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

[servetakid]

http://www.ilambretta.co.uk/forum/viewt ... f=9&t=9519

I thought this was worth posting for some balance.

[shocky]

http://www.ilambretta.co.uk/forum/viewt ... f=9&t=9519

I thought this was worth posting for some balance.

Does that mean if the lcgb loose they will have to pay a commission to the bloa for the use of the badge over the last 50 years or just for the sudden resurgence period?

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Nic]

It's probably interesting because no-ones sure of the facts and it's speculation driving the interest.

FACTS
BLOA was a business, a sub-company of Lambretta Concessionaires
The current LCGB club has no legal link to BLOA business, only a historical link.
Current LCGB committee failed to either protect (Trademark) or use commercially the BLOA name/brand for the past few decades
Gavin Frankland resurrected the old name, registered the trademark and has started a Lambretta Club
Current LCGB then started throwing BLOA branded stuff to the print shop quick as they could to try and show commercial use (too little, too late)

I've always found using the word FACT when you're just about to come out with a load of tosh is a bit of a kiss of death in terms of any argument you are putting forward. Especially once you click on the link above....

[bsso78]

A bloke goes to the pictures and a duck comes and sits next to him.
“Excuse me “ he says “but are you a duck?”
“Yes I am” replies his feathered neighbour.
“So what are you doing at the pictures?” he asks.
Duck replies “Well I liked the book...”

[Nic]

<r><QUOTE author="drunkmunkey6969" post_id="302778" time="1517767428" user_id="53"><s>

</s>
<QUOTE author="Nic"><s>

</s><QUOTE author="drunkmunkey6969" post_id="302749" time="1517748687" user_id="53"><s>

</s>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Who approached who?<br/>
<br/>
Perhaps Kev didn’t relish in the prospect of the club spending £thousands and washing its dirty linen in public...and tried to persuade Gavin to part with the name for a fee which would be a lot less than the prospective legal fees, but a sufficient amount to allow Gavin to recover his costs/expenditure to date??<br/>
<br/>
Now IF that was the case...your accusations don’t really seem fair do they.
<e>

</e></QUOTE>

1) What dirty linen? I don't understand the point you are making here.<br/>
<br/>
2) No-one relishes the cost of the club paying thousands of pounds to lawyers. I'd rather it was spent, as the LCGB generally does, to promote active on-the-road scootering. I'm also in favour of holding conversations with Gavin Frankland - <U><s></s>subject to this being with the prior knowledge and approval of the LCGB itself<e></e></U>.<br/>
<br/>
3) What costs has Gavin Frankland incurred? I refer you here: <URL url="https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-tr ... apply</URL>. We are talking a few hundred pounds. If that's all he wants to hand back what is not morally his, he should say so publicly. <br/>
<br/>
But I also have to ask: separate from a few quid, which is neither here or there, should he be rewarded for taking something that he should have known was not his to take?<e>

</e></QUOTE>

I think you missed the point too. Let me explain...

You were suggesting HE was hawking the brand around, trying to sell it back to the LCGB via Kev Walsh, in order to thenpaint the man black. <
<br/>
I was simply posing the question... who approached who? And surmising that the sale/purchase may in fact have been and idea instigated by Kev, and actually of no interest to Gav?<br/>
<br/>
As for costs/reward...I’ve no idea what his costs are/were...and couldn’t give a toss either. But it looks like you’d rather spend (for example) £10k in legals than £1k in purchase fees, for fear the ‘purchase’ may be rewarding to someone you see as dishonourable...
<e>

</e></QUOTE>

Actually, I think you are missing MY point. Allow ME to explain.

I've not said the LCGB wants to spend thousands of pounds on legal fees, quite the contrary. I never made ANY claim about who approached whom in terms of selling/buying the BLOA.

It follows, therefore, that I haven't suggested Gavin Frankland was "hawking the brand about". It doesn't matter to me who it was.

Incidentally, I find your use of the word "brand" to denote the BLOA name to an nterstinge, if predictable, take on the debate. Maybe I'm just too sensitive....

The point I was making was that, based on information helpfully provided by Kev at the AGM, Gavin Frankland was amenable to "selling" us back the BLOA name.

If that is the case, and things may obviously change from day to day, then anyone who decided to back the Frankland "project" in the hope of seeing sticking two fingers up to the LCGB (eh, Timbo? ) would be left high and dry. Still, at least Gavin makes a few quid and that's all that matters, eh?

[mick1]

Out of interest does anyone know who holds the rights to the "Innocenti", "Eibar" and "Serveta" name ?

[drunkmunkey6969]

http://www.ilambretta.co.uk/forum/viewt ... f=9&t=9519

I thought this was worth posting for some balance.

Interestingly...the IPO website shows that the trademark application was made under category 41 (club services). So not sure if a mug or sticker to celebrate a defunct club is covered under that, and as such might not demonstrate a use of the name against the category applied for?

When was the last BLOA club rally or newsletter? That’s what would demonstrate use against a club category...I guess?

[Nic]

YI’m an early member of BLOA since Gavin Franklin promoted the club.

Not sure what you find funny, perhaps you will explain....

Tim, it's quite obvious to anyone who knows you why you have "joined BLOA". You're someone who, to my personal knowledge, has held a personal grudge against the Lambretta Club for at least 10-12 years, possibly longer. I remember you coming to my house in the early Noughties and whinging on about the LCGB even then.

Which is why the real thing that motivates you in this whole BLOA debate is your long-standing, sour hatred of the LCGB.

In the course of your hatred, you've not even tried to engage with the argument I tried to put forward - that morally, the BLOA name is neither Gavin's to take - or yours to "join".

As for you being a judge of character - by your own admission you've neither met nor spoken to Gavin Frankland. Generally, that's considered fairly crucial when it comes to judging someone's character. Not for you, clearly.

Finally, what I find totally contemptible is how you are prepared to put any scootering principle in the bin as long as you can "stick it to" the LCGB. Pathetic.

Is it any surprise that I regard what you say to be laughable?

[drunkmunkey6969]

Out of interest does anyone know who holds the rights to the "Innocenti", "Eibar" and "Serveta" name ?

Don’t tell us you got in there early Mick?

[Nic]

http://www.ilambretta.co.uk/forum/viewt ... f=9&t=9519

I thought this was worth posting for some balance.

Interestingly...the IPO website shows that the trademark application was made under category 41 (club services). So not sure if a mug or sticker to celebrate a defunct club is covered under that, and as such might not demonstrate a use of the name against the category applied for?

When was the last BLOA club rally or newsletter? That’s what would demonstrate use against a club category...I guess?

Are you suggesting that the LCGB, which has always clearly stated that it was born out of BLOA, should have continued to organise occasional rallies in the BLOA name or brought out a magazine called BLOA in order to jump through an IPO hoop 10 or 20 years down the line? I see you are very focussed on the the legal minutiae: why don't you try to engage with the point that Servetakid's actually trying to make, that the LCGB has always linked the BLOA name to its own 65-year history and that for someone to grab it is morally wrong?