Can we make this case label?

[John Nagel]

Wondering if we could get together and reproduce this label for sale to members? I know several folks who would want them .


http://parkerguns.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=724&pictureid=9961

[Jim DiSpagno]

Remington Arms owns the copy rights to it. When I was making a poster I had to get a one time exemption and state it was NOT-FOR-PROFIT. I know they have bigger fish to fry at this time but why chance a law suit. If you want to reproduce for personal use is one thing but to sell might raise a red flag. JMHO. JIM

[John Nagel]

Remington Arms owns the copy rights to it. When I was making a poster I had to get a one time exemption and state it was NOT-FOR-PROFIT. I know they have bigger fish to fry at this time but why chance a law suit. If you want to reproduce for personal use is one thing but to sell might raise a red flag. JMHO. JIM

They're too bankrupt to come after us. Haha It could be for a member "donation" to pgca or something you receive with membership.

[Mills Morrison]

Wow! That is cool

[Bill Murphy]

Do we think this label is original Parker production?

[Brian Dudley]

I am surprised that Tony did not offer a reproduction of this one if it is legit.

[Daniel G Rainey]

Would love to have one. If we could get it worked out legally it would be great.

[Patrick Lien]

How exactly does Remington own this?

[Ken Hill]

What is the significance of the 30 Warren Street: New York, NY address?

Ken

[Brian Dudley]

That was Parker’s NY salesroom at the time.

[Jeff Kuss]

I have never seen that label before. It looks like the postcard.

[Bruce Day]

Copyright would have expired years ago.

[Dean Romig]

Trademarks and copyrights I believe are two different things.

But I'm always willing to be enlightened if I am wrong.



.

[Jay Gardner]

It’s easy. First of all no one is going to come after a relatively small group of guys over a couple of dozen labels for a company that closed decades ago. And what would be their “damages.” Don’t over think this one.

I reproduced an original “shot card” from an HJ Hussey Imperial. A fellow I know has one, he sent me a photo and the exact dimensions and I took them to a commercial printer. They reproduced the card exactly, from the font to the size and weight of the paper. I ordered 2-dozen and they cost me ~ $5/each. Aged one with some tea in a spray bottle and had my MiL write in the details for my gun with a fountain pen: it’ looks great. I’ll offer the remaining cards for sale if anyone wants one.

[Todd Poer]

If you attempted to use that emblem to promote a business other than Parker Bros shotguns then I think there would be an issue. If you are just copying to promote the same business and not trying to profit from it, then probably okay. BTW did the site get permission from Remington to use the same image that is at the top of this page?

Even better doe PGCA have permission from Remington in an official capacity and charge a fee to publish letters based on PGCA research of documents that are not public domain.

[Rick Losey]

Even better doe PGCA have permission from Remington to publish letters based on PGCA research of documents that are not public domain.

since Remington allowed the PGCA to copy the records - i would guess that is a yes

[Dean Romig]

PGCA has Remington's express permission to use any and all Parker related materials for educational purposes only.
This permission is NOT transferrable.





.

[Todd Poer]

Then probably using an old marketing piece that is in its original content and used to promote educational awareness is probably also allowed or would not be unreasonably denied. Heavens know Remington is not doing very much to promote the brand. If it was not for the actions and formation of this collective group of enthusiasts there would probably be 100,000 Parker shotgun lamps.

[Victor Wasylyna]

Trademarks and copyrights I believe are two different things.

But I'm always willing to be enlightened if I am wrong.

You are correct, Dean. Trademarks protect words/symbols/etc. that identify the source of goods/services. Copyrights protect original works of expression (e.g., artwork, writings and sound recordings).

-Victor

[Dean Romig]

Then probably using an old marketing piece that is in its original content and used to promote educational awareness is probably also allowed or would not be unreasonably denied. Heavens know Remington is not doing very much to promote the brand. If it was not for the actions and formation of this collective group of enthusiasts there would probably be 100,000 Parker shotgun lamps.


So, taking advantage of Remington when they're 'down' is okay?





.

[Kevin McCormack]

You can very easily reproduce this card to use as a label, etc. on your own desktop computer using the original template and good heavy card stock paper when printing. I did this years ago when I made up a bunch of individual name tags for PGCA members to wear at events (Vintagers, Southern SxS, etc.). Lots of members are still wearing theirs at these events. Choose the size you want and print in color either laser or inkjet and they come out very nicely. For nametag size, use the business card template; for labels use the notecard template.

