RE: [DMCForum] Copyright
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [DMCForum] Copyright



I think we all know my story with the logo.
When I first came on the scene I made a reproduction sticker to fill in the 
hole on the automatic
gear shift, it was a little black sticker with silver DMC letters.
I made up a sheet of about 20 of them, and offered any of the extras for 
$5.00 each.
James Espey immediately reprimanded me and said that I "should have checked 
with him first",
and my response to him was that I didn't know I had to check with him or 
anyone else
because when I looked up the logo in the database it had expired a loooong 
time ago.
He told me that it would lead to legal action if I continued to use the 
logo.
I called my lawyer immediately.
My lawyer laughed...he said, "you know what would be funny? Let's buy the 
logo ourselves!"
I called some patent attorneys and started the ball rolling.
They came back and told me that most likely the claim to buy would be 
denied,
because DMCH could use the clause of "public confusion" as defense, claiming 
that
my goal to use the logo was to confuse the public into thinking I was them.
However...there are lots of companies that use DMC as their letters.
Too many too list.
There is a popular line of biker t-shirts here in Dallas that feature "DMC" 
on the shirt,
(using a different font).
However, DMCH can not trademark letters or a font, that is why they made the 
"image"
of their logo with lines around it. Sounds goofy, but it is a technical 
issue.

My lawyers advised me to just make what ever I want and sell it and to 
ignore any letters
that DMCH sends me, except for a real court summons in which I would show up 
to court
and simply agree to a "no contest" to "not make any more", of course by then 
I would have
sold lots of stuff for years.
The only reason I haven't is because I want to keep the peace.

James was pretty cool to me at the open house show this summer, and gave
me his point of view over some late night drunken Jack In The Box tacos.
I wouldn't say we were friends or anything, but I think we both agreed in a 
truce.
He sort of said to me in a round about way...that making stuff for yourself 
or a few buddies
is cool, but when you go all out commercial with it they have a duty to 
defend the product.

Much like we stole this land from the natives, they are doing so with DMC.
They need to fight for it if they want it, right or not it is their duty.
They have a shitload of cash invested into that place and need to protect 
it.
As far as money goes....I am pretty sure Stephen was well off in the first 
place.
He took a hobby and a passion and went to the next level.
I have a whole lot more respect for Stephen now that I have gotten my 
collection
of DeLorean World magazines. He has been in the thick of things since the 
very beginning.
Grady, Stegar and Wynne have all been doing this stuff for a long, loooong 
time.
Longer than most of us ever will.
Let them have their kudos.
- Videobob


