Name change- British Lambretta Owners Association Club

General scooter chat, any scooter related non technical info.
eden
Dealer
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:44 pm
Location: ILCLAND
Contact:

I'll be the judge of that Thank you very much.
Don't presume you know where I stand on the bloa v LCGB fiasco.
It's a good thing that this episode has bought to light how the LCGB committee and their minions like yourself conduct their selves though.
I've said numerous times before that I don't consider the lcgb to be the current committee. The club is much bigger and more important than a bunch of people currently calling the shots. It's a shame peope like you Nic don't feel the same way, instead preferring to continue with the old boys club attitude.
It's also funny that you have been so vocal over the last few weeks considering you have been far from an active member over the last few years.
However that brings what different people consider the description of an active member into question.
timexit17
registered user
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:01 pm
Main scooter: GP 225 Extra S type
Contact:

FWIW Eden one can only be as active as their own life allows them to be.

Nic cares passionately about the LCGB & that is self evident, as do I, neither of us have anything to prove with our tachometers or rally patches/badges and I wouldn't presume to point the same sort of accusation at the persons behind BLOC or anyone else despite only recognising some of the names very vaguely if at all and frankly it bears no relevance.
I respect those who do every event on the calendar and sometimes wish I could do the same, but it doesn't make me think my opinion is less worthy than theirs either.

As for your opinion on how the LCGB committee have acted I am sure we'll find out in the fullness of time what their membership think, my opinion is quite a bit different.
I don't think the LCGB have not made mistakes or have not grasped opportunities by compromising where they could have, however I am not totally blinkered either by a dislike of a few people blinding me to the real cause of this entire debacle/fiasco/call it what you will.

The real issue is someone coming along and taking something that wasn't up for grabs and then also taking imagery/logos belonging to someone else.
If that hadn't happened then the entire 'I don't like the LCGB committee' issue would be simply that and less than 2 dozen people in the entire world would give a shiny s**t about it.

Is the 'stabbed burglar' herein seriously making a song & dance about being the victim?
Nic
registered user
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:51 am
Location: New Forest, Hampshire
Contact:

eden wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:01 am I'll be the judge of that Thank you very much.
Don't presume you know where I stand on the bloa v LCGB fiasco.
It's a good thing that this episode has bought to light how the LCGB committee and their minions like yourself conduct their selves though.
I've said numerous times before that I don't consider the lcgb to be the current committee. The club is much bigger and more important than a bunch of people currently calling the shots. It's a shame peope like you Nic don't feel the same way, instead preferring to continue with the old boys club attitude.
It's also funny that you have been so vocal over the last few weeks considering you have been far from an active member over the last few years.
However that brings what different people consider the description of an active member into question.
Although you have no idea what individual LCGB members do behind the scene to support their club, in general you are right, I've not been as active as I would have liked to be. You are also right that "it brings into question etc etc..." I have my own ideas about that but they might not be yours, or someone else's.

As for the committee, I also agree that the LCGB is far, far more than the committee. Although you probably won't agree, everyone on the committee understands that fact also.

But it's worth noting that some individuals who have also had sometimes serious disagreements with the committee have nonetheless stated clearly and openly that they feel the LCGB has the absolute right to the BLOA name and imagery which GF has seen fit to take from us and make use of.

On the BLOA/LCGB "fiasco": that was not of the LCGB's making. The LCGB has responded to a provocation will continue to do what it feels is necessary to reverse the situation it finds itself in.

Lastly, I'm not telling you what to do next. You are totally in charge.
Lamaddict
registered user
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:35 pm
Contact:

Glad I have a day job to take my mind off Scootering. Lots if seriousness here but it’s only a damn hobby. Good luck to Gav with his new club, why not. Same to the LCGB, maybe not perfect but what is.
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:

timexit17 wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:20 amThe real issue is someone coming along and taking something that wasn't up for grabs and then also taking imagery/logos belonging to someone else.
Hang on a minute. Let's not confuse moral issues with legal ones. Whatever he purchased, trade marked, or whatever must have been given to him on a legal basis. Obviously the LCGB is challenging that, and that is their prerogative, but as I'm sure has been previously stated it is on the grounds of intellectual copyright, or else the situation could not have arisen and names / logos, could not been purchased. Strongly implying that someone is a thief is a different matter, when it would appear the club has been caught with its trousers down.
User avatar
bolzenanker
registered user
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Main scooter: Spanish S2 Li150 1963
Contact:

Doom Patrol wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:30 pmWhatever he purchased, trade marked, or whatever must have been given to him on a legal basis.
Or he just copied it.
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:

bolzenanker wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:45 pm
Doom Patrol wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:30 pmWhatever he purchased, trade marked, or whatever must have been given to him on a legal basis.
Or he just copied it.
He may have, but aren't there legal documents, or at least some transaction recorded with the relevant authorities?
timexit17
registered user
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:01 pm
Main scooter: GP 225 Extra S type
Contact:

He applied for a trademark on the name and the name alone.
He then went ahead and copied images and logos which weren't his to use without permission or even checking these were not legally owned by anyone else.

The first is disputed legally.
The second has been accepted by all parties to the dispute.

Lots of statements were made about having 'bought BLOA fair & square' which was laughable, since nothing had been bought at all from anyone who was legally allowed to sell it, and various items brought up as 'facts' when they were quite the reverse.
User avatar
bolzenanker
registered user
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Main scooter: Spanish S2 Li150 1963
Contact:

Yep, the trademark is 'opposed', the copyright paperwork in my mind is worthless.

The 'BLOA' club name has now been changed a little and shall we say the 'borrowed' images have taken a back seat probably not to be used again by anyone other than the LCGB.

That says to me, the LCGB must have a really good case, and GF is backing down.

We shall see, I read that legal action is about to begin, popcorn ordered.
servetakid
registered user
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:06 pm
Main scooter: Jet 200
Contact:

Things do not have to be registered to legally own them.
I'm sure enough people on here own a scooter without it being legally registered in their name.

I have a scooter I am currently collecting parts on, if someone just wheeled that out of my garage because it didn't look like I was doing very much with it that wouldn't wash with many people on here. So why should imagery (which is owned and signed away by the creator) be fair game just because it wasn't registered?

What I don't understand is although Gavin is making the positive step to move away from the BLOA name he is still making comments like this:
"No Frank, deffently not backed down from the LCGB as I legally own it. Changed it to keep the harmony within the lambretta family."
So why change the name but refuse to back down? Surely this is just making the whole affair very protracted as leave the club no choice but to continue with the current course.

Just change the name, drop the claim and let dust settle so there can at least be a chance of 'harmony within the Lambretta family'.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests