Ihr erinnert Euch ? DMCH - die Firma aus Texas die den Opel GT weiterhin bauen wollte
bzw. mit der Behauptung kürzlich in den Medien auftrat und billig Werbung machte ?
Die Frage war - wer hat die Recht bzw. hat DMCH wirklich die Rechte an den
DMC Logos und Schriftzügen ?
Lest selbst:
A friend forwarded me a note that this topic had come up again on the
DML...historically, we've made it more or less a habit *not* to respond to
these discussions because it inevitably leads to further arguments with no
positive outcome, and distracts from the substantive, productive tech help
discussions that take place on the DML/DMCTalk. That said, in regards to the
Diamond Select Toy BTTF car, they made a business decision with regards to
assortment and design on their own, with neither mandates nor requests from
DeLorean Motor Company. I don't have any other information than that
regarding what led to their decision.
Let's look at it from another perspective...what does Diamond Select do with
the profits from the sale of this BTTF car? Re-invest it in the DeLorean
community? Of course not! When DMC (Texas) is able to license the logo for
use on a product like this (i.e. Hot Wheels, Sunstar, The Hundreds, video
games) that money goes right back into the DeLorean community in the form of
reproduced parts and better availability of the same. Which would you rather
have - a toy car with the logo on it, or a part that might otherwise go
unavailable for lack of funds?
In regards to the DMC logo trademarks and our ownership of them...we've
spent tens of thousands of dollars on IP over the past ten-plus years and
are very confident of our position. As part of the purchase of the remaining
NOS parts from KAPAC in 1997, DMC (Texas) also acquired the exclusive rights
to improve/reproduce DeLorean parts from the original engineering drawings
and distribute NOS DeLorean parts. No one in the past 27 years has put
anywhere near as much a time/effort/capital into the DeLorean brand as
Stephen Wynne. No one in the past 15 year years has put as much
time/effort/capital into the DMC brand. He basically took a name that was a
symbol of failure, and as a company we legally and openly applied for
trademark protection for the logos that represent the brand and after
investigation by the USPTO were granted these trademarks. Now, in no small
part to those efforts, the DMC brand is getting positive press/media
attention. Heck, even Jay Leno is warming up to the car! Facebook users can
log in to view this link:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pi ... 2163434400" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Without a doubt, however, that there are absolutely instances where the
stylized DMC logo can be used without a licensing agreement with us. But,
according to the legal opinions we have received, if the use of the logo is
a focal point or adds to the DeLorean-related appeal of the product, that's
when it legally requires a licensing agreement. Basically, if there is
"value-added" by including our registered trademark, or a variant of which
that a reasonable person could confuse with our registered trademark, that's
when a licensing agreement is legally required. That's why a photo of a
DeLorean made into a poster, etc is fine, but a poster/mug, etc with just
the logo on it is not.
DMC has always supported the small scale enthusiasts, too - typically they
aren't making significant volumes or profits from their products, and
typically create products that are only of interest to those within the
DeLorean community. Examples of this include parts and accessories for which
we like, and think make good sense, but don't see the volume to make them
ourselves - which is why we make it advantageous and at a cost next to
nothing for someone in that position to get licensed to use the logo.
For years people have used the internet bully pulpit to question the
legality and ethics of this action. But none have the stepped forward to
actually make a legal issue out of it. If our lawyers are wrong, it's up to
someone else's lawyer to prove it. If we're right - and all legal work and
USPTO actions to date say that we are - then to be honest, I'm afraid that
there will *still* be individuals who disagree and will never be pleased.
Interestingly, however, those that talk the loudest about it invariably have
no interest other than making noise.
In the end, for me at least, it seems that the people who are the most upset
about it really have academic interest at best. The people who do have a
financial interest either work with us or find a workaround. We're eager to
work with the former, and I've not yet seen one instance where working with
us did not lead to better financial results for them in the form of greater
sales volume numbers and exposure.
James Espey
Vice President, DMC (Texas)
DMCH und die Rechte an der Marke
DMCH und die Rechte an der Marke
KEIN ALU !
Re: DMCH und die Rechte an der Marke
Und hier bissige Kommentare von Marc Levy (Owner einer der originalen Legend Twin-Turbos)
Thanks for giving me something to do on a Sunday evening where some sporting event has made it pointless to watch TV.
