get rid of files that no longer needed to be kept and sort out all the IPO files in date order etc. Of course I re-read some of them whilst doing this and it reminded me of just how ILLEGAL all those acts were and how the bastards got away with it.

In 2004 the first of SIX CORRUPT and ILLEGAL acts were committed. This was a hearing that my ex car agent brought about to make my legally gained Trade Mark registration of 'Viper' invalid. The Hearing Officer Reynolds ( a Judge or equivalent of) who works for the IPO and hears the arguments for and against, was so biased for my ex agent, it was untrue. It was very blatant and he decreed that my ex agent should also have registration of MY MARK. This despite not being shown any evidence that he had used that name BEFORE I had. I was accused of abandoning it even though I provided heaps of evidence that I had not and had continued without any break....all of course ignored by Reynolds. In fact my ex agent only ever used it  to describe or advertise MY PRODUCT as you would expect as my agent and then that started some two years after I had started my business and had begun using my mark. After being an agent for 3.5 years he then decided to steal it so he could say to Chrysler that he would sell it to them.  He had hoped to get £1/2M off them for it. He was thwarted by my fighting him for those 10 years as by then they'd lost interest, but in the early days they egged him by saying that if he got rid of me they would be interested. Typical Yank company !!

The worst was to come for I brought up the fact that evidence had been put into the hearing that was patently illegal. That was looked at after the hearing by another hearing officer (Landau) who found that my ex agent had no right to the mark. He was allowed to appeal this and at that hearing, I was kept out of it and that was a travesty of justice in itself, but what happened behind my back at that hearing was a blatant case of corruption and illegality that you couldn't make up, let alone believe the IPO would have the brass to commit. For their own law department boss (James) plus the Judge (Hobbs QC) both conspired to GIVE BUSBRIDGE MY EX AGENT ADVICE AND HELP AS TO HOW HE COULD CIRCUMVENT THE DECISION THAT HAD WRECKED HIS ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL ACTS OF THEFT FROM ME, AND NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO CONDUCT THAT HEARING AS AN APPEAL HEARING. HE SHOULD HAVE MADE LEGAL ARGUMENTS AS TO HOW THE DECISION HE WAS APPEALING WAS WRONG. IN FACT HE HARDLY SAID A WORD. IT WAS ALL SPEECH BY HOBBS GIVING (ILLEGALLY) ADVICE.

Reading all that again sent me into another bout of my being 'RAGING MAD' (Hence the name of this blog) For despite my reporting that Judge to all the British Legal departments that one has to use in this corrupt country, they all protected that Judge. I even wrote to Ken Clarke (that utterly useless buffoon of a Tory Dickhead who I'd love to stick my fist into his stupid face every time he gets onto TV to spout his claptrap comments) and of course he did nothing. I also made a formal complaint to the CEO of the IPO and guess what.....ANOTHER WHITEWASH.

After this, Busbridge just carried out all the advice he'd corruptly and illegally been give by this Hobbs and James criminals and eventually in 2010 he was awarded my Trade Mark and it was taken off me, as if 'I had never owned it' Don't forget I had previously fought Chrysler and they had used Busbridge as their one and only witness. Yet with all their money and top legal help, they lost as I had proved beyond doubt that I was first to use it in the UK. So how was the IPO able to just take it off me with that statement 'As if I had never owned it' HOW CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL CAN YOU GET ???? Of course if I was rich, I could have taken it all away from those corrupt bastards in the IPO and to the High Court where maybe one could expect to get REAL INDEPENDENT JUDGES  TO SEE ALL THE ILLEGAL GOINGS ON, PREVIOUSLY.

Why do I keep all these files and evidence? Well the criminal acts committed by the IPO and my ex agent BUSBRIDGE ( who still carries on making and selling the car I designed and gave the mark of VIPER to) will never die with time. If I ever win the lottery or somehow be able to fund a legal challenge to all the above facts, then I will need those files etc. So they and the IPO should all pray every night that I never get to be able to do this, for if I do, the IPO will owe me a great deal of compensation for ruining my life and HOBBS, JAMES and BUSBRIDGE could end put with a criminal record.

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. 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. 38.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrupt Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 35.

