Madeleine Fund Trademark Renewal

by init 08.05.17 1:40

The trademark for the Madeleine Fund is due for renewal on 18th May 2017 (source: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002456061?legacySearch=False), but will they renew it?

by Philip Anders 08.05.17 7:24

I see that the trademark contains the following provision:

Class 36: Charitable fundraising; charitable and non-charitable services relating to the provision of assistance to families and others affected by missing children.

How can fundraising by a limited company be classed as charitable fundraising?

by **Jill Havern** 08.05.17 9:33

init wrote:The trademark for the Madeleine Fund is due for renewal on 18th May 2017 (source: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002456061?legacySearch=False), but will they renew it?

I think they will because it only costs £200 and it would look suspicious if they didn't.

It's not as if they need that £200 for their mortgage payment anymore because three-year-old Madeleine has paid that off for them.

by **Nina** 08.05.17 12:13

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
init wrote:The trademark for the Madeleine Fund is due for renewal on 18th May 2017 (source: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002456061?legacySearch=False), but will they renew it?
I think they will because it only costs £200 and it would look suspicious if they didn't.

It's not as if they need that £200 for their mortgage payment anymore because three-year-old Madeleine has paid that off for them.

Isn't there a mortgage against their house now Getem?
I was under the impression that just two payments were made from the fund.

by **Jill Havern** 08.05.17 12:15

Nina wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
init wrote:The trademark for the Madeleine Fund is due for renewal on 18th May 2017 (source: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002456061?legacySearch=False), but will they renew it?
I think they will because it only costs £200 and it would look suspicious if they didn't.

It's not as if they need that £200 for their mortgage payment anymore because three-year-old Madeleine has paid that off for them.
Isn't there a mortgage against their house now Getem?
I was under the impression that just two payments were made from the fund.

With all the millions of pounds they've made in the past ten years do you think they'd still have a mortgage?
I don't.

by **Nina** 08.05.17 12:18

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Nina wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
init wrote:The trademark for the Madeleine Fund is due for renewal on 18th May 2017 (source: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002456061?legacySearch=False), but will they renew it?
I think they will because it only costs £200 and it would look suspicious if they didn't.

It's not as if they need that £200 for their mortgage payment anymore because three-year-old Madeleine has paid that off for them.
Isn't there a mortgage against their house now Getem?
I was under the impression that just two payments were made from the fund.
With all the millions of pounds they've made in the past ten years do you think they'd still have a mortgage?
I don't.

I agree with you there just wondered if anyone had actually done a search to see if the property is still mortgaged.

by **Jill Havern** 08.05.17 12:26

Nina wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Nina wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
init wrote:The trademark for the Madeleine Fund is due for renewal on 18th May 2017 (source: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002456061?legacySearch=False), but will they renew it?
I think they will because it only costs £200 and it would look suspicious if they didn't.

It's not as if they need that £200 for their mortgage payment anymore because three-year-old Madeleine has paid that off for them.
Isn't there a mortgage against their house now Getem?
I was under the impression that just two payments were made from the fund.
With all the millions of pounds they've made in the past ten years do you think they'd still have a mortgage?
I don't.
I agree with you there just wondered if anyone had actually done a search to see if the property is still mortgaged.

I will try to find out for you Nina.

by sallypelt 08.05.17 12:54

While No Stone Unturned isn't a registered charity, it doesn't mean that a limited company cannot be charity. In fact, most charities are.

A charitable company is a form under which charities can be set up and to which existing charitable associations or trusts can convert. In either case, a company limited by guarantee is set up with special charitable articles, and is registered both at Companies House (as a company) and with the Charity commission as a charity in its own right.

by Philip Anders 08.05.17 13:41

sallypelt wrote:While No Stone Unturned isn't a registered charity, it doesn't mean that a limited company cannot be charity. In fact, most charities are.

A charitable company is a form under which charities can be set up and to which existing charitable associations or trusts can convert. In either case, a company limited by guarantee is set up with special charitable articles, and is registered both at Companies House (as a company) and with the Charity commission as a charity in its own right.

Yes I know that a charity can be a limited company & vice versa but how can No Stone Unturned be a charity whilst not being registered as a charity & be free to spend the funds in way that it wishes?

It's clear from their own website that No Stone Unturned isn't a charity & cannot be decribed as a charity.

Anyone having a quick look at the renewal & seeing that Class 36 applies would think that it's a charity from the wording in Class 36.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by sallypelt 08.05.17 14:10

Philip Anders wrote:
sallypelt wrote:While No Stone Unturned isn't a registered charity, it doesn't mean that a limited company cannot be charity. In fact, most charities are.

A charitable company is a form under which charities can be set up and to which existing charitable associations or trusts can convert. In either case, a company limited by guarantee is set up with special charitable articles, and is registered both at Companies House (as a company) and with the Charity commission as a charity in its own right.
Yes I know that a charity can be a limited company & vice versa but how can No Stone Unturned be a charity whilst not being registered as a charity & be free to spend the funds in way that it wishes?

