Neutrik v. Switchcraft relevant case for A. Hayatt controversey
- Thread starter Jerry W
- Start date
Well, I might have gone a bit too far in that last post. I am no expert on the circumstances but, I do see a legal connundrum of sorts with all the sound-alike look-alike technology that we have nowadays. Yeas ago nobody thought to make a knock off of an 1176 since there was no market for it. Now there is a huge market for products that allegedly give the look, feel, sound, vintage sound, bragging rights, etc. of tried and true pieces of audio gear.
What is really interesting is how the market came to be what it is and whether or not, in the end, there is a sum total benefit to the art of recording as a whole. Restrictions on advertisement rights as opposed to First Amendment rights.
For consumers or more accurately prosumers that have a vested interest in keeping up on technology, these issues seem important to a degree. For instance, if a manufacturer says their product is every bit as good as the old vintage model or even better because it give you the same exact sound without the maintenance issues, it would help to know what standard is being applied to what the manufacturer can legally say.
Anyway, enough of that.
What is really interesting is how the market came to be what it is and whether or not, in the end, there is a sum total benefit to the art of recording as a whole. Restrictions on advertisement rights as opposed to First Amendment rights.
For consumers or more accurately prosumers that have a vested interest in keeping up on technology, these issues seem important to a degree. For instance, if a manufacturer says their product is every bit as good as the old vintage model or even better because it give you the same exact sound without the maintenance issues, it would help to know what standard is being applied to what the manufacturer can legally say.
Anyway, enough of that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DJL
Ted Fletcher didn't sell his name to PMI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legally, his "name" and "signature" are two different things. The law has a presumption that persons have the right to use their name in commerce. Contracts purporting to take away that right may not have legs to stand on. I agree with Ozraves on this one. This "dispute" is ripe for binding arbitration. No one will will win with a protracted and uncertain court battle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DJL
Ted Fletcher didn't sell his name to PMI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
regebro said:
Legally, his "name" and "signature" are two different things. The law has a presumption that persons have the right to use their name in commerce. Contracts purporting to take away that right may not have legs to stand on. I agree with Ozraves on this one. This "dispute" is ripe for binding arbitration. No one will will win with a protracted and uncertain court battle.
darrin_h2000
Banned
Id consider that PMI should have the right to buy the space that oz will need to fill if he does get rid of said ad. then it is gone with nobody hurt.
tubedude
New member
Dudes... look, not to piss anyone off, but this is straight up total and complete Cave fodder (and boring at that), and does NOT by ANY means belong all over the serious gear threads. Please, take it to the Cave, all of it, and...
HEY MODERATOR ... move this stuff to the appropriate areas, please.
Thanks.
HEY MODERATOR ... move this stuff to the appropriate areas, please.
Thanks.
regebro said:
He did in the demand letter to Steve.
It's not. Feel free to search the US and UK trademark registries. They're online and free.
It is possible. But, you need the consent of the person (among a host of other legal requirements). I somehow doubt that Ted's consent will be forthcoming.
ausrock
Well-known member
JS,
Is it possible that TF himself had his signature on the front of the Meek units covered by a TM or some other "design copyright", and if that happened to be the case, then again, is it possible that it was part of (in other words included in) the "package" purchased from the liquidators by PMI.
I may be wrong, but I feel this may be what the "signature" issue is all about.
Is it possible that TF himself had his signature on the front of the Meek units covered by a TM or some other "design copyright", and if that happened to be the case, then again, is it possible that it was part of (in other words included in) the "package" purchased from the liquidators by PMI.
I may be wrong, but I feel this may be what the "signature" issue is all about.
regebro
Insane Genious!
jslator said:
Good. Then we know. PMI Audio does NOT own Ted Fletchers name.
Aand indeed, the bully-lawyer claimed that PMI audio did, which is then a lie, because the lawyer should have checked it up before he claimed it.
Alan (I know you are reading this, but for obvious answers you can't answer): Fire that lawyer. He is hurting your business more than Ted Fletcher is.
Scooter B
New member
Personaly,
I think it was a bad legal move to intially allow someone to sell the legal right to use their own name unless they chose to Trademark their name. It may be the law but that does not mean its was a good idea or that it demonstrates good forsight.
That being said and the law of precedence being established it is interesting to look at the history of Leo Fender. Each contract and details of "non competition" for a specified time are unique but it is interesting that Leo Fenders name did not appear on any products at Music Man or G&L.
Even with G&L George and Leo went with their first initials and did not even use an "F" initial that could be construed to referring to Fender nor did thay use Leo or George.
Most customers were well aware or made well aware by sales people that Leo Fender was behind the designs and development of G&L products.
I have not seen either contract but I think Leo and George took the high road and did not try to sneek the Fender name into advertising other than referencing Leo's historical contributions and brilliance.
It is very obvious to me that Ted Fletcher has done very little to differentiate his products from what he sold the rights to and changing the color and names of the knobs while leaving the exterior layout the same demonstrates to me a complete lack of ethics and complete disregard for his word.
I think Alan (PMI) has every right to prevent the further sale of these products until a judge or arbitrator makes a legally binding decision.
I support Ozraves and enjoy your website and reviews and hope to meet you some day as we both live in Oklahoma City but I personally believe you are "shooting the messenger" of bad news. As much as you like Edward the Compressor the person who got you in trouble in my mind was Ted Fletcher and not Alan.
Unfortunately Ted Fletcher made a business deal with you to advertise something that had serious legality issues involved and he drug you into it. Alan's laywers are just doing their job to protect what he truely believes he owns the rights to.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong not being privy to the contract and not being a business law expert) that if Ted Fetcher were a man of character he would have waited until all legal hurdles were covered before he started making business deals and contracts to protect his customers.
I believe Alan is going to win this one in the end. I think it would be wise for all retailers and advertisers to refrain from doing business with Ted until this is all settled.
DISCLAIMER: I don't own any PMI products or SP Mics or have any business interests in PMI.
Just calling it like I see it.
I think it was a bad legal move to intially allow someone to sell the legal right to use their own name unless they chose to Trademark their name. It may be the law but that does not mean its was a good idea or that it demonstrates good forsight.
That being said and the law of precedence being established it is interesting to look at the history of Leo Fender. Each contract and details of "non competition" for a specified time are unique but it is interesting that Leo Fenders name did not appear on any products at Music Man or G&L.
Even with G&L George and Leo went with their first initials and did not even use an "F" initial that could be construed to referring to Fender nor did thay use Leo or George.
Most customers were well aware or made well aware by sales people that Leo Fender was behind the designs and development of G&L products.
I have not seen either contract but I think Leo and George took the high road and did not try to sneek the Fender name into advertising other than referencing Leo's historical contributions and brilliance.
It is very obvious to me that Ted Fletcher has done very little to differentiate his products from what he sold the rights to and changing the color and names of the knobs while leaving the exterior layout the same demonstrates to me a complete lack of ethics and complete disregard for his word.
I think Alan (PMI) has every right to prevent the further sale of these products until a judge or arbitrator makes a legally binding decision.
I support Ozraves and enjoy your website and reviews and hope to meet you some day as we both live in Oklahoma City but I personally believe you are "shooting the messenger" of bad news. As much as you like Edward the Compressor the person who got you in trouble in my mind was Ted Fletcher and not Alan.
Unfortunately Ted Fletcher made a business deal with you to advertise something that had serious legality issues involved and he drug you into it. Alan's laywers are just doing their job to protect what he truely believes he owns the rights to.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong not being privy to the contract and not being a business law expert) that if Ted Fetcher were a man of character he would have waited until all legal hurdles were covered before he started making business deals and contracts to protect his customers.
I believe Alan is going to win this one in the end. I think it would be wise for all retailers and advertisers to refrain from doing business with Ted until this is all settled.
DISCLAIMER: I don't own any PMI products or SP Mics or have any business interests in PMI.
Just calling it like I see it.
Scooter B said:
Regarding the above points, I'll repeat what I posted on another thread (to the annoyance of many, no doubt):
There is a very important point that has been made in this thread a few times, but that people seem to keep glossing over. If there is to be any clarity in this discussion whatsoever, it is very important to keep the following in mind:
WHETHER ALAN HAS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM AGAINST TFPRO/TED FLETCHER IS A VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN WHETHER HE HAS A CLAIM AGAINST MOJO PIE/OZRAVES/STEVE.
