The transcript is some 46 pages long. The first 31 pages merely record the long cosy chat that Hobbs had with a Mr James. He is no less than the head of the Tribunal Section of the IPO. My question here is why did the IPO find it necessary to have no less than this high placed manager present at such a nondescript appeal hearing? It could be said that someone had to be present from the IPO as this was an appeal against one of its hearing decisions. However at a later appeal hearing brought by myself in 2009, again against the decision of one of its hearing officers decisions, there was no one from the IPO.
It is my opinion that the IPO had decided that this hearing just had to go the way it had decided it should go. So they had to have its top man present to make sure it did. Similarly I think it is no
coincidence that this man Hobbs ended up as the hearing official. It is my opinion that it is highly likely that he is very much an IPO man, there to do its bidding. There is no way a fair minded person would believe that Hobbs was not an IPO man and under the Rules stated above in post 2, under 'Conflict of Interest' he definitely should have been disbarred from this hearing as likely to be biased in favour of the IPO. Because all the evidence points to the fact that the IPO wanted RB to win all hearings and be awarded the Trade Mark, come what may. With Hobbs they could be sure that this hearing went their way. Indeed when you read the full transcript (which will be attached to this blog in due course) you must come to the conclusion as I did, that this hearing could not have been more one sided and biased in favour of RB.
The first 31 pages are therefore just a cosy chat between James and Hobbs where they discuss how they intend to achieve their aims. On page 32 we get Hobbs turning his attention to RB. He says; "I am going to switch my questions back to you Mr Busbridge. I have read the papers I have received and let me tell you what they are so you know. I have read the decision (Landau's decision) below; I have read your Notice and Grounds of Appeal and I have seen you are reiterating what you said to Mr Landau. I have looked at as you know, the Registry record. You can get them off the Internet with all the case details, the case history--the long sordid history.
THIS IS COMPLAINT NUMBER ONE!! Here he is referring to all the history of the Viper Trade Mark and he is including as you will see, even the history of my opposing Chrysler Motor Corp and their application to register my Trade Mark. (They did this in 1990 and I won against them in 1998) Now I have to ask what business is it of Hobbs to poke his nose into my case history? My opposition to Chrysler was legal and because I won I became the legal owner of the Mark Viper.
So what we have here is Mr 'know it all' Hobbs saying that that history and the subsequent history of my opposing Busbridge from also registering my Trade Mark, was "SORDID" This in turn is also saying that my involvement with that history must also have been "SORDID". Of course as is always the case with such people like Hobbs, he does not actually say why it was sordid.
It is a fact when one looks at that history, that Busbridge in my Opposition to Chrysler acted on their behalf as their one and only witness and their only line of defence. It was here that RB started what was to be a long line of denigration of myself. He did this by perjuring himself wholesale. In the Chrysler hearing he accused me of forging our agency agreement. It did not work and that hearing officer obviously did not believe his lies as he found for me. The perjury carried on at my Opposition to his Registration Hearing in 2004 with two documents that contained over 200 perjurious statements. So it is obvious that Hobbs is referring to all these denigratory lies made by RB, which he obviously believes, hence why he uses the statement "the long sordid history"
So it is plainly obvious that Hobbs is showing extreme and unlawful bias towards the applicant before him. (RB) COMPLAINT NUMBER TWO.
SO WE NOW HAVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT SLANDEROUS REMARKS ABOUT ME & BIAS TOWARDS THE APPLICANT.....BOTH UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR BY HOBBS.
Hobbs now says; "I have the history at the same time relating to Chrysler on a mark which was 265"I have the history at the same time relating to Chrysler on a mark which was and this looks like a complete and utter mess to me"
This is a continuation of the slanderous remarks made above and relating as I have said to a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the case before him. To remind you the case before him was an appeal against the decision of a hearing officer who said the application by RB was unlawful and had to be rescinded. Nothing to do with my case against Chrysler or even my case against RB, which was on the same subject as my case against Chrysler, namely they both were trying to register a mark I owned. This is irrefutable, there is absolutely no defence that can say otherwise.
So looking at what Hobbs has said above, namely "this looks like a complete and utter mess" you have to ask what is he really saying here. I say that what he is saying is that I gained registration emanating from that decision which went for me, which he thinks was wrong. I say he is saying in effect that he thinks that the hearing officer in that case (a Mr Tuck) got it wrong and made " a complete and utter mess"
If I am right, and what other meaning can be deduced from his remark, the we have Hobbs interfering in the decision of another case. Chrysler, one does not need to be reminded, was a hugely rich International Car Manufacturer who was at the time of the hearing owned by Daimler. They had access to the brains of the IP World in London. Now if their case was wrongly decided, then why did they not vigorously appeal it??
