Member Info for bootnk19222

This smells like bad news to me, pump and dump, Tim’s fantasy world, and the need to fund a phase to firm up data. An empty data room and running out of options I’d say.

And so the dump begins , how low this time ?

10% ers pumping this nicely, dump soon

Give it a rest carrot you dysfunctional moon cat

This , I believe, is quite a unique situation . We have a social media character acquiring share . This character has already been able to influence a vote of no confidence towards the BOD during the last placing vote. All this prior to 19% uptake. As the story plays out this character has acquired 19% of the company with more planned. A social media character having this kind of power over the BOD and company is definitely a new stock market phenomenon. He has no need to buy the company, with his market share and his massive influence he just needs to direct the vote through social media links. Food for thought in relation to ultimate intention

Don’t you just love a bit of lefty woke cancel culture censorship

Am I the only one in this share ?

Even if not legally fatal.

⸻

5. February deadline — what actually matters

If IMMUPHARMA:

• Refiles or revives the TM → issue disappears

• Lets it lapse permanently → still not fatal unless:

• Avion agreement is name-locked

• Or Avion insists on Lupuzor™ specifically for regulatory or marketing reasons

Revival is cheap and fast relative to deal value — which suggests:

• Either oversight

• Or Lupuzor branding is no longer core

That latter point is more telling than the legal mechanics.

⸻

Bottom line

Your conclusion is understandable but too strong legally.

Correct framing:

“The abandoned Lupuzor™ trademark does not automatically invalidate the Avion agreement, but if the agreement is narrowly drafted around the trademark rather than the underlying drug asset, it could materially undermine its commercial substance unless the mark is revived or replaced.”

Short answer: no, not automatically — a dead/abandoned trademark does not by itself make the Avion agreement obsolete, but it does materially weaken Immupharma’s position if the agreement is narrowly drafted and Lupuzor™ is the only defined subject matter.

Let’s break this down cleanly and precisely.

⸻

1. Trademark status ≠ product, IP, or rights extinction

A trademark abandonment means only this:

• IMMUPHARMA failed to file a Statement of Use with the USPTO

• Result: loss of US trademark registration rights under that filing

• It does NOT mean:

• Lupuzor as a drug candidate ceases to exist

• Patents, know-how, data, or regulatory rights disappear

• The name cannot be re-filed or replaced

• Contracts referencing the program automatically terminate

So legally, TM abandonment ≠ asset abandonment.

⸻

2. The critical question is the definition clause in the Avion agreement

Everything hinges on how Lupuzor is defined in the Avion contract.

Scenario A — High risk (your concern is valid here)

If the agreement defines the subject matter strictly as:

“The product marketed under the trademark LUPUZOR™”

or

“The Lupuzor™ trademark”

Then:

• Yes — abandonment could render the agreement commercially hollow

• Avion could argue:

• The licensed/partnered asset no longer exists in defined form

• Performance is frustrated or impossible

• Agreement is functionally obsolete, though not auto-terminated

This would not self-terminate, but it would be legally attackable.

⸻

Scenario B — Low risk (most likely in pharma deals)

If the agreement defines Lupuzor as:

• A specific peptide

• A mechanism of action

• A clinical program

• A drug candidate formerly known as Lupuzor

• Or references patents / clinical data / regulatory filings

Then:

• The name is irrelevant

• The program survives under any brand name

• Avion has no automatic exit

• IMM could:

• Refile the TM

• Use a different brand

• Commercialise under a new name

This is standard pharma drafting.

⸻

3. Trademark abandonment does NOT void contracts by default

Under UK and US contract law:

• Contracts do not self-destruct because of a lapsed trademark

• There must be:

• A material breach defined in the agreement

• Or a condition precedent that fails

• Courts generally view trademarks as:

• Ancillary, not fundamental, unless explicitly stated

So unless the Avion deal explicitly conditions validity on the live status of the Lupuzor™ mark, the agreement remains legally alive.

