Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 16 votes

What is 'Rich Energy'?


  • Please log in to reply
5723 replies to this topic

#5451 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,329 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 August 2019 - 10:13

Based on my little knowledge of IP law Whyte will not lose any rights, even if not pursuing the American hustlers.

 

Reason being they have a judgement in their favor from an English court. They are only expected to get this judgement, which I don't believe has or will be contested again, to have actively defended their rights. That someone is acting against this ruling does not mean that Whyte has to go to war again with RE.



Advertisement

#5452 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 23 August 2019 - 14:32

Based on my little knowledge of IP law Whyte will not lose any rights, even if not pursuing the American hustlers.
 
Reason being they have a judgement in their favor from an English court. They are only expected to get this judgement, which I don't believe has or will be contested again, to have actively defended their rights. That someone is acting against this ruling does not mean that Whyte has to go to war again with RE.


I also don't expect a war is needed, but informing the needed authorities is little work (I don't even know if that isnndone automatic because a treaty or trade law) with indeed current ruling. They don't need to go to war again, but they also can't let RE US or NL section breach the high court order ruling for indefinite time, and by that, when? After first sign breach order, after a month, after a half year, or, when they still use it in a year, can they then still count on current ruling if it's openly constantly used for a year? Would it not be far more cheaper and easier to directly active use current ruling for global enforcement (What Whyte themself have stated as goal, globally removing logo) then passive wait until one is bigger to then let them stop using the logo?

But I agree with poster earlier, for most it's waiting if they are in the car in Spa. If so, brand isn't dead and by that I doubt this topic will be. If they are off the car, then I doubt we hear much more. I do expect they will be on the car because the signals of continuation brand and sponsoring.

#5453 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 23 August 2019 - 14:44

Based on my little knowledge of IP law Whyte will not lose any rights, even if not pursuing the American hustlers.

 

Reason being they have a judgement in their favor from an English court. They are only expected to get this judgement, which I don't believe has or will be contested again, to have actively defended their rights. That someone is acting against this ruling does not mean that Whyte has to go to war again with RE.

 

You weren't expecting to get the last word in this nonsense were you ?



#5454 tomjol

tomjol
  • Member

  • 845 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 23 August 2019 - 14:46

I also don't expect a war is needed, but informing the needed authorities is little work (I don't even know if that isnndone automatic because a treaty or trade law) with indeed current ruling. They don't need to go to war again, but they also can't let RE US or NL section breach the high court order ruling for indefinite time, and by that, when? After first sign breach order, after a month, after a half year, or, when they still use it in a year, can they then still count on current ruling if it's openly constantly used for a year? Would it not be far more cheaper and easier to directly active use current ruling for global enforcement (What Whyte themself have stated as goal, globally removing logo) then passive wait until one is bigger to then let them stop using the logo?

But I agree with poster earlier, for most it's waiting if they are in the car in Spa. If so, brand isn't dead and by that I doubt this topic will be. If they are off the car, then I doubt we hear much more. I do expect they will be on the car because the signals of continuation brand and sponsoring.

 

This isn't a free process, you don't login to the enforcement portal website and say "this is now a problem elsewhere", you need lawyers and more lawyers and indeed further lawyers, all of which cost money. If they don't see any actual benefit to chasing out-of-production cans internationally, why bother?



#5455 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 8,124 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 August 2019 - 15:21

This isn't a free process, you don't login to the enforcement portal website and say "this is now a problem elsewhere"...


It's not only elsewhere, the breach continues in the UK.

#5456 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,873 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 23 August 2019 - 15:37

It's a problem for Whyte.  They have cut off the head, but the body has grown three new ones (Northern Marketing, the Dutch and the US).  But unless there is some indication that new supplies are being made, they may consider it is better to let the fire sale of old stock go through and let the whole thing peter out.  No point chasing defunct companies, and I doubt whether His Beardiness has got a pot to piss so little chance of getting their cash from him.

 

But if the Haas sponsorship continues, suggesting that a second instalment has been paid (where from?  the same place as the first lot?  :confused: ) then they are presented with the probability that a new Rich Energy is still functioning and continuing to abuse Whyte's trademark.  Only then would it be worth their while to take up the case again.



