Can we make this case label?

[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

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

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.

[Southpaw]

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]

Originally Posted by Todd Poer

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.

[Southpaw]

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]

Originally Posted by Todd Poer

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.