[Victor Wasylyna]

Around here we like to use the word “reproduction.” A trademark owner would opt to use the word “counterfeit” instead of “reproduction.” (Are you shopping for a “Rolex Reproduction by Watch Corporation”? Good luck with that.) Remington owns a federal trademark registration for the PARKER mark (secured in 2002). There is a trademark problem with the original poster’s proposition if done commercially (like CSMC’s label business). If done privately, I would not be concerned about Remington.

-Victor

[Todd Poer]

So, taking advantage of Remington when they're 'down' is okay?





.

So, what part of anything I said says taking advantage of Remington when they're down? I must have missed something, was there a financial proforma provided in a message showing the millions in revenue expected to be generated by sticker sales? :)

I dare say this site is creating value for a defunct brand still owned by an organization that owns the patent rights, trademark, potential copyrights, that itself is in financial turmoil.

If so worried about Remington maybe when this group does a research letter and charges a fee, a royalty commission needs to go to Remington, that should get them out of the red.

Btw Remington is not going down the tubes because of the Parker brand, they figured it was a loss leader ages ago and shelved everything about it. If Remington becomes insolvent and is forced to liquidate everything Parker could be under someone else's control and ownership. Right now my guess is they could care less about the price of tea in China or whether a group wants to make a few stickers or labels to go with an old brand they own and no longer support. However, if we were wanting to go into business making Parker action wear, hunting clothes, art work and T-shirts then that is a different story and someone needs to call corporate and tell them we have a rescue plan.

[edgarspencer]

When Parker was purchased they were no longer allowed to use 'Bros., or Brothers'.
That label, if it is in fact not a 'creation' of the maker, says Parker Brothers, and I think that is all anyone need look to, to argue, it is not the property of Remington Arms Corp.

[Todd Poer]

So Edgar, in line with what Bruce said, in your opinion, its therefore a public domain piece, which in itself is interesting and surprising. Always lots of gray area in these issues.

[edgarspencer]

So Edgar, in line with what Bruce said, in your opinion, its therefore a public domain piece.

No, that is not what I said, nor is it my opinion, because I do not know what legally constitutes 'public domain'. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.

[Todd Poer]

I am not one either, though do deal with a lot of them on varying issues, and not trying to put words in your mouth. However, if framed as you suggested if there was a piece that was copyrighted or patented and all those issues expire and/or none of it renewed then it becomes public domain or open to anyone to use, as to my understanding. BTW this is what lawyers are paid to argue about all the time. I'm sure there is some case law somewhere that could be dragged up to support pros and cons.

I guess I am saying if Remington doesn't own it, then who does, and if it was not part of transfer then that image has no said ownership and is public domain free to use by anyone.

[Victor Wasylyna]

However, if framed as you suggested if there was a piece that was copyrighted or patented and all those issues expire and/or none of it renewed then it becomes public domain or open to anyone to use, as to my understanding.

You missed/ignored my post above. This is not a patent issue. Copyright, if any, would have long since expired. However, Remington owns a federal trademark registration for the PARKER mark for "shotguns and replacement parts therefore." It would be unwise for anyone to sell shotguns, replacement shotgun parts or other shotgun-related paraphernalia using the PARKER mark or any other "confusingly similar" mark (e.g., PARKER BROS.). Trademark rights are lost if not enforced--even if not enforced against small-potatoes infringers.

-Victor

[Victor Wasylyna]

When Parker was purchased they were no longer allowed to use 'Bros., or Brothers'.
That label, if it is in fact not a 'creation' of the maker, says Parker Brothers, and I think that is all anyone need look to, to argue, it is not the property of Remington Arms Corp.

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

[edgarspencer]

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

:vconfused::vconfused::vconfused::vconfused: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.

[Todd Poer]

Victor

Did not miss or ignore your message and you seem well versed in legal issues. My point was directed as to what happens to material if something expires like a copyright, trademark or patent, then it becomes, as told to me, public domain. A friend of mine that was internal counsel at Coca Cola that chased this stuff told me of this a long time ago. And yes you have to vigorously defend your trademark to all comers.

