What exotic results a trademark search can lead to:

http://registre.indprop.gov.sk/registre/detail.do?lang=en&puv_id=80451®ister=oz

This indicates that on August 14, 2006, Amiga, Inc. filed to register a colored, red and white ball as their trademark. Why they did this in the Czech Republic escapes me. Perhaps they can\'t get it in the US? Or Maybe they wanted to try it quietly first, and then file in other countries based on this priority?

In any case, I dont think that they (the new Delaware/New York-based Amiga company) have any right to obtain this as their trademark, last but not least because the same red and white ball, with similar pattern, shape and inclination, has been in continued general and uncontrolled public use at least since January 1984 (winter CES). Google Images can quickly prove that hundreds of web sites and products, in the same categories for which Amiga is now seeking protection, exist with this logo, and have been existing for 25 years:

http://images.google.com/images?q=boing+ball
http://images.google.com/images?q=amiga+boing

A red and white bouncing ball demo software has also existed on Atari and other platforms, for many many years.

But I wonder, will the Czech patent office examiners notice, if nobody tells them?

@Mr.Spackles

Quote:

A red and white bouncing ball demo software has also existed on Atari and other platforms, for many many years.

I believe it arrived first on the amiga 1000 though?

@Mr.Spackles

The last time the Amiga was sold, wasn't the Boing Ball already included in 'the package'? I thought that Amiga already had the Boing Ball registered as a trademark.

_________________
"Would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom?!?" William Wallace (Mel Gibson in Braveheart

@Mr.Spackles
If I were Amiga Inc, rather than worrying about the boing trademark in Czech, or whatever else they are doing right about now, I'd be worried about this:

AmigaOS sold by AMIGA CORPORATION on Ebay

How "in your face" is that??

Is this not reasonably confusing to the consumer? Textbook example!

And this has been going on for over a year now. I posted something similar last year...

OS6.9 sold by AMIGA CORPORATION

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone

I don't get it.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @T_Bone I don't get it.

"Amiga Corporation" is Ryan Czerwinski's mother. A reasonable person not knowing better, and not being corrected by the trademark holder, would assume AmigaOS is a trademark belonging to Ryans mother, or "Amiga Corporation"

Even the checks are made out to "Amiga Corporation"

If you're concerned about your trademarks, letting someone spoof your company name to sell your product (As well as theirs baring YOUR logo!) is NOT something you want to happen, as once this trademark no longer uniquely identifies you, or is vague, you've legally lost it and can no longer take any action against others.

This has been going on for over a year now, in public (Ebay for crying out loud!)
Amiga Inc should have been on that like white on rice.

Ryan could plausibly market an "AMIGA" and have legal precedent to do so. After all, his customers know him as Amiga Corporation, they make their checks out to him as Amiga Corporation, and have been doing so for over a year, he's been selling Amiga products for years, etc... That's a textbook example how to nullify a trademark, and once it happens, you can't get it back.

An email to Ebay would have at least been a start (they react to the drop of a hat on these things)

Oh, and registering your trademark isn't enough. If the public is confused, you've legally lost the right to exclusive use of that trademark, registered or not.

Last edited by T_Bone on 10-Feb-2007 at 02:12 AM.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone
I dont understand? Is not that a legal orginal version of amiga os 3.5? What is wrong with selling that?

Edit: Oh.. I missed the part about "amiga corporation"

Last edited by Tomas on 10-Feb-2007 at 02:17 AM.

@Mr.Spackles

Quote:

Why they did this in the Czech Republic escapes me

Looks like Slovak Republic to me. I know that they have many things in common with Czechs but I also know that they don't like to be called Czechs :).

Well, both of them are actually by krystynas_creations_atoz, not Amiga Corporation. This is like someone selling an old, still shrink wrapped, copy of "Windows 3.11 by Microsoft." It doesn't mean that the company selling it is Microsoft, and it doesn't look to me like this seller is trying to pass themselves off as Amiga Corporation, they're just selling something that's related to, or appropriate to run on, products from Amiga Corporation.

