Blue / Violet

[JZ Recording]

Taking our opportunity we would like to address this letter to your attention and request you, or any other person whom you may instruct, to help us to protect our interests and personal rights in the United State of America.

We are the Limited Liability company “SCRUPLES”, incorporated and registered on 11 July, 1991 in the Republic of Latvia under registered number 4000301505. The company’s registered office is at 30 Gaujas Street, Marupe, Marupes pagasts, Riga Region, LV-2167, Latvia.

Our main business activities are of medical product producing, implants and other goods. Since 1996 the company had an opportunity to enlarge its commercial activities and technological basis allowed it, we have started also to produce “Blue” line microphones. Now the production of microphones covers three fourths of the whole production. Before beginning the production of these goods, the design and technical solution of the microphones had been worked out by our company’s employee – Juris Zariņš (who also is an designs author of “Blue” microphones). The Latvian company SIA, “SCRUPLES” is the legal owner of the microphone designs registered and protected both in Latvia and in the European Community. The subject CTM designs are registered under reg. No. 000288220-0001 – 0006. The author of these designs is Mr. Juris Zariņš, an employee of the company SIA “SCRUPLES”.

The first consignment of “Blue” microphones was sent to the US company “ADM TECHNOLOGIES” on September 7, 1998. This fact we can confirm with a copy of the Invoices existing in our files. Already in 1997 our company involved Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns (the Latvian citizen) in elaboration of business plans of the company and in perfection of further goals relating with the sale promotion of “Blue” microphones. As documents existing in accounting and bookkeeping files of our company evidence, grounding on an application of May 24, 1999 filed by Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns, on May 24, 1999 he was taken on in our company as a trade manager for microhones distribution in the world’s. With the Employment Agreement No. 6 of December 1, 2002 the relations between the employee Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns and the employer were grounded. According to an application of February 4, 2005, on February 7, 2005 Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns was dismissed from the job at his own will in our company.

Having been in employment relations with our company, Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns as the sales manager of “Blue” microphones was entrusted to find a cooperation partners who could help with promotion of “Blue” microphones in other countries of the world. On March 5, 1998 the microphone holders produced by our company were delivered to the US company BERNARD & SHARON WISE with address 377 Anzio way, Agoura, CA 91301. Having got acquainted with “Blue” microphone products and having taken into account very high quality and possible turnover of these goods on the world’s market, later in 1998 there was established the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” with address 377 Anzio way, Agoura, CA 91301. On March 12, 1999 “Blueberry” microphones and their accessories were sent to the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics”. Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns was a co-establisher and co-owner of the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” (the second co-owner of this company – the US citizen Bernard Wise). Taking into account that the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” had been very resistant to conclude any agreement on purchase, distribution and promotion of our produced products, an official agreement on further supply of “Blue” microphones was signed with the US Company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” just in 2000. As from 2003 – 2004 the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” had not settled several payments for purchased microphones, we were forced to warn the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” on cease of our further business relations. The US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” forced our company to sign the agreement of 18 July 2003 that was very unfavourable to our further business development. The US company promised to pay the unsettled invoices. In order to receive money for our products, we were forced to yield. In order to promote sale of the products – “Blue” microphones, our company did not object to the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” (as an official representative of the goods produced by the Plaintiff) against the use in the commercial activities of the trademarks “Blue” (a word mark) and “Blue” (a graphical mark) owned by our company. We must also indicate that the US Company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” only bought fully owned and designed “BLUE” microphones but not ordered microphones designed by the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics”.

All microphone designs were created in our company and the authors`s right to these designs belong to our employee Mr. Juris Zariņš. Besides, the technical information for production of these microphones and trade secrets related with this intellectual property are owed by our company. The US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” cannot claim the right to our property. Mr.Mārtiņš Saulespurēns had all access to our company’s trade secrets as well as technical documentation and he knew that the intellectual property related with the microphones belonged to our company. He maliciously used his status and position in our company. Having left our company Mr. Martiņš Saulespurēns made known all our trade secrets to the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” and misappropriated our intellectual property rights.

