RE: [DMCForum] Copyright

["Nathan C. Skalsky" <ncskalsk@xxxxxxx>]

He doesn't have a business need for those pieces of IP, therefore a
challenge would be rejected, and even if it was allowed in court, he'd
have to pay quite a bit to see it through.

You shouldn't have to fix something just to make a point or to ask a
question.

I think it is a valid point, however it is somewhat incidental and remote
as there is no one with a business need that is interested in challenging
it.

Perhaps DMCH will disclose a document that backs their claim that they
purchased the right.  I'm somewhat DMC copyrights were not (legally)
compelled into abandonment in the aftermath of the DMC's receivership and
subsequent legal actions.  The logic is that there are two things Delorean
would have needed to literally restart (without starting over) the
Delorean Motor Company with the DMC-12 (or a slightly different version),
the body dies, tooling and the intellectual property associated with it.  
If the British government was able to destroy the body dies, why would
they not try to remove as many intellectual property rights as they could?

-Nate
11501







>
>
> During that period why didn't you try to claim it as yours?  Why don't you
> challenge it now?
>
> Greg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Marc Levy
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:01 AM
> To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [DMCForum] Copyright
>
> What should happen??  Well, I am not an expert on
> intellectual property law..  But the way it usually
> works in the United States is if claims on ownership
> of intellectual property are not enforced, the
> property becomes public domain.
>
> The trademarks were considered "public domain" from
> 1982 until sometime in 1999!  Over 15 years they were
> "public domain".  DMCH comes along, fills out a few
> forms with the USPTO and now they claim it is theirs!!
>
> I don't think they should (claim they) own it because
> it does not belong to them.  It is as simple as that.
> Even if they had proof that they purchased this
> property from it's owner (John DeLorean himself?), it
> would still be a weak claim because it remained
> unenforced for over 15 years.
>
> "claim" is the key word here, because all claims of
> intellectual property ownership are only valid if no
> one challenges it or it is challenged in court and a
> judge makes a decision on ownership.  In this case, no
> one had challenged it in court.
>
> Only someone who has a BUSINESS reason for using the
> trademark can make a legal challenge to the claim.  It
> would be very strong case if the challenger use of the
> trademark pre-dates the DMCH claim.  The bulk of those
> people (PJ Grady, DeLorean One, DMC-GG) would never
> challenge DMCH because of obvious reasons.
>
> --- Ryan Wright >ryanpwright@xxxxxxxxx< wrote:
>
> < So, what do you think should happen to the DMC
> < trademarks? Or, why
> < don't you think DMCH should own them?
> <
> < I'm not trying to goad you into an argument here;
> < I'm honestly curious.
> <
> < --
> < - Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
>
>
>         Dmc
>
>
>         Dml
>
>
>         Dmc fz10
>
>
>
>
>         Dmc fz1s
>
>
>         Delorean part
>
>
>         Dml forte
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>    Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
>    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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
   
•  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.

---