Since my last post after the hearing of the 28th Jan 2010, we are here three months later and still no decision given. Are the IPO scrabbling around trying to think of how they can squirm out of the predicament they have got themselves into??? I mean they have spent the time since 1992 listening to a serial perjurer lying to them ad nauseum and now his lies have been blown and they have been put into the position that they simply have to do something about the perjury.

However of course to do so means they will be admitting that they are dysfunctional, incompetent and have given succour to a criminal and have walked all over a legitimate owner of a trade mark and have ruined that persons life and health, in doing so. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH CIVIL SERVANTS JUST HATE TO HAVE TO ADMIT THEY ARE INCOMPETENT. Are they scrabbling around trying to work out just how they can get out of the hole they have dug themselves into, hence they delays? Their own guidelines say that a decision should come within 4-6 weeks and here we are at twice that time. My solicitor rang them a month ago asking what was going on, to get the answer that they were just starting to put together their decision, so what were they doing for two months after the hearing?? My guess is that they are having problems working out how to give an honest decision and deal with the serial perjury committed by this criminal who has run rings round them. In the meantime he happily is trading on with his copy of my product and using my trade mark, as if nothing has ever happened and he has committed no crimes. On the subject of crimes I have heard that in 1991/2 he did indeed commit crimes which I am trying to find a way of being able to bring to the attention of 'our simply wonderful Police' ??
I just wonder what their answer is going to be, but if it is another one of their whitewashes, they will have another fight on their hands as I do not intend to let them get away with their 19 years of sheer incompetence -to my detriment. I will fight them until my death if necessary as I have never been willing to put up with the ruling classes of this rotten country. They walk all over the ordinary folk, all the time and I am just one of hundreds of thousands who have suffered at their hands. Look at how the bastards treat our armed forces when they have suffered dreadful injuries and that is only one example.
SO KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE AS WE MAY GET A DECISION SOON AND THEN IT IS ONTO THE AFTERMATH OF THAT, AS IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL I GET REAL JUSTICE!!!


Their own guidelines state that decisions should be forthcoming within 4-6 weeks and here we are at a point of time that is TWICE THAT LENGTH OF TIME. My solicitor even asked them a month ago what was happeneing and was told that the decision making was about to be started and we should get the decision in April. SO WHERE IS IS IT?? JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED AND ALL THAT. However the IPO are not interested in justice and I just wonder where it will all go. If justice is not forthcoming they are going to have a real fight on their hands as I am not going to cave into the bastards. I will die first before I do that, so we will see and if it does not come this month then the fight will start

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.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 27.

I have now put in my official complaint letters both to the TSol over the hearing in front of Hobbs QC and to the CEO of the IPO whoever that is these days. I have sent copies to my MP, for what that is worth??

Information has come to light which could blow this case wide open, and I am just waiting for the right time to release that. It will be interesting to see what the IPO then have to say for themselves. Watch this space.  

Had I realised back at the Reynolds hearing back in 2004 that if I had used the trial transcript
to show that Busbridge was perjuring himself, I may have been able to get those oafs, the IPO to see that Busbridge's evidence was flawed and not reliable. However this just shows that when people like me who cannot afford to use expensive IP lawyers, we end up not getting justice thanks to the way the IPO runs itself and it's stupid laws and rules.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 26.

Since my last post re the IPO, I had emailed them again and got a reply from the boss of the Tribunal section a Mr Allan James to the effect that I had been answered....go away. So I decided to reread the transcript of the appeal Busbridge made before Hobbs QC, back in 2006, against the Landau decision that he should lose the registration. Something was nagging me about all that was said and it was a pretty long winded document of 40+ pages.

The fact that nothing one since that appeal was dropped and the Landau decision was never thus carried out has rankled me and enraged me. On reading it again it suddenly came to me what was going on here. Why the IPO simply refused to answer me, they were deeply involved in a sham of an appeal hearing. It wasn't an appeal hearing at all as I've said, but a cosy get together between the IPO in a MR James, Oh yes, the very same bastard who was refusing to reply to my pertinent questions, and it was becoming very clear why.

