The UK's No1 Lambretta & Vespa Scooter Forum.
https://www.scooterotica.org/forum/
I can’t imagine there is one.Scooterdude wrote:When is the court date?
I think you missed the point. Let me explain...Nic wrote:1) What dirty linen? I don't understand the point you are making here.drunkmunkey6969 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:51 pmNic wrote:As for financial gain, if Kev Walsh's admission to hundreds of people at the AGM that he has had private discussions with Gavin Frankland about Gavin "selling" us back the BLOA name are true, then there's your proof. Anyone who was mug enough to believe that this was somehow a disinterested gesture on Gavin's part, aimed at resurrecting a historic name, well, you've been taken for a ride. If the price is right - for Gavin Frankland - he'll happily ditch you just as easily as he roped you in.
Who approached who?
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??
Now IF that was the case...your accusations don’t really seem fair do they.
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 - subject to this being with the prior knowledge and approval of the LCGB itself.
3) What costs has Gavin Frankland incurred? I refer you here: https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-trade-mark/apply. 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.
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?
The IPO part is where i also see this as being a bit of an issue for the LCGB but if they can show recent use before it was purchased by another party then they have case or like you say they'll struggle in courtdrunkmunkey6969 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:55 pmI can’t imagine there is one.Scooterdude wrote:When is the court date?
I’d have to believe the LCGB are forced to wait for the outcome of the IPO ruling. If it goes in their favour, they have a stronger footing to proceed. If it goes in Gavin’s favour, the LCGB will struggle in court.
If and only if that was the case,would be a much more sensible way to go about it.drunkmunkey6969 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:03 pmAs 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...Nic wrote:1) What dirty linen? I don't understand the point you are making here.drunkmunkey6969 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:51 pm
Who approached who?
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??
Now IF that was the case...your accusations don’t really seem fair do they.
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 - subject to this being with the prior knowledge and approval of the LCGB itself.
3) What costs has Gavin Frankland incurred? I refer you here: https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-trade-mark/apply. 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.
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?