Can we make this case label?

[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

[Southpaw]

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.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Todd Poer

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.)





.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

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.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Todd Poer

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.

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.

[Kirk Potter]

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

[Southpaw]

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