Our dispute regarding the intellectual property matters in Latvia has been going on already since February 2005. For your information we will further provide you a short insight in administrative and litigation matters, which are going on between the subject persons:

Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns is the owner of the trademarks “Blue” (word mark) and (figurative mark) unlawfully registered on his name in Latvia. On February 21, 2005 Mr. Mārtiņš filed an opposition under administrative procedure to the trademark registration No. M 54 153 “Violet” (fig.) registered in the name of our company. Mr. Saulespurēns considers that the graphical trademark “Violet” is confusingly similar to the trademarks “Blue” registered on his name. We have obtained the professional conclusion on similarity of the marks and there was stated that the assertion of Mr. Saulespurēns that the comparative marks are confusingly similar because the dominant verbal element thereof is the designation of colour (‘blue’ and ‘violet’) that may cause mutual associations, is quite pretentious. It should be taken into account that there is a special meaning of the verbal designation “Blue” of the opposing mark. The designation “Violet”, in its turn, means not the denomination of colour (at least, not only that) but the woman’s name. Even if the comparative marks are reduced only to designations of colours, it should be taken into consideration that there exists a number of marks registered in Latvia and also as the European Community trademarks with respect to the goods of class 9, covering a designation of a colour and included in an oval or circle, and almost all of them have been applied for registration earlier than the opposing “Blue” marks. Thus, there are no grounds to consider that Mārtiņš Saulespurēns may exclusively monopolise for his trademarks all the designations covering a designation of a colour and to forbid the other owners to use them for marking their goods, thus restricting a fair market competition. Taking into account the difference of the overall impression of the marks “Blue” and “Violet”, there does not exist real likelihood that the consumers may confuse the comparative marks, nor to perceive the goods marked with them as correlated. The hearing of this opposition matter will be scheduled by the Board of Appeal of the LR Patent Office on December or January.

On 27 July 2005 the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” filed an action to the Riga District Court against our company, requesting the Court to apply preliminary injunction seizing all microphones produced by our company which are similar or identical to the microphones produced by “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics”; to oblige our company to fulfil the agreed; to destroy the microphones produced by our company. The Riga District Court with the decision of August 16, 2005 rejected the request for applying the preliminary injunction. On August 26, 2005 the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” filed the complaint against the judge’s decision requesting the Riga Regional Court to satisfy application of preliminary injunction. On October 3, 2005 our written explanations to the complaint were submitted to the Court indicating that the dispute was not on the agreed rights but on the intellectual property, thus the claim of the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” was filed in a wrong court that had not jurisdiction to review such cases. On November 2, 2005 the complaint matter was adjudicated by the Riga Regional Court and three judges indicated that because of incompetence of lawyers of the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” the claim against our company was brought in the wrong court and therefore the preliminary injunction is not admissible. The text of the Court’s decision will be available after November 7, 2005. On 13 September 2005 our company in the same case filed a counterclaim against the “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” requesting the Court to announce as invalid the agreement signed on July 18, 2003 by the parties, to state the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” actions as unfair competition and to oblige the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” to desist from any further actions which are tended against our company.

On August 31, 2005 our company filed an action to the Riga Regional Court against Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns on invalidation of the trademark registrations “Blue” (reg. No. M 53 063) and “Blue” (fig.) (reg. No. M 52 955) and on prohibition of further use of these marks by Mārtiņš Saulespurēns. The hearing is not scheduled yet.


Besides, the Economic Police of the Republic of Latvia has initiated a criminal case No. 11810025 against the co-owner of the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” – Mr. Mārtiņš Saulespurēns on infringement of intellectual property rights owned by our company.

