LCGB - BLOA - Concessionaires......confusion

General scooter chat, any scooter related non technical info.
User avatar
bolzenanker
registered user
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Main scooter: Spanish S2 Li150 1963
Contact:

nastro azzurro wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:55 pm Trademarks last 10 years from registration and if not renewed are then no longer protected.
Copyright lasts until the death of the person and thereafter for 70 years.
So this hinges on whether it’s contravening trademark or copyright law does it not?
I don’t know as I’am not an expert but there are many legal experts that specialise in this field and I’m sure the concerned parties will engage legal experts that actually specialise in the law regarding this.
Anyway I’ve applied to join BLOA as I like the cut of their jib!
I've already joined Gav, I'm all in, it's just this name thing that's putting me off a bit.
Gav BLOA
registered user
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:39 pm
Main scooter: lambretta
Contact:

Righty O, back again. Just a quick note from Gavin. "There is no case, IPO Cancellation no OP000408980 removes section 5(1), 5(2)(a)and (b) and 5 (3) which in our terms is any trademark or copyright grounds. The LCGB knew this on the 11th January 2018 and still went ahead at the AGM and put into print in the current issue of Jetset a right load of twoddle. We are going to do this and that...impossible. The case is closed. The only thing still going on is section 3 (3)(a) and (B), this section isn't in hard print but in pen. It basically says, how can an individual take up a name and use it and deceive people .That's it...... I recently got sent a letter from the IPO stating that someone wanted to use the wording Lambretta in there products, because I am recognized with the IPO they made contact with me to see if I wanted to oppose it, which of course I didn't. Also noted is on the 22nd February Ebay cancelled all of the BLOA items for sale by the LCGB on ebay as it was an infringement of copyright. For them to act on this you must supply evidence for your claim, that I did and that was the result. It does seem strange that people that was around in 1978 have joined BLOA, 100% behind it. This club has nothing to do with the LCGB, different style of club, run by the club. When you start to dig deeper you start to find out what actually happened, not what people who have recently joined the scene think or thought they knew. We are talking 30 years +Lambretta ownership. I deal in facts not fiction. 1978 is the key here. I have no issues with the LCGB, no need to. We as a club are quite happy doing our own thing in a way we all like, we all speak for ourselves on any issues. If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is, Bonjour "
mick1
registered user
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:43 pm
Main scooter: Li Avanti 225
Location: York
Contact:

Just a pity BLOA is Facebook orientated.......can't get me head round Facebook. Would be interested to know more about BLOA and it's events , pity there's no web page.
Arcadia
registered user
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:53 am
Contact:

mick1 wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:29 am Just a pity BLOA is Facebook orientated.......can't get me head round Facebook. Would be interested to know more about BLOA and it's events , pity there's no web page.
There is a web page: www.bloa.co.uk

:)
User avatar
bolzenanker
registered user
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Main scooter: Spanish S2 Li150 1963
Contact:

Gav BLOA wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:20 pm Righty O, back again. Just a quick note from Gavin. "There is no case, IPO Cancellation no OP000408980 removes section 5(1), 5(2)(a)and (b) and 5 (3) which in our terms is any trademark or copyright grounds. The LCGB knew this on the 11th January 2018 and still went ahead at the AGM and put into print in the current issue of Jetset a right load of twoddle. We are going to do this and that...impossible. The case is closed. The only thing still going on is section 3 (3)(a) and (B), this section isn't in hard print but in pen. It basically says, how can an individual take up a name and use it and deceive people .That's it...... I recently got sent a letter from the IPO stating that someone wanted to use the wording Lambretta in there products, because I am recognized with the IPO they made contact with me to see if I wanted to oppose it, which of course I didn't. Also noted is on the 22nd February Ebay cancelled all of the BLOA items for sale by the LCGB on ebay as it was an infringement of copyright. For them to act on this you must supply evidence for your claim, that I did and that was the result. It does seem strange that people that was around in 1978 have joined BLOA, 100% behind it. This club has nothing to do with the LCGB, different style of club, run by the club. When you start to dig deeper you start to find out what actually happened, not what people who have recently joined the scene think or thought they knew. We are talking 30 years +Lambretta ownership. I deal in facts not fiction. 1978 is the key here. I have no issues with the LCGB, no need to. We as a club are quite happy doing our own thing in a way we all like, we all speak for ourselves on any issues. If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is, Bonjour "
Ebay still have listings from Cambridge Lambretta and Scooter Products, are you going to ask them to remove them too, or just the LCGB listings? You say you've got no issue with the LCGB, but am I reading it right, you supplied evidence to eBay to support your claim they had infinged your copyright?