I thought your explanation of copyright and trademark was correct. This could be a never ending debate but given the scale and scope and current situation of Remington in context of thread, still don't see Remington really caring. Now if PGCA was trying to make a business and huge profit of selling Parker stuff, then Remington could ask for reimbursement, a license agreement, or seek injunctive relief if they indeed have rights. Don't see any of that even on the horizon in reality, but in theory yes Remington may have rights. Again given context what would be probability of Remington flexing their muscle on what we are talking about.

So specific question is use of their trademark and if Remington has rights. No one here is trying change or operate a business of Parker Bros. name, I don't think that is in dispute. I guess real question does Remington have rights and if so would they require licensed use of Parker Bros. trademark. They would if it was profitable or if they thought per se this group was damaging their trademark rights, but PGCA isn't or they would have asked PGCA to cease and desist from using anything associated with Parker Bros. Frankly I think they would support anything PGCA would do that could create value or awareness of their trademark, especially if it did not cost them anything. I actually wonder why someone from Remington doesn't come onto this webpage and talk about stuff. 1. they don't care, 2. they don't want to further offer any support of the products.

Btw fickled finger of fate, I have been involved with with some trademark and patent issues before. Client of mine was wanting to purchase a well known sweetener brand that patent and process protection period was going to expire in about two years. They could buy the trademark and brand but any value to the patent was gone in 2 years and market value for said sweetener was going to drop quickly since everyone in Asia was already making it and were ready to flood the US market when it expired.

[Kirk Potter]

Doesn't it seem like their are several different companies reprinting the various "Parker Brothers" catalogs?

[Dean Romig]

This could be a never ending debate but given the scale and scope and current situation of Remington in context of thread, still don't see Remington really caring. Now if PGCA was trying to make a business and huge profit of selling Parker stuff, then Remington could ask for reimbursement, a license agreement, or seek injunctive relief. Don't see any of that even on the horizon in reality, but in theory yes Remington may have rights. Again given context what would be probability of Remington flexing their muscle on what we are talking about.

I actually wonder why someone from Remington doesn't come onto this webpage and talk about stuff. 1. they don't care, 2. they don't want to further offer any support of the products.


Well there it is in black & white... Todd doesn't think Remington cares. Apparantly Remington is too busy to care???

Have at it guys - print whatever you want to...(at your own peril, I should add.)





.

[Todd Poer]

Well there it is in black & white... Todd doesn't think Remington cares. Apparantly Remington is too busy to care???

Have at it guys - print whatever you want to...(at your own peril, I should add.)





.

Ipso Facto, does Remington seek compensation for use of any likeness of material presented or used by PGCA with regard to letters that have woodcock and broken gun emblem all over them, heck even for constant use on this webpage. The original premise posed was in context of PGCA could it print some stickers or labels to give to members. I think you said PGCA has right to use stuff for educational purposes, which is in obvious support of trademark and in Remington's best interest. Oh well.

And for calling me out Dean, I'm notifying the mattress police on your ass and for your sake hope you did not remove the tags. :bigbye:

[Dean Romig]

And for calling me out Dean, I'm notifying the mattress police on your ass and for your sake hope you did not remove the tags. :bigbye:

Ha! You can't scare me with "mattress police" threats. I used to be very afraid of them and left the tags on pillows, mattresses, furniture cushions, hell even kapoc filled life jackets... Then I got smart and learned these warnings were to the retailer and not the retail purchaser... who knew?
These days I throw caution to the wind and snip off all such warnings. So, you see - you can't scare me with idle threats. :corn:

[Todd Poer]

Dang, and I thought for sure I at least had you crawling underneath your bed looking for tags.

[William Davis]

It really has nothing to do with right wrong or Remington.

Company bankrup the sharks come out looking for blood. All it takes is one attorney seeing PGCA using Remington trademarks and having cash in our bank account. He takes us to court and settles out of court, gets a cut of the settlement. The Bankruptcy Court can’t play favorites, have to protect creditors and accepts the agreement.

I was called to testify in a similar case years ago. Attoney representing creditors brought a frivolous lawsuit against a former vendor to the bankrupt company. Case was thrown out it was so ridiculous, vendor had to pay his own legal bills. No recourse.

It’s not worth it.

William

[Rick Losey]

It really has nothing to do with right wrong or Remington.