Quite frankly, there is a lot of crucial information that is not available to the general public that would be needed to determine for certain whether his claim against TFPro/Ted Fletcher is legitimate. HOWEVER, there is plenty enough information available to determine that any claim against Steve would be bogus.
Somebody, somewhere along the line, seems to have gotten the impression that Alan had to have his lawyers send a threatening letter to Steve or it would be "selective enforcement". That is so, so VERY wrong. Steve is not manufacturing or selling gear with "Joe Meek", "Ted Fletcher" or any other similar trademarks on them. He is merely a supplier of advertising services. Any doctrine of "selective enforcement" doesn't apply in that context.
In short, Steve is not using the marks as trademarks. He therefore could not possibly be liable for trademark infringement, even if TFPRo was. That's really not a debatable point. The law is clear. Anyone who thinks the letter is a "legal formality" is completely off base. To the contrary, it is very unusual for someone alleging trademark infringement to threaten an advertiser in that manner. And to threaten a lawsuit against someone you have no claim against in order to force them to do something you have no right to force them to do is completely unethical.
Please keep that in mind when you say that "Alan was just doing what he had to do" or was "just protecting what's his".
Scooter B
New member
JSLATOR,
I do see your point but in my mind contriband products (regardless of whether the seller or advertiser participated in manufacturing them) if known to be of questionable legality should not be touched by anyone until all legalities are settled.
If a pawn shop knowingly sells (or facilitates, brokers or advertises) stolen goods (or has good reason to believe that they are stolen) they are equally guilty under the law as if they stole them outright.
There are seperate statutes and penalties specified for "fencing" versus "breaking and entering" or "larceny" but participating in the process of distribution in any way of questionable goods makes you liable under the law.
Ted Fletcher has a recent and well known track record of trying to sell under "Pro Meek" green and all, thenchanging the name but staying Joe Meek green and then still using the same layout but painting it red.
Laywers are not known for being nice or cordial in these matters and Steve was advised that advertising alleged contraband products could invlolve financial consequences IF Ted Fletcher is found guilty of violating his agreement.
The prudent thing to do is stop advertising until the case is settled no matter how much you like the man or the product.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
If Ted Fletcher is found with in his legal rights to manufacture and sell under his new company I wish him the best and may even buy one of his products but only after this case is settled.
I do see your point but in my mind contriband products (regardless of whether the seller or advertiser participated in manufacturing them) if known to be of questionable legality should not be touched by anyone until all legalities are settled.
If a pawn shop knowingly sells (or facilitates, brokers or advertises) stolen goods (or has good reason to believe that they are stolen) they are equally guilty under the law as if they stole them outright.
There are seperate statutes and penalties specified for "fencing" versus "breaking and entering" or "larceny" but participating in the process of distribution in any way of questionable goods makes you liable under the law.
Ted Fletcher has a recent and well known track record of trying to sell under "Pro Meek" green and all, thenchanging the name but staying Joe Meek green and then still using the same layout but painting it red.
Laywers are not known for being nice or cordial in these matters and Steve was advised that advertising alleged contraband products could invlolve financial consequences IF Ted Fletcher is found guilty of violating his agreement.
The prudent thing to do is stop advertising until the case is settled no matter how much you like the man or the product.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
If Ted Fletcher is found with in his legal rights to manufacture and sell under his new company I wish him the best and may even buy one of his products but only after this case is settled.
Scooter B said:
The law doesn't work that way. If it did, think of the damage that could be done. All anybody would have to do is allege a trademark violation against somebody and nobody would be legally allowed to distribute, transport, sell, advertise, buy or otherwise deal with any of that person's products in any way for, quite possibly, years and years while the suit winds its way through the courts. That would effectively mean that anyone who was alleged to have infringed on a trademark would be instantly put out of buisness whether they have a proper defence or not.
In fact, the law works in exactly the opposite way. Alan has to prove that Ted is infringing before he can shut Ted's business down. Ted's suppliers and advertisers aren't expected to pass judgement on the merits of Alan's case. The courts do that.
Paul Robison
New member
Contraband products?
If known to be of questionable legality?
Stolen goods?
"Fencing"?
"breaking and entering"?
"larceny"
alleged contraband products ?
wow!
If known to be of questionable legality?
Stolen goods?
"Fencing"?
"breaking and entering"?
"larceny"
alleged contraband products ?
wow!