Human Rights Application.

David Mottram, Nansi Mottram v The EU Transport Commission, The UK Authorities and The Crown of Great Britain. Complaint under Article 1 of The Human Rights Act. Deprivation of an asset, registered design number 2053070.

All exhibits are available for perusal upon request.

1. The UK authorities and the EU Transport Commission between 1998 to date have deliberately set out to steal intellectual property that is a registered design, registered at the UK Patent office since October 1995 under the design registration number 2053070 representing a design of 12 gold stars in a circle (the EU symbol) above the country identifier GB, on a blue band, the design is specifically for vehicle registration plates and / or stickers. The aforementioned parties have encouraged manufacturers to contractually manufacture number plates for the European community within the UK for the general public unlawfully utilising the intellectual property. They have incited mass piracy of registered design 2053070.
[EX 1: EC No. 2411/98.
EX 2: SI 2001/561.]

2. Both the UK authorities and the EU Transport Commission were aware of the existence of the registered design since its original registration in October 1995 and for a period of 8 (eight) years to the year 2003, there was never one challenge upon the authenticity of the design after many informative notices were served upon them.
Government officials, UK Ministers, Government departments, the European Commissioner for Transport (then Mr. Neil Kinnock) and his assistant Mr. Jan Van Koopman, who both applauded the ingenuity with regard to the designs, some four years before the design was considered or legalised by the UK government (SI 2001/561) following a EU directive (EC 2411/98), were notified of the registration of the design
[EX 3: Schedule of informative notices.]

3. The UK government patent office in 1995, promoted, gave advice and encouraged individuals to innovate and create new designs, patents, business ideas and copyright, that advice was followed and the designs for UK vehicle registration plates were submitted.
In all 8 designs were registered, the protection for those designs was said to be a total period of 25 years (subject to the correct registration and payment of the required fees).
The patent advisor assigned was a Mr. Arthur Chinnery, a senior British government patent advisor, he was most helpful and advised in 1995, that the Patent Office had researched a period back as far as 25 years to check whether any similar article or design was commonly known or in the public domain, industrial circles or in any public record or documentation whatsoever, he advised that there was nothing in any way, shape or form similar to the designs in the public domain.

4. Further, the UK patent office insisted that clarification and permission should be sought and granted from the Flag Institute within the UK with regard to the use of national flags in registered designs and that no copyright was attached to the flags. Advice was generated from the Flag Institute and the necessary fees were paid for the conclusion. A letter from the Flag Institute dated 18 January 1996 signed by the Director, Dr. William Crampton confirmed that there was no copyright in the use of national flags in the designs, it further stated that the copyright in the designs lay with the designs because of the configuration of the articles, a copy of the correspondence is on file at the Patent Office, therefore the relevant registration fees were paid to the Patent Office and the designs were registered in February 1996 with protection from October 1995, when the applications were first lodged.
[EX 4: Letter dated 18/01/96 from UK Flag Institute.
EX 5: Copy registered design 2053070.]

5. In the year 2000, an application was successful in extending the protection for a further five years, the UK authorities accepted further fees and laid no claim to the authenticity of the registered design and laid no claim to any challenge whatsoever, even though the UK authorities had publicly announced in 1999, that they intended to legalise the Euro symbol and GB country identifier at the earliest convenience, following the publication of a European Directive EC 2411/98, in which officials full knowing of the existence of the registered design 2053070, actively participated in the construction of that EC Directive.
It became apparent at this time that the UK authorities had changed the regulations with regard to the use of flags being allowed in registered designs because of contentious issues raised by the UK Transport department, there was no challenge on registered design 2053070.
[EX 6: Registered design extension certificate.]

6. Since 1995, the UK authorities, have always referred to the designs as 'your designs' in all correspondence issued.

7. Sample number plates were provided on two occasions (1996 and 1999) to the Department of Transport. The senior policy advisor, Stephen Clarke formally requested them to be produced because it was accepted that there was copyright over the designs and the UK government would not be able to produce them without permission. It was stated at this stage that the UK government were considering using the designs, this was several years before the legalisation of the 'EU' plates (registered design 2053070).
Clarke had the samples copied and the samples were returned by recorded delivery.

