The problem with Alan Hyatt

  • Thread starter Thread starter ozraves
  • Start date Start date
Go ahead and trash me for it if you want, but reading this thread now makes me feel somehow embarassed for us all. The level of discourse is sometimes so low--disrespectful, arrogant, and openly biaed--that I felt especially bad last when I noticed Alan on-line, at the same time, reading the comments. There might indeed be some truth to some people's accusations, but I why the childish rudeness? No one with unproven accusations deserves such pre-judged treament unless it's from kids in a schoolyard.

Sorry for my bluntness (yeah, self-righteous me, I know), but I like to think that we've got a bit more of the professional in us than some folks here have shown here in this thread. I just like to feel comfortable recommending this site to musical colleagues, and some of this thread has become an example of what some of us least like about such chat-room discussions that seem poisoned and flamed by a few frustrated souls.

J.
 
Last edited:
He was not informed of the situation. He was served with a legal threat. That is not the same thing. And acorec: you are just soooooooooooooooooooooooo right.
 
melly said:
He was not informed of the situation. He was served with a legal threat. That is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

It's called a form letter dude. You think he's going to pay a lawyer to create custome drafts for every situation? :rolleyes:
 
Ugh...this again. I agree with Chessrock about 3 pages ago....

I am also not a lawyer - but this seems pretty cut and dry to me. It is standard practice for any reseller or cooperative advertising arrangement to have "hold harmless" language included in their contract. Meaning that a reseller or person who runs an ad is shielded from this type of stuff. Fletcher's examples were interesting, but he was confronting the source of an infringement...which is different.

I don't see where mojopie is in any great danger here. Let the companies fight, it should only be a big deal to them.
 
TexRoadkill said:
It's called a form letter dude. You think he's going to pay a lawyer to create custome drafts for every situation? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So he's got a form letter to threaten frivilous lawsuits against numerous people that he has no legitimate claim against. That somehow makes it better than a "one-off"?
 
Well, the great thing about the internet is that you can go back and search stuff.

Here is what Alan Hyatt wrote last February on usenet:

All I am asking for is for TFPro, Joe Audio, JM UK, Promeek, or other
entity that they develop their own products and not palm or pass them
off as Joemeek products...my Registered Trademark.
 
ozraves said:
Well, the great thing about the internet is that you can go back and search stuff.

Here is what Alan Hyatt wrote last February on usenet:

All I am asking for is for TFPro, Joe Audio, JM UK, Promeek, or other
entity that they develop their own products and not palm or pass them
off as Joemeek products...my Registered Trademark.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was ever in dispute. Alan's business practices have been called into question, but not his legal right to protect the trademarks he rightfully owns.

This could have all remained a private matter between you and Alan, but you chose to drag it into the public in multiple forums.
 
freshmattyp said:
I don't think that was ever in dispute. Alan's business practices have been called into question, but not his legal right to protect the trademarks he rightfully owns.

This could have all remained a private matter between you and Alan, but you chose to drag it into the public in multiple forums.
Click to expand...

THE TRADEMARK. He owns one trademark according to the records of the UK Trademark authorities and his comments last February. The trademark does not appear on any ad at Mojo Pie.

When you make any threats against a publication then it is a public matter as it touches on the First Amendment as someone is trying to put a chilling effect on speech.
 
Steve, you definitely have a point... however [I'm just playing devil's advocate here for a minute... work with me, OK], it could be said that Mojopie had been informed that the faceplate layout of the Joe Meek product was indeed trademarked [previous to the TFPro product (obviously)] .

There is obviously a difference between a "circle R" [just got a new laptop, didn't want to take the time to find the 'circle R' symbol] and a "tm". For that matter, things like layouts are 'circle C'ed in black and white, not color. If 'Mojopie' had been informed of this infringment, and assisted in the promotion of this infringment to the detriment of the holder of the mark... shouldn't they too be culpable for the damage to the original mark?

Just devil's advocate... I don't really give a fuck either way.
 
ozraves said:
THE TRADEMARK. He owns one trademark according to the records of the UK Trademark authorities and his comments last February. The trademark does not appear on any ad at Mojo Pie.

When you make any threats against a publication then it is a public matter as it touches on the First Amendment as someone is trying to put a chilling effect on speech.
Click to expand...

Defending free speech is admirable, and in today's climate we don't see enough of it, but I'm having a hard time seeing how banner ads fall under that category. Aren't ads covered by community standards, and other applicable laws dealing with things like obscenity and false claims? All of these are reasonable restraints on free speech. Your own policy states that you refuse to run porn ads on your site, for reasons you stated to me in an earlier post.
 
