I have found out that for this appeal hearing, Robert Busbridge seems to have only put in a Statement of Grounds and no other evidence statements to back up his reason for being able to appeal the original decision.
I have now got a copy and it is amazing that none of the 6 supposed grounds he lists have actually anything to do with the reasons Landau gave for making his decision. Any fool would know that if you are going to appeal something, you must have grounds to do so and not just saying you wish to appeal because you did not like the decision. In Criminal cases they will not actually let you appeal unless you have NEW evidence or you can prove that the case was not heard properly etc. Putting in a list of stupid reasons, which is what RB has done here is not allowed, yet it was allowed by the IPO who take the appeal application and grounds, in the first instance and the Treasury Solicitors who take it from then on. IPO rules specifically say:- "Information on the document should be strictly confined to the point at issue"
To find out what Landau said were the reasons RB must lose the registration you should read either my blog 'Raging mad' to which there is a link on this blog, or read my book document from the link and is called 'Stealing IP'. Now I will list these reasons, (my comments in bold):-
1/ He states that he and his brother Martin parted company due to 'legal issues' regarding the mark Viper. After they split he continued the business on his own servicing, the customers and creditors, and continued to use the mark under the name of Cobretti Engineering and Autotrak Ltd. Here he continues with his trademark lying or perjury. The partnership did not terminate due to legal issues at all, but due to the fact they were broke as evidenced by his brother.
2/ He continued to receive UK and Worldwide inquiries for the Cobretti Viper since 1992 to date as he continued to advertise etc. What of course he doesn't say is that the so called Cobretti Viper was stolen from me (designs and trade mark)
3/ The legal issues involving the trade mark against Chrysler and Mr Cook (me) have continued for over 13 years (from 1992 to the time of him writing this garbage in 2005) which he defended to the best of his knowledge. His signature during this time was always accepted on behalf of Cobretti Engineering. The truth of the matter is that he had no legal issues and certainly not for 13 years with Chrysler and even acted as one of their witnesses when I TOOK LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THEM and winning against them in 1998. He does not mention that he did not have legal authority to conduct any business under the name of Cobretti after the break up as he was not given authority to do so by his brother and he did not buy out his brother. Also that after mid 1993 he and Cobretti went bust, so how is he legally able to conduct anything on behalf of a company that also had to cease business in June 1993 and for some years after. Since 1994 he traded under another limited company and that was Autotrak(Cobretti)Ltd and that was operated by his wife and not him. So all this saying he operated non stop since 1992 to 2005 under his own name is absolute lies as bankrupts cannot trade at all and that is why his wife operated in her name these two companies. Nor does he tell you that both companies were struck off anyway, around 1999.
4/ He goes on about not being aware of the law regarding him having to have to buy out his brother after the termination of their partnership. Had he realised that he would have done so, but as he did not know where his brother was he couldn't do that.
More perjury here. He knew exactly where is brother was at all times and saw him face to face in Spain only the year before writing that, in 2004. That to have legally took over the business in his own right would have needed the cooperation of his brother. His brother would not have allowed him to take his share for nothing as he has since stated. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. His alleged assignment of their business to this company owned by solely him in 1992 was illegal as he had no legal rights to do so without having first bought out his brother.
5/ He says Martin had no involvement in any of the business since he retired and that he indemnified him from any actions against the business after they split.
The truth is that Martin never retired and no legal indemnity was ever given to Martin. So yet more perjury.
6/ He continued with the goodwill (which he stole off me) and his commitment to protect the trade mark and his rights to it and he has used the mark honestly since 1992.
More perjury as he stole that mark from me in June 1992 along with my goodwill which he has openly admitted to on many ocassions and in writing before the courts. How can that be honest??
The point is that all these feeble excuses have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE REASONS THAT LANDAU GAVE TO SAY THAT RB HAD TO LOSE HIS REGISTRATION WHICH WAS GAINED ILLEGALLY. How the IPO could accept them without comment beats me and that goes for the Treasury Solicitors too.
Reading the transcript of the Hobbs hearing you can plainly see that Hobbs never even discussed this Statement or any of the feeble reasons he gave. It was as if he never made them. I say this shows conclusively that this appeal hearing was a sham and was not a bona-fide appeal hearing.
I am at this point waiting for the T/Sol to give me any guidelines there are for how an appeal should be held. This in relation to what must be heard and gone over. There must be such guidelines as all such matters have guidelines, otherwise how do the judicial officers know how they must conduct such hearings. We will see what the T/Sol says for so far he is dragging his feet. I have also asked for a transcript of my own appeal against an IPO decision, which was heard before Prof Annand in 2009, which I believe was conducted as a proper appeal should be. We will then be able to compare how both these similar appeals were conducted and how the Hobbs appeal was a sham. Keep reading on folks, and learn how corrupt judges can be.