Re: [DMCForum] Re: Trademark

[Marc Levy <malevy_nj@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- James Espey <james@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I have answered many times why we feel we have
> ownership of the DMC logo 
> trademark. We continue to disagree, as friends, so I
> am not sure why you 
> continue to ask the question. If you don't agree
> with the answer, simply 
> asking it repeatedly is not likely to change the
> answer you receive. :-)

Without going through the archives to get the exact
quote, I recall the answer had something to do with
protecting the investment of DMCH.

To me, this answers WHY DMCH would want ownership of
the logo, not why they feel they DO own it (other than
a registration that any "sniper" could have done). 
What is the history of ownership and transfer that end
with DMCH??  Like, A title search on any property.

And I think my followup question was what investment
does DMCH have in a logo that pre-dates the corporate
formation of the company that claims ownership?

I know of no other claims on intellectual property
that has expired.  If this were legal, someone could
make a lot of money watching the on line trademark
database, waiting to register a potentially valuable
trademark as soon as it expires (like some do on
domain names).
 
> Nevertheless, I will point out something incorrect
> in your second 
> paragraph below. The Lanham Act clearly states that
> when a trademark's 
> use has been discontinued, and that discontinuation
> may be inferred from 
> three consecutive years of non-use, it becomes
> abandoned. An abandoned 
> mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but
> may instead be 
> re-registered by any party which has re-established
> exclusive and active 
> use.

Ah, yes..  "Exclusive" is a key word here.  Just by
the fact that someone like Lee was making a model car
using the DMC logo is an example that it was not
exclusive.  He started his project before DMCH even
existed..  What about DeLorean One? DeLorean Motor
Center? PJ Grady? Zilla? DOA? and other local
businesses and clubs which were using this public
domain logo for years..  If they challenged this in
court, they would likely win.  But as I said, DMCH
uses monopolistic power to avoid such a challenge.

> James
> I am the real SonnyV
> (trademark application pending)

I doubt I will get an honest answer, but what the
heck...  We are all friends in the Forum, so maybe you
can take your DMCH hat of for a second or two James.

Do you you think it is ETHICAL (we are not lawyers, so
legal opinions are meaningless) for someone to claim
ownership of Intellectual Property they have not
created or acquired through business dealings?

10 years ago when you were just another guy with a
DeLorean on the Internet, running a mailing list, and
fighting ethical/legal attacks from the DOA, I think
you would say this is unfair..  What if Ed sniped this
trademark before you did??  

Go back, and remember your roots:
http://www.dmcnews.com/backissues.html

I also noticed that soon after I pointed out on the
DML (in 2001) that the trademark on the stylized "De
Lorean" on the rear bumper had expired, DMCH was quick
to register that one too.  Was this for the same
reason as the "DMC" logo?

I have been asked a number of times, what my problem
is with DMCH.  This is it..  ETHICS.  The DeLorean
community is large enough for a handful of quality
vendors to make an honest living while keeping our
cars in tip-top shape... at the same time, I feel it
is small enough to demand that they do so in an
ethical manor... Maybe my standards are too high?? 
Meanwhile the DMCH web site *STILL* has those META
tags!




            
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.