8. Correspondence and telephone calls from the UK Transport department ceased in 1999. Later that year it was publicly announced that the EU symbol and the GB country identifier (registered design 2053070) was going to be legalised through Parliament. It was found that registered design 2053070 was legalised in SI 2001/561, signed off by Lord Whitty. The Intellectual property owners had already confirmed that they would grant the UK authorities a licence subject to conditions being met, but the legalisation of design 2053070, in SI 2001/561 was carried out without any consultation whatsoever with the Intellectual property owners.

SI 561 of 2001,[ in particular para (16) (2) (a) and (b)], had been passed by Parliament legalising, with effect from 1st. September 2001, design 2053070 - GB and the EU stars, without permission from the intellectual property owners. The design was even labelled as 'Crown copyright' on the DVLA website (link now superceded by web redesign, but remains in this application as fact)http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/reg_marks_newrules.htm- which it obviously is not. The law applicable is found here.

9. Therefore the representation made is false, totally misleading the general public and inciting mass piracy throughout the UK.
The UK government via its agency DVLA? and the European Transport Commission are encouraging motorists to display the design that represents registered design 2053070, on their vehicles for motoring across Europe.

10. The Department of Transport in London was contacted - with Stephen Clarke, the policy official who previously had the responsibility for policy with regard to vehicle registration plates confirmed that this area of policy had been devolved to the DVLA in Swansea and that a Robert Pick was now the official responsible.

11. Robert Pick of the DVLA, an agency of the Department of Transport was contacted and advised of design number 2053070 and also that contact had been made with the Dept of Transport, London since 1996, he stated that neither he nor DVLA had knowledge of registered design 2053070 or of previous correspondence concerning it.
This was a false representation because his immediate superior officer Mrs. Maureen Price had been made aware of the existence of the design by way of a polite notice dated 20th September 1996.
[EX 7: Polite notice to Maureen Price dated 20/09/96.]

12. It was suggested that Robert Pick make a search at the Patent Office for design no. 2053070. This was done, he reported that the design was in existence, he further confirmed that he would search for the relevant government files with regard to previous correspondence and take advice from the Secretary of State, at that time Stephen BYERS. He further stated that the matter would be addressed immediately, but in any event the authorities were only following a European Directive.
He reported later that month, that he had retrieved numerous files regarding our design from archive.

13. In a letter dated 30th. August 2001, signed by an associate of Mr. Pick - Mrs. M.A. Price, as mentioned in the paragraph above, Head of Vehicle Policy Group on behalf of the Secretary of State writes
'The Secretary of State has carefully considered your claim that a design described in EC regulation 2411/98 and referred to in SI 2001/526 resembles one registered at the Patent Office by yourself. The Secretary of State does not admit that your design is the same as the one referred to in the legislation and denies that your rights to the registered design have been adversely interfered with by the enactment of legalisation as required by Community law.
In the circumstances he does not propose to make any legislative changes.'
[EX 8: Letter dated 30/08/01 signed on behalf of Sec of State by M.A. Price.
EX 9: SI 2001/526 as referred to by Sec of State in letter dated 30/08/01 (Enfield Trust).]

14. Apart from the fact that the letter signed by Mrs. Price of DVLA, detailing the decision of the Secretary of State refers to the wrong UK Statutory Instrument (SI 2001/526 refers to Enfield Health Trust), the actual SI is 2001/561.
The registered design 2053070, is a registered design and the protection lies in the representation and the way in which it is put together, the registration documents clearly show on the design itself that,'the novelty lies in the shape or configuration and pattern or ornament of the article as shown in the representation'. Bear in mind the copyright article is identical to the EU symbol and country of origin, GB, that is quoted on the DVLA website http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/reg_marks_newrules.htm (page 2 of 4) (now superseded by website re design, the link remains here as fact. The appropriate law is found here. )
Evidence was generated that the correspondence signed by Price on behalf of the Secretary of State was deliberately mis written to eliminate the author from any responsibility.
The UK authorities and the European Transport Commission were both aware of the existence of the designs some four years before the legalisation of registered design 2053070 in the EU Directive 2411/98 and Statutory Instrument 2001/561. It is therefore apparent that the UK authorities and the EU Transport Commission have both conspired to illegally deprive the intellectual property owners of their intellectual property and the gain that as a right, the intellectual property owners would expect from the marketing of the design rights.