Company bankrup the sharks come out looking for blood. All it takes is one attorney seeing PGCA using Remington trademarks and having cash in our bank account. He takes us to court and settles out of court, gets a cut of the settlement. The Bankruptcy Court can’t play favorites, have to protect creditors and accepts the agreement.

I was called to testify in a similar case years ago. Attoney representing creditors brought a frivolous lawsuit against a former vendor to the bankrupt company. Case was thrown out it was so ridiculous, vendor had to pay his own legal bills. No recourse.

It’s not worth it.

William

you are correct in all you say


BUT

i find it sad that in this world any more, most of the time, it has nothing to do with right or wrong

[William Davis]

Rick international shipping for years was involved in a number lawsuits. Every legal system is different and we always took the advice of our attorneys. Most of the time in the US the advice was settle because of the cost. Primary difference in the American system vs other countries is no compensation for you expenses when sued even if the case is thrown out.

Key issue in bankruptcy is it’s not Remington that would want compensation for unauthorized use of trademark. It’s the creditors that are looking for money as a group. And the court is likely to agree to hear anyone bringing a legitimate claim. Money recovered goes into the pool paying all creditors. I don’t look on it in a negative way, the creditors deserve to be paid. Only issue I have is frivolous. More often than not the result of overloaded courts accepting most claims & letting the attorneys work it out.

William

[Victor Wasylyna]

:vconfused::vconfused::vconfused::vconfused: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

[Dean Romig]

Thanks very much Victor. Most of us had never seen that and probably a great many never knew about the suit.





.

[Kevin McCormack]

Many thanks for posting this Victor - those of us who lived through it sport many dental appliances as a result!

[Kirk Potter]

This has me curious now, what guns were they actually planning on marketing?

[Todd Poer]

Around here we like to use the word “reproduction.” A trademark owner would opt to use the word “counterfeit” instead of “reproduction.” (Are you shopping for a “Rolex Reproduction by Watch Corporation”? Good luck with that.) Remington owns a federal trademark registration for the PARKER mark (secured in 2002). There is a trademark problem with the original poster’s proposition if done commercially (like CSMC’s label business). If done privately, I would not be concerned about Remington.

-Victor

I think lost in the shuffle this comment makes the most sense. Question is if PGCA would be considered a commercial enterprise, probably not in its current form. Dean pointed out there is an agreement or charter allowing PGCA to use, reference or make part of PGCA endeavors certain materials Remington owns for educational purposes. Guessing the use of trademark emblems is allowed or they would have come down on it years ago. That emblem is reproduced every time a letter goes out and everyday on this page. Those letters and this site and its actions promotes the brand and creates value for it and this group does not seek to profit from it, steal from it, or make the brand its own, it merely continually promotes it at no cost or effort from Remington.

Okay here is a question. How much is the Parker brand or trademark worth? I've worked on trying to value things similar and unless you have an operational strategy, its very subjective. All I do know is that users create value and PGCA is a core group of users.

[Dean Romig]

To the best of my knowledge, the PGCA is not concerned with the 'value' of such trademarks beyond the identification they lend to our organization.

We are concerned with 'value' only to the degree that certain monies we receive from membership fees, the sale of research letters, raffle gun income and silent auction income allow us to perpetuate our mission of education of things pertaining to the Parker Gun, other Charles Parker enterprises, and related historical facts.






.

[Dean Romig]

This has me curious now, what guns were they actually planning on marketing?

They had actually produced a handful of prototype O/U competition style guns.

I handled one but was somewhat unimpressed. They planned three or four grades, some highly embellished and some considerably plainer.





.

[Todd Poer]

To the best of my knowledge, the PGCA is not concerned with the 'value' of such trademarks beyond the identification they lend to our organization.

.

I agree, have not seen any mission statement or "Why" statement contrary to your point listed, but nonetheless, PGCA as an entity intended or not creates value to Parker Brand, since in essence as individuals we are users of the product.

I said this before,if it probably wasn't the combined efforts of people that participate with this organization, there would probably be about 100,000 antique Parker shotgun lamps. I would almost dare say its groups of enthusiasts like PGCA that keep significant interest and relevance in still using and maintaining hammer guns with damascus or twist barrel guns. Before coming onto this site I would never have even thought about owning one of those guns, now I am starting to get the bug to try one. :):bowdown:

[Kirk Potter]

They had actually produced a handful of prototype O/U competition style guns.

