Jump to content

Bushy's To Defend.....


ManxTaxPayer
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, notwell said:

Eh? 

Well you could try following the link.  Though being IOM Newspapers, this isn't a new story.  Ramsey Commissioners having to pay a fee to the DED for their TT-themed crazy golf has been mentioned on here before.  As with the RNLI it's the nominal £250 for five years, though they seem to have been asked for £50 pa, rather than it all at once, presumably to increase the amount of admin and keep people in jobs.

Baker has got a question down in the Keys to Skelly today:What his Department’s approach is to maximising the value of the Isle of Man TT brand and to protecting against unauthorised usage of the brand?  Which will presumably give rise to some debate on this whole fiasco - it's only a short session so hopefully Watterson will let it run on a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

they seem to have been asked for £50 pa, rather than it all at once, presumably to increase the amount of admin and keep people in jobs.

There's the absurdity of the whole thing. It isn't making any money for the brand at all. It's simply the taxpayer charging the taxpayer so the taxpayer can use what the taxpayer already owns. And no doubt, by so doing, making a net loss. Absurd. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well you could try following the link.  Though being IOM Newspapers, this isn't a new story.  Ramsey Commissioners having to pay a fee to the DED for their TT-themed crazy golf has been mentioned on here before.  As with the RNLI it's the nominal £250 for five years, though they seem to have been asked for £50 pa, rather than it all at once, presumably to increase the amount of admin and keep people in jobs.

Baker has got a question down in the Keys to Skelly today:What his Department’s approach is to maximising the value of the Isle of Man TT brand and to protecting against unauthorised usage of the brand?  Which will presumably give rise to some debate on this whole fiasco - it's only a short session so hopefully Watterson will let it run on a bit.

Although the wording of the question won't, I suspect, provide the answers we are looking for..... like, who owns the 'brand' and who decides what amount is charged for the use of the 'brand'?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

There's the absurdity of the whole thing. It isn't making any money for the brand at all. It's simply the taxpayer charging the taxpayer so the taxpayer can use what the taxpayer already owns. And no doubt, by so doing, making a net loss. Absurd. 

It's even worse than that.  Isn't the £250 paid over to their intellectual property representatives in Manchester anyway?  I'm not sure exactly what for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

There's the absurdity of the whole thing. It isn't making any money for the brand at all. It's simply the taxpayer charging the taxpayer so the taxpayer can use what the taxpayer already owns. And no doubt, by so doing, making a net loss. Absurd. 

It is the Ramsey rate payer who is paying surely?  Why invoice the Ramsey Town Commissioners if it's a tax payer debt?

Anyway, it's another non story by the look of it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's even worse than that.  Isn't the £250 paid over to their intellectual property representatives in Manchester anyway?  I'm not sure exactly what for.

Sad though that a Crazy Golf course could be subject to such attention from the DED and yet still all the hookey Chinese made TT goods can be freely bought all over the internet in their 1,000s. Typical civil servants going for the easy stuff and leaving the stuff that really matters untouched as it's too difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hboy said:

Sad though that a Crazy Golf course could be subject to such attention from the DED and yet still all the hookey Chinese made TT goods can be freely bought all over the internet in their 1,000s. Typical civil servants going for the easy stuff and leaving the stuff that really matters untouched as it's too difficult.

Really ?

If you use the TT to make a profit you should be paying for that privilege. Simple.

Nobody takes on the Chinese and wins either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Really ?

If you use the TT to make a profit you should be paying for that privilege. Simple.

Nobody takes on the Chinese and wins either.

No thanks, l could just copy the designs, use a drop shipping company like this under any username: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/isle+of+man+tt+t-shirts and have stuff delivered to customers in the UK/IOM from outside of the trademark area and probably at a lower price.

There's a lot of people doing just that.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

No thanks, l could just copy the designs, use a drop shipping company like this under any username: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/isle+of+man+tt+t-shirts and have stuff delivered to customers in the UK/IOM from outside of the trademark area and probably at a lower price.

There's a lot of people doing just that.

 

I like the Steam Racket Company TT shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Baker has got a question down in the Keys to Skelly today:What his Department’s approach is to maximising the value of the Isle of Man TT brand and to protecting against unauthorised usage of the brand?  Which will presumably give rise to some debate on this whole fiasco - it's only a short session so hopefully Watterson will let it run on a bit.

As I expected this went on a bit longer than most questions.  It wasn't answered by Skelly however who was off gallivanting somewhere with Quayle, but by our own Rob Callister.  And a very strange answer or rather set of answers it was.

Firstly there was actually a lengthy written answer circulated the day before, rather as if Skelly didn't trust Rob to read it out properly.  Though given how rambling and incoherent it was, he may simply have been that Rob couldn't have done so with a straight face.  Then Rob produced his own reply, some of which duplicated the written answer and then answered supplementaries.

Or didn't as the case may be.  For example Ashford asked (twice) if the £250 payment was a one-off or was it per annum (in actual fact it seems to have covered five years in some cases).  Despite us having been assured that the £250 was to cover legal charges, it seems the DED can't decide and are just making it up as they go along.  There are still no guidelines as to what small businesses and charities should do other than contact the DED and hope.

Again Baker asked (twice) "in terms of the strategic advice on the management of the brand and the associated IP protection, from whom and when has the advice been received?" and got no clear answer.  He was particularly worried about exclusive licencing deals (which most of the them seem to be).  But again there was no clear answer.

As so often with the DED, the impression is of complete cluelessness.  Those running the department don't even seem aware that there are things they should be doing, never mind what they should be or how to achieve success.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Callister confirms, months after everyone asked the question, what most people had already worked out:

http://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/tt-trademark-cant-be-enforced-beyond-europe/

They can't do anything about the Chinese websites, and eBay, or any of the real businesses which are actually undermining the brand and in effect they can only pick on locaI mini golf courses, t shirt, general tat sellers and charities who are making pennies by association with a local event to make themselves feel big. It's a bit of a waste of time really and totally at odds with every statement they've made so far. They need to preserve the integrity of the "global" brand to make money they say; but they don't have the "global" rights and can only chase penny shop owners and local tax payers who aren't the real problem in th first place. 

Edited by JackCarter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...