P
Paul Robison
New member
Re: huh?
CUSETOWN said:
ausrock
Well-known member
His assumption that that is the truth is no more valid or invalid as the scores of opinions being expressed by others on this matter.
P
Paul Robison
New member
Exactly !
D
DJL
Self Banned
Mr. Paul, if you are reading... be careful doing business with PMI.
C
CUSETOWN
New member
lol
"His assumption that that is the truth is no more valid or invalid as the scores of opinions being expressed by others on this matter."
I'm not assuming its the truth. Alan Hyatt stated it in an earlier post.
Do you think he's lying? Would PMI's attorney(s) move forward with no legal leg to stand on?
Do you think you somehow have to right to see PMI's legal documentaion and agreements posted for chumps on an internet forum?
Wake up people. LOOK at the product TFpro is pushing.. Its screams joemeek. Its also being advertised as the 'promeek' on his site!
Alan must have said something to offend some of you, & now you're an advocate of someone robbing him blind. Sad.
"His assumption that that is the truth is no more valid or invalid as the scores of opinions being expressed by others on this matter."
I'm not assuming its the truth. Alan Hyatt stated it in an earlier post.
Do you think he's lying? Would PMI's attorney(s) move forward with no legal leg to stand on?
Do you think you somehow have to right to see PMI's legal documentaion and agreements posted for chumps on an internet forum?
Wake up people. LOOK at the product TFpro is pushing.. Its screams joemeek. Its also being advertised as the 'promeek' on his site!
Alan must have said something to offend some of you, & now you're an advocate of someone robbing him blind. Sad.
Last edited:
P
Paul Robison
New member
Re: lol
CUSETOWN said:
M
Mr Funk
New member
I am staying out of all this mess on all of the forums, but just thought I had to say that 'Promeek' was the name of Ted's company for a very short time before it was changed to TFpro over a year ago! 'Promeek' does not exist and stating that Ted Fletcher is using that brand name is false information. I'm sure know one wants to spread any more incorrect 'FACTS' that may fuel a fire that is already out of control?
Peace to all!!
Peace to all!!
C
CUSETOWN
New member
Thats correct.
But I didnt say he's using it as a BRAND name.. I said he's using it in his marketing.. When you go to some of his product pages, you'll see it in the top of your browser window. Along with correct facts, lets not mis-quote people either.
& Paul, All I said was that I wasn't 'assuming' anything.. I didn't come to any conclusions without information from one of the key people in the whole debate. The only one whos made himself available to shed light on the subject. If someone tells you something and you repeat it, its not an assumption.
Youre not the brightest bulb there kid..
But I didnt say he's using it as a BRAND name.. I said he's using it in his marketing.. When you go to some of his product pages, you'll see it in the top of your browser window. Along with correct facts, lets not mis-quote people either.
& Paul, All I said was that I wasn't 'assuming' anything.. I didn't come to any conclusions without information from one of the key people in the whole debate. The only one whos made himself available to shed light on the subject. If someone tells you something and you repeat it, its not an assumption.
Youre not the brightest bulb there kid..
D
DJL
Self Banned
There's lots of look-alike products on todays market... like VCR's, and etc... so what.
C
CUSETOWN
New member
..
lol, so what is right.. I personally don't care. I just think its kinda corny that people would limit their equipment purchases & 'boycott' a company.. Thats what my original post was about.
On the same note, I wouldnt 'boycott' tfpro.. Nobody is 'making a statement' by limiting their arsenal..
lol, so what is right.. I personally don't care. I just think its kinda corny that people would limit their equipment purchases & 'boycott' a company.. Thats what my original post was about.
On the same note, I wouldnt 'boycott' tfpro.. Nobody is 'making a statement' by limiting their arsenal..
D
DJL
Self Banned
I agree... and I'm not boycotting anyone... but, I have out grown PMI products. 
R
Rev E
New member
There have been a lot of good point expressed on both sides in this thread and especially the one on harmony central. Fletcher makes a great point about Alan and gang having to protect their trademark. However, it's not at all clear that Alan and his company owns a Joemeek trademark within the US. If this is the case, the legs for any cease and desist order from Alan's company to any company or person in the US is a more difficult case to prove than it appears.
In order for Alan to enforce any "alleged" trademark in the US without showing a registered US trademark, he (Alan) would have to prove that his company through extensive advertising over time acquired "secondary meaning" that persons in the US markets now recognize that his company is the source of the goods doning the "Joemeek" trademark. UK trademarks (while they may be persuasive evidence of secondary meaning) are NOT conclusive or binding in US courts.