It is yet another case of Hobbs showing bias towards the applicant because he is really stating that he thinks that I obtained the Trade Mark by default as it were and therefore I do not deserve it and this is impinging upon RB's efforts to grab the ownership of the Mark. Which he evidently thinks he should have.
This falls in line with what I feel the IPO want to happen, hence all their actions since 1992 which can be seen in my blog on the IPO. Hence why we have Hobbs doing his dirty work on behalf of the IPO at this hearing. A hearing I am not present at, so I did not know what was being said behind my back, and was therefore in no position to defend my honour. Had I been there I would have dealt with Mr Hobbs in no uncertain way, he can be sure of that.
It also explains why the IPO hid the transcript from me for three years and lied through its back teeth to delay my knowing what they were all up to. (Hobbs & the IPO)
NOW TO SHOW THE EXTREME BIAS SHOWN IN FAVOUR OF BUSBRIDGE, BY HOBBS.
Further on on page 33 Busbridge is indulging in a bout of his perjury regarding how he and his brother broke up their partnership and how I served the partnership with a summons for breach of copyright and breach of contract.
RB then tells Hobbs that I had been charged with forgery (over the agency agreement document which RB said I had forged) What he does not tell Hobbs is that he instigated this. I was found not guilty.
Now all this had absolutely no bearing on this case, so you have to ask why was Hobbs discussing all this?
On page 35 Hobbs goes back to asking questions about Martin RB's brother and if RB could contact him. Then on page 36 he switches to asking about the bankruptcy of RB in 1993 and follows this with questions as to whether he is now out of bankruptcy and allowed to trade again
and if the Receiver wanted the asset of the trade mark. Then Hobbs asks if RB is under legal advice. Now once again you have to say that all this questions and answers have nothing to do with the appeal of the Landau decision. So as an appeal process it is a sham and so far it is Hobbs trying to find out information to have it clear in his mind as to what RB's position is in matter not to do with the actual decisions of Landau.
Now Hobbs asks RB if he understood what James and Hobbs had been talking about in their cosy chat as laid out up to page 32. If you read what was said in all those pages, it is obvious that throughout that conversation Hobbs was discussing case history so as to give RB hints as to what his legal position could be.
Now on page 40 Hobbs nails his colours to the mast and on line 3 he gives the game away. He says "It appears to me that you have been caught in a game of snakes and ladders. No sooner did you get to 2004 and you are on the register( Meaning he had got the mark Viper registered)
then it is all taken away ( meaning Landau's decision takes it away). I cannot advise you because I am the Tribunal. So you must understand that I am not advising you as to what course of action you should take......you will definitely need to take advice"
The arrogance of this man knows no bounds. He has spent the whole of this hearing right up to this point giving advice clandestinely and disguised, and to cover his backside he has to make a point of saying he cannot give advice.....like we are all idiots and cannot see what he is up to.
Then immediately on line 15, he goes and does just that, by saying; "This situation would become considerably simpler if your application to register those two assignments (which I had alleged were illegal) and the supporting documentation were voluntarily withdrawn. It would remove what might on one view of it, be regarded as a distraction. The effect of doing so would be that there would be a registration of Viper in the name of Cobretti Engineering (a partnership)"
He then goes to give more detailed advice on pages 41/42/43 and 44 and ends up saying that RB should try and find his brother and get him to sign over his share of the partnership assets. Once more I have to complain that what we see in all these pages is the blatant giving of free legal advice as to how RB can circumvent the decision of Landau.
On line 6 of page 44 Hobbs says that if RB does what he has advised and he is suspending the hearing for three months, the the IPO will fall in line with what Hobbs and James have devised and the IPO will allow the trade mark to be renewed. James sucks up to Hobbs and agrees that there would be no problem.
Quite frankly the behaviour of Hobbs during this hearing was an utter disgrace. The hearing was supposed to be an appeal to the decision of Landau which was on legal points, which said that under partnership law the application had not been made legally and had to be rescinded. In this hearing no appeal against that decision was made by RB and the whole hearing was run by Hobbs with the clear intention as to give advice to RB as to how he could get out of the mess he was in. This would open the way for the IPO to see that eventually RB would get a legal registration in his name only. It would end up with me losing my registration, Martins legal ownership of 50% of the partnership was trashed, and even though he would go on to certify that the application was made without his authorisation and all the perjury of Busbridge RB is ignored. Our legal agency agreement is verified by Martin as a true document yet that too is ignored by the IPO.
So Hobbs broke every rule in the Rule Book as to how judges hearing appeals should behave and the IPO was able to enact its desire to see RB get registration and me lose my registration. In doing so they also allowed a conman to steal not only my Trade Mark but also all my designs of my Cobra Replica car. Hobbs thus played his part in all that.
Was I going to let all this go by the wayside without a fight.....you bet I would not and in the next post you will see what I actually do and how successful I am.