Discussion in 'Dulwich Hamlet FC' started by DHST, Jul 4, 2017.
Can someone share the tweets from Gary Lineker & Danny Baker...the more the merrier!
Its crazy on twitter at the moment, would need its own website let alone its own thread
Meadow's statement of today includes: "... The application for the trademarks was undertaken in early October as part of discussions over a memorandum of understanding and ultimate handover to the Dulwich Hamlet Supporters Trust (DHST) namely the fans of The Club."
Can anyone from DHST explain what exactly this means?
I can: it's a pile of stinking bullshit.
I've always enjoyed Danny Baker's use of the English language although upset that he never replied to my tweet that he looked like the bloke on the Franca Manca advert on the back of the dugout.
I assumed as much, given how much bullshit is in the rest of that statement.
The original MOU stated (as per the original development plans) that DHFC would be transferred into fan ownership (under the auspices of DHST) should planning approval be gained.
Meadows are claiming this was their, one would infer, benevolent reason for applying for the trademarks. Issuing the solicitors notice kind of goes against that argument though...
It has also been remarked that the Franco Manca bloke looks like Croydon FC Vice Chairman Andy Hillburn in his playing days! (As a rugby lock forward.)
And presumably in October, they didn't deem to mention they were doing this kind favour?
Well, anyone can make an Application for any Mark to be Registered.
When filing the TM3 Application for Registration, one ticks a box which Declares "a Genuine Intent to Use" the Marks which are the subject of the Application, 'in the Course of Trade' and on the part of the Applicant.
If they were acting per the MOU, then the Applicant/Registrant would have been DHST and not Greendale IP LLC.
I will add that the jurisdiction in which the LLC is incorporated is an Opaque one - its ownership is obfuscated without a Court Order. I don't like the term 'Tax Haven', because it doesn't appear on the OECD's lists for such jurisdictions, but it's commonly been called that and reasonably so.
That particular LLC was formed solely for the purpose of making the Application for Registration. It has zero assets beyond three pieces of paper, which are worthless in pursuing DHFC or any entities which have used the Disputed Marks prior to their Registration.
What should have been done, if the Applications were made in bona fides, would have been to place DHST as the Applicant/Registrant when filling out the Forms. This might conceivably have been within the spirit of the MOU, despite DHST/DHFC not having been informed of the making of the Applications.
They were not, it was not.
The Declarant, i.e. the person who signed the TM3 Filings, is in potentially in trouble if there is no Genuine Intent of Use, as would be the current Registrant.
I think everyone is now aware, as a result of multiple IP Practitioners saying so in Trade Press & their own Blogs, of the sticky wicket they're playing on. This is just to clarify, for the layman, what it is that's gone on.
The UKIPO would have [and always will] accepted the Applications in Good Faith, whether or not the Applications have [or have not] been made in mala fides.
Separate names with a comma.