I'm getting really confused now. :)
servetakid
registered user
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:06 pm
Main scooter: Jet 200
Contact:

Gav BLOA wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:20 pm Righty O, back again. Just a quick note from Gavin. "There is no case, IPO Cancellation no OP000408980 removes section 5(1), 5(2)(a)and (b) and 5 (3) which in our terms is any trademark or copyright grounds. The LCGB knew this on the 11th January 2018 and still went ahead at the AGM and put into print in the current issue of Jetset a right load of twoddle. We are going to do this and that...impossible. The case is closed. The only thing still going on is section 3 (3)(a) and (B), this section isn't in hard print but in pen. It basically says, how can an individual take up a name and use it and deceive people .That's it...... I recently got sent a letter from the IPO stating that someone wanted to use the wording Lambretta in there products, because I am recognized with the IPO they made contact with me to see if I wanted to oppose it, which of course I didn't. Also noted is on the 22nd February Ebay cancelled all of the BLOA items for sale by the LCGB on ebay as it was an infringement of copyright. For them to act on this you must supply evidence for your claim, that I did and that was the result. It does seem strange that people that was around in 1978 have joined BLOA, 100% behind it. This club has nothing to do with the LCGB, different style of club, run by the club. When you start to dig deeper you start to find out what actually happened, not what people who have recently joined the scene think or thought they knew. We are talking 30 years +Lambretta ownership. I deal in facts not fiction. 1978 is the key here. I have no issues with the LCGB, no need to. We as a club are quite happy doing our own thing in a way we all like, we all speak for ourselves on any issues. If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is, Bonjour "
Always seem to write a lot without saying very much :roll:
And why is your own conjecture taken as fact? But anything to contrary it's just dismissed... "If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is". Lots of talk of 30 years this and 30 years that, from 1978 ya know... Pretty much everyone at the AGM 100% backed the committee and I'd hardly class those people as 'new to the scene'...

Anyway officially your trademark application is opposed, so not really how you are trying to present it.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcas ... 0003203938
User avatar
Doom Patrol
registered user
Posts: 1823
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:03 pm
Main scooter: Jet 200
Location: Second star on the right and straight on till morning
Contact:

servetakid wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:00 pm
Gav BLOA wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:20 pm Righty O, back again. Just a quick note from Gavin. "There is no case, IPO Cancellation no OP000408980 removes section 5(1), 5(2)(a)and (b) and 5 (3) which in our terms is any trademark or copyright grounds. The LCGB knew this on the 11th January 2018 and still went ahead at the AGM and put into print in the current issue of Jetset a right load of twoddle. We are going to do this and that...impossible. The case is closed. The only thing still going on is section 3 (3)(a) and (B), this section isn't in hard print but in pen. It basically says, how can an individual take up a name and use it and deceive people .That's it...... I recently got sent a letter from the IPO stating that someone wanted to use the wording Lambretta in there products, because I am recognized with the IPO they made contact with me to see if I wanted to oppose it, which of course I didn't. Also noted is on the 22nd February Ebay cancelled all of the BLOA items for sale by the LCGB on ebay as it was an infringement of copyright. For them to act on this you must supply evidence for your claim, that I did and that was the result. It does seem strange that people that was around in 1978 have joined BLOA, 100% behind it. This club has nothing to do with the LCGB, different style of club, run by the club. When you start to dig deeper you start to find out what actually happened, not what people who have recently joined the scene think or thought they knew. We are talking 30 years +Lambretta ownership. I deal in facts not fiction. 1978 is the key here. I have no issues with the LCGB, no need to. We as a club are quite happy doing our own thing in a way we all like, we all speak for ourselves on any issues. If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is, Bonjour "
Always seem to write a lot without saying very much :roll:
And why is your own conjecture taken as fact? But anything to contrary it's just dismissed... "If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is". Lots of talk of 30 years this and 30 years that, from 1978 ya know... Pretty much everyone at the AGM 100% backed the committee and I'd hardly class those people as 'new to the scene'...