Even if we have not been officially informed by the US court institutions, to our attention there was brought the fact that the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” filed an action against our company in the U.S.A., California. Taking into account our laws and international legislation and practise on summons of parties in a case, we have not received any official information of such initiated case from the Court of California. From the Latvian representatives of the US company “Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics” we received some copies of documents indicating that a hearing date of this case has been scheduled on November 10, 2005.

Sincerely yours
SIA SCRUPLES

www.violet-design.ee
info@violet-design.ee

[reshp1]

Go fuck yourself asshole. Nobody gave a shit the first time you posted this and nobody gives a shit now.

[mrface2112]

christ, this again?


*yawn*


cheers,
wade

[Big Kenny]

I felt complied to respond but I don't know how.

[MadAudio]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Chris Shaeffer]

I'd like to take my opportunity to increase my post count by 1 in yet another useless thread.

JZ- we don't have any ability to help protect your rights in the US. Its not like we can petition the judge and have it mean anything. That's your job, dude.

Good luck. I have no idea what's true in this situation and I don't really care. I'm sure the legal process will figure it out. If you win then you'll have a LOT of work to do repairing your reputation. All your whining is annoying.

Chris

[PhilGood]

ten characters

[Halion]

random funny image to lighten the mood

[IronFlippy]

and we care because.............

Well, at least this is in the proper forum

[giraffe]

Originally Posted by Halion

random funny image to lighten the mood

best broken jpg link i've ever seen!

[PhilGood]

Originally Posted by Halion

random funny image to lighten the mood

JZ ...Clown ...Violin...

might as well be crickets chirping!

[mikey@thecave]

let the courts decide.....just tell us what mic sounds like a U-47 and doesn't cost that much

[Redshoes]

can some one please tell me in a few sentenses what that post was about... i really cant be arsed to read it....

[rory]

This is one of the best threads ever! EEEEEEEEYOWWWZZZZZAAAAA. I founded digidesign 30 years ago, even though I'm only 22 years old, where are my profits dammit?

[mikey@thecave]

JZ ,we are just a bunch a musicians.. if the court desides you are winner we will buy your stuff if we like it....But we don't need to know all the details

[PhilGood]

Originally Posted by mikey@thecave

JZ ,we are just a bunch a musicians.. if the court desides you are winner we will buy your stuff if we like it....But we don't need to know all the details

Only at extremely discouted prices!!

[nkjanssen]

Originally Posted by mikey@thecave

JZ ,we are just a bunch a musicians.. if the court desides you are winner we will buy your stuff if we like it....But we don't need to know all the details

It's kind-of fun, though.

Like a soap opera.

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by Redshoes

can some one please tell me in a few sentenses what that post was about... i really cant be arsed to read it....

Sure, purportedly JZ/Violet won an early round in Latvian court on a jurisidictional issue. The final result is still far off.

In US courts, JZ/Violet apparently has not been properly served process; however, if they are incorrect in that assertion, they would be risking default judgment.

[Warhead]

Where's the "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" sleeping smilie icon guy when you need him.

War

[JZ Recording]

..truth bites as you know..

[Big Kenny]

how would you know?

[reshp1]

Thanks for the neg rep asswipe. Too bad you don't have any rep to give.

[punkin]

Originally Posted by PhilGood

JZ ...Clown ...Violin...

might as well be crickets chirping!

OH PLEASE...NOT CRICKETS!...I HATE CRICKETS!!!!!

[Dracon]

Wow! OK, I have been out of the loop. Wait, that's an understatement. I'm not even in the vicinity of the beltway, in fact I think I've been in an entire different continent.

So Violet sued Blue in Latvia for the rights??? What?

Can I buy a Violet mic if I live in the US or what gives? Are the Violet mics any good anyway?

[giraffe]

Originally Posted by Dracon

Can I buy a Violet mic if I live in the US or what gives? Are the Violet mics any good anyway?

A. full compass sells them (others too, i'm sure)
B. don't know, never used.