The Cease and Desist Letter to Ozraves
Someone(s) on the Harmony Central board made a couple of insightful points: 1) in order to enforce any cease and desist threat Alan would have to file an injunction in court (there's no other way to do this), 2) a cease and desist letter (for a company that doesn't yet own a registered trademark) amounts to bullying the little guy. Here's why.
In order to win an injunction, Alan would have to prove that he likely would be "successful on the merits" (of his trademark/trade dress suit with TFpro) to get a "court" to order any advertisers to cease and desist any advertising of TFpro products. That is, the facts and allegations that are being leveled at TFpro would have to come out in US court in order to assert any common law trademark infringement/trade dress suits against any US advertisers ... unless Alan can show a "registered federal US Trademark." The trademark/trade dress case against TFpro is hardly a slam dunk, making any injunction not able to be predicted with any degree of certainty... Result = Ozraves and other advertisers of TFpro offending products/trademarks win.
The problem (for Ozraves and others similarly situated) is that to defend himself it will likely cost him money and time that he doesn't have and will add trouble to his life that he doesn't need. (Even though I believe that Oz is likely to win any injunction action by Alan) ... so any cease and decist letter (a likely result of advice from DA Lawyers) amounts to a calculated "bully" of the little guy from Alan and company.
Personally, I think it's pretty reprehensible to assert legal claims over opinions in Internet newsgroups. It's equally poor form to assert legal claims that amount to little more than a calculated "bully"... I've defended Alan tooth and nail regarding people's assertion that his posts amount to no more than spam. But "this" is a different story with rather larger and gloomier ramifactions than just a loss of face. If I've misinterpreted Alan's actions, then I apologize, but if I see it clearly then this is extremely poor form for Mr. Hyatt.
In order for Alan to enforce any "alleged" trademark in the US without showing a registered US trademark, he (Alan) would have to prove that his company through extensive advertising over time acquired "secondary meaning" that persons in the US markets now recognize that his company is the source of the goods doning the "Joemeek" trademark. UK trademarks (while they may be persuasive evidence of secondary meaning) are NOT conclusive or binding in US courts.
The Cease and Desist Letter to Ozraves
Someone(s) on the Harmony Central board made a couple of insightful points: 1) in order to enforce any cease and desist threat Alan would have to file an injunction in court (there's no other way to do this), 2) a cease and desist letter (for a company that doesn't yet own a registered trademark) amounts to bullying the little guy. Here's why.
In order to win an injunction, Alan would have to prove that he likely would be "successful on the merits" (of his trademark/trade dress suit with TFpro) to get a "court" to order any advertisers to cease and desist any advertising of TFpro products. That is, the facts and allegations that are being leveled at TFpro would have to come out in US court in order to assert any common law trademark infringement/trade dress suits against any US advertisers ... unless Alan can show a "registered federal US Trademark." The trademark/trade dress case against TFpro is hardly a slam dunk, making any injunction not able to be predicted with any degree of certainty... Result = Ozraves and other advertisers of TFpro offending products/trademarks win.
The problem (for Ozraves and others similarly situated) is that to defend himself it will likely cost him money and time that he doesn't have and will add trouble to his life that he doesn't need. (Even though I believe that Oz is likely to win any injunction action by Alan) ... so any cease and decist letter (a likely result of advice from DA Lawyers) amounts to a calculated "bully" of the little guy from Alan and company.
Personally, I think it's pretty reprehensible to assert legal claims over opinions in Internet newsgroups. It's equally poor form to assert legal claims that amount to little more than a calculated "bully"... I've defended Alan tooth and nail regarding people's assertion that his posts amount to no more than spam. But "this" is a different story with rather larger and gloomier ramifactions than just a loss of face. If I've misinterpreted Alan's actions, then I apologize, but if I see it clearly then this is extremely poor form for Mr. Hyatt.
S
Soundsense
New member
Re: Re: huh?
Paul Robison said:
R
Rev E
New member
Another point about the "alleged" trademark/trade dress infringement by TFpro. There are a couple holes in Alan's case (assuming UK law works the same as US law). First, If you look at the Ed the Compressor, there are quite a few details that are clearly different, making the Edward the Compressor layout far from a rehash of the Joemeek SC2 (assuming that's the one that's being knocked off).
Second, all of the buttons used in either compressor have a "function." When things have a functional use the legal standard and burden is higher to prove trademark infringement. Since none of the knobs used in either compressor are unique, Alan and Co. would have to prove that either the design was copied wholesale or substantially copied to the extent that a prudent purchaser would assume that both products came from the same source. See for yourself (pics attached).
