Snu made new aplication to trade mark Psychic News

I recived a letter from Intelectual property this morning asking me if I want to rise opposition procedure agains a new aplicant with a mark that may be two similar to my trade mark.
as I read the letter I see that the aplicant is The old logo for Psychic press 1995s Psychic news and the aplicant is Spirtualists National Union. the new aplication was made 20 may 2011

I trust that you will oppose this.

Publiceye how can they have applied on the 20th May when it is only the 19th today?

The application will apear in the trade mark journal from 20 May 2011, I did not even notice this when the let ter came this morning.
The letter reads Quote;
Dear Sir or Madam

UK Trade Mark No: 2557851 in class 16
for the Mark: Psychic News
Proprietor's name: Psychic News

This letter is to advise you that we have receivied an application for a trade mark that may be similar or identical to the trade mark number shown above which you own. the details of the mark that has been applied for are attached.

We will not automatically reject a trade mark application simply because there is an earlier mark that may be similar or adentical. However, it is open to the owners of earlier trade marks to try to prevent the registration of this mark on the basis of an earlier mark. If you wish to do this you need to make use of our opposition procedure. Unquote


The letter go's on to explain how to rise opposition. and the forms to file.


As this is not going to effect my use of my trade mark and my company name. and any use of my company name can be classed as passing off then I do not see any point of wasting my time and money. I have stated all along that I have no intentions of using my company name as the heading for a newspaper and I seem to stand on protecting this name to the spiritualist movement.

I will sleep on my desicion and asess what is the point if any of raising opposition. I do not think that anyone would have anythingto gain from it and as my company was regiserd before this trade mark was filled the can never stop me trading under this name.

I have spent the last eight month with this issue and I have had no backing from anyone, infact I have had slandder and gossip from the very people who I was trying to protect. so I think it is time to let it go. I have put a lot of my own cash into this and I still have a court case to raise to protect my self.

I wish you all the best with your ventrues and I will get on with mine. I just wish spiritualist people could start to see people for who they realy are and not jump to conclusions that we are all after somthing.

Publiceye, I can't see any mention of the SNU. Where is it?

The letter States that the aplicant of the later mark is
Spiritualists National Union, Redwood, Stansted Hall. Stansted, Essex. CM24 8UD, United Kingdom.

Class 41 Publishers of newspapers an periodicals on the Internet and hard copy magazines [printed publications].

Service: Graham J Hewitt.

If you are still in doupt, check it out on Intelectual property Ref. UK mark 2560680.

Hello what are the SNU up to today soumds very tricky and nasty

Publiceye I can't find any trace of a new application. The one you mention (2560680) seems to be dated 6th October 2010.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-tmj/journals/6888/t-tmj-jnl-6888.pdf

This was the original date of the fist aplication, but that was changed from the certification mark to a trade mark recently, and has now been put on the published list for people to raise objections. If no one objects to it, in the two months that it is advertised, then it will go through and they will now get the trade mark. this will be put through on the original date of the first aplication.

I'm finding it hard to understand all the technical stuff but I'm interested in knowing what's going on.

Can you please explain in layperson terms?

Hi Mac,

I am not sure of the absolute facts here but it appears that the SNU have made an application to register the trade mark for Psychic News firstly in October 2010 and then a revison in May 2011, on the 19th. Given Public Eyes prior rights in this matter I would assume the Intellectual Property Office would have contaced her, which has caused her to share the information with us.

Now if I suggest this is very underhand let me put it in the context of events to date.

The SNU were, as we all are aware, the owners of Psychic Press(1995) Pty Ltd.

In April last year a select group of the NEC and directors of PP (!995) met with a Liquidator and decided that the Company was trading Insolvently and should be liquidated.

From what has been published both here and on Paranormal Review we know they tried quietly to place the company into Liquidation in June 2010. However news of their attempt filtered out and causing protests which led them to back away from an early liquidation.

The NEC were offered money to clear the debts and market the paper properly but refused it. Subsequently they closed Psychic news on 24th July and went about putting the business into liquidation.

They delayed this to deal with an offer for the whole company Psychic Press (1995) which they received from the JV Trust and its chairman Eric Hatton in August. However, they claimed prior ownership of the Masthead and Archives for the SNU, meaning they would not include these in the sale. At this time the Spiritual Truth Foundation pointed out that this was incorrect and the assets were owned by Psychic Press (1995). This fact the SNU's NEC refused to accept. With the refusal to include the key assets the offer by the JV Trust was withdrawn.