#5457 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 23 August 2019 - 18:56

This isn't a free process, you don't login to the enforcement portal website and say "this is now a problem elsewhere", you need lawyers and more lawyers and indeed further lawyers, all of which cost money. If they don't see any actual benefit to chasing out-of-production cans internationally, why bother?

 

It's not free, but i also doubt you need the amount of lawyers you portray. Every country that is in the IP protection treaty has a "institute" and/or court for it. I truly suspect informing those will do most of the trick, and i have not seen any indication that that proces isn't the way to go. Just claiming "you need 3 layers of lawyers" is nothing more then that, a cleam. I also don't know for sure, but that;s why i say i suspect and think, instead claiming something as fact, like you seem to do here (without underlying proof of it)

 

I don't see reason why a standard lawyer letter (lets say 1,5 hours work) combined with high court ruling send toward IP protection treaty country members and possible 2 hours research to give details 3 or 4 known current breaches wouldn't do most of the trick and "duty" Whyte part.

 

Why would you have a global IP protection treaty and arrangement if you can't use it and or "simple" let a ruling in one member country letting enforced in other one, that's exactly the purpose and reason for any (protection) treaty, that you don't have to do the processes again.



#5458 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 32,572 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 24 August 2019 - 20:14

wait what. how is he still?
 

The founder of William Storey talking to business leaders about brand building, the future & strategy of Rich Energy, Brexit & institutional investment #richenergy #entrepreneur #business #williamstorey #f1
ECwslhUXsAEJlSV.jpg


#5459 danmills

danmills
  • Member

  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 August 2019 - 20:16

:)

Advertisement

#5460 f1paul

f1paul
  • Member

  • 7,371 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 24 August 2019 - 20:16

That's not him, that's someone with a Storey wig.



#5461 danmills

danmills
  • Member

  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 August 2019 - 20:18

'All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.'

#5462 Anja

Anja
  • Member

  • 4,149 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 24 August 2019 - 20:26

What a great example to follow. 



#5463 Mark521

Mark521
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 August 2019 - 21:51

Are you sure that's not a timeshare presentation? 😂

#5464 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 1,396 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 August 2019 - 22:55


wait what. how is he still?






Rich Energy



@rich_energy

·
3m





The founder of
@rich_energyWilliam Storey talking to business leaders about brand building, the future & strategy of Rich Energy, Brexit & institutional investment #richenergy #entrepreneur #business #williamstorey #f1
ECwslhUXsAEJlSV.jpg


Um, eh? So maybe the overlord is still involved??

#5465 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,829 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 25 August 2019 - 04:34

I don't see reason why a standard lawyer letter (lets say 1,5 hours work) combined with high court ruling send toward IP protection treaty country members and possible 2 hours research to give details 3 or 4 known current breaches wouldn't do most of the trick and "duty" Whyte part..

Because that’s not how the law works.  The judgement is against Rich Energy UK et al and not any third party distributors.  You can’t enforce a judgement on one party through a third party.   There would have to be a judgement specific to an infringing party.  Even then if those infringing cans weren’t for sale there is basically nothing Whyte could do.  If those cans were being sold Whyte would need to be able to prove that, outside of any social media posts, etc with real world evidence then proceed to trial here.  The judgement in the UK is then used as proof of infringement and the basis for the suit but it’s not in and of itself a be-all end-all.  There still has to be due process for the third party.



#5466 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 25 August 2019 - 06:13

Because that’s not how the law works.  The judgement is against Rich Energy UK et al and not any third party distributors.  You can’t enforce a judgement on one party through a third party.   There would have to be a judgement specific to an infringing party.  Even then if those infringing cans weren’t for sale there is basically nothing Whyte could do.  If those cans were being sold Whyte would need to be able to prove that, outside of any social media posts, etc with real world evidence then proceed to trial here.  The judgement in the UK is then used as proof of infringement and the basis for the suit but it’s not in and of itself a be-all end-all.  There still has to be due process for the third party.


I only drop this. Read part "Border measures".

It's exactly how I predicted it (if I read it correct)

"The requirements in the TRIPS Agreement on border measures enable holders of IP rights to obtain the cooperation of customs administrations to intercept infringing goods at the border and to prevent the release of these goods into circulation."