Fletcher said:
If 'Mojopie' had been informed of this infringment, and assisted in the promotion of this infringment to the detriment of the holder of the mark... shouldn't they too be culpable for the damage to the original mark?
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way with advertisers. The problem is that so many of the "tm" marks are contestable. You can't search a registry to determine ownership. Alan says he owns Ted Fletcher's name; Ted Fletcher says Alan doesn't - an advertiser isn't expected to make that determination and won't be held liable for it. The law on that is quite clear. Even if it was a circle-R trademark registered in Alan's name, Alan would have a hard time bringing action against Steve without any actual damage suffered and likely having to provide that Steve acted with malice. In any event, it's not a circle-R mark in the ad. I don't even see a "tm" mark, but maybe my eyes aren't that good.
 
jslator said:
Alan would have a hard time bringing action against Steve without any actual damage suffered and likely having to provide that Steve acted with malice.
Click to expand...

My uneducated guess would be that the last line of the original letter:

ozraves said:
We solicit your voluntary cooperation in this matter. However, failing to hear from you will be regarded as an admission of wrongdoing and an appropriate civil remedy will be initiated.
Click to expand...

would indeed be to show malice or intent by disregarding the letter... but that's just a guess on my end. The thing I find kinda interesting [from the non participant/spectators section] is that the letter says that no response "will be regarded as an admission of wrongdoing and an appropriate civil remedy will be initiated."... but then couldn't Steve respond with a registered letter [showing response] that told them to fuck themselves [not the response they were quite trying to achieve]... just a thought [not necessarily a good one].
 
jslator said:
It doesn't work that way with advertisers. The problem is that so many of the "tm" marks are contestable. You can't search a registry to determine ownership. Alan says he owns Ted Fletcher's name; Ted Fletcher says Alan doesn't - an advertiser isn't expected to make that determination and won't be held liable for it. The law on that is quite clear. Even if it was a circle-R trademark registered in Alan's name, Alan would have a hard time bringing action against Steve without any actual damage suffered and likely having to provide that Steve acted with malice. In any event, it's not a circle-R mark in the ad. I don't even see a "tm" mark, but maybe my eyes aren't that good.
Click to expand...
But I think Steve could prove Alan is acting with malice and Steve could lose supporting advertisers over it... and hold Alan liable.
 
Fletcher said:
My uneducated guess would be that the last line of the original letter...would indeed be to show malice or intent by disregarding the letter... but that's just a guess on my end.
Click to expand...

It would really only be malice if Alan could prove that Steve knew for certain that Alan's rights to the trademark were 100% valid and that Steve was running the ad for the purpose of harming Alan's business. It would be exceedingly rare for a legitimate publication to ever be in a position like that with respect to an advertiser. The law just doesn't require a publication to delve into the dealings between the parties and determine who is right in their dispute.

The thing I find kinda interesting [from the non participant/spectators section] is that the letter says that no response "will be regarded as an admission of wrongdoing and an appropriate civil remedy will be initiated."... but then couldn't Steve respond with a registered letter [showing response] that told them to fuck themselves [not the response they were quite trying to achieve]... just a thought [not necessarily a good one].
Click to expand...

Those sorts of negative options really don't hold any weight. Alan and his lawyers can regard a non-response as an "admission of wrongdoing", but a court wouldn't. It would be like my writing to you saying that you were legally obliged to give me a free Pendulum Quartet because of some dealings we had in the past and that a non-response will be interpreted as a admission that you owe it to me. While you may be inclined to tell me to fuck off, you wouldn't be legally obliged to do it. Ignoring me would work just as well.

The bottom line is that if the ad actually infringes Alan's trademark rights, he can easily have it pulled by suing TFPro (assuming he wins the case). Of course, TFPro would defend that suit because they would have a lot at stake (i.e. their whole business). An advertiser has much less at stake, so they are typically going to be easier to bully. It's not typically going to be worth an advertiser's money to risk a suit with Alan because it's going to cost them lots of cash, even if they win (certainly more than the advertising revenue will cover). I'm sure Alan knows that and so he's taking the cheaper route of intimidating and bullying the little guys who have nothing to do with the issue but who he knows likely won't put up a fight, instead of going after the big guy who he really has the beef with but who he knows will fight him on it. It's like Alan has a beef with another kid at school, so he beats up on that kid's little brother. It's just not right. And you don't have to delve into who's right between the two big kids to know that beating up on the little brother is wrong.
 
Fletcher said:
[Bbut then couldn't Steve respond with a registered letter [showing response] that told them to fuck themselves [not the response they were quite trying to achieve]... just a thought [not necessarily a good one]. [/B]
Click to expand...
I like it... and on top of that... Steve should run 10 more TF ads like the other two. :D
 
Ok. So I read the article. Forgive the heresy, but why again is this name such a valuable commodity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top