X-pipe = no no
03-20-2006, 08:58 PM
#16
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Louie928
Good! You guys are keeping me busy updating my web site. I gotta get out and work on the car now.
Git out in the garage!
03-20-2006, 09:30 PM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I would tell him to to go and wipe his *** with his fake trade mark paper...
The official site does not show any x-pipe trademark:
http://firstgovsearch.gov/search?aff...v&query=x-pipe
So I would not remove anything from your website yet.
Cheers,
The official site does not show any x-pipe trademark:
http://firstgovsearch.gov/search?aff...v&query=x-pipe
So I would not remove anything from your website yet.
Cheers,
03-20-2006, 09:34 PM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
unfortunately he does show up... 
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...ate=vpb9gk.2.1
still... screw him...
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...ate=vpb9gk.2.1
still... screw him...
03-20-2006, 09:38 PM
#20
Range Master
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
fookin' parasite..that guy outa try and patent sticking his head up his *** that way....it does seem unique.
And I think "Ott pipes" are a great name. Louie, you know what would be cool? If you gave all the rennlist sponsor vendors the license to use that name......just think it would become a generic term, replacing mr parasite's so called patented one.
And I think "Ott pipes" are a great name. Louie, you know what would be cool? If you gave all the rennlist sponsor vendors the license to use that name......just think it would become a generic term, replacing mr parasite's so called patented one.
03-20-2006, 09:42 PM
#21
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
Well the patents seems to be still valid, but is the copyright of all those names?
US PAT NO 4,953,352 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/4,953,352
US PAT NO 4,800,719 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/4,800,719
US PAT NO 4,953,352 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/4,953,352
US PAT NO 4,800,719 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/4,800,719
03-20-2006, 09:58 PM
#23
Race Car
Originally Posted by BrendanC
Why not "Ott-pipes"
......Just kidding.
Say Ott pipes and we know the who and what.
Is "crossover exhaust" taken? This seems adequately descriptive.
03-20-2006, 10:00 PM
#24
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: middle of nowhere, USA
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I(tm) think(tm) this(tm) guy(tm) needs(tm) to(tm) just(tm) get(tm) over(tm) himself(tm). Obviously he is so successful selling whatever it is he is calling an X-whatever that he doesn't have time to seek out and make issue of similarly named products. 
I am sure an X-pipe being referred to as an X-pipe is costing him so much money that he simply must take legal action to protect his years of hard work and ingenuity in inventing the very idea of calling an exhaust crossover that looks like the letter X an X-whatever. What's next? Is he the only one that can call a cooked hamburger patty on a bun with cheese a "cheeseburger"? Patenting an invention to protect your ability to recover the investment in its creation is understandable, but staking claim on commonly used terminology is just ridiculous.
I am sure an X-pipe being referred to as an X-pipe is costing him so much money that he simply must take legal action to protect his years of hard work and ingenuity in inventing the very idea of calling an exhaust crossover that looks like the letter X an X-whatever. What's next? Is he the only one that can call a cooked hamburger patty on a bun with cheese a "cheeseburger"? Patenting an invention to protect your ability to recover the investment in its creation is understandable, but staking claim on commonly used terminology is just ridiculous.
03-20-2006, 10:00 PM
#25
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
X-Pipe: He just had it registered on Feb. 28. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...ate=pmdhov.4.1 So does that mean he has the TM rights going back before Feb 28, 2006?
Daytona X-Pipe, Campbell X-Pipe, X-Pipe Header, X-Pipe Cross-Over, CPU X-Pipe, X-Pipe are not yet registered (could be still pending).
Is there a way to check if his product is CARB exempt?
Daytona X-Pipe, Campbell X-Pipe, X-Pipe Header, X-Pipe Cross-Over, CPU X-Pipe, X-Pipe are not yet registered (could be still pending).
Is there a way to check if his product is CARB exempt?
03-20-2006, 10:01 PM
#27
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
Originally Posted by James-man
.......Is "crossover exhaust" taken? This seems adequately descriptive.
I just checked, it's not taken YET!
Here is the site to check for TM: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...ate=pmdhov.1.1
Type in George Bush and have a laugh!!
03-20-2006, 10:10 PM
#29
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,433
Received 1,605 Likes
on
1,049 Posts
Originally Posted by Imo000
At the bottom of his page I dont see XPipe as a TM.
Somewhere - bottom of page, home page of site - an attribution should appear indicating the owner of the mark. (i.e. "Azzhole" is a registered trademark of Sphincter Inc.)
Anyone interested in screwing with this guy could search prior usage and find occurrences of the term "X-pipe" in public documentation (marketing stuff, published papers, etc.) pertaining to automotive exhaust systems (or perhaps exhaust systems in general) that pre-date Mr. Campbell's registration date.
Louie, I'll bet exhaust pipes engineered in a cross-over configuration to increase scavenging effects have been in use since prior to WW-II. I'd not bet against them being referred to using the offensive term in papers published and perhaps available.
Alternatively, you could design a (ahem...) 'tobacco' pipe using a cross-over configuration and refer to it as an "X-pipe" without prima facie violation of Mr. Campbell's mark.
03-20-2006, 10:12 PM
#30
Wouldn't surprise me if "Monty" is the one who really invented this too:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6055910
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6055910