Cory, 2¢ from a lawyer???? Come on, based upon what they charge, it would be more like $18.46!

 

Yes Tim, but they would also need the 50% retainer First

 

I didnt say how many .02 charges or hidden fees there were going to be.

 

Okay boys and girls, let's settle this one with facts.

Trademark # 75240075 filed with the US patent and Trademark office on Feb. 11, 1997 was grated to the Porsche Club of America.

The trademark was granted for "PCA" DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS

i.e. PCA and logos and usage of said mark in commerce, specifically for "books and magazines promoting the interests of owners of sport cars and slipcovers for magazines."

FIRST USE: 19870700.
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19870700

Any questions.

 

their site does not use the PCA design so there is no copyright infringement. It's that simple. As previously stated, you can not simply copyright the letters PCA and in this case, the Porsche Club of America did not. They protected their logo with the words, letters, etc. but the primary focus is the logo, not the letters.

I'm glad that you have time to waste researching copyrights. However, if you're going to quote them, you had better get it right.

 

I bet Johnnie Cochran could of proved copyright infringement.

 

Actually, the reading of the trademark (I wouldn't call 2 minutes a great deal of time to find this info - any idiot can do it) appears to specify that the words stand alone from the logo.

The key to a trademark is the use of the mark in context. In this case the context is "promoting the interests of owners of sport cars". i.e. you can use PCA how you chose, but if you chose to use it in the context of the trademark, then PCA owns it and you infringe.

 

Yeah, I can hear it now as he makes his case for Porsche's suit against the defendants, "If the letters do fit, you can't aquit!"

 

Steve,

Aside from my feeling compelled to mention that trademark and copyright are two different things, I'll leave the legal dispute to the IP practitioners. But that's not the point. The point is that these guys are clearly trying to trick people into thinking they're part of the PCA.

Legal or not, I don't think it's ethical. And customers don't like being lied to.

CP

 

Yeah, I wasn't even going to get into that one, even though some were confusing the two.

Here's an interesting overview on domain name disputes on BitLaw

http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html

and one from Chilling Effects
http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/faq.cgi

It's never straightforward and this is no slam-dunk. It will all come down to whether someone thinks that this is worth spending attorney fees on. The question will be whether the PCA and it's lawyers see this as trademark dilution.

 

Judging by the quality of the website at this point, I think PCA is safe.

 

Well, part of trademark dilution can also be degrading an established name. Companies spend a lot of money building brands. if a company comes along with a similar brand of lower quality, then that is still trademark dilution.

An example from a couple of years ago was when Victoria's Secret sued Victor's Secret (sex toy store) in Kentucky for diluting their trademark

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/...tus.trademark/

The company changed their name to Victor's Little Secret and the case went to the Supreme Court. Lower courts upheld the dilution of Victor's Secret as dilution, but the Supreme Court found no dilution of the brand by the later name of Victor's Little Secret - Victoria's Secret lost the case. An important finding was that the marks did not have to be identical to cause dilution, as long as they had the intent to mislead, or play upon a well established brand.

The problem with technology law is that it's like the wild west - unchartered and an ever changing landscape of conflicting precedents.

 

But my lawyer (who is pretty good) is STILL less per hour than my Porsche technician . . .

 

I posted a skeptical response to the name of the forum yesterday. I went back today, and it was erased. I just posted another on the same subject, pointing out the obvious PCA trick. We'll see.

Can anyone get the logo/picture uploaded to this site? I tried, but it tells me its an invalid file.

 

which logo? PCA or theirs?