Trademarks and Acorn Software.

A RISC OS Software company that has long since exited the RISC OS market trademarked their name. The company (and trademark?) has changed hands at
least once since[1] The trademark (possibly with IPR) has been sold to a company that is now using the original name. They have had ebay cancel
listings of ours for software we bought new direct from the original company claiming we are infringing their trademark.

Any ideas if they right?
or pointers to relevant information please.

When the Acorn trademark was owned by a PC company they never tried stopping Dealers and others from using the name.

[1] A receiver may have been involved at one step. Though I'm not sure if
that makes any difference legally.

We still have quite a lot of new unsold stock from this publisher which has been trickling out the door.

Chris Evans

--

****** IGEPv5: The fastest RISC OS computer so far! *******
------------ http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/igepv5 ------------
CJE Micro's 'Raspberry Pi & RISC OS Specialists'
Tel: +44 (0)1903 523222
chris@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
Unit 16 Arunside Ind. Est., Fort Road, Littlehampton, W.Sussex BN17 7QU

Don't let the urgent things in life, crowd out the important things!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <ant031632868pErr@client.cjemicros.co.uk>
"Chris Evans (CJE/4D)" <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:

Trademarks and Acorn Software.

A RISC OS Software company that has long since exited the RISC OS market trademarked their name. The company (and trademark?) has changed hands at least once since[1] The trademark (possibly with IPR) has been sold to a company that is now using the original name. They have had ebay cancel listings of ours for software we bought new direct from the original company claiming we are infringing their trademark.

Any ideas if they right?
or pointers to relevant information please.

This is really one to discuss with your legal people. We are not legal
experts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-marks-rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_trade_mark_law

https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-trade-mark-infringement


I am not a lawyer but the above links might give you some help. But I
would suggest talking to your legal people for advice and they can do the necessary checks.

--
Chris Hughes

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <ant031632868pErr@client.cjemicros.co.uk>, Chris Evans (CJE/4D) <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:

Trademarks and Acorn Software.

A RISC OS Software company that has long since exited the RISC OS market trademarked their name. The company (and trademark?) has changed hands
at least once since[1] The trademark (possibly with IPR) has been sold
to a company that is now using the original name. They have had ebay
cancel listings of ours for software we bought new direct from the
original company claiming we are infringing their trademark.

Any ideas if they right? or pointers to relevant information please.

When the Acorn trademark was owned by a PC company they never tried
stopping Dealers and others from using the name.

[1] A receiver may have been involved at one step. Though I'm not sure
if that makes any difference legally.

We still have quite a lot of new unsold stock from this publisher which
has been trickling out the door.

Chris Evans

They are not right.

People claiming to be Polaroid or Debenhams are breaching our right to
Freedom Of Thought And Conscience; they are lying, which is illegal.

They can't claim to be Polaroid or Debenhams any more than I can change my
name to Chris Evans and claim to be THE Chris Evans from CJE Micros (not
even after you'ved been dead for an hour or so.)

The law isn't difficult. It's four pages long and only requires six
minutes to become expert in it.

--
Christopher Self

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Christopher Self <cself@btinternet.com> wrote:

In article <ant031632868pErr@client.cjemicros.co.uk>, Chris Evans (CJE/4D) <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:

Trademarks and Acorn Software.

A RISC OS Software company that has long since exited the RISC OS market trademarked their name. The company (and trademark?) has changed hands
at least once since[1] The trademark (possibly with IPR) has been sold
to a company that is now using the original name. They have had ebay
cancel listings of ours for software we bought new direct from the
original company claiming we are infringing their trademark.

Any ideas if they right? or pointers to relevant information please.

They are not right.

I think the problem here is ebay are extremely trigger happy where
trademarks are concerned: https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/listing-policies/selling-policies/intellectual-property-vero-program?id=4349
https://pages.ebay.com/seller-center/listing-and-marketing/verified-rights-owner-program.html
There is an email address: vero@ebay.com

Examples of infringements

Items that bear the rights owner's trademark—such as a logo—but were not
authorized by the rights owner.


I would make the case that the original rights owner *has* authorised the
items Chris is selling, because at the time they manufactured and sold them. That the trademark has since been sold on does not invalidate the right of resale.

For example, Rover Cars is now defunct - but it doesn't mean the current
rights owner (BMW) can prevent me from selling an old Rover as a Rover. It just prevents me making a new car and calling it a Rover.

People claiming to be Polaroid or Debenhams are breaching our right to Freedom Of Thought And Conscience; they are lying, which is illegal.

They can't claim to be Polaroid or Debenhams any more than I can change my name to Chris Evans and claim to be THE Chris Evans from CJE Micros (not
even after you'ved been dead for an hour or so.)

No, the trademark for Polaroid was resold to (a complex history of) holding companies, who licence it out for slapping on products. You're free to talk
or think about taking Polaroids, but not sell cameras or toasters and call
them Polaroid. To all intents and purposes that company *is* Polaroid, insomuch as they have acquired the rights to the brand and named their
company such, even if not a continuation in the Companies House sense.

A bit like BMW bought the Mini brand and factory. They make cars and call
them Mini, despite not being made by Rover/Austin/British Leyland/BMC any
more. At roughly the same time BMW bought the Rolls Royce brand but not the factory, so they had to build their own factory - but they're still Rolls Royces.