Response below; (Hit DELETE now if you don't care.. I don't want a bunch of people whining that this discussion is wasting their time).
Otherwise, grab something cold to drink, scroll down, and read on!!
--- On Fri, 2/5/10, james <james@delorean.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Let's look at it from another perspective...what does Diamond Select do with
> the profits from the sale of this BTTF car? Re-invest it in the DeLorean
> community? Of course not! When DMC (Texas) is able to license the logo for
> use on a product like this (i.e. Hot Wheels, Sunstar, The Hundreds, video
> games) that money goes right back into the DeLorean community in the form of
> reproduced parts and better availability of the same. Which would you rather
> have - a toy car with the logo on it, or a part that might otherwise go
> unavailable for lack of funds?
Are you saying that DMC (Texas) is registered as a 501c3 organization?
It is in DMCH best interest to keep these cars running, and maintain (or increase) their value. It is not a charitable endeavor.
While I agree, the company you work for has made investments in to new/reproduction parts, I am sure you and your associates spend a great deal of time reviewing the budget of each project and before making an investment have a high confidence that it will be profitable for the company. DMCH is a company that is motivated by profit, which is a GOOD thing, but please don't paint the company as anything else. Good business practice dictates that each project is evaluated on it's own merit, so I have my doubts that someone at DMCH would say "Sure, we will lose money on reproducing part XYZ, but we can just subsidize that with the money from Sunstar". If that was the case, the Sunstar money could have been used to produce the headlight switches instead of asking the community to pre-purchase them, right?
> In regards to the DMC logo trademarks and our ownership of them...we've
> spent tens of thousands of dollars on IP over the past ten-plus years and
> are very confident of our position. As part of the purchase
... Due to the lack of anyone willing/able to dispute it.
> of the remaining
> NOS parts from KAPAC in 1997, DMC (Texas) also acquired the exclusive rights
> to improve/reproduce DeLorean parts from the original engineering drawings
> and distribute NOS DeLorean parts. No one in the past
Best I can tell, KPAC never owned the IP (Intellectual Property). For sure they did not own the trademarks.. But it is clear in your statement here that you are NOT claiming DMCH purchased THAT SPECIFIC item from KPAC (or anyone else).
I am also not aware of any "rights" to "improve/reproduce DeLorean parts"... Or parts for ANY vehicle. I have found no evidence that there is legal restriction to produce, reproduce, or improve on parts for any car. Sure, the drawings may help but there are other copies floating around.... and they can also be easily reproduced. The drawings themselves represent no legal ownership (as far as I can tell) of anything other than the paper they are printed on. Feel fee to provide evidence to the contrary.
If there was some legal way to stop someone else from producing parts for the DeLorean, I am confident that these "Exclusive Rights" would have been invoked long ago to shut people like John Hervey down. Last I checked, he is still selling parts for DeLorean cars.
James, could you please clarify your statement that DMCH "also acquired the exclusive rights to improve/reproduce DeLorean parts"??
> 27 years has put anywhere near as much a time/effort/capital into the
> DeLorean brand as Stephen Wynne. No one in the past 15 year years has put as
> much time/effort/capital into the DMC brand. He basically took a
> name that was a symbol of failure, and as a company we legally and openly
> applied for trademark protection for the logos that represent the brand
> and after investigation by the USPTO were granted these trademarks.
Again, no dispute on any of this. But be honest that the motivation is PROFIT. Again, nothing wrong with that but I feel you are trying to put a halo over the DMC trademark now.
DMCH provides a great service to the DeLorean community, and in any of our discussions/disagreements over the years I have been careful to focus on the specific topic at hand. IIRC, history has demonstrated that my position was proven "correct" in most of our disagreements. (SonnyV, and door pistons come to mind...)
As I have said before MANY times, the USPTO will grant anything to anyone. It is a claim. That claim can be disputed, and in casual conversation have asked 3 lawyers about this situation. Each one agreed that if someone were to dispute the claim during the registration process, it would have never been granted. Furthermore, if someone were to dispute it now they would have good odds of winning if they could prove they were using the trademark prior to the DMCH claim. I have also been told that as time marches on, the odds of winning such a law suit drop. Sort of like "squatters rights". It is possible at this point a challenge to the claim would fail (due to the time factor), but that does not change the ethical issue.
