|
03-09-2018, 12:08 PM | #23 | |||||||
|
Quote:
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. |
|||||||
03-09-2018, 01:09 PM | #24 | ||||||
|
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. |
||||||
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to edgarspencer For Your Post: |
03-09-2018, 03:12 PM | #25 | ||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
03-09-2018, 03:28 PM | #26 | ||||||
|
|
||||||
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to edgarspencer For Your Post: |
03-09-2018, 03:55 PM | #27 | ||||||
|
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. |
||||||
03-09-2018, 04:25 PM | #28 | |||||||
|
Quote:
-Victor |
|||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Victor Wasylyna For Your Post: |
03-09-2018, 04:36 PM | #29 | |||||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Victor Wasylyna For Your Post: |
03-09-2018, 06:12 PM | #30 | |||||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||||
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to edgarspencer For Your Post: |
|
|