Second, all of the buttons used in either compressor have a "function." When things have a functional use the legal standard and burden is higher to prove trademark infringement. Since none of the knobs used in either compressor are unique, Alan and Co. would have to prove that either the design was copied wholesale or substantially copied to the extent that a prudent purchaser would assume that both products came from the same source. See for yourself (pics attached).
Attachments
R
Rev E
New member
Here's the Joemeek SC2. Notice than the position of many of the knobs where changed, making these quite a bit different when compared side by side.
Also, courts usually look unfavorably to any agreement which unduly restrict persons from the right to practice their craft. If audio products is what Ted Fletcher does for a living (and has done), persons possessing contracts that purport to limit Fletcher's right to build other audio products will have a heavy burden to meet to successfully convince a court that such a contract is valid to such an extent. Now if we're talking about patent infringement, that's a different story. But if Joemeek was made in the 80's chances are any patents that were valid for Joemeek designs then are likely expired as the patent period during the 80's was 17 years from first issue of the patent.
Just my $0.10
Also, courts usually look unfavorably to any agreement which unduly restrict persons from the right to practice their craft. If audio products is what Ted Fletcher does for a living (and has done), persons possessing contracts that purport to limit Fletcher's right to build other audio products will have a heavy burden to meet to successfully convince a court that such a contract is valid to such an extent. Now if we're talking about patent infringement, that's a different story. But if Joemeek was made in the 80's chances are any patents that were valid for Joemeek designs then are likely expired as the patent period during the 80's was 17 years from first issue of the patent.
Just my $0.10
Attachments
R
Rev E
New member
Re: Re: Re: huh?
Interesting.
Soundsense said:
Interesting.
S
Soundsense
New member
Rev E said:
In the UK we have a law about "passing off", so it may be possible to argue that as the look of the TFPro kit is similar to the pre-PMI Joe Meek Kit, then TFPro are "passing themselves off" as Joe Meek, even though the product's a different colour and the buttons do different things.
I quote from a UK Government Website:
Where a business has registered a trade mark and another business sells goods or provides services under the same trade mark without permission from the first business, there may be an infringement of the registered trade mark. The actions of the second business could be a type of unfair competition where it benefits from the reputation of the first business associated with the registered trade mark.
The law of passing off concerns unfair competition more generally in situations where there does not need to be a registered trade mark or any other IP right. Where a second business does something so that the public is misled into thinking that the activity is associated with a first business and as a result the first business suffers some damage, then it may be possible for the first business to sue the second business for passing off. However, this area of law, which arises out of the common law rather than statute, is quite complicated so, if you feel that another business is trading off your reputation in any way, you might want to seek legal advice to see whether you could sue for passing off.
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/other_ip_rights/passing_off.htm
Hope this helps
DT
ausrock
Well-known member
Rev,
Somewhere in the past I'm sure that Alan said that PMI owned the Joe Meek trademark in the US, they also allegedly pumped quite a bit of money into JM UK to try and keep Ted F and Co afloat. I would presume, as is usually the case when liquidators move in, that any "assets" held by TF or Joe Meek at the time of liquidation, were seized or frozen to be sold off in an effort to minimise losses. I think one of the pivotal points to all this is whether the trademarks, design copyrights, etc., were deemed to be an asset, if so then they were likely to have been included in the purchase of the Joe Meek business by PMI.
Now, if you have a look at a lot of the Meek gear, it has TF's signature on the front panel, which could be deemed to be either a trademark or something incorporated in design copyrights, and if that is the case then here lies at least one item of issue............Ted Fletcher is still using that signature on most of the TFPro gear, and regardless of it being his signature, it is quite possible that he has no legal right to be using it in this specific manner. Couple that with the PCB design issue, and the front panel similarities and if, and I repeat IF PMI did purchase the total remains of Joe Meek (UK) from the liquidators, then it makes TF's position look rather tenuous.
A lot of people have jumped up and down because PMI didn't contact Steve (Ozraves) prior to issuing the cease and desist letter, which at first glance would seem to have been the reasonable thing to do, however, what seems to be overlooked is that such an action would have, the minute someone found out about it, prejudiced PMI's legal position in that they would have been deemed to be giving preferential treatment to one specific individual whilst going after others with both barrels so to speak.