"As a general rule, the right holder must request the customs authorities to take action; there is no obligation on customs authorities to act on their own initiative (ex officio), although members may provide for this."

https://www.wto.org/...forcement_e.htm

#5467 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 August 2019 - 08:33

Wild Bill is back in the building!

 



#5468 MortenF1

MortenF1
  • Member

  • 21,890 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 25 August 2019 - 09:33

I dont understand anything on the subject of Rich Energy and Haas anymore. Atleast not now with William Storey back. I give up.

#5469 Cavalier53

Cavalier53
  • Member

  • 290 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 August 2019 - 11:28

Remember the Richmond Harbour Hotel, where BS was supposed to present his BS June 10 (announced on this thread 7 june)?

 

The recent picture does not show the same meeting room the hotel has pictured on its' website, but they do have three. up to 70 people, what seems to match the picture. And then, the chandeliers, the edges of the ceiling, and the conference seats look identical (and even the airco units).

 

So, if the picture was taken in June, why does it turn up 2 1/2 months later? Can you (accidentally?) set a delayed delivery on Twitter, like in Outlook, that has escaped the current account holders?

Otherwise, I give up. In other words, the fun starts all over  :yawnface:


Edited by Cavalier53, 25 August 2019 - 11:28.


#5470 Stephane

Stephane
  • Member

  • 2,146 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2019 - 11:30

Yes, you can delay a twitter posting.



#5471 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 10,991 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 25 August 2019 - 11:34

That photo is a study of faces who thing Big Willy... lacks credibility.

What's Rich Energy's stance on Brexit out of interest..?



#5472 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 32,572 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 25 August 2019 - 11:37

Can you (accidentally?) set a delayed delivery on Twitter, like in Outlook, that has escaped the current account holders?
Otherwise, I give up. In other words, the fun starts all over :yawnface:

While it's possible to be a old pic I dont think that this happened, because they certainly would have removed it by now considering that they were posting just one hour ago on this account.

#5473 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 August 2019 - 17:47

That photo is a study of faces who thing Big Willy... lacks credibility.
What's Rich Energy's stance on Brexit out of interest..?


Pro brexit, pro Trump. Has tweeted about both in the past.

#5474 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,829 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 25 August 2019 - 18:48

I only drop this. Read part "Border measures".

It's exactly how I predicted it (if I read it correct)

"The requirements in the TRIPS Agreement on border measures enable holders of IP rights to obtain the cooperation of customs administrations to intercept infringing goods at the border and to prevent the release of these goods into circulation."

"As a general rule, the right holder must request the customs authorities to take action; there is no obligation on customs authorities to act on their own initiative (ex officio), although members may provide for this."

https://www.wto.org/...forcement_e.htm

In the US once something is imported customs have no authority.  Even then the procedure is subject to due process meaning the originating order has to be presented in a court of law.  The court then determines if the original ruling is valid.  That may stop future infringing product from being imported but does nothing about the product in country.  It’s going to require Whyte going to court to stop selling any of the infringed logo products.  The importers bought them in good faith prior to the case.  If Whyte wants those cans back they’re going to have to go to court.



#5475 danmills

danmills
  • Member

  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 August 2019 - 20:02

There has been no formal announcement of the dismissal of WS and his relationship to RE.

 

And the accounts which were overdue and extended, under new directorship, are seemingly further extended.

 

Does this not scream cover up? 


Edited by danmills, 25 August 2019 - 20:06.


#5476 silentbrown

silentbrown
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: July 19

Posted 25 August 2019 - 21:16

There has been no formal announcement of the dismissal of WS and his relationship to RE.

 

And the accounts which were overdue and extended, under new directorship, are seemingly further extended.

 

Well, we know he's no longer a shareholder or director of RE LV. And in May, their account period was extended to the end of March 19, and you have (I think) 9 months from then to file accounts.

 

Also the previous tweets have always called him CEO, where this one just says "founder". 



#5477 silentbrown

silentbrown
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: July 19

Posted 25 August 2019 - 21:38

Remember the Richmond Harbour Hotel, where BS was supposed to present his BS June 10 (announced on this thread 7 june)?

Good spot. The bar stool he's sitting on is very distinctive, and appears in interior shots. 

 

Was the June event delayed to give him a chance to sort out some "issues"?