You see if you read this document and all the waffle in it between James and Hobbs ( who by the way is very heavily involved in the IPO and therefore NOT INDEPENDENT AND IN ANY CASE WHY WAS HE AT THAT HEARING?? )  For he represented the IPO and Busbridge was supposed to be appealing an IPO decision (Landau's) Yet here he was in this hearing and discussing with Hobbs how Busbridge can circumvent the Landau decision by taking certain steps including dropping this appeal. THIS ALL TELLS YOU JUST HOW CORRUPT THE IPO ARE. They said that if he did that ,he would be able to get the registration in his own name and hey presto.
The IPO as you know from my past posts, then spent over a year telling me and my MP lies as to why they could not tell me what was happening re this Hobbs decision, when all the time they knew full well, as they were present (through James) and knew what they had set in train and giving Busbridge time to try and find his brother to try and get him to sign over his half of the business, so he could then go to the IPO and say 'well now I do own all the business, register it' Fait accompli!!
So now I had to complain to the CEO of the IPO and I also as you know have my MP on a warning basis. I compiled a 5 page letter to the CEO and also a 5 page complaint to the Treasury Solicitor as they run these appointed persons QC's. If I can copy them onto this blog I will do so, so all can see what I have said and get a fuller grasp of the story of how the IPO and the QC have stitched me up.
I have no faith that the CEO will do anything going on past complaints to past CEO's, (they change their CEO's as fast as the rotten politicians change their Ministers. So then it will be down to making yet another complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and we all know how useless they are. My MP has just got to get involved and do some pushing, but how can you have any faith in that useless lot. All they are interested I is filling their pockets. I have never got any help at any time from any of them. Truly the man in the street is treated like shit in this country, only the crooks and immigrants get anywhere.

Intellectual Property Office-How they aided a crook. 25.

Since my last post several things have happened. I have set out an official complaint to the CEO of the IPO re the behaviour of their Tribunal/Law Sections. Namely a Mr Roaul Colombo and a Mr Allan James ( the head) If you have read all of my posts you may remember that back in 2005 I won in a hearing held by a Mr Landau when he said that Busbridge should not be allowed to continue with the registration of the trade mark Viper. He appealed that before an Appointed Person a MR Hobbs QC. Held in March 2006.

You will see that I was excluded from that hearing and I had great trouble getting the IPO to tell me what was going on after it had been heard and what was the decision. I could see that something was going on. Both I and my MP were pissed around and lied to by these two characters above. It took a YEAR before I found out that Busbridge had dropped the appeal and had moved onto other ways of getting his wicked way. I did not even know what had been said at this hearing.

Well the first thing you will have seen Busbridge did was to apply to Rectify the Register, that's in an earlier post. I lost that one too, and I then appealed it. Before that appeal on a chance, I asked the IPO for transcript to see what had been said in the Hobbs appeal. I couldn't believe it to be sent one and I think some unknowing civil servant sent it by mistake. What I read made my blood boil.

So I had been asking the Tribunal section as to why the Landau decision was never enacted. No matter what I said over many months I just kept getting the run round. Them acting dumb and giving me so called answers that were not answers at all. I knew they were up to no good. So I have just reread this transcript and I can now see the wood for the trees, and it has come to me.

These bastards in the IPO deliberately decided that although there were no compelling legal reasons why any appeal hearing person could overturn Landau, the IPO certainly did not want that to happen, because that would mean I would win at last. Why don't they want me to win???????

It is now clear to me that even though Busbridge had no legal right to an appeal against the Landau decision, they would give him the appeal. They would illegally keep me out of the Hobbs hearing so they could do in the hearing, whatever they wanted even tho' it had been dropped. SO THE ALLEGED APPEAL HEARING TURNED INTO A MASSIVE 'FREE' LEGAL ADVICE SESSION TO GET BUSBRIDGE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY NOW TOLD HIM TO DO AND WITH THE HELP OF THE IPO. IT IS ALL THERE TO BE SEEN IN THAT TRANSCRIPT. Then keep me waiting for well over a year and a half for the decision (if there was one) and that would give Busbridge the time to carry out their advice to find his brother etc, etc. Then also get him to drop the appeal whilst he was in it and that would get the IPO off the hook to make a decision on an appeal, that should never have been allowed in the first place....TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION THE IPO HAVE NO COMPETITORS- EXCEPT NOW WE KNOW THAT THE POST OFFICE IS ON A PAR WITH THEM. They could hold me off for as long as it was necessary by claiming it was out of their hands and up to the Appointed person (HOBBS) and he could take his time. Then they could make up whatever excuses they liked to enable Busbridge to carry out with the help of the IPO, to go through more applications that they advised him to do, in order to complete their plan to wrest away from me the Viper T/M.

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.