Personally I think that Alan Hyatt should have employed someone to handle all PR including any BBS appearances as his inherent talents appear to lie elswhere. His passion and commitment to bring products to the consumer at a price point which outweighs the quality, cannot be disputed, nor can the backup service offered. It can only be expected that the same level of commitment is going to be evident in protecting what he believes he or PMI now own. If he is mistaken, then he has fucked up big time, if he is right and been truthful all the way along, then ...............well I guess time will tell.
Somewhere in the past I'm sure that Alan said that PMI owned the Joe Meek trademark in the US, they also allegedly pumped quite a bit of money into JM UK to try and keep Ted F and Co afloat. I would presume, as is usually the case when liquidators move in, that any "assets" held by TF or Joe Meek at the time of liquidation, were seized or frozen to be sold off in an effort to minimise losses. I think one of the pivotal points to all this is whether the trademarks, design copyrights, etc., were deemed to be an asset, if so then they were likely to have been included in the purchase of the Joe Meek business by PMI.
Now, if you have a look at a lot of the Meek gear, it has TF's signature on the front panel, which could be deemed to be either a trademark or something incorporated in design copyrights, and if that is the case then here lies at least one item of issue............Ted Fletcher is still using that signature on most of the TFPro gear, and regardless of it being his signature, it is quite possible that he has no legal right to be using it in this specific manner. Couple that with the PCB design issue, and the front panel similarities and if, and I repeat IF PMI did purchase the total remains of Joe Meek (UK) from the liquidators, then it makes TF's position look rather tenuous.
A lot of people have jumped up and down because PMI didn't contact Steve (Ozraves) prior to issuing the cease and desist letter, which at first glance would seem to have been the reasonable thing to do, however, what seems to be overlooked is that such an action would have, the minute someone found out about it, prejudiced PMI's legal position in that they would have been deemed to be giving preferential treatment to one specific individual whilst going after others with both barrels so to speak.
Personally I think that Alan Hyatt should have employed someone to handle all PR including any BBS appearances as his inherent talents appear to lie elswhere. His passion and commitment to bring products to the consumer at a price point which outweighs the quality, cannot be disputed, nor can the backup service offered. It can only be expected that the same level of commitment is going to be evident in protecting what he believes he or PMI now own. If he is mistaken, then he has fucked up big time, if he is right and been truthful all the way along, then ...............well I guess time will tell.
R
Rev E
New member
Soundsense said:
DT,
Thanks. Unfair competition is also alive in US IP law, as US law directly came from English common law and several International treaties have more or less standardized most of the major aspects of IP law in much of the developed world.
The problem with passing off/unfair competition is that it works a bit different from trademark/trade dress infringement. The legal question to be answered in an unfair competition claim is whether there was any bad faith in the way that company A sold its product or conducted its business practices. The question of whether the two products look alike and how similar they are questions of infringement rather than unfair competition. Unfair competition law, as you said, is hardly crystal clear.
R
Rev E
New member
ausrock said:
Ausrock,
If you have a look at the cease and desist letter sent to ozraves, the lawyer asserts rights under section 1125 of the Lanham Act. FYI, section 1125 is NOT used for people who own a "registered" US trademark. 1125 is for those asserting "common law"/unregistered trademark rights. I have yet to read an Alan Hyatt post that alleges that he owns an registered "US" trademark. If that were the case, there would be little question about his rights for two reasons: 1) everybody involved, including secondary parties like advertisers would be sure that he truly had actionable legal rights to assert and that the letter was not just a paper threat and 2) everyone involved would know precisely the limits of any trademark rights that Alan and Co. owned.
Case in point, Alan alleges that he owns Ted Fletcher's signature, all IP (presumably including patents and design secrets, copyrights). BUT, as I said earlier, contracts purporting to own someone's signature (in ALL commercial contexts) are presumptively invalid by law. There IS clear caselaw and statutory law (see the Lanham Act) that the law favors people having the right to use their name in commerce. Alan may own a copyright of a specific version of Ted Fletcher's signature to be used on Joemeek products, BUT copyrights cover "copying." Any new signature by Ted Fletcher is a different signature under copyright law. Despite it's similarity to any previously copyrighted signature, since the presumption is that persons have the right to use their names, including signatures in commerce there will likely not be any case here for Alan and Co.
Design copyright do NOT cover function. That is what a patent is for. Copyrights protect artistic design and artistic originality. Patents protect function. Ony cannot use a copyright as and end around a patent. Recall, that any issued patents issued in the 80s have probably expired, making any designs fall in the public domain to be practiced by all. In my experience with these sorts of things, Ted Fletcher's case is far from tenuous as there are several holes in Alan's legal theories as I understand them.