It's clear from their own website that No Stone Unturned isn't a charity & cannot be decribed as a charity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I totally agree with you. It has been know, almost from the beginning that it wasn't a charity, regardless what the MSM says. No Stone Unturned had one purpose, and one purpose, only, and that was to "look" for a single person.......oh and pay the odd mortgage payment, sue anyone who questioned the McCanns, and a few jollies in a five star hotel. Please add anything else you can think of spin

by Philip Anders 08.05.17 14:20

sallypelt wrote:
Philip Anders wrote:
sallypelt wrote:While No Stone Unturned isn't a registered charity, it doesn't mean that a limited company cannot be charity. In fact, most charities are.

A charitable company is a form under which charities can be set up and to which existing charitable associations or trusts can convert. In either case, a company limited by guarantee is set up with special charitable articles, and is registered both at Companies House (as a company) and with the Charity commission as a charity in its own right.
Yes I know that a charity can be a limited company & vice versa but how can No Stone Unturned be a charity whilst not being registered as a charity & be free to spend the funds in way that it wishes?

It's clear from their own website that No Stone Unturned isn't a charity & cannot be decribed as a charity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I totally agree with you. It has been know, almost from the beginning that it wasn't a charity, regardless what the MSM says. No Stone Unturned had one purpose, and one purpose, only, and that was to "look" for a single person.......oh and pay the odd mortgage payment, sue anyone who questioned the McCanns, and a few jollies in a five star hotel. Please add anything else you can think of

Indeed it has been known from the start so it begs the question was Class 36 included to give the impression of a charity while at the same time not calling it a charity by using the excuse that it could be converted at some point.

by Doug D 08.05.17 15:54

I searched the Land Registry a couple of months ago after the latest accounts were published to see if the title had been transferred to the Ltd. company, to try and account for the £490k odd 'investment' showing.

The property was still registered in the names of Mr & Mrs and showed HSBC as the 'lender'.

Although technically this means the property is still mortgaged to HSBC, we have no way of knowing whether anything is actually owing and it is fairly common practice, when a mortgage is paid off, to leave a token £1 or so outstanding in order that the mortgage company will continue to look after the deeds &/or Land Cert.

by **Hobs** 08.05.17 16:53

they moved £500,000 into fixed assets.
Fixed assets usually means property so did they pay the mortgage off or enough and leave a nominal fee outstanding?

If so was it done to prevent the money being used to pay the legal fees and costs?
Is it to paint Dr. Amaral as the bad guy by claiming if he takes the legal feess and costs and whatever it would make them homeless or if he sues it will make the twins homeless, despite this being their intention when they sued Dr. Amaral?

Everything they do and have done is for a reason, usually to garner money and fame.
If they have moved the the money and then try and claim bankruptcy to avoid payment, the courts frown upon debtors trying to conceal money from creditorsa and if they tried that, they could end up doing jail time.

They owe a bucket load of money and they have no way to avoid paying.

by willowthewisp 08.05.17 17:33

Hi Hobs,if what you have stated and turns out to be correct?
Then this just shows once again how farcical a situation the Public having been mislead by the"Find Madeleine Fund" and the mystery Private Investigators allowed to escape from ripping off the "Directors of the fund"worth Hundreds of Thousands of Pounds?
The parents then may have to"Re-finance"their Family Home to pay any Court costs from Portugal Supreme Court?
Once again you can see Tracey Kinda Hola,"Dispicable Goncalo Amaral" makes McCann Family Homeless,part of a"Cunning plan"Clarence?
The UK MSM will have a field day of weeks of Headlines?

by init 20.05.17 7:59

Looks like they let it expire...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Hobs** 21.05.17 1:21

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
GOV UK Links :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Case details for trade mark UK00002456061

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Trade mark

Trade mark Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned

Status Expired

Relevant dates

Filing date 18 May 2007

Date of entry in register 22 February 2008

Renewal date 18 May 2017

List of goods and services

Class 9 Downloadable internet publications

Class 16 Printed matter

Class 36 Charitable fundraising; charitable and non-charitable services relating to the provision of assistance to families and others affected by missing children.

Class 41 Non-downloadable internet publications

Name and Address details

Owner(s) name Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

10 Queen Street, London, United Kingdom, EC4R 1BE

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

IPO representative name Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP10 Queen Street Place, London, United Kingdom, EC4R 1BE

Publication details

First advert Journal : 6709 Date of publication : 09 November 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean that someone else could now buy the trademark?
Apparently you can.
After a quick google i found this.
As it has lapsed it will cost them £400 to renew including the late 'penalty'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Renew your trade mark

Trade marks must be renewed every 10 years.
You can renew a trade mark in the 6 months before it expires and up to 6 months afterwards.
You can’t renew online if your trade mark expired more than 6 months ago. You might still be able to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by post.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the Intellectual Property Office service
- [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
You’ll need:
- your trade mark number
- a debit or credit card, or an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- an email address
Fees

It costs £200 for the first [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] your trade mark is in, and £50 for each extra class.
You have to pay an extra £50 if you’re applying in the 6 months after your mark’s expiry date (known as ‘late renewal’).

Last updated: 13 May 2017

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]