DRS D00028377
- Thread starter GreyWing
- Start date
Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 93
- Reaction score
- 70
- Trophy points
- 19
I wouldn't touch a McDonald's regardless of the price but what the hell is that? Squid?
Well if you haven't seen it, stop making things up that I backed down, because to have backed down would have required you to have seen what I first wrote.
Post what I said in that admission and let's see - you have my permission. My recollection probably would be that I didn't think you had anything to do with that statement by Toth. I doubt I would have said that you didn't know, because I wouldn't have had that info.
It was when discussing it with EMM legal that it was discovered that I first called Toth at say 16:00, and I told him that GT wasn't in charge anymore and couldn't do anything. He then hangs up, rings you, I then speak to him again 45-60 minutes later and he says that they may not have signed it off and that you knew the person dealing with it. That is why it went from you probably not knowing of his statement, to me saying I don't have any information - because you and Toth spoke - and I don't know what you spoke about. Is it possible that you cooked it up between you, yes possible - do I think that's probable, no I don't, but I can't say, so I don't.
Jim, are you saying I should have not trusted Toth's statement? Well here's a thing, you take it up with him why he said it. The thing is, no matter what way you play this, you know he lied and you have completed 3 witness statements to various places since and you've washed over it - you know full well why you have done that. If you genuinely believed what you are saying, you would have explained your points to the DRS panel, or the IPO. Instead you just breeze past it.
As for not mentioning it to you that they'd gone out of business - Toth said he'd ring you for your advice the day before, and also are you being bloody thick on purpose - it was in the good dam emails I sent you that morning. The ones you claim went to spam but you some how magically you got the guys phone number from. It was after you received those that you came up with the proposals, so don't try and twist this - the email you had says this.
"On 19/01/2023 12:25, J**** wrote:
Commercial in confidence
Hi Graeme,
Unfortunately, I am not aware if / who fees may be paid to. The Company has been dissolved and we no longer
act as administrators.
All the best.
Kind regards
J****"
Just stop misleading people for goodness sake. You would never take this to court, you'd be absolutely smashed on Cross examination. I honestly don't know if you are lying or you are genuinely clueless, you constantly file late, even filing your own work after deadlines in the IPO, how many times is it now that they have sent it back as not being up to standard - about 4? Granted I have had failings myself when I tried to do it in house. As a Solicitor, one specialising in IP matters, you are a legal shambles.
You will not file it with my consent. I neither gave my consent or objected because you are irrelevant. If you've lied to them and gave my consent, I suggest you write to them immediately and update them.
This is a consistent pattern with you that I found, if you don't object out of something, you take it as being allowed, that's not the same thing. It's why you get yourself into the messes that you do. I said I can't stop you sending anything you want, as in I can't watch over you all day like a little toddler.
I'll contact Nominet tomorrow and discuss it with them. I do hope you haven't lied to them, that would be most unfortunate.
Last edited:
haha Breakfast, back then £5.00 on breakfast items would have fed half of Barnsley. I don't think I have been in McDonalds for about 2-3 years, shame as I used to like the egg McMuffin's.
Yeah thats squid, do you like sea fish?
The last oral hearings I asked for cost £20 each.
Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 93
- Reaction score
- 70
- Trophy points
- 19
Sea bass or a prawn cocktail is as adventurous as I get.
Jim Davies
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2025
- Posts
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 3
For a moment I thought they were slugs.
Jim Davies
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2025
- Posts
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 3
But not cross-examination. You didn't want that, did you Graeme. If you really wanted to raise questions like the ones in these posts, you should have wanted the power for witnesses to be questioned. I wonder why you objected to it.
Last edited:
Jim Davies
New member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2025
- Posts
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
- Trophy points
- 3
You want cross-examination. Until there's a real chance of cross-examination. Then you oppose it. Why was that? And why pretend you want it when you're playing to the crowd here.
And there we get to the truth. You knew who the registrant was. You were trying to buy it from them for 3 years. You even say that in the extract of the SRA complaint you posted on here. So it turns out it hadn't slipped your mind after all.
But you don't want the panel to see that. And when you get the chance to show them the evidence, you panic and do a u-turn.
I was too busy living my life last night to read whatever you were going to post here. So don't worry, nothing was sent to Nominet yesterday, either with or without your consent. But we all got to see your reaction when you were worried that I had.
haha Jim you are nutz. I objected because I had no knowledge that you were applying for a Class 35 trademark - as evidenced by the call I gave you. You didn't tell the truth to the IPO and you still haven't corrected it now that you have the recording, you are inherently a dishonest person. The High Court Judge spotted it. The trademark objection is on the fact that you applied for the Class 35, what on earth can I add to it if I didn't know you were applying?
You told the IPO that you wanted to cross examine me ask me why I resigned my shares 6 months later - haha - that's the best question you had. The IPO laughed at you and told you that's irrelevant to why you applied for a Class 35 trademark.
If you want to cross examine me, go to Court.
hahaha, you are losing the plot pal. For your information, they already have this in one of my NSS's
. All of a sudden, very strange how you no longer need my logins to add a NSS, something you had been claiming for for 3 years. As I said, dishonest is something that follows you about.Why don't you take some advice, concentrate on your own admin. You've had 3 different strike off's notices for Quick Credit limited, you got Jim Davies Solicitors Ltd struck off at Companies House, you got Name Magnet Ltd a strike off notice - and you want to do other people's legal work?
You are a disaster
Hook
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2024
- Posts
- 257
- Reaction score
- 187
- Trophy points
- 44
Is your wife's boyfriend also your mums boyfriend?
@GreyWing, @Jim Davies
I suspect I'm not alone in being unable to make head nor tail of this imbroglio, and I'm not even sure whether the pair of you are trying to convince the forum that it's you who is telling the truth and the other who is lying, or just arguing amongst yourselves for the sake of it.
If it's the former I suggest you both post a comprehensive timeline of your version of events, and then people can make their own mind up.
However, one thing you do seem to agree on is that one or both of you approached Grant Thornton before the administration was complete with a view to buying the domain name quickquid.co.uk for a not inconsiderable sum, but for whatever reason they didn't sell it and @GreyWing ended up with it for the cost of a summary DRS.
If so, this reflects very badly on Grant Thornton.
Happy Easter everyone.
I suspect I'm not alone in being unable to make head nor tail of this imbroglio, and I'm not even sure whether the pair of you are trying to convince the forum that it's you who is telling the truth and the other who is lying, or just arguing amongst yourselves for the sake of it.
If it's the former I suggest you both post a comprehensive timeline of your version of events, and then people can make their own mind up.
However, one thing you do seem to agree on is that one or both of you approached Grant Thornton before the administration was complete with a view to buying the domain name quickquid.co.uk for a not inconsiderable sum, but for whatever reason they didn't sell it and @GreyWing ended up with it for the cost of a summary DRS.
If so, this reflects very badly on Grant Thornton.
Happy Easter everyone.
I'll do it later when I get a bit of time. I'll also upload their two DRS particulars so you can all see the differences from before and after they realised I had call recordings.
Possibly, possibly not. The .co.uk was different, it may not technicality have been with them. To be sure you'd really need to be an expert in Corporate law. I don't know another example of a US company registered in England going into admin with the US company still being active and not in admin. The .uk is a different set of circumstances from the .co.uk.