<SNIP>
> For years people have used the internet bully pulpit to question the
> legality and ethics of this action. But none have the stepped forward to
> actually make a legal issue out of it. If our lawyers are wrong, it's up to
> someone else's lawyer to prove it. If we're right - and all legal work and
> USPTO actions to date say that we are - then to be honest,
> I'm afraid that there will *still* be individuals who disagree and will
> never be pleased.
Re-read this James, who sounds like the bully?? The big powerful company that has lots of financial backing, and most (if not all) of the power in the DeLorean community? Or an overweight balding guy sitting in bed at a computer keyboard arguing for what I believe is morally right?
The company you work for took art work that clearly pre-dates them (so they did not create it). You also make no claims that it was purchased from whoever owned it before. Therefore, how can DMCH own it?
Why not tell the story of how all this came about? How did DMCH come to own the trademarks? We know all of the parts were purchased from KPAC, we also know that DMCH got lots of drawings and other goodies in that purchase. But, what about the trademark?
The way I see it, DMCH took advantage of (BULLY) their financial situation and monopoly in the community. Someone at DMCH had the idea of quietly registering the "stylized" logo (with the outline) since it had never been registered before (the logo on the front of the car was registered and DEAD) although it does appear on a number of DeLorean documents from the late 1970's. Anyone who may possibly have a legitimate case to dispute the claim, or the financial means to fight it, is someone who now probably relies on DMCH for their livelihood. Sure, they could win the case but I doubt you would supply them with parts anymore.
Since then, I have been told that an individual re-registered the DMC logo on the front of our cars. I think even you (James) were surprised that this could happen because the USPTO could see in their own database that this trademark was already "DEAD". I think this demonstrates the due diligence at work at USPTO. To say "USPTO actions to date say that we are" is kinda humorous.
In Las Vegas this year, you told me DMCH made a deal with the new owner of the DMC trademark (as it appears on our grilles). Assuming this is true, I have to admit I like the fact that the company you work for is at least remaining consistent in honoring someone else's claim for something they did not create or buy, and just CLAIMED they owned by filling out some paper work and sending a filing fee to USPTO.
Since that conversation in Vegas, I went back and checked the USPTO database and found that DMCH is now also claiming ownership to the "De Lorean" on the rear bumper of the car. I guess the licensing for the DMC trademark have been so lucrative, why not double that?
As I see it, This is exactly the same thing as "squatting". In some places that may still be legal, but I think most of us know it is unethical.
> Interestingly, however, those that talk the loudest about
> it invariably have no interest other than making noise.
By "no interest", you mean "no profit"?? Anyone who wants to buy the Diamond Select toy is impacted by this nonsense.
> In the end, for me at least, it seems that the people who are the most upset
> about it really have academic interest at best. The people
"Academic interest"? or "no other interest other than making noise"?? Which is it?
How about, speaking up for what RIGHT?
> who do have a financial interest either work with us or find a
> workaround. We're eager to work with the former, and I've not yet seen one instance
> where working with us did not lead to better financial results for them in the
> form of greater sales volume numbers and exposure.
"Better financial results". I am glad you finally stated the motive behind all of this.
But, back to the point at hand. Do you dispute the DMCH ownership claim for the trademarks are anything other than "Squatters Rights"?? If you admit this is the case, then it is up to each individual to decide if "Squatters Rights" is something they agree with or not.
Thanks for giving me something to do on a Sunday evening where some sporting event has made it pointless to watch TV.
Response below; (Hit DELETE now if you don't care.. I don't want a bunch of people whining that this discussion is wasting their time).
Otherwise, grab something cold to drink, scroll down, and read on!!
--- On Fri, 2/5/10, james <james@delorean.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Let's look at it from another perspective...what does Diamond Select do with
> the profits from the sale of this BTTF car? Re-invest it in the DeLorean
> community? Of course not! When DMC (Texas) is able to license the logo for
> use on a product like this (i.e. Hot Wheels, Sunstar, The Hundreds, video
> games) that money goes right back into the DeLorean community in the form of
> reproduced parts and better availability of the same. Which would you rather
> have - a toy car with the logo on it, or a part that might otherwise go
> unavailable for lack of funds?