 

the-gate-restaurant-in-richmond-harbour-



#5478 RSRally

RSRally
  • Member

  • 956 posts
  • Joined: January 15

Posted 25 August 2019 - 21:53

The same RE account has also been tweeting about boxing (one of beard's interests) and curiously Haas in a normal non-aggressive way. What on earth is going on?

Will Haas still be in RE colours next weekend?

#5479 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,873 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 25 August 2019 - 22:11

Maybe they got Storey back onto his medication, so now he sounds faintly sane?



Advertisement

#5480 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 1,396 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 August 2019 - 22:59

Maybe they got Storey back onto his medication, so now he sounds faintly sane?


Maybe we was about to tell where the bodies were buried!

#5481 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,673 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 25 August 2019 - 23:40

Why does the HAAS F1 team not seek out a more reputable sponsor!?  :confused:



#5482 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 26 August 2019 - 05:46

Good spot. The bar stool he's sitting on is very distinctive, and appears in interior shots. 

 

Was the June event delayed to give him a chance to sort out some "issues"?

 

the-gate-restaurant-in-richmond-harbour-

 

One look at that place and you know the kind of Nob you'd meet in there.  Billy Boy must be regarded as the free entertainment by the village idiot.



#5483 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 26 August 2019 - 05:48

Why does the HAAS F1 team not seek out a more reputable sponsor!?  :confused:

 

Probably watching to see who visits Williams and bushwhack them.



#5484 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 26 August 2019 - 06:17

There has been no formal announcement of the dismissal of WS and his relationship to RE.

 

And the accounts which were overdue and extended, under new directorship, are seemingly further extended.

 

Does this not scream cover up? 

 

As you have implied in the recent past that you know more about the current and past situation regarding Billy Boy, Rich Energy, Whyte Bikes, etc, etc, why are you asking us?

 

The RE Twitter posts are light entertainment and have been from their first use.  Anyone believing they are important is being foolish.  That account along with millions of others, is an extension of Billy Boy's vanity, as can be seen by the way posts that receive 'bad reviews' are deleted. I'd not be surprised if Billy Boy makes a Twitter post and then checks back here to see the response.  I guess it keeps him off the streets.  I see the fat ex-SAS bloke isn't praising RE any more, he's deleted his posts about RE too.



#5485 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 26 August 2019 - 10:43

In the US once something is imported customs have no authority.  Even then the procedure is subject to due process meaning the originating order has to be presented in a court of law.  The court then determines if the original ruling is valid.  That may stop future infringing product from being imported but does nothing about the product in country.  It’s going to require Whyte going to court to stop selling any of the infringed logo products.  The importers bought them in good faith prior to the case.  If Whyte wants those cans back they’re going to have to go to court.

 

I had intention to just ignore your post because you clearly haven't even short read the TRIPS agreement basics (imo.). But, exactly because that, i decided to make a response, again with underlying links to make my point. Again, i could be wrong, but just claiming Whyte should start new case without any proof and link towards underlying law or previous examples, i just don't buy with the WTO and TRIPS agreement.

 

Customs is just a section. It's just the agreement they are in. There it is stated very clear. And have now googled again some minutes on it, and all indications that i get is that the UK High court ruling is effectieve in all member state, regardless who owns the breached product.

 

https://uk.practical...age=true&bhcp=1

 

Minimum standards. Each member country must:

 

If Whyte should make new case, please show some proof of it. https://ustr.gov/tra...ated-aspects-in



#5486 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,135 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 August 2019 - 11:42

I think you have to look at what is actually happening. Whyte have not (so far, it seems) taken any further action, even though it would appear that the court orders have been flouted. So all you really need to ask is why they have not taken action (and, perhaps, why no one else has). That will (IMHO) give an indication as to how the law works in practice.



#5487 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 26 August 2019 - 13:01

I think you have to look at what is actually happening. Whyte have not (so far, it seems) taken any further action, even though it would appear that the court orders have been flouted. So all you really need to ask is why they have not taken action (and, perhaps, why no one else has). That will (IMHO) give an indication as to how the law works in practice.


Just because it's not here published?

Like sayd/copied above from WHO page "As a general rule, the right holder must request the customs authorities to take action; there is no obligation on customs authorities to act on their own initiative (ex officio), although members may provide for this."