I handled one but was somewhat unimpressed. They planned three or four grades, some highly embellished and some considerably plainer.





.

This is the first I've heard of this.. I was thinking something similar would end up happening now, with Remington being bankrupt.. Just slap the Parker name on some cheap foreign made SXS. I seem to remember Marlin doing this a few years back with LC Smith.

[Victor Wasylyna]

If anyone is interested in reading more about Remington’s PARKER trademark or about the PARKER BROS. trademark that Remington challenged/quashed, I posted some documents on DropBox:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lbjmpukesg9vp0a/AAA8b2hWLnT9mNcga3vYSHtCa?dl=0

Does not tell the whole story, but there are some interesting tidbits.

-Victor

[William Davis]

No doubt the Parker name could be purchased as part of the Bankruptcy proceedings. Fast work and good Lawyer may be inexpensive. Can’t see the current gun industry being interested .

William

[Todd Poer]

No doubt the Parker name could be purchased as part of the Bankruptcy proceedings. Fast work and good Lawyer may be inexpensive. Can’t see the current gun industry being interested .

William

Ya know that did cross my mind, and right now you would have the best negotiating power you ever had, but again how to value a brand that produces no product. Its almost like buying the Tucker car brand at this point.

[William Davis]

Be clear I am not a attorney. My Bankruptcy experience is limited to collecting from defunct customers and how it works depends on a lot.

Generally the court appoints a trustee who is representing the creditors as a group trying to obtain the maximum. He’s just guy trying for the highest price and most times paid a percentage. He does have some deadlines and often late in the process assets go for pennies on the dollar. Other times the opposite. Anybody serious gets in touch and asks how he’s going to liquidate. Trustee will give you the details, that’s his job.

William

[edgarspencer]

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 :crying: but beyond that, Just plain quit.

[Bill Murphy]

Kevin McCormack and I had an interesting afternoon at Millbrook a few years ago, inspecting and test firing the new Parker Brothers, Makers over under. I was unable to shoot it, because I was recovering from or preparing for surgery, but Kevin had a good time shooting it. In the intervening years, I lost track of the project, except for going on the website occasionally. I never saw the guns again, never heard from the representatives, although I had agreed to take the gun on the road as a competitor and promoter, if that proposal appealed to them. I'm sure the gun had its positive features, but it was way too busy around the breech with pins, screws to loosen, and crevices to collect dirt and powder residue. I wonder if there are still a couple of them around for research and display?

[Todd Poer]

Be clear I am not a attorney. My Bankruptcy experience is limited to collecting from defunct customers and how it works depends on a lot.

Generally the court appoints a trustee who is representing the creditors as a group trying to obtain the maximum. He’s just guy trying for the highest price and most times paid a percentage. He does have some deadlines and often late in the process assets go for pennies on the dollar. Other times the opposite. Anybody serious gets in touch and asks how he’s going to liquidate. Trustee will give you the details, that’s his job.

William

I think you are correct in the process and had a recent client go through it and it went down as you described. I'm no attorney either.

Btw did do some research and seems Remington has $1 billion in debt and has delayed filing until Tuesday-ish of this week. They seek to eliminate $700 mil in debt, restructure and then reportedly sale after restructure if they get their way. They gambled miserably on black guns and a certain candidate winning to prompt panic buying. Believe that is liken to mortgaging your house and taking that debt to buy bitcoins.

BTW for any snowflakes watching this board, my sincere apology and condolences in advance to you if you find my analogy insulting or it hits to close to home.

[Brian Dudley]

The subject of that suit SHOULD have been that the Parker name was soiled by putting it on an O/U.

[Greg Baehman]

For the benefit of those that have never seen one of these ill-fated Parker Bros. O&U's, here's an advertisement from 2005:

[Todd Poer]

The subject of that suit SHOULD have been that the Parker name was soiled by putting it on an O/U.

Don't be surprised if Remington is forced to liquidate, something like that could occur again. Parker's SBT looks almost like an O/U with no U. Parker attached to the SXS is same as peanut butter and jelly sandwich, they just go together. Dare say if the some of the craftsmen inherit to the brand would have last until era O/U started, bet they would have made a damn fine one. C'est la vie.

[Rick Riddell]

Crazy what happened to the label?

[Victor Wasylyna]

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