15. A senior EU Transport Commissioner, Head of the EU Commission for Energy and Transport, Senora del Palacio was approached by correspondence on 15/08/01 and 16/08/01, the situation with regard to design 2053070 was outlined, in particular it was notified to her that the UK authorities were clearly laying the blame for piracy of registered design 2053070 on the EU Commission and their Directive no. 2411/98.
[EX 10: Copy letter dated 15/08/01.
EX 11: Copy letter dated 16/08/01.]

16. Senor Diego Canga Fano, replied on behalf of Senora Palacio, in a letter dated 25/09/01. He advised that the EU commission had been in contact with the UK authorities and that the intellectual property owners should await the decision of the UK 'legal services.'
[EX 12: Letter dated 25/09/01 from Canga- Fano.]

17. Snr. Canga-Fano was approached again by letter dated 09/10/01, following his reply dated 25/09/01. Attached to that correspondence was a schedule detailing the extensive polite notices issued regarding registered design 2053070. A further reply was generated on behalf of the EU Transport Commission signed by Canga Fano referring to the previous letter dated 25/09/01, awaiting the outcome of the enquiries of the DVLA.
[EX 13: Letter dated 09/10/01 plus schedule of polite notices sent to Canga - Fano.]

18. On 18/12/01 Snr. Canga Fano was again approached by correspondence by the intellectual property owners, the situation was explained again, with further substantial supporting documentation and requesting that the situation be addressed.
[EX 14: Letter dated 18/12/01 to EU Transport Commission.]

19. On 04/06/02, further correspondence was issued to the EU Transport Commission, Snr. Canga Fano, confirming that no reply had been received concerning his advice to await the outcome of the investigation of the UK legal services. He gave that advice 9 months earlier. He was informed that the situation required immediate attention and that the Intellectual property owners considered that they had a claim against the relevant authorities under Article 1 of the Human Rights Act as they had been deprived of their asset, namely registered design 2053070.
A phone call was received from Snr. Canga Fano, he advised that the complaint should be made 'under R266 of The Treaty'. A complaint was lodged dated 28/08/02 under that Treaty reference along with a schedule of supporting evidence amounting to 64 pages. He confirmed that he would also forward our complaint onto The Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
[EX 15: Letter dated 04/06/02 to EU Transport Commission regarding complaint under Art. 1 Human Rights Act.
EX 16:Complaint under 'R266 of The Treaty'.]

20. Following the lodging of the complaint calls were made to Snr. Canga Fano by the Intellectual property owners and their solicitors. A formal letter of apology was promised by the office of Snr. Canga Fano, it was said that the letter 'was in the post'. To date this has never arrived.
Snr Caga Fano phoned the home of the Intellectual property owners one evening and admitted that there never was a letter and the promises made to the solicitors were false. He further stated that the matter concerning registered design 2053070 was 'complex' 'complicated'.

21. In response to that phone call a fax was sent to Snr Canga Fano dated 12/12/02, that correspondence once again raised the point that a letter had been promised to the solicitors and nothing had materialised, also put the facts of the matter to him one more time, confirming his advice to raise a complaint under 'R266 of The Treaty' had been followed.
[EX 17: Fax dated 12/12/02 to Canga -Fano.]

22. The EU Commission, Secretariat General, accepted the complaint made following the advice of Snr. Canga Fano under 'R266 of The Treaty' and granted a reference number 2003/4036, SG(2003)A/628, in correspondence dated 20/01/03, they confirmed an investigation would be carried out 'in the light of the applicable Community law.'
[EX 18: Letter dated 20/01/03 from Secretariat General confirming investigation.]