⸻

4. However — it does weaken IMMUPHARMA’s negotiating leverage

Where your instinct is spot-on:

• It signals:

• Administrative weakness or

• Strategic deprioritisation or

• Cash / focus constraints

• Avion could use this to:

• Renegotiate economics

• Delay milestones

• Demand clar

What the FDA would NOT require (important)

❌ A brand-new Phase 1

❌ Starting from scratch

❌ Proof it works in all lupus patients

❌ Immunosuppressive risk mitigation (P140’s advantage)

⸻

Timeline (realistic, not promotional)

If Avion moved decisively:

• FDA meeting: ~3–6 months

• Trial approval: ~6–9 months

• Phase 3 duration: ~18–24 months

• Potential approval path: accelerated or standard, depending on endpoints

This fits with a mid-cycle restart, not a decade-long reset.

⸻

Bottom line

From an FDA standpoint:

• P140 is not blocked

• A Phase 3 restart is permitted and realistic

• But it must be smarter, narrower, and mechanistically justified

• Avion (as US licensee) would be the natural sponsor

Scenario A: Avion sponsors Phase 3 again (most likely)

If:

• The molecule is still P140 (or an improvement of it)

• There is a clearer responder population, biomarker, or trial design

• FDA feedback supports a new P3

Then Avion would:

• Fund or majority-fund the US Phase 3

• Remain the commercial partner for the US

• Potentially renegotiate economics (royalty tiers, milestones) reflecting the reset risk

This is the cleanest path.

⸻

🔹 Scenario B: Re-cut deal, Avion stays involved (very common)

If funding risk is higher, you might see:

• Avion brings in a co-investor or pharma partner

• ImmuPharma accepts revised economics

• Avion retains US commercial rights but de-risks exposure

This happens all the time after a failed or inconclusive P3.

⸻

🔹 Scenario C: Licence amendment / partial return (least likely, but possible)

Only if:

• Avion no longer wants the risk

• Or the drug has materially changed

Even then:

• Avion would usually retain first refusal rights

• There would be a formal RNS explaining the change

• ImmuPharma would not proceed alone in the US without legal clarity

⸻

Why Avion would want to be involved

This part is often misunderstood.

If P140 now has:

• A clearer mechanism story

• Better trial design

• A defined responder subset

• Or biomarker-led precision positioning

Then Avion’s original sunk costs become:

• A strategic advantage

• A lower incremental risk bet

• A potentially very asymmetric payoff in lupus

Walking away just before that inflection would make little sense.

⸻

What the absence of negative news tells you

You have not seen:

• Licence termination

• Rights reversion

• US partner search announcements

That silence is important. It strongly implies:

The Avion licence is still live and structurally relevant to any US Phase 3 restart.

⸻

Bottom line (plain English)

Yes.

If P140 goes back into Phase 3 in the US, Avion would almost certainly be involved, either as:

• Lead sponsor

• Financial partner

• Or commercial rights holder under a revised deal

ImmuPharma cannot just bypass them.

Don’t forget to vote all management out. Let’s clear all of them out

Onet, exactly what I’ve been saying and getting called out as a deramper. To me also this is obviously the case. Big pharma aren’t going to throw money at something unless they are happy with the risk. The next RNS from IMM will be about need for more data/need for more pi money/ needed to increase share holders value etc etc Timmy liar may even disappear before this

Well said, I’m also not hopeful for a good profit and my average is only 1.3. The disgraceful antic of this BOD optimise the type of unscrupulous people running companies on AIM. I would also like to see DN running this company regardless of any lack of experience in this field. Honesty and integrity are way more valuable an asset than experience. GDR share holders deserve better

This pump and dump is normal before a share delists

Even if amer had an inside track it’s not something I would be admitting to or encouraging people to believe. Suffice to say accurate hints are good enough for me

Well thanks to DN for saving the company and PIs. We need DN on the board to add integrity/professionalism

The one thing that still shines through is that the management need to go, all of them . We need a complete clean out if this is ever going to make it.

At last a sensible post on this board. Big investors are being allowed out whilst small PIs gamble

Everyone’s out that wants to be out, red finish