If they did that, why would we know? It's like I says previous, one lawyer letter distributed towards needed institutions. And now during holiday season. Why would we (already) know that's done and how far in process member states are in acting on that letter?


My copied quotes are quite clear imo. to give indication how the law works in practice, because, they are from the law. A lack of possible info and/or action Whyte part here doesn't change that.

And, imo. It's for most also first investigation Whyte and court side at what exactly happend with sell RE and "new" RE and all other court ordered info (delivered or not). By my knowledge nobody knows if the ordered info (money flow and sponsordeal details) are delivered or not. Latest info is, they are not. If or if not mean other followup processes.

Between announcement court date and first court day was about 8 month if not more, it's not like process are going much faster instantly afterwards, it stay time consuming continuation processes.

#5488 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,135 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 August 2019 - 13:14

Just because it's not here published?

Like sayd/copied above from WHO page "As a general rule, the right holder must request the customs authorities to take action; there is no obligation on customs authorities to act on their own initiative (ex officio), although members may provide for this."

If they did that, why would we know? It's like I says previous, one lawyer letter distributed towards needed institutions. And now during holiday season. Why would we (already) know that's done and how far in process member states are in acting on that letter?


My copied quotes are quite clear imo. to give indication how the law works in practice, because, they are from the law. A lack of possible info and/or action Whyte part here doesn't change that.

And, imo. It's for most also first investigation Whyte and court side at what exactly happend with sell RE and "new" RE and all other court ordered info (delivered or not). By my knowledge nobody knows if the ordered info (money flow and sponsordeal details) are delivered or not. Latest info is, they are not. If or if not mean other followup processes.

Between announcement court date and first court day was about 8 month if not more, it's not like process are going much faster instantly afterwards, it stay time consuming continuation processes.

 

You may very well be correct. I do stand by my logic, though.



#5489 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 26 August 2019 - 13:42


Minimum standards. Each member country must:

 

 

You are really labouring this point about what Whyte Bikes should be doing over a few tins of pop. Intellectual property laws were bought in to protect the rights of companies who could lose millions because their product has been stolen.  There is zero chance of RE making any new products or using the disputed logo in future.  No one expects Whyte Bikes to spends more money on litigation, as the cost of doing so much outweighs any benefit.



#5490 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 26 August 2019 - 14:23

You are really labouring this point about what Whyte Bikes should be doing over a few tins of pop. Intellectual property laws were bought in to protect the rights of companies who could lose millions because their product has been stolen.  There is zero chance of RE making any new products or using the disputed logo in future.  No one expects Whyte Bikes to spends more money on litigation, as the cost of doing so much outweighs any benefit.

 

"over a few tins of pop" Or, 90 million like Storey claimed under oath.

 

"Intellectual property laws were bought in to protect the rights of companies who could lose millions" Uhm. Why was the case there in the first place then? And, what's the turning point, one million, 1.5 or 3 million? The amount doesn't matter any bit in interpret and following the law.

 

"There is zero chance of RE making any new products or using the disputed logo in future." Based on what? Please explain why they (Dutch side) make a year new sponsordeal while no intent making/selling products. Please explain why, while displaying logo during announcement you are sure they will stop using it (some day)

 

"No one expects Whyte Bikes to spends more money on litigation, as the cost of doing so much outweighs any benefit." Doesn't that depends on court ordered info. And if not, why not? Why would IF ​behind "new" RE are same investors as Storey's RE, why would Whyte not keep on going in perssuite the "BIG" compensation based on breached distributions in promo and products if there is apparently still money for sponsoring and products.

 

​I don't understand these "certain" claims from couple of you guys, how do you know these claims that certain?

 

Edit: Added pop amount question.


Edited by Maxioos, 26 August 2019 - 14:36.


#5491 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 26 August 2019 - 15:48


...​I don't understand...

 

 

You've hit the nail on the head.



#5492 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 26 August 2019 - 16:09

You've hit the nail on the head.

Keep trolling.

Or, answer a asked question as option.

Edited by Maxioos, 26 August 2019 - 16:11.


#5493 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,873 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 26 August 2019 - 16:29

"over a few tins of pop" Or, 90 million like Storey claimed under oath.

