Let's face the facts:
1) David Miller or his business partners or people he depended on screwed up. They did not look after the most elementary of the steps to be followed in setting up their business, namely registering the name. Any further discussion is normally pointless. Business does not forgive errors and those who don't follow the rules suffer the consequences. 2) Nothwithstanding the above, if David Miller had the full historical backing on his side, the British courts would normally view his 'rightful ownership' of the name with sympathy. They would normally rule that he would be obliged to indemnify Mark in some way, but it is my personal observation that they do tend to protect historical names as best as possible. Obviously, he has neither sufficient backing for such a position, or has decided that the financial resources to support such a view before the magistrates are better spent elsewhere. His actions therefore speak clearly. Mark on the other hand has put his wallet where his mouth is and paid for the registration of the name, web-site etc... Mark does however admit to not be willing to protect 'his' name outside of Britain, so this might be a reflection of the true value of the name! 3) One point that is not mentioned by either side in this debate is what happened to all unsecured creditors (if there were indeed any) when the original line of owners went down along with the Bob Jackson name. Has either of the two parties in discussion now, or those now in control of Bob Jackson, done anything to look after such debts? Having been an unsecured creditor in past business failings, I can not begin to express my own anger to see anybody benefit from the assets of those who owe me something. Effectively all successors are benefitting from my 'involuntary' contribution.
Personally, I like Kurt Sperry's response best. Whether it is David or Mark, makes little difference to me, neither is 'the' historical founder of the company. In both cases, in my eyes, there is a degree of separation that interupted any legitimate 'ownership' of the name. I therefore agrre with Kurt's statement that the one offering the 'best' version will in the long term win. The sole variable that I would add to Kurt's comment is value for money, something that has always appeared to me to be missing from the new Hetchins when compared to those classical ones of times gone by.
Separate from this Hetchins debate, I would however like to welcome Mark to this list, as I feel anybody with knowledge to add to this list should be welcomed.
Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ
---