What's with the new PCA Forum?
01-02-2008, 02:44 PM
#91
Newbies Hospitality Director
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 18,084
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
33 Posts
We need a Lawyer to give their .02.
There is,(to me) clear intent to benefit from adopting the acronym that is(legally) wrong. I am with you guys, I read cases that were less blatently obvious in connection than this situation and the Plaintiffs won copyright infringement.
There is,(to me) clear intent to benefit from adopting the acronym that is(legally) wrong. I am with you guys, I read cases that were less blatently obvious in connection than this situation and the Plaintiffs won copyright infringement.
01-02-2008, 04:04 PM
#93
Race Car
01-02-2008, 07:10 PM
#94
Nordschleife Master
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.
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.
01-02-2008, 07:19 PM
#95
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hatboro, PA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
01-02-2008, 07:40 PM
#97
Nordschleife Master
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.
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.
01-02-2008, 09:14 PM
#99
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'm glad that you have time to waste researching copyrights. However, if you're going to quote them, you had better get it right.
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
01-02-2008, 09:25 PM
#100
Nordschleife Master
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
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
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.
01-02-2008, 09:29 PM
#101
01-02-2008, 09:42 PM
#102
Nordschleife Master
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.
01-02-2008, 10:06 PM
#103
Rennlist Member
01-02-2008, 10:12 PM
#104
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.
Can anyone get the logo/picture uploaded to this site? I tried, but it tells me its an invalid file.
Last edited by McGarrett; 01-02-2008 at 10:32 PM.
01-02-2008, 10:18 PM
#105
Nordschleife Master
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 uploaded? I tried, but it tells me its an invalid file.
Can anyone get the logo uploaded? I tried, but it tells me its an invalid file.