Scooterotica

bolzenanker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:39 am There is clear evidence of use of BLOA by LCGB on the other forum, which I know is from 1998 but still has some clout surely:

Just because someone uses a logo, doesn't mean they own the logo. Ever seen Castrol oil logos used on LCGB stuff?

MaDMAn wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:08 pm..............Just because someone uses a logo, doesn't mean they own the logo. Ever seen Castrol oil logos used on LCGB stuff?

I think Castrol would get a bit 'tetchy' if someone tried to use their name and brand for a new oil company, probably not bothered about free advertising on t shirts etc

Yep, fair comment, but even if they don't own the trademark, would there be an implied copyright to the logo and name?

How many of us have company logo's, and do we bother applying for a trademark for them?

Just asking.

bolzenanker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:53 pm Yep, fair comment, but even if they don't own the trademark, would there be an implied copyright to the logo and name?

How many of us have company logo's, and do we bother applying for a trademark for them?

Just asking.

I think that's the bit where you have to prove to a court that you used the logo, which for example might be a set of books, a bank account, a club meeting, a business premises, or headed invoices etc.

I don't think its enough to say, yeah...we were linked to that 50 years ago, but have had no legal ties, or commercial use of it since.

So someone official will be asked if something like this is proof of ownership, and then decide whether the trademark is valid or not?

Yes but as I already mentioned the exact year the club started was 1978, in any legal battle that is the start point. Legally and technically the club is only 40 years old. It's like me saying BLOA was established in 1953 it wasn't, it's 2017.
Copyright must be in use, once it goes out of date it's no longer valid. I have a date on mine and I must re-date it when it expires. Pieces of paper are no good in any legal battle. Approved documents are what is needed. There are no court dates as there has been no breech of anything. I've received 1 maybe 2 letters but nothing worth mentioning.
There is no legal war going on, I've not addressed anything as I have no need to address anything. But if anything else it's brought a spark back into scootering...and my 15 minutes of fame...

Just a quick one about a name change. As mentioned this would be against the ethos of what I am doing. I have members in bloa that never joined the LCGB in the 1960's. For whatever reason. They are over the moon that it is now back. I think just that alone warrants my actions. As this is a hobby and at the end of the day clubs will still function whether you are in or out, so getting emotionally involved is a pointless exercise. Embrace what you have and enjoy for what you like doing.

bolzenanker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:34 pm So someone official will be asked if something like this is proof of ownership, and then decide whether the trademark is valid or not?

If it is valid,Clinton cards will be f@@ked!

Multi page scathing report by the LCGB in this months Jetset, all seems to be going just a little to far now.

Multi page scathing report by the LCGB in this months Jetset, all seems to be going just a little to far now.

I have just read the article and I don't think it is scathing at all. The LCGB Committee is clearly setting out the facts in detail, as they see them. As for it going too far, I suppose it'll go as far as its conclusion, whatever that may be.