[Looks some more...]

Hmmmmmmm...

On the other hand, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom, you see:

Quote:

Seller's payment instructions No return. I describe the items to the best of my ability. I picture every item I sell, so please look them over before bidding. Cashier's Check/Money Order payable to: AMIGA CORPORATION. NO PAYPAL. NO AMEX. MUST BE SHIPPED INSURED. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING EXTRA. (emphasis mine)

So, it's not really THAT obvious that this bunch have "stolen Amiga Corporation's identity" here. In fact, you'd have to be really looking hard for it. This is one of those you blink you miss it things. Not exactly diluting their brand name recognition, now is it!

I don't think Amiga Corporation have anything to worry about!

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator

@NomadOfNorad

Quote:

NomadOfNorad wrote: So, it's not really THAT obvious that this bunch have "stolen Amiga Corporation's identity" here. In fact, you'd have to be really looking hard for it. This is one of those you blink you miss it things. Not exactly diluting their brand name recognition, now is it!

You blink you miss it? 100% of their customers have to make a check out to Amiga Corporation. 100% of their customers would have a reasonable chance to be confused.

Quote:

It doesn't have to be obvious, the legal bar is "likelihood of confusion" A newer mark infringes on an earlier one if it causes likelihood of confusion. In determining likelihood of confusion, the court will examine (among other factors) the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods, the marketing channels used, the strength of the plaintiff's mark, and the defendant's intent in adopting the mark. * Obviously, there is no likelihood of confusion if the two marks are used in completely different commercial fields. * Actual confusion by customers is the best proof but is not required. The confusion may be based on similarities in the sight, sound or meaning of the marks. Ways to Lose a Mark Abandonment. Abandonment occurs when an owner discontinues use of the mark with the intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume use may be inferred from the circumstances. Under the federal Lanham Act, non-use for two years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. Failure to maintain quality control over the mark. If the owner licenses the use of the mark, but fails to maintain adequate control over the nature and quality of the goods or services sold under the mark, the mark may lose its significance as a symbol of quality--and therefore be deemed abandoned. Failure to defend the mark. If the owner fails to be reasonably diligent in protecting rights to the mark, an intent to abandon may be inferred.

(sigh) the above is a C&P hodgepodge that i had with links, now gone to firefoxes history. (Why do kids always turn the history off!? er, nm, I think I know )

Quote:

I don't think Amiga Corporation have anything to worry about!

Case dismissed!

Last edited by T_Bone on 10-Feb-2007 at 03:21 AM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 10-Feb-2007 at 03:19 AM.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone

Just noticed "Amiga Corporation's" ebay auctions turn up in the first 2 pages of a google:"amiga corporation" "amigaOS"

And the other links peppering the pages (like Wikipedia) all describe 'Amiga Corporation' as the real deal. You'd have to be well versed in Amiga history to not be confused. Amiga Inc look like newcomers, as "Amiga Corporation" is referred to as the original creators of the Amiga.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@Mr.Spackles

They've been very busy registering all sorts of trademarks all over the place for the past 6-8 months. A similar topic on this came up about this some three weeks ago in this this thread.

_________________
When swimming with sharks, make sure to bring lots of band-aids...

@NomadOfNorad

Quote:

NomadOfNorad wrote: Well, both of them are actually by krystynas_creations_atoz, not Amiga Corporation. This is like someone selling an old, still shrink wrapped, copy of "Windows 3.11 by Microsoft." It doesn't mean that the company selling it is Microsoft, and it doesn't look to me like this seller is trying to pass themselves off as Amiga Corporation, they're just selling something that's related to, or appropriate to run on, products from Amiga Corporation.