Or rather, like Storey LIED under oath.  Whyte are a relatively small company who can ill afford to pursue errant chancers through the courts.  They have got their court judgement and need do nothing more unless there is some major new abuse of their logo.  Chasing a few minnows who are selling off the remaining few RE cans that actually were manufactured isn't worth thier time or money.  You seem to feel that they have some duty to pursue Storey and his ilk to the bitter end.  But they don't.



#5494 Anders Torp

Anders Torp
  • Member

  • 562 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 26 August 2019 - 16:38

"over a few tins of pop" Or, 90 million like Storey claimed under oath.

"Intellectual property laws were bought in to protect the rights of companies who could lose millions" Uhm. Why was the case there in the first place then? And, what's the turning point, one million, 1.5 or 3 million? The amount doesn't matter any bit in interpret and following the law.

"There is zero chance of RE making any new products or using the disputed logo in future."Based on what? Please explain why they (Dutch side) make a year new sponsordeal while no intent making/selling products. Please explain why, while displaying logo during announcement you are sure they will stop using it (some day)

"No one expects Whyte Bikes to spends more money on litigation, as the cost of doing so much outweighs any benefit." Doesn't that depends on court ordered info. And if not, why not? Why would IF ​behind "new" RE are same investors as Storey's RE, why would Whyte not keep on going in perssuite the "BIG" compensation based on breached distributions in promo and products if there is apparently still money for sponsoring and products.

​I don't understand these "certain" claims from couple of you guys, how do you know these claims that certain?

Edit: Added pop amount question.



#5495 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 26 August 2019 - 16:57

Or rather, like Storey LIED under oath.  Whyte are a relatively small company who can ill afford to pursue errant chancers through the courts.  They have got their court judgement and need do nothing more unless there is some major new abuse of their logo.  Chasing a few minnows who are selling off the remaining few RE cans that actually were manufactured isn't worth thier time or money.  You seem to feel that they have some duty to pursue Storey and his ilk to the bitter end.  But they don't.


That wasn't a fact from Storey but his opinion, a amount (90 million) is a fact (correct or wrong fact, stays fact), a qualification "small" is a opinion.

And you, me and likely Whyte don't know "a few minnows who are selling off the remaining "few" RE cans "that actually were manufactured" at all.
Those stock picks wherens "few" in my judgment and qualification of that amount. That can be distributed towards large number of selling points.


The quoted quote from WTO is clear, no new court processes needed, "just" informing the authorities.

"The requirements in the TRIPS Agreement on border measures enable holders of IP rights to obtain the cooperation of customs administrations to intercept infringing goods at the border and to prevent the release of these goods into circulation."

"As a general rule, the right holder must request the customs authorities to take action; there is no obligation on customs authorities to act on their own initiative (ex officio), although members may provide for this." Why is that just ignored in responses here?

That's really not more work for a lawyer then a couple hours writing and packing for delivery.

And, no one is talking about all the other court order orders like the info. As if Whyte and Court just should and would accept breach/ignore all court orders in this case? What is logic in that?
No one is responding on the Dutch part that still displays logo and made new sponsordeal in context IP breach.

Everyone is assuming RE will stop using the logo after this lot, but it's nothing more then that "assuming". While, knowing they now breach the IP protection from Whyte, what reason is there to just assume they won't keep doing it?

And again, Whyte has stated multiple times, it's not about the money for them.


Edited by Maxioos, 26 August 2019 - 17:01.


#5496 PiperPa42

PiperPa42
  • Member

  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 26 August 2019 - 18:21

If Whyte was concerned, I'm sure they would be taking action. Are they taking action? We don't know, but they haven't done anything publicly yet. If the perceived benefit from Whyte don't outweigh the cost of taking action, why would they take any action?



#5497 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 26 August 2019 - 18:55

If Whyte was concerned, I'm sure they would be taking action. Are they taking action? We don't know, but they haven't done anything publicly yet. If the perceived benefit from Whyte don't outweigh the cost of taking action, why would they take any action?

 

I keep question the claimed "costs"

 

What costs is in this ""As a general rule, the right holder must request the customs authorities to take action"? That is just one letter, isn't it?