Trademarks are intellectual property and can be bought and sold like other
IPR.

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <7c794d5659.chris@mytarbis.plus.com>, Chris Hughes <URL:mailto:news13@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:

In message <ant031632868pErr@client.cjemicros.co.uk>
"Chris Evans (CJE/4D)" <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:

Trademarks and Acorn Software.

A RISC OS Software company that has long since exited the RISC OS market trademarked their name. The company (and trademark?) has changed hands at least once since[1] The trademark (possibly with IPR) has been sold to a company that is now using the original name. They have had ebay cancel listings of ours for software we bought new direct from the original company
claiming we are infringing their trademark.

Any ideas if they right?
or pointers to relevant information please.

This is really one to discuss with your legal people. We are not legal experts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-marks-rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_trade_mark_law

https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-trade-mark-infr
ingement

I am not a lawyer but the above links might give you some help. But I
would suggest talking to your legal people for advice and they can do the necessary checks.

Thanks Chris, Christopher and Theo. I'll read the info in the links. You
have confirmed my initial thoughts. I will take appropriate action

I won't say more publicly as the offending company may read this.

Chris Evans

--

****** IGEPv5: The fastest RISC OS computer so far! *******
------------ http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/igepv5 ------------
CJE Micro's 'Raspberry Pi & RISC OS Specialists'
Tel: +44 (0)1903 523222
chris@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
Unit 16 Arunside Ind. Est., Fort Road, Littlehampton, W.Sussex BN17 7QU

Don't let the urgent things in life, crowd out the important things!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <Ofv*G1Mqy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

For example, Rover Cars is now defunct - but it doesn't mean the current rights owner (BMW) can prevent me from selling an old Rover as a Rover. It just prevents me making a new car and calling it a Rover.

I see this in a simlar way but I am not a lawyer. However I tried to find any hints about this theme in German law. I think I found a passage in
Markengesetz MarkenG §23 (1) Point 3. I would translate this loosely into English as follows:

The owner of a trademark is not allowed to forbid another person to use
the trademark or name of the product for the purpose of identification
of goods of the owner of trademark especally in the case that this is
required to identify the good.

The problem is the "of the owner of trademark" as your goods are not from
the actual owner of the trademark. However I think mentioning the full name
is required to identify the product. Perhaps you can find a similar passage inside British law. There is also the question whether the actual owner
acts under British law or another one.

Markengesetz MarkenG §23 (1) Point 2 explictely mentions in my opinion that a person can use a trademark in case that it necaassary to identify the prodcut including point of time of manufacturing.

I hope you are successful in defending your rights.

Regards

Thomas Milius

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/08/2021 22:30, Theo wrote:

I think the problem here is ebay are extremely trigger happy where
trademarks are concerned: https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/listing-policies/selling-policies/intellectual-property-vero-program?id=4349
https://pages.ebay.com/seller-center/listing-and-marketing/verified-rights-owner-program.html
There is an email address: vero@ebay.com

Examples of infringements

Items that bear the rights owner's trademark—such as a logo—but were not
authorized by the rights owner.

I would make the case that the original rights owner *has* authorised the items Chris is selling, because at the time they manufactured and sold them. That the trademark has since been sold on does not invalidate the right of resale.

The problem is this is one massive automated bun fight, where users
rights and the law don't count for much.

Owners of trademarks can contract an IP protection company who's bots
will scan every ebay listing for their trademarked names (and all sorts variations, including misspellings and sound-a-likes) and automatically
send a take down regardless of the merit or legality, and they will keep
doing this 24/7/365.

It's too much effort for ebay to check the validity of the take downs,
so they just automatically pull the listings in response, and often
terminate the account after repeated take downs.

It's not just ebay, bots will scan every youtube video for any hint of
music (even from a radio on in the background), and sent a take down for copyright infringement, often causing accounts to be suspended.

---druck

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <segh12$dk8$1@dont-email.me>, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:

I would make the case that the original rights owner *has* authorised
the items Chris is selling, because at the time they manufactured and
sold them. That the trademark has since been sold on does not
invalidate the right of resale.

For me the key point is that it was bought under the trademark, etc, and remaines the trademarked item. So the correct description when reselling it
on would be by the trademark. To call it anything *else* would violate the trademark.

The problem is this is one massive automated bun fight, where users
rights and the law don't count for much.

Yes. One more example of the excessive over-reaching greed that has been driving modern 'IPR'. The end-aim is that non of us will ever 'own'
anything. Just 'rent the permission to use it'.

Modern economies have been morphing into an industrialised form of the
Fedal System. Real property is owned by a few, but now via companies rather than being made a Baron by a Monarch. Law has taken the place of telling
people it is "God's Will".

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <segh12$dk8$1@dont-email.me>
on 5 Aug 2021 druck wrote:

It's not just ebay, bots will scan every youtube video for any hint of
music (even from a radio on in the background), and sent a take down for copyright infringement, often causing accounts to be suspended.

I know of cases where silent videos (of Dutch cycling infrastrcuture) have
been taken down by YouTube for alleged copyright infringement of music. I
hope that's not John Cage's lawyers.

--
Matthew Phillips
Durham

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)