Can we make this case label?

[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.

[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 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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.