LCGB AGM ref BLOA

[Timbo]

“None of your comments had a bearing on the central point that the LCGB has been making, which is that Gavin Frankland, with your support and that of other individuals, has taken something that does not belong to him”

This implies that i/we have helped him please clarify?

If you wish to make clear that you do not support Gavin Frankland taking the BLOA name and its imagery, which was copyrighted by Mike Karslake and assigned by him to the LCGB - then you are more than welcome to do so.

Ignore the question as usual ffs. Your post implies that we all helped him. I think not but this probably doesant help your campaign.

[Doom Patrol]

The letters were sent to all affiliated clubs, certainly all clubs round my way had one anyway.
I think most clubs consulted their members the same way mine did -gauging opinion directly on private FB pages or at meetings face to face.
Some, which are clearly a bit more formal, had a secret ballot.
I'm not sure how a club would deal with a 50/50 decision but suspect that it was dealt with by most as a majority of those who expressed a preference, it, after all works for all other UK elections that way.

If, as reported all affiliated clubs had this opportunity and the vast majority have reported back to the LCGB backing them then this would surely be the vast majority?

If you haven't been consulted then I'd be taking it up with your clubs LCGB contact and they directly with Craig Standeven if they haven't had anything.

Frankly, as the LCGB committee already had the overwhelming backing of the AGM attendees they didn't need to go out to the membership at all, but I'm guessing it was to defuse any later issues with the level of legal fees if the case goes all the way to court.

It would be a majority among those affiliated certainly. But how representative is that when so many don't belong to affiliated clubs? You are only ever going to get one answer that way.

[timexit17]

Well, IMHO the committee were clearly damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they'd carried on regardless then there would be some fair (and some unfair) critique they'd only got the 200 people at the AGMs agreement (even though this is perfectly fine the rest of the time).

I'm not sure what percentage of members aren't in an affiliated club to be fair, but it's certainly a darn sight more 'representative' than just taking the AGM attendees decision.

[Nic]

“None of your comments had a bearing on the central point that the LCGB has been making, which is that Gavin Frankland, with your support and that of other individuals, has taken something that does not belong to him”

This implies that i/we have helped him please clarify?

If you wish to make clear that you do not support Gavin Frankland taking the BLOA name and its imagery, which was copyrighted by Mike Karslake and assigned by him to the LCGB - then you are more than welcome to do so.

Ignore the question as usual ffs. Your post implies that we all helped him. I think not but this probably doesant help your campaign.

Timbo, I was very careful with my words.

[Nudger]

Can you just clarify what you mean by the vast majority? I don't remember being consulted.

Your reply Doom Patrol to my suggestion you go to the AGMs:
To be honest with you I'm not that bothered. I'm not particularly interested in the minutiae of running a club or back slapping awards. I don't compete and don't even do rallies, and sometimes wonder why I'm in it at all. It was just idle curiousity, I suppose.

[GTFOMWSC]

I have another question it is being said quite a few times now that Mike Karslake copyrighted the designs and name if this is correct then how come Gavin was able to obtain it?.Surely if it was actually done and not just verbally given then he couldn't of got it.He could only of got it if it hadn't been,it wouldn't matter if it was a verbal or even written on a piece of paper if it wasn't actually registered it wouldn't of been copyrighted.I'm sure someone has said they actually saw the copyright can that person clarify that it was a copyright certificate.It seems very odd that if it's copyrighted then somebody else can obtain the name and designs.

[GTFOMWSC]

The letters were sent to all affiliated clubs, certainly all clubs round my way had one anyway.
I think most clubs consulted their members the same way mine did -gauging opinion directly on private FB pages or at meetings face to face.
Some, which are clearly a bit more formal, had a secret ballot.
I'm not sure how a club would deal with a 50/50 decision but suspect that it was dealt with by most as a majority of those who expressed a preference, it, after all works for all other UK elections that way.

If, as reported all affiliated clubs had this opportunity and the vast majority have reported back to the LCGB backing them then this would surely be the vast majority?

If you haven't been consulted then I'd be taking it up with your clubs LCGB contact and they directly with Craig Standeven if they haven't had anything.

Frankly, as the LCGB committee already had the overwhelming backing of the AGM attendees they didn't need to go out to the membership at all, but I'm guessing it was to defuse any later issues with the level of legal fees if the case goes all the way to court.

is there a list of affiliated clubs somewhere? be interesting to know how many and who they are.

[timexit17]

This is just my 'take' and I am not a lawyer, although I have some experience in some of the legal aspects herein as a long standing company director.

Gavin has the IPO application for class 44 of the trademark.
This isn't copyrighting per se and doesn't cover the logos at all.
In fact he has attempted to register the lion on a shield logo and not the BLOA logos.

Mike Karslake owned the logos since he designed them -in copyright law the originator always has copyright s/he made and doesn't need to register them.
My expertise is in published works (which may or may not be similar to imagery) this declares a 70 years after death limit before originator copyright expires, so, in fact, it may well be that no application for copyright is even required since it is still the gift of Mikes estate that is in effect.

My understanding is that Gavin has applied for the mark to use the name BLOA, and nothing else.
He has not trademarked or applied for copyright of the BLOA imagery.

The dispute is both on the use of the name and the use of the imagery, one of which is arguable the other of which it is very clear he cannot use.

Just my opinion however, alternative opinions will be available!


List of affiliated clubs? Not sure.
There are 98 currently affiliated however, I know of around 20 personally whom I have friends in.

[GTFOMWSC]

This is just my 'take' and I am not a lawyer, although I have some experience in some of the legal aspects herein as a long standing company director.

Gavin has the IPO application for class 44 of the trademark.
This isn't copyrighting per se and doesn't cover the logos at all.
In fact he has attempted to register the lion on a shield logo and not the BLOA logos.

Mike Karslake owned the logos since he designed them -in copyright law the originator always has copyright s/he made and doesn't need to register them.

My understanding is that Gavin has applied for the mark to use the name BLOA, and nothing else.
He has not trademarked or applied for copyright of the BLOA imagery.

The dispute is both on the use of the name and the use of the imagery, one of which is arguable the other of which it is very clear he cannot use.

Just my opinion however, alternative opinions will be available!


List of affiliated clubs? Not sure.
There are 98 currently affiliated however, I know of around 20 personally whom I have friends in.

thanks

[mick1]

It does seem strange that GF hasn't posted copies of forms/letters that show he is the owner of the BLOA name/design/logo/etc.