Re: LCGB - BLOA - Concessionaires......confusion
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:29 am
IMHO I'm afraid neither party are going to come out of this shining white, although I hope that statements deliberately thrown in to muddy the issue and appear to attempt to smear certain parties cease pretty quickly as they will come back to bite those making them on the arse, scootering is a small community and sh177ing on your own doorstep isn't clever.
Look back through this thread at the number of 'statements' made, that when questioned, sometimes repeatedly, have not been substantiated one iota, or those that were hurriedly removed/edited (Yes, I noticed).
Answering points made/questions asked selectively is pretty obviously done deliberately when you see it after 12 pages, although I'll generously pass that over as not wanting to get into an argument perhaps?
We are all supposedly scooterists, the 2 groups are Lambretta enthusiasts, whether you agree with them or not, suspect their motives or disagree with the way they treat their members or govern their organisations.
It is no surprise that a section 5 appeal failed since it is, in effect, a 'strict liability' decision.
i.e. party A has a trademark that party B are attempting to register.
Therefore because party A don't have a trademark, there is no offence and therefore no legal grounds for an appeal to be upheld.
Take a look at the IPO site -there are literally hundreds of similar 'holes' where trademarks should be -'Lambretta Concessionaires' anyone?
A section 3 maybe more difficult to argue, although it's equally difficult to defend, hopefully the (quite obviously laughably exaggerated by certain parties) legal fees paid by the LCGB for advice contained advice to the LCGB committee that the first stage was likely to be a section 5 refusal for the reasons I've stated above.
I don't think it would be too difficult to get at least some sort of statement of intent from the committee at the AGM and I hope it's forthcoming.
Look back through this thread at the number of 'statements' made, that when questioned, sometimes repeatedly, have not been substantiated one iota, or those that were hurriedly removed/edited (Yes, I noticed).
Answering points made/questions asked selectively is pretty obviously done deliberately when you see it after 12 pages, although I'll generously pass that over as not wanting to get into an argument perhaps?
We are all supposedly scooterists, the 2 groups are Lambretta enthusiasts, whether you agree with them or not, suspect their motives or disagree with the way they treat their members or govern their organisations.
It is no surprise that a section 5 appeal failed since it is, in effect, a 'strict liability' decision.
i.e. party A has a trademark that party B are attempting to register.
Therefore because party A don't have a trademark, there is no offence and therefore no legal grounds for an appeal to be upheld.
Take a look at the IPO site -there are literally hundreds of similar 'holes' where trademarks should be -'Lambretta Concessionaires' anyone?
A section 3 maybe more difficult to argue, although it's equally difficult to defend, hopefully the (quite obviously laughably exaggerated by certain parties) legal fees paid by the LCGB for advice contained advice to the LCGB committee that the first stage was likely to be a section 5 refusal for the reasons I've stated above.
I don't think it would be too difficult to get at least some sort of statement of intent from the committee at the AGM and I hope it's forthcoming.