Here's the link I was looking for before.

http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiiiyadayadablabla

They aren't trying to pass themselves off as Amiga Corporation, they are Amiga Corporation. Legally, for the past 2 years.

And they own the Walker case design, and they sell AmigaOS on Ebay. (If I'm not mistaken, the shrinkwrap on the AmigaOS 3.5 they sell even lists trademarks and copyright to a spelled-exactly-the-same Amiga Corporation, CONFUSING!)

It's no wonder Amiga Inc have been in a flurry shoring up their trademarks.

I never liked the boing ball though, I'm sick to death of it, it's played out. I was hopefull of it being replaced by this:

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@Drapichrust

Amiga trademarks are registered in the Czech Republic:

http://www.upv.cz/pls/portal30/ozdet?pozk=1949697&plan=en
http://www.upv.cz/pls/portal30/ozdet?pozk=2016769&plan=en
http://www.upv.cz/pls/portal30/ozdet?pozk=2342492&plan=en
http://www.upv.cz/pls/portal30/ozdet?pozk=2334694&plan=en

Why? I don't know
There are 2 AmigaOne users and 30 pegasos users in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Small, but loyal community.

@Drapichrust

Quote:

Drapichrust wrote: @Mr.Spackles Quote: Why they did this in the Czech Republic escapes me Looks like Slovak Republic to me. I know that they have many things in common with Czechs but I also know that they don't like to be called Czechs :)

_________________
Modern Retro Experience

@AmiKit

Commodore didn't use the Boing! ball as their logo because someone owns it. I think whoever is trying to register it might contact Dale Luck, last I remember he owned the rights to it, and used it on a 3 button mouse and selling his x-windows port for the Amiga years ago.

@T_Bone

The company we think of as Amiga, the corporation, have been in existence for years. The fact that they officially bought out the previous company and renamed themselves to Amiga shows us that they intend to keep the name and the product recognition that comes with that name. The fact that some little whippersnapper snuck in under the radar and independantly registered a mom-and-pop company under the name Amiga Corporation, and got it past some local government employee who didn't know anything about a larger, but not-talked-about-much (in the general population) company by the same name two years ago doesn't really enter into it. The larger Amiga company, when it comes time to take these guys to court, can point to the x number of years that the Amiga name has been held onto like a precious commodity and that companies have been competing over it continuously for years. The fact that you have to dig all the way down to the bottom of a page at eBay to find that this seller calls itself Amiga Corporation in one tiny place on the page, while going by a more mundane name on the rest of the page and the rest of the time just speaks volumes.

Okay, the big Amiga Inc haven't exactly been running around dangling the product name "Amiga" in front of the whole wide world and haven't exactly been burying the world up to their armpits in ads for Amiga products... but they have been massaging the name brand in their own business circles and have been spending money on their company assets, which in itself demonstrates intent and ownership of the name. And they do officially own the name brand, since it is their company name, after all!

So, you have one multi-million-dollar company (actually, a string of companies) continuously using the Amiga name, and one multi-dozens-of-dollars company continuously using the Amiga name. Gee, I wonder which is gonna come away officially holding the name if push comes to shove? I'll give you three chances to give the right answer, and the first two don't count...!

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator

@NomadOfNorad

Quote:

NomadOfNorad wrote: @T_Bone The company we think of as Amiga, the corporation, have been in existence for years.

According to Bill McEwen, that company doesn't exist anymore. The new Amiga Inc is a new legal entity. Ryan's infringement predates the current Amiga Inc's use of the name.

Quote:

The fact that they officially bought out the previous company and renamed themselves to Amiga shows us that they intend to keep the name and the product recognition that comes with that name.

When has "intent" ever been successfully used in a trademark dispute? The best thing you can do to protect a trademark is to use it. The worst thing you can do is to let someone else use it. If you use it for a certain amount of time, you become legally immune to someone disputing your use of that mark. This is why companies are so diligent in protecting these trademarks.

