Can we make this case label?
 

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...pictureid=9961

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.

Wow! That is cool

Do we think this label is original Parker production?

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

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

How exactly does Remington own this?

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

Ken

That was Parker’s NY salesroom at the time.

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

Copyright would have expired years ago.

Trademarks and copyrights I believe are two different things.

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



.

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.

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.

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

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





.

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.

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

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





.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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:

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:

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

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

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

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