Sometime in 2001 or thereabouts, a case between Neutrik and Switchcraft came before the District Court in the Southern District of New York. It involved at least one relevant issue with respect to the Alan Hyatt/PMI v. TFPro controversey.
In the Neutrik case, Neutrik basically sued Switchcraft for making a simialr type plug and that "Switchcraft's advertising infringes Neutrik's SPEAKON (r) trakemark".
The found that there was no infringement because Neutrik could not establish that the particular design was non-functional and there was no secondary meaning.
In other words, courts will not allow one manufacturer to own a functional design that is so basic it allows for a monoply of a particular item. However, if a certain design element becomes so recognized as to take on identification aspects, copying of a non-functional design could have infringing significance.
Relevant to the Hayatt claim that Neutrik must take down all banner advertisements mentioning trademark's or design elements Hayatt claims to own was the following: "Advertisers are permitted to mention another's trademark for the purpose of describing an aspect of thier own product or to indicate that their product is a legitimate copy of another's. See 15 U.S.C.section 1115(b)(4);Mattel, 724 F2d. at 361. Such use constitutes a "fair use" so long as it is truthful an does not confuse consumers about the source of the advertiser's product..."
Although the foregoing is relevant, I think the question as to what exactly each party "owns" and the post above wherein a consumer claims he was confused as to source are factors that need further investigation before any infringement could be claimed.
As almost anyone at this site knows, anyone can make any claim anytime they wish, that is a first amendment right (with exceptions that don't need to be brought up here). What counts is what you can prove in court. I believe in the film "Training Day" the character played by Denzel says matter of factly "Its not what you know its what you can prove". That is certainly true in criminal matters but to varying degrees it is also true in civil matters. Sometimes what you know is what you can prove if the court believes what you know and say.
In the end, simply sending cease and desist letters that deem your actions infringing if you do not respond accordingly are, besides being notice in legitimate cases, self-serving statements and in and of themselves prove nothing. In a case such as the Hayatt v. TFPro, it is along way frm such a letter to actually proving infringement, particularly if documentation is not provided to back up the claims.
Just a few thoughts and some limited insight into the matterI though I would share for whatever it is worth. It seems people are interested in the subject and for those of us that regularly purchase audio equipment much of which is supposed to do something like some other vintage or popluar piece of gear, what advertisers can legitimately say can have an effect on all of us.
In the Neutrik case, Neutrik basically sued Switchcraft for making a simialr type plug and that "Switchcraft's advertising infringes Neutrik's SPEAKON (r) trakemark".
The found that there was no infringement because Neutrik could not establish that the particular design was non-functional and there was no secondary meaning.
In other words, courts will not allow one manufacturer to own a functional design that is so basic it allows for a monoply of a particular item. However, if a certain design element becomes so recognized as to take on identification aspects, copying of a non-functional design could have infringing significance.
Relevant to the Hayatt claim that Neutrik must take down all banner advertisements mentioning trademark's or design elements Hayatt claims to own was the following: "Advertisers are permitted to mention another's trademark for the purpose of describing an aspect of thier own product or to indicate that their product is a legitimate copy of another's. See 15 U.S.C.section 1115(b)(4);Mattel, 724 F2d. at 361. Such use constitutes a "fair use" so long as it is truthful an does not confuse consumers about the source of the advertiser's product..."
Although the foregoing is relevant, I think the question as to what exactly each party "owns" and the post above wherein a consumer claims he was confused as to source are factors that need further investigation before any infringement could be claimed.
As almost anyone at this site knows, anyone can make any claim anytime they wish, that is a first amendment right (with exceptions that don't need to be brought up here). What counts is what you can prove in court. I believe in the film "Training Day" the character played by Denzel says matter of factly "Its not what you know its what you can prove". That is certainly true in criminal matters but to varying degrees it is also true in civil matters. Sometimes what you know is what you can prove if the court believes what you know and say.
In the end, simply sending cease and desist letters that deem your actions infringing if you do not respond accordingly are, besides being notice in legitimate cases, self-serving statements and in and of themselves prove nothing. In a case such as the Hayatt v. TFPro, it is along way frm such a letter to actually proving infringement, particularly if documentation is not provided to back up the claims.
Just a few thoughts and some limited insight into the matterI though I would share for whatever it is worth. It seems people are interested in the subject and for those of us that regularly purchase audio equipment much of which is supposed to do something like some other vintage or popluar piece of gear, what advertisers can legitimately say can have an effect on all of us.