>From: Marc Levy <malevy_nj@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [DMCForum] Copyright
>Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:57:05 -0800 (PST)
>
>See Below
>
>--- Jack Stiefel <jackstiefel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
> > Something always confuses me when you get on this
> > topic Marc -- what did
> > they do wrong?
>
>They claim ownership of something that does not belong
>to them.  As if someone walked up to your truck in a
>parking lot and says "Hey, looks like no one is
>claiming this truck so it is mine now".
>
> > Did they have an insider at the Fed level who
> > allowed them to do this
> > underhanded illegal thing of re-upping a
> > trademark/copyright?  How did they
> > get away with registering a public domain name/logo
> > etc?
>
>No.  Like all intellectual property, you can CLAIM
>whatever you want.  It is up to someone else to
>challenge it in court for it to mean anything..
>Patents are a good example.  Sure, you can patent a
>good idea or product you have and it can cost under
>$1000 for the whole process.  Now, that there is a
>public record of your "invention" available to the
>whole world, someone can copy it.  You think you can
>just call up the USPTO and say "Hey, someone is using
>my patent"??  NO!  You have to go hire a team of
>lawyers and have a long (expensive) court battle to
>prove they stole YOUR idea.  At the end of the day,
>the Patent is meaningless unless you have the means to
>defend it.
>
> > All I see is Stephen found out by some means that
> > the trademark was up and
> > he submitted the forms to re-register or re-up it so
> > his company could use
> > it.  Does he then not have the legal ownership of
> > said trademark?  I am
>
>Well, for the "DMC" trademark they registered
>something a little bit different than what was
>registered way back when.  The DMCH trademark has the
>outline around the letters.  However, this logo's
>usage ALSO pre-dates DMCH's registration (Heck, it
>pre-dates the company itself!!).
>
>The "DeLorean" trademark (as on the back bumper) was
>registered by JZD a few years back (probably for use
>on his new car).  Funny, how it was done shortly after
>DMCH claimed ownership of "DMC".  I doubt John
>DeLorean had the financial means to take on DMCH for
>proper ownership.  Besides, any judge that heard the
>case would ask, "Why have you not been enforcing
>ownership of this logo for the past 15 years?".  With
>that, John would have lost the case but so would DMCH!
>  Any decent lawyer with the financial interest of
>their client as the priority would advise not to
>proceed with the case.
>
>So again, the registration is a CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP.
>It would have to withstand a challenge to have any
>real meaning.
>
> > quite sure I can't go in and fill out some forms and
> > register the Nutcracker
> > Suite as it is public domain now (Thanks Simpsons).
> > So obviously someone
> > still owned it or let it go and Stephen got it
> > before it went into the
> > Public Domain area.
>
>Your example is correct.  But in this case it HAD
>become public domain.  Once something has become
>public domain, you can't claim it!  The DMC logo was
>public domain for over 15 years.
>
> > Where is the justice lost?  How is this unfair?
> > Where is the dishonest
> > practice?  How is this un-ethical?  They are not
> > claiming to be the original
> > DMC, they even use DMCH for many of their
> > promotional stuff.  If they were
>
>They are saying they own something that they don't.
>IMHO, that IS dishonest.  They are not claiming to be
>the original DMC?  I'd like to think I am personally a
>key reason as to why.  Anyone notice the post on the
>DML last week about Cams and Rockers?  Warren said to
>buy the parts from the FACTORY?  The quote was "No
>better source than the factory".  Who would that be?
>
>Side note here, I received a few private e-mails about
>that one.  People asking me why I did not respond to
>that on the DML.  Holy crap, I am now the official
>watch dog of DMCH??  I don't think so.
>
> > trying to pas themselves off as the company that
> > went under 15 years ago, I
> > might laugh at them for that, but as far as I see
> > they are not (ok if they
> > were the might be breaking an ethical rule).
> >
> > I fail to see the problems?  I know some people have
> > wanted to use the logo
> > in products and now they have to get the permission
> > of Stephen and pay a
> > royalty for it (if I remember right they wanted to
> > charge Lee Seiler a buck
> > for his limited edition model kits).  His luck if
> > you ask me.  Had I known
> > it was available I might have registered it myself
> > just for the fun of it.
>
>So, log on to the USPTO web site and keep your eye out
>for expiring trademarks.  You can register them all
>day long if you like.  That does not make it ethical.
>
> > There is money to be made by owning it sure but he
> > is in business.
>
>The earning potential of DMCH is pretty good.  I have
>no doubt that they will continue to grow the DeLorean
>community, remake new parts, and do a great job of
>providing a needed service to all DeLorean owners.  I
>see no reason for them to turn a quick buck by selling
>something they really don't own.
>
>If you have any doubts about the profitability of
>DMCH, go back and read the Forbes article on Stephen,
>and the company.
>
> > Now if you have any specific times they have done
> > unscrupulous things with
> > their trademark, please inform me as I would be
> > interested, but as long as
> > they have had the ownership -- and it is legally
> > "owned" by Stephen, I have
> > not seen anything done that seemed below board.
>
>Sure..  Nothing wrong with selling tee-shirts, and
>hats, and even whine.  But people were doing that for
>15 years before DMCH claimed ownership.  I don't think
>I have ever said DMCH has misused the logo, other than
>claiming they own it.
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________
>Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
>Just $16.99/mo. or less.
>dsl.yahoo.com
>




 
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:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN


Copyright 2006 ProjectVixen.com.  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive