Can we make this case label?

[edgarspencer]

Originally Posted by Victor Wasylyna

Remington may or may not use the PARKER BROS. mark (I do not know), but it can enforce--and has enforced--against the PARKER BROS. mark.

Here is my take: Since Remington owns the broad PARKER mark, it can control use of more specific composite marks, such as PARKER BROS., PARKER BROTHERS, etc. In the shotgun universe, such composite marks would most certainly be deemed confusingly similar (the legal standard for trademark infringement) to the PARKER mark.

-Victor

This whole thread is making my teeth hurt. That said, I believe that your statements, above, are incorrect. All contemporary works, such as those by Muderlack, Bauer and TPS are pretty specific regarding language in the sale that specifically precluded Remington from using the name 'Parker Bros', i.e. the two words, together. The woodcock and broken gun image may be another story entirely.

[Victor Wasylyna]

Originally Posted by edgarspencer

This whole thread is making my teeth hurt. That said, I believe that your statements, above, are incorrect. All contemporary works, such as those by Muderlack, Bauer and TPS are pretty specific regarding language in the sale that specifically precluded Remington from using the name 'Parker Bros', i.e. the two words, together. The woodcock and broken gun image may be another story entirely.

Sorry for the toothache. I was once told (by a friend?) that intellectual property law was for the “nerdiest nerds.” Well this IP nerd is interested in the status of the PARKER brand, so he dug a bit deeper. Brace yourself.

I know Muderlack et al. are like gospel around here. However, I must point out that at least as of 2004, it is Remington’s position that they have rights in the PARKER BROS. mark (as well as the PARKER mark, which they have registered).

In 2004, Remington successfully sued a newly-formed entity called Parker Bros. Markers, Inc., for trademark infringement based on unauthorized use of the PARKER BROS. and PARKER BROS. MAKERS marks. I am posting the entire complaint, as filed by Remington, as I think some of our members (with robust teeth) may be interested in the historical details contained therein. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are particularly relevant to the topic at hand. The PGCA gets a shout-out in Paragraph 9.

-Victor

[edgarspencer]

Originally Posted by Victor Wasylyna

I know Muderlack et al. are like gospel around here. However, I must point out that at least as of 2004, it is Remington’s position that they have rights in the PARKER BROS. mark (as well as the PARKER mark, which they have registered).

I stand corrected, and educated. Thank you for that Victor. It's particularly disappointing that Remington (RA) was able to get issued a new trademark in 2004.
I read enough of your attachment to further inflame my teeth but beyond that, Just plain quit.

[Victor Wasylyna]

Originally Posted by edgarspencer

It's particularly disappointing that Remington (RA) was able to get issued a new trademark in 2004.

I hear ya Edger. However, if Remington was not policing its ownership of the PARKER mark, just imagine what could have happened if it was a free-for-all. We had the Skeuse Repro in the 1980s. That was great! (Own them and love them.) But it prompted Remington to wake the f**k up. After the Skeuse Repro died off, there were folks ready to take over what they believed was an abandoned PARKER trademark and start selling PARKER over/unders. (The images Wild Skies posted look nice, but an O/U?) This time, Remington said “no.” Once a trademark is deemed abandoned, the market is open, so be careful what you wished for. It will most likely not be a Skeuse-quality reproduction the next time.

-Victor