23. On 15/02/03 contact was made by electronic mail with Snr. Alejandro Martinez Godin, who it was stated by the EU Secretariat General, had been appointed as case worker for the complaint lodged.
[EX 19: Copy email 15/02/03.]

24. There was no substantive correspondence from the European Commission, the complaint was lodged August 2002, a reference number was granted January 2003.

25. A letter was generated from The European Transport Commission dated 22/05/03, signed by Marie Wolfcarius, she wrote that the investigation had been carried out by The Transport Commission themselves. It is apparent that the whole investigation under 'R266 of The Treaty' was an internal review into the infringement. Evidence was gathered from that letter which confirms that there never was a section 'R266 of The Treaty', the content of the letter was proven by fact to be inaccurate and misleading.
The writer of the letter made reference to the EU working on similar models of number plate designs since the end of the 1980's and in particular relates the evidence to a model included in the annexe to EC regulation 2411/98, that model was according to the writer 'largely known to the Public authorities of Member states and industrial circles.'
[EX 20: Letter dated 22/05/03 from Wolfcarius.
EX 1: Annexe shows models referred to in this letter respectively for NL and E, Holland and Spain.]

26. In reply to the correspondence the intellectual property owners notified the writer that the only models produced in annexe to regulation 2411/98 were the models produced for Holland, 'NL' and Spain, 'E', not the United Kingdom 'GB'.

27. Wolfcarius, on behalf of the EU Commission made reference to the timing of discussions at the EU Transport Commission, referring to the EU Initial Proposal for the harmonisation of Member states vehicle registration plates, i.e. the display of the circle of 12 gold stars above the country identifier on a blue background on a number plate, she deliberately misrepresented this 'Initial Proposal' as a 'Memorandum from the Commission' this is dated 15/07/97 (2 years after the registration of design 2053070) and found under reference SYN/1997/01/99.
The writer made further representations with regard to the EU Commission taking steps to annul the design registration and indeed any 'design registration which would create exclusive rights over the use of the European emblem (in combination with the abbreviation of Member States names) on car registration plates' and also stated that the Transport Commission would be proposing to terminate the complaint at one of its forthcoming meetings.
The Intellectual property owners wrote in reply to this letter, requesting:
1. Material evidence that the design 'GB' and the Euro-stars was in existence prior to1995, in a format that could be scientifically analysed and dated.
2. The law or regulation which permitted the EU Commission to annul registered designs, that had been correctly lodged, investigated and registered some 8 years earlier in the UK.
[EX 21:Copy initial proposal harmonisation on number plates dated 15/07/97.]
EX 22: Letter dated 10/06/03 in reply to EU Comm letter dated 22/05/03.]

28. No material evidence was provided whatsoever.

29. As it was apparent that no proper investigation had been made and that the reply generated by Wolfcarius of the EU Transport Commission was not only unlawful, but incorrect and deliberately misleading, in that a major colluding party to the complaint had investigated itself, a complaint was sent to the President of the EU Commission Senor Romano Prodi.
The President was asked to address the situation, in that an unbiased full and frank investigation, was required, to show fairness not bias and to act impartially on fact and evidence. It was put to that the EU Transport Commission, in investigating themselves and their colluding partners the UK authorities had set to excuse themselves from any blame.
[EX 23: Letter to Prodi requesting independent investigation.]

30. A reply generated on behalf of The President, undated but received by electronic mail 30/06/03, confirmed 'an in-depth examination which is currently in progress.'
[EX 24: Letter promising investigation following complaint to The President.]

31. Further complaint had been made to Francois Brunet on 10/06/03 of The Secretariat General which generated no acknowledgement or reply.
[EX 25: Letter to Francois Brunet further complaint.]

32. On 22/07/03, a letter was generated by EU Commission signed by Marie Wolfcarius, again she eliminates the EU Commission from the complaint making reference only to 'Your complaint 2003/4036 against the United Kingdom', she provides no further material evidence to substantiate any of the claims made by her on behalf of the Commission regarding substantive evidence of prior art and the law appertaining to the rights of The Commission to annul the designs.
[EX 26: Reply re ceived from Wolfcarius on behalf of Commission dated 22/07/03.]

33. On 03/08/03 a letter was issued by the Intellectual property owners to President Prodi in response to the correspondence received from Wolfcarius on behalf of The Commission, as the Intellectual property owners had been under the impression that an independent 'in-depth' investigation was to take place. It was put to The President that Wolfcarius had ignored all of the matters raised in previous correspondence.
[EX 27: Letter to President Prodi dated 03/08/03.]

34. Further correspondence was issued to Wolfcarius dated 03/08/03 again asking for the evidence with regard to prior art and the EU Commission being empowered to annul registered design 2053070.
[Ex 28: and EX 29: Letters dated 03/08/03 to Wolfcarius requesting evidence.]

35. On 20/08/03 correspondence was received, again signed by Wolfcarius, this time on behalf of President Prodi, she wrote, 'President Prodi has forwarded me your electronic mails regarding your complaint on this subject which has received his fullest attention and asking me to reply in his name.'
The writer then proceeds to instruct that the EU Directorate for Energy and Transport was 'not planning to propose that the Commission initiate infringement proceedings under art 226 of the Treaty against the UK for failure to comply with Community law.'
Clearly President Prodi has reneged on his assurance and responsibility of an in depth investigation and shown leniency and acceptance of total dishonesty which the EU Commission has strived throughout to cover up.
[EX 30: Letter dated 20/08/03 issued in behalf of President Prodi, signed by Wolfcarius.]

36. In addition to the correspondence to the EU Commission, the Intellectual property owners, introduced themselves and brought this matter to the attention of the President of the EU Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox. That letter was dated 11/07/03
[EX 31: Letter dated 11/07/03 to President of the EU Parliament.]

Conclusion.
1. Registered design 2053070, was correctly and properly registered at the UK government patent office, with protection from October 1995.
2. Throughout a period of 8 years substantial numbers of polite notices were issued to government bodies, officials, EU Transport Commissioners, EU Transport department officials many prior to 1998.
3. In 1997, the EU Transport Commission issues its 'Initial Proposal' for the harmonisation of Members States number plates to display the EU symbol of 12 gold stars on a blue background above the Member States abbreviated name.
4. In 1998, under EU regulation 2411/98, registered design number 2053070 was legalised.
5. In UK Statutory Instrument 2001/561 GB and the EU symbol registered design number 2053070 was legalised in the UK and brought into force on a 'voluntary basis' with effect from 2001.
6. From 1995 to 2003, both the UK authorities and EU Transport Commission conspired to steal the intellectual property known as registered design 2053070, by consistently and deliberately choosing to ignore its existence Upon the point of challenge the UK authorities deliberately eliminated themselves from responsibility by laying blame to the EU Commission and its enactment of Community Law in the form of EC 2411/98 and further misrepresenting the Statutory Instrument in force (SI 2001/561) for another (SI 2001/526), that had no bearing on registered design number 2053070, and thereby eliminating the writer being the Secretary of State for Transport Mr. Stephen Byers, from responsibility. The EU Commission in turn, challenged the authenticity of registered design 2054070, after 7 years of correspondence by way of polite notice. The axis of their challenge was a letter issued on 22/05/03, which generated no evidence whatsoever and deliberately misrepresented the facts in respect of procedure. It is therefore apparent that both the EU Commission and the UK authorities have deliberately conspired to steal registered design number 2053070.
7. The actions of the UK authorities and EU Commission include the most senior officials who have been aware at all times of the complaints and facts of this matter.

The piracy continues 15 years after the initial registration - Intellectual Property registration provides no protection if your property is considered an important asset to official governments or authorities.

The EU Transport Commission, UK authorities and Crown of Great Britain conspired to steal and have stolen registered design 2053070 - after all why pay for a licence when you can take it from the owners under the guise of legislation.