Scooterotica

the LCGB action is appropriate and proportional under the system in place to resolve such issues .support for it was voted for at the AGM letters were sent out canvassing support other members have expressed support by other means eg emailing the committee
if the Committee received no suppport yet still pursued the case id aggree with your point but thats not the case they have support.
as for they dropped the ball are any of the Committee Intellectual property experts who could have envisaged tthis occurring ? if i was on the Committee i would have no more been able to forsee this than any current encumbent ask yourself would you ever have anticipated this ?

however its the LCGBS money how they spend it is their concern its not coming out of your pocket , the legal fees posted in jetset make up only a small amount of their expenditure do we know that this amount was all epent on this case and in anycase legal costs are recoverable if they have to come from mr frankland well hes made his bed on that one but if they come from his BLOA/BLOC thats a case for his members to ask why hes playing fast and loose with club funds

only mr frankland knows why he thinks he has a good case for me based on posts here it seems down to blind faith and absurb logic

Legal costs can be applied for but it’s not a given that they are awarded.
LCGB could win but they could potentially lose too. Massively.

nastro azzurro wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:03 pm Legal costs can be applied for but it’s not a given that they are awarded.
LCGB could win but they could potentially lose too. Massively.

thats very true , legal costs at an IPO hearing are limited from what ive read but through the courts there are different pathways
"Claims below £10,000
Use the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) small claims track if your claim is for less than £10,000 and for infringement of one of the following:

copyright
passing off
trade marks
breach of confidence
unregistered design rights
You don’t need a lawyer to use the IPEC small claims track."

theres also the issue of whether any court action is filed in england and wales or in scotland where different legal outcomes are applicable.

plus if LCGB win they have rignts to use the copyrighted material so can recover costs via merchandise plus the events they run and generally larger membership .

The feeling I get from this thread is that the consensus thinks that the LCGB won’t incur any costs as GF will bare these if he loses.
Like I said, that’s not a given.
Sure they could claw back costs via merchandising etc but that will take time and obviously this impacts on profits gained from general sales of merchandise.
Why can’t an EGM be called to address this issue and a vote be taken as to what is done? If members feel passionately about this I’m sure more would attend so they could vent their opinion accordingly.
Nobody can say it wasn’t presented to the whole membership then.
And saying it’s been reported in Jetset is, in my opinion, feeble and a cop out and still doesn’t give the membership an opinion.
I didn’t know about this issue until I’d seen it in Jetset AFTER the AGM.
I’ve attended the AGM in the past so would have made the effort to attend had I been aware of this issue, and I’m 200 miles away.....

Gavin J Frankland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:38 pm Donnie, you fail to amuse me. The form is for trademark not a copyright. We never had an apology from you about Sywell. Come on, man up.

And AGAIN I say

Donnie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:18 pm

Gavin J Frankland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:48 am Yes the name change was requested from the community. Yes I still own the copyright to bloa,........

You keep saying this, what EXACTLY do you own the copyright to?

As for an apology about Sywell, what on earth are you talking about now? Apology for what?

eden wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:56 pm That's just a slur.

Really?

No, not at all, you only have to read this thread and the others like it on this very forum to see what statements were made, what questions asked and what verifiable facts were then confirmed.

I.e. Lots, Lots and none.

It can't be a slur if it's factual.

BTW Eden, I know you haven't 'hitched your trailer' but you have been as conspicuous in your support of GF as much as Timbo and a few others as Nic & I have of the LCGB, so you can see why others would think this way.

I don't mind if people think I have made my preferred camp clear on this forum, I didn't have a 'preference' when I first started hearing of this new club, the arguments on both sides have convinced me and I didn't have your own advantage of having a known and long standing grievance with one side to colour that decision.

Gavin J Frankland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:32 pm I've said what's needs to be said. If it was good enough to remove goods from eBay which have hundreds of legal personal, not a few pointless people talking crap all day it's good enough for me. I've done what was asked by the majority. I'm not interested in what you have to say to be honest, now go and annoy someone else.

nastro azzurro wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:04 pm The feeling I get from this thread is that the consensus thinks that the LCGB won’t incur any costs as GF will bare these if he loses.
Like I said, that’s not a given.
Sure they could claw back costs via merchandising etc but that will take time and obviously this impacts on profits gained from general sales of merchandise.
Why can’t an EGM be called to address this issue and a vote be taken as to what is done? If members feel passionately about this I’m sure more would attend so they could vent their opinion accordingly.
Nobody can say it wasn’t presented to the whole membership then.
And saying it’s been reported in Jetset is, in my opinion, feeble and a cop out and still doesn’t give the membership an opinion.
I didn’t know about this issue until I’d seen it in Jetset AFTER the AGM.
I’ve attended the AGM in the past so would have made the effort to attend had I been aware of this issue, and I’m 200 miles away.....

how did you miss it it was right above the announcement for Agm venue etc page 10 jan jetset its how come the vote to support the action was held at the AGM .and the result of which was published in the following jetset with the LCGB evidence of its rights to the BLOA imagery and name
why is jetset feeble its the primary method of communication between the LCGB and its members

others managed to attend so opportunity to discuss this was granted and voted on so no need for an EGm if you wish to express your opinion why not email your support or not to an officer of the LCGB.

yes it will cost the LCGB something but what choice do they have their rights to the use of BLOA imagery are dependent on ensuring its use is not to the detriment of the club thats what mike kerslake stated he retains copyright but the LCGB has exclusive rights to them and not someone whom might i add just thought it would be nice to use them again! mr frankland cant prove mike kerslake gave him exclusive rights to their use so why should the LCGB let him get away with it.

I am a member of the LCGB. I fully accept the LCGB may incur costs and i accept that. I think if costs are incurred then so be it, if it deters others to go down the road GF has.

This debate on Scooterotica was on going prior to the AGM (first post i saw was in December) so i was well aware of the circumstances when the AGM took place (didn't attend).

It's a shame as the rally ideas that GF was promoting looked interesting, but as said by others, i would not now support these events because of GF's approach to this whole debacle.