Quote:

The fact that some little whippersnapper snuck in under the radar and independantly registered a mom-and-pop company under the name Amiga Corporation, and got it past some local government employee who didn't know anything about a larger, but not-talked-about-much (in the general population) company by the same name two years ago doesn't really enter into it.

You're right, it doesn't. It's completely irrelevant.

The size of your company makes no difference. Hell, even Burger King has lost the use of the name "Burger King" in certain areas in the US because they failed to do the due diligence in protecting their trademarks. There are mom and pop "Burger King's" operating in the US, legally.

Quote:

The larger Amiga company, when it comes time to take these guys to court,

That time, isn't something you wait for. Time works against you here. In fact, if you wait between 2-5 years, there's legal precedent that you've waited too long and no longer have a case... OR a trademark. If you hit 5 years, your use of the name is legally invincible. The closer you get TO that mark, the worse your case is. This isn't even something that's argued in court (the time), it's already part of federal trademark law.

Quote:

can point to the x number of years that the Amiga name has been held onto like a precious commodity and that companies have been competing over it continuously for years.

There's no provision in trademark law that strengthens your trademark over time. it's not even one of the criteria weighted into your case. In this scenario, time helps the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Quote:

The fact that you have to dig all the way down to the bottom of a page at eBay to find that this seller calls itself Amiga Corporation in one tiny place on the page, while going by a more mundane name on the rest of the page and the rest of the time just speaks volumes.

Volumes of what? Ryan is certainly no stranger to the Amiga community, and discussions of his infringement have been going on in public on all major Amiga websites for years. You don't have to go to the bottom of an eBay page to check the Arizona corporate charter.

Quote:

Okay, the big Amiga Inc haven't exactly been running around dangling the product name "Amiga" in front of the whole wide world and haven't exactly been burying the world up to their armpits in ads for Amiga products... but they have been massaging the name brand in their own business circles and have been spending money on their company assets, which in itself demonstrates intent and ownership of the name. And they do officially own the name brand, since it is their company name, after all!

Legally, that's not good enough. Being diligent in protecting the mark is mandatory if you desire exclusive use.

Quote:

So, you have one multi-million-dollar company (actually, a string of companies) continuously using the Amiga name, and one multi-dozens-of-dollars company continuously using the Amiga name. Gee, I wonder which is gonna come away officially holding the name if push comes to shove? I'll give you three chances to give the right answer, and the first two don't count...!

Well, if we take that paragraph and strip out the legally irrelevant parts, it's "We have one company using the name and another company using the name, you get three guesses who will win"

Luckily there are two companies and three guesses, so I guess the odds are good everyone will get at least one of the guesses right.

As for your portraying Ryan as the poor guy, are you aware that Amiga Inc has $170,000.00 of Ryan's money? $70,000.00 from the sale of the Walker, and $100,000.00 from a loan(?) Ryan made to Amiga Inc to pay employees. He's a Rich kid.

Ryan is dangerous to Amiga Inc in his current activities, make no mistake.
(So, by the way, is Bill Buck and his parroting of the name "Amiga" all over the place)

I don't know if it's because of this thread or not (although I know Bill McEwen saw it recently ) but Amiga Corporation (Ryan) has fallen into "Bad Standing" according to the Arizona corporate information link I posted earlier.

Last edited by T_Bone on 11-Feb-2007 at 08:28 AM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 11-Feb-2007 at 08:25 AM.
Last edited by T_Bone on 11-Feb-2007 at 08:21 AM.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone

Well, I guess next time there's a chance for us as a community to send Amiga a bunch of questions -- or even without such an opportunity being officially handed us -- we can ask (and ask, and ask) what they're doing about this guy.

Maybe they have sent him a cease-and-desist order, and he simply ignored it.

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator

@T_Bone

Some walker history



http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/press/merlanciabuywalker.html

_________________
www.onsite-pc-upgrades.comwww.onsite-pc-upgrades.com