 

And, the last public announcement from Whyte was exactly that they where going to take further actions after not receiving the 35.416 pound and other court orders. That is their last public stated position on this dossier.

 

If there was money in RE/is (same)money in "new" RE, the compensation would be/is far more then only the legal costs. That is instantly such amount that for sure you look and search for ways to "earn" (part) of it.

 

These things just take time, lots of time. If i remember correct it was 8 and 8, 8 month before came on court list the "complaint" by Whyte was done and then it still took 8 month to first court day. That's 16 month we didn't hear anything from Whyte, did we? And still they took this costly, long time process forward.

 

​The time between first court and appeal option was multiple month. It's not like the first day after court order date expired and orders are not fulfilled or breaches still occur you then instantly get the institutions and processes work faster, the next steps require investigation and activating new processes (Like informing TRIPS agreement member states) that just simply cost time. And when there is a suspicion from Whyte's/court side of fraud RE's part, it even is more complicated and time consuming and for sure required media silence.

 

After not complying court orders and with breach logo still in circulation, i can't imagine it's finished at that point.

 

Edit: As example, we where talking for day's, possible weeks about the Whyte/RE logo before i found the court info. But before this topic was started Whyte had made complaint in court, and we separate found the logo similarity and later the actions done by Whyte. Whyte was at that point further then we where, i have no reason to assume difference now.


Edited by Maxioos, 26 August 2019 - 19:04.


#5498 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,873 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 26 August 2019 - 19:26

I keep question the claimed "costs"

So far, Whyte are out of pocket for their own lawyers' fees and have not so far as we know received any of the £35k awarded by the court.  RE and Staxoweb have gone into liquidation so no chance of getting anything from them and Storey has gone to ground and anyway probably hasn't got any money.  If Whyte go on now, they will be building up further lawyers' fees with no guarantee that they will ever recoup a penny.  SO what is in it for them to take any further action?  They have no moral obligation to pursue this suit especially if it looks likely to just waste more of their money.


Edited by BRG, 26 August 2019 - 19:27.


#5499 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,829 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 28 August 2019 - 04:03

If Whyte should make new case, please show some proof of it. https://ustr.gov/tra...ated-aspects-in

 

What you’ve linked there is a generic description of what TRIPS is.  TRIPS does not override the sovereignty of US courts.  Treaties still need to be enforced by local means.  Taking the property without due process is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 7th and possibly 11th Amendments to the US Constitution.  That’s my “proof”.  The UK judgement is not against the US distributor.  A new filing would have to be made over here for an additional judgement against a different company.  In that suit they would offer proof of infringement via the previous ruling. However that product was imported prior to the case going before a judge and legally imported into the US.  It was not a counterfeit good and was, I assume, purchased in good faith.    There is nothing in the TRIPS agreement that mandates confiscation of property.

 

Just because it's not here published?

 

[snip]

Between announcement court date and first court day was about 8 month if not more, it's not like process are going much faster instantly afterwards, it stay time consuming continuation processes.

 

In the US we know Whyte hasn’t filed because it’s not listed in PACER, our database of claims to Federal court.  The entries are put on the docket within days, sometimes hours of filing.  I just searched PACER in each US District Court and found no instances of Whyte Bikes or the plaintiffs in the original case filing anything.  The action would likely be in the Southern District of Indiana as that is where the drink is stored or was imported to.  Nor are there any filings against the blokes promotion company that has the product in the US.  To confiscate that property or enforce a treaty action a court order would be required.  That hasn’t happened.



Advertisement

#5500 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 28 August 2019 - 12:56

What you’ve linked there is a generic description of what TRIPS is.  TRIPS does not override the sovereignty of US courts.  Treaties still need to be enforced by local means.  Taking the property without due process is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 7th and possibly 11th Amendments to the US Constitution.  That’s my “proof”.  The UK judgement is not against the US distributor.  A new filing would have to be made over here for an additional judgement against a different company.  In that suit they would offer proof of infringement via the previous ruling. However that product was imported prior to the case going before a judge and legally imported into the US.  It was not a counterfeit good and was, I assume, purchased in good faith.    There is nothing in the TRIPS agreement that mandates confiscation of property.

 

 

This is about the 10th time the same point has been made.  I hope it isn't necessary to keep on repeating it.