Anyway officially your trademark application is opposed, so not really how you are trying to present it.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcas ... 0003203938
Is it conjecture? Just seemed like a statement as he understood it. And, it's hardly surprising that all those at the AGM backed it is it? They would be hardcore supporters. Perhaps they should make more of an effort to incorporate some new blood? And of course his application is opposed. That's the LCGB isn't it?
User avatar
coaster
registered user
Posts: 3125
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:35 pm
Location: London and Norfolk
Contact:

Doom Patrol wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 pm Is it conjecture? Just seemed like a statement as he understood it. And, it's hardly surprising that all those at the AGM backed it is it? They would be hardcore supporters. Perhaps they should make more of an effort to incorporate some new blood? And of course his application is opposed. That's the LCGB isn't it?
It was my first AGM since re-joining in 2004 so I wouldn't regard myself as a 'hardcore supporter'. I listened to the case put forward by the committee and also members in the audience and had no problem at all in supporting the actions being taken by the LCGB. No one in their position could do anything else. I don't know if Gavin Frankland's claim is valid legally or not but regardless, he has clearly been very devious in taking advantage of what he sees as an opportunity to grab something for himself which he knows full well is considered to be owned by the LCGB. That is not an honourable way of conducting yourself in my view. He is perfectly entitled to start his own Lambretta club, no issue with that whatsoever, I might even have considered joining myself (as well as the LCGB) but won't be doing that now.

I'm also rather confused as to what exactly the LCGB has done to make people take against them? I see nothing but good tbh.
servetakid
registered user
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:06 pm
Main scooter: Jet 200
Contact:

Doom Patrol wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 pm
servetakid wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:00 pm
Gav BLOA wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:20 pm Righty O, back again. Just a quick note from Gavin. "There is no case, IPO Cancellation no OP000408980 removes section 5(1), 5(2)(a)and (b) and 5 (3) which in our terms is any trademark or copyright grounds. The LCGB knew this on the 11th January 2018 and still went ahead at the AGM and put into print in the current issue of Jetset a right load of twoddle. We are going to do this and that...impossible. The case is closed. The only thing still going on is section 3 (3)(a) and (B), this section isn't in hard print but in pen. It basically says, how can an individual take up a name and use it and deceive people .That's it...... I recently got sent a letter from the IPO stating that someone wanted to use the wording Lambretta in there products, because I am recognized with the IPO they made contact with me to see if I wanted to oppose it, which of course I didn't. Also noted is on the 22nd February Ebay cancelled all of the BLOA items for sale by the LCGB on ebay as it was an infringement of copyright. For them to act on this you must supply evidence for your claim, that I did and that was the result. It does seem strange that people that was around in 1978 have joined BLOA, 100% behind it. This club has nothing to do with the LCGB, different style of club, run by the club. When you start to dig deeper you start to find out what actually happened, not what people who have recently joined the scene think or thought they knew. We are talking 30 years +Lambretta ownership. I deal in facts not fiction. 1978 is the key here. I have no issues with the LCGB, no need to. We as a club are quite happy doing our own thing in a way we all like, we all speak for ourselves on any issues. If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is, Bonjour "
Always seem to write a lot without saying very much :roll:
And why is your own conjecture taken as fact? But anything to contrary it's just dismissed... "If people can't see fact from fiction that isn't really our fault, sorry but that's how it is". Lots of talk of 30 years this and 30 years that, from 1978 ya know... Pretty much everyone at the AGM 100% backed the committee and I'd hardly class those people as 'new to the scene'...

Anyway officially your trademark application is opposed, so not really how you are trying to present it.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcas ... 0003203938
Is it conjecture? Just seemed like a statement as he understood it. And, it's hardly surprising that all those at the AGM backed it is it? They would be hardcore supporters. Perhaps they should make more of an effort to incorporate some new blood? And of course his application is opposed. That's the LCGB isn't it?
Every argument put forward is just ignored or dismissed as twoddle. I'd class your argument being based upon "It does seem strange that people that was around in 1978 have joined BLOA, 100% behind it.". That to me is a huge amount of twoddle... So why is x person who was around in 1978 opinion more valuable than x persons who was around in 1978 and happens to support the LCGB? And from what I could see at the AGM there are far more of them then the detractors on here, but again that doesn't suit various peoples agenda and is therefore brushed over.

At least we all got to have vote and a say at the AGM, does this new club allow for that?

Also, he is trying to present it as a closed case and that he solely 'owns' the name. He doesn't, the registration is being opposed, so not a closed case.
a.j
registered user
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:36 pm
Contact:

coaster wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:25 pmI don't know if Gavin Frankland's claim is valid legally or not but regardless, he has clearly been very devious in taking advantage of what he sees as an opportunity to grab something for himself
That's my only issue, it's like I said before. This whole thing reminds me of somebody outside (insert football club name) making a few quid selling unofficial half & half scarves, earning off the name & history of a lot of others efforts.
I'm also rather confused as to what exactly the LCGB has done to make people take against them? I see nothing but good tbh.
Agreed.

As an aside, can someone give me a brief explanation why Kev Walsh was supposed to be treated badly by the current LCGB committee?
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests