theft of the fencebrackets/fixing patent GB2401616,
For Clarity there are at least three of my products, patents and trademarks defrauded by this Defendant.1). the theft/fraud of patent GB2401616 2). the theft/fraud of my rafterclips patents (details to follow of the offending product when I return to the UK)3). the theft/fraud of my rafterclips registered trademarkDuring the course of trying to get my products to market I wrote to every large construction related product manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor and retailer I could find. As a little guy starting off, I expected to be met with professional corporate responsibility and not a mountain of deceit, hidden agendas and crime. Many of the large firms just didn’t reply, some replied and told me they weren’t interested and some eventually stocked my products. I met many businesses at the trade shows. I contacted the Defendants St. Gobain, and Jewsons and had conversations with their staff at the shows. I was given names, business cards, all the usual false promises and meaningless chit chat. I write to St.Gobain and Jewson between 2004 - 2010 asking them if they would stock my products or licence my patents - same as with Group 1. They claim they don’t have any interest. I have the correspondence because I didn’t throw it out like I did by mistake with the letter from 2010 Group 1 (‘we don’t sell wooden fencing only metal fencing’).Theft of Patent GB2401616 & Criminal Conspiracy to Avoid UK Patent Offences. I travel to Europe in 2012 to find that DIY Retailer ‘Ehitusa ABC’ are selling a product (below) that is without doubt stolen from my patent rights. I ask the retailer who is distributing it and I am told ‘Favor AS’. The Defendant St.Gobain owns Ehitusa ABC and has shares in Favor AS. I found the details on their own website with links to these firms. More photos to follow: Each side flange folds to form a U shaped channel so that each side flange has a tab cut from within. The holes in the tabs are the fixing points to fix the backplate to the underlying surface. This product is stolen from my patent GB2401616.Question:We have all of the same building methods and materials in the UK , so why isn’t this product sold in the UK ?If the answer is: A). We tried it in the UK and nobody bought it. = They would admit infringing my patent rights and committed fraud.B). We don’t think there is a market for this product in the UK. = How do you know if you haven’t tried it? There wasn’t a market for my Rafterclips® in the UK either until I invented the product and created the market. Isn’t it the truth that you know you have stolen my patent and in the UK that would be fraud under the Fraud Act 2006?C). Where is your own patent on this product? Please provide the numbers and I will have it revoked, but I don’t believe you were able to get one, or even have one because it would infringe my patent.This Defendant is a worldwide firm owning many smaller firms with shares and interests in the other Defendants’ firms. They are a trading partner of the Defendant in Group 3. It is inconceiveable that these firms are unaware of the offences or the crime they have carried out. Again - This is a criminal conspiracy and because it has been done with the UK firm’s involvement I am entitled to the turnover from the worldwide sales because without doubt this begun in the UK after I had written to the firms.I contact St. Gobain and ask for an explanation. They do not sell this product in the UK and yet we have all the same building methods and products and yet they sell this product all over Europe but not in the UK. They do not have any patent on this product. They write back and claim ‘we don’t sell wooden fencing’. Sounds familiar doesn’t it !The firm removes all the links from its websites about these other firms selling the ripped off product and tries to delete all records that they have any interest in Favor AS. They re-do the Favor AS website to make it look like it is a separate firm. However they haven’t been clever enough because a simple search of the European trademarks register shows that at the time, Saint Gobain owned the trademark Favor AS. I printed a copy off for the records. i also took print off of their websites.I then get sued by Group 1 of the Defendants with their malicious and perjured prosecution and dont continue pursuing Group 3 as of yet.In 2017 I find that Saint Gobain have now launched another product that is for installing insulation between rafters. It is stolen from my rafterclips® patents. They have used my trademark Rafterclips® to launch and sell this product all over Europe and possibly further afield, which is a serious criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and Tradesmarks Act 1994. They distribute this product under my trademark through Amazon, Screwfix, Ebay and other online sites. I contact them again and say : “It seems to me that you think you’re going to come along and steal everything I create”. They reply stating that they claim the use of my trademark Rafterclips® is descriptive and they evade providing any defence to the fraud of my rafterclips® patents.To clarify: they launch a first product that infringes, and is stolen from, my patent GB2401616 and claim ‘we don’t sell wooden fencing. Then they launch a second product stolen from my rafterclips patents and call it Rafterclips which is my registered trademark, and sell millions of this product, thus wiping out all my investment and years of pioneering this work without paying me a penny and after claiming they dont have any interest in me or my products. Then in writing they admit doing it and try to argue their way out of it thinking they will argue a civil liability. Now they have stolen two products and my trademarks and continue to defraud me of millions of pounds of revenues that they take offshore and which belong to me and the people of the United Kingdom. This could be construed as cheating Public Revenues.There is some evidence that this Group 3 is trading with Group 4 and because they’re using the same excuse of ‘we don’t sell wooden fencing’ I wouldn’t be surprised if they are also linked through business to Groups 1 and 2.
Extract from the United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecution Service’s Own Wesbite:Criminal Offences contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA)Section 92 TMA covers unauthorised use of trade mark, in relation to goods. Section 92 is not confined to fraudulent misapplication/misuse, the prosecutor does not have to prove mens rea - R v Keane  FSR 7; no requirement to prove mens rea, the offence is one of "near absolute liability" - Torbay Council v Satnam Singh (1999) 163 JP 744.Section 92(1)(a),(b),(c), (2) and (3) offences are all hybrid offences, for which the maximum sentence on indictment is 10 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine.Section 103(2) sets out the definition of use.Elements of the offenceTo establish the offence under section 92(1)(a) the prosecutor must prove:Registration of the trade mark - the prosecutor must prove that, on the date of the commission of the alleged offence, the trade mark was registered; and the registration had been published; Rafterclips is my registered trademark."Application of a sign to goods within the registration" - the prosecutor must prove that:the sign is identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, the registered trade mark in question: the Defendants’ own letter to me confirms they are doing it and then try to argue out of it. (This letter cannot yet be published due to pending case).the goods are goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered OR, if they are not the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade markthe application of the sign was by the defendant (or the defendant conducted one of the activities set out in section 92(1)(b) or (c))Lack of consent by the proprietor - In Houghton v Liverpool City Council  Crim.L.R. 574 - lack of consent is "... a matter, like so many matters of fact, that may be the subject of proper inferences by the court, never forgetting the criminal standard of proof applies. In this case ... the inference is most plainly to be drawn."That the registered trade mark was/is being used as a trade mark. See my website www.fencebrackets.com / rafterclips.com (forwarded to fencebrackets.com)For each of the offences in section 92(1) - (3) it is also necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the person conducted the activities "... with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another." Defendant refused to licence my patents or stock my products and then commits serious crime.These words appear in the Theft Act 1968 and the meaning given for the purposes of that Act (section 34(2)(a)) is "... 'gain' and 'loss' are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent and(i) 'gain' includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as gain by getting what one has not; and(ii) 'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has...". R v Zaman  EWCA Crim 1862, considered whether the words "with a view to" have the same meaning as "with intent to" in section 92 - and concluded, dismissing the appeal, that they did not.
Correspondence between myself & the Defendant Saint Gobain, proving criminal offences, intent, and deliberate attempt to conceal the offences. LINK NOT YET ACTIVE
Update August 2018 - I have reported these Defendants to the Police because as of yet I have not reported this Group. I was waiting to see what would happen to the other reports for the other Defendants and the Police claim “we can’t see how there is any crime”. Details under Police Corruption Page.If they refuse to investigate in the light of the undeniable and indisputable evidence above then we will have a proven pattern of Police Force corruption and crime. The evidence is in the Defendant’s own words in their own letters to me; admitting carrying out the offences and then trying to find a legal argument out of it after the fact.Follow this Crime Report>>>>> Crime Number: NFRC1808024890310.Photos below show the online form I submitted to Action Fraud on 24th August 2018.
I’ve provided a brief report and clearly ask the Police to contact me for the other details so that I can give a full statement with the evidence. I’ve told the Police that I feel very vulnerable and have suffered severe affects of this crime.
I’ve been given a crime number and expect the Police to open a formal investigation into this serious economic crime. 25th August 2018.
Action Fraud Report lodged 25th August 2018
October 2018 update:I had a reply from Saint Gobain and they told me they were now going to write to the retailers and distributors and tell them to stop using my trademark to try to get themselves out of criminal charges. So to clarify to the reader: They launch their new fixings for retaining insulation between rafters; said product stolen from my patent, they use my own trademark to get these defrauded products all over the marketplace, and then after they’ve had a successful launch they state that they will write to their retailers to tell them to stop committing the crime now that they have made the gains from it. The problem for these wretched little shits is: I have a list of names of retailers who were using this trademark and screenshots of their websites. When I approached one or two of them and accused them of passing off and Fraud Act offences they told me in writing that the Defendant’s own sales people told them to use my trademark. We can subpoena all of those customers. I will be responding again to the latest letter and I will publish the details here.
The point of this is that it proves that the UK Police Force will just leave you to fucking rot. If you attempt to enforce IP rights in the United Kingdom, it doesn’t matter what Authority you report it to - they refuse to do absolutely anything about it and won’t bother to reply. It proves that they are aware of the serious trauma this lawlessness causes, because i’ve informed them using their own forms and yet not a single person from the Police has bothered to contact me. These are crimes against humanity and a breach of EU Treaties and the Rome Statute.
Update January 2020:Due to the large fights going on in 2019, I have proof of my allegations but have not yet pursued St. Gobain any further due to having so much to deal with, with all the other Defendants andcorruption. I have not forgotten about this firm and their crime against me and I will be bringing criminal charges against them.