At that point the NEC, having taken over effective control of PP (1995) from its board during July, decided to pursue the liquidation.

It is worth noting that since April the NEC knew that PP (1995) was trading insolvently and would liquidate in an insolvent matter. Under UK law once Directors are aware of this they have a duty to look after the Creditors and protect their position not that of the Shareholders. Their duty was to minimise the loss to employees and creditors. They failed to do this when they caused the JV Trust to withdraw from purchasing the Company. Had they accepted this offer no losses would have been incurred by any of the stakeholders in the company and the SNU may have even received some payment for the business.

The liquidation commenced with Berley's in September but for whatever reason the NEC cancelled it. It could have been the charges the Liquidators were proposing, the level of protest that was occuring, or even the fact the Liquidator would have to confirm who owned the key assets, PP(1995) or the SNU.

After the liquidation had been cancelled the SNU tried to register a Trade Mark for PN to safeguard its claimed "ownership", fortunately Public Eye was there first and this application was made public and blocked.

At this stage the NEC took PP(1995) into liquidation with a new Company Marsh Hammond. However under the storm of protest the liquidators decided to study the ownership of the Masthead and Archives. What we all now know is that the SNU were found NOT to own thse key assets. The NEC therefore continued to incur debts, fail to pay out its staff when they should have sold the company in August to the JV Trust (Masthead and Archives included) to prevent all of these intolerable losses and the emotional hurt to employees.

After considerable delay we know that Ms Marsh the liquidator advertised the assets of the company for 150,000 pounds or to the highest bidder. Offers should have closed by March 14 (I think it was from a copy of the advert in Psychic World that someone posted elsewhere) but clearly this did not happen and other wrangling has gone on. We still await notice of what is happening to these assets as of now.

Now I cannot believe that the SNU would pay money for something they thought they were going to get for nothing. Therefore it may appear that, if public eye is correct, they are attempting to grab hold of the assets through the back door method of pushing through a Trade Mark application.

Now it appears likely that at the same time Ms Marsh may be negotiating with other parties over an offer for the assets which includes the Masthead and Archives. Of course if the NEC get the Trade Mark registration then they can make it more difficult for any new owner.

On the basis of what we have seen, during the course of this whole affair, behaviour like this is entirely consistent with all of the appalling things done so far. If it is a true statement of affairs the NEC could even be seen as trying to steal an asset by stealth from someone buying it in good faith so that the creditors could receive a partial pay out. This despite their direct involvement placing the company in liquidation, losing money for employees and creditors.

Oh well we can be sure that the truth will eventually come out, even if sadly we have to wait a while longer. I do hope that there has been no re application for the trade mark, it would be such a tawdry act by the NEC of a Spiritualist body to still try and defy their ethical duty to finally step aside and let things move on.

thanks, Jim.

Always useful to re-state the known facts. What I still can't figure is the true legal position as new manoeuvering takes place whenever a final outcome appears to be on the horizon.

I suppose that the true legal situation is something still to be tested and is uncertain until the final outcome, perhaps some considerable time away? One possibility is that one party or the other will get worn down by the wrangling and walk away from all the hassle leaving the other able to do what they were hoping to do.....

I suppose Mac, for myself, that I wish the UK Liquidator would do what any Australian one would, go after the Directors, which in this case would include the NEC because they took over from the actual PP (1995) Directors in July and in fact took direct control of the actions taken.

It would appear that they failed to exercise their duties to act in the best interests of the creditors and the proof of that seems to me to be clear. If the Liquidators required 150,000 pounds to clear debts and expenses (but not restore the full employee entitlements) that clearly indicates a very insolvent conclusion to the business. However, in August they could have sold the business to a willing buyer that would have ensured no one loast anything. Indeed had they accepted the offers of money earlier than that they may even have been able to prevent the losses to everyone without a change of ownership.

I know that over here in OZ the liquidators would be putting the squeeze on the NEC and the Directors on the basis of these facts. I am sure that, at the very least, it would result in willing, generous contributions from those involved into the liquidators funds to preclude appearing in court possibly for trading insolvently.