Are you saying that DMC (Texas) is registered as a 501c3 organization?
It is in DMCH best interest to keep these cars running, and maintain (or increase) their value. It is not a charitable endeavor.
While I agree, the company you work for has made investments in to new/reproduction parts, I am sure you and your associates spend a great deal of time reviewing the budget of each project and before making an investment have a high confidence that it will be profitable for the company. DMCH is a company that is motivated by profit, which is a GOOD thing, but please don't paint the company as anything else. Good business practice dictates that each project is evaluated on it's own merit, so I have my doubts that someone at DMCH would say "Sure, we will lose money on reproducing part XYZ, but we can just subsidize that with the money from Sunstar". If that was the case, the Sunstar money could have been used to produce the headlight switches instead of asking the community to pre-purchase them, right?
> In regards to the DMC logo trademarks and our ownership of them...we've
> spent tens of thousands of dollars on IP over the past ten-plus years and
> are very confident of our position. As part of the purchase
... Due to the lack of anyone willing/able to dispute it.
> of the remaining
> NOS parts from KAPAC in 1997, DMC (Texas) also acquired the exclusive rights
> to improve/reproduce DeLorean parts from the original engineering drawings
> and distribute NOS DeLorean parts. No one in the past
Best I can tell, KPAC never owned the IP (Intellectual Property). For sure they did not own the trademarks.. But it is clear in your statement here that you are NOT claiming DMCH purchased THAT SPECIFIC item from KPAC (or anyone else).
I am also not aware of any "rights" to "improve/reproduce DeLorean parts"... Or parts for ANY vehicle. I have found no evidence that there is legal restriction to produce, reproduce, or improve on parts for any car. Sure, the drawings may help but there are other copies floating around.... and they can also be easily reproduced. The drawings themselves represent no legal ownership (as far as I can tell) of anything other than the paper they are printed on. Feel fee to provide evidence to the contrary.
If there was some legal way to stop someone else from producing parts for the DeLorean, I am confident that these "Exclusive Rights" would have been invoked long ago to shut people like John Hervey down. Last I checked, he is still selling parts for DeLorean cars.
James, could you please clarify your statement that DMCH "also acquired the exclusive rights to improve/reproduce DeLorean parts"??
> 27 years has put anywhere near as much a time/effort/capital into the
> DeLorean brand as Stephen Wynne. No one in the past 15 year years has put as
> much time/effort/capital into the DMC brand. He basically took a
> name that was a symbol of failure, and as a company we legally and openly
> applied for trademark protection for the logos that represent the brand
> and after investigation by the USPTO were granted these trademarks.
Again, no dispute on any of this. But be honest that the motivation is PROFIT. Again, nothing wrong with that but I feel you are trying to put a halo over the DMC trademark now.
DMCH provides a great service to the DeLorean community, and in any of our discussions/disagreements over the years I have been careful to focus on the specific topic at hand. IIRC, history has demonstrated that my position was proven "correct" in most of our disagreements. (SonnyV, and door pistons come to mind...)
As I have said before MANY times, the USPTO will grant anything to anyone. It is a claim. That claim can be disputed, and in casual conversation have asked 3 lawyers about this situation. Each one agreed that if someone were to dispute the claim during the registration process, it would have never been granted. Furthermore, if someone were to dispute it now they would have good odds of winning if they could prove they were using the trademark prior to the DMCH claim. I have also been told that as time marches on, the odds of winning such a law suit drop. Sort of like "squatters rights". It is possible at this point a challenge to the claim would fail (due to the time factor), but that does not change the ethical issue.
<SNIP>
> For years people have used the internet bully pulpit to question the
> legality and ethics of this action. But none have the stepped forward to
> actually make a legal issue out of it. If our lawyers are wrong, it's up to
> someone else's lawyer to prove it. If we're right - and all legal work and
> USPTO actions to date say that we are - then to be honest,
> I'm afraid that there will *still* be individuals who disagree and will
> never be pleased.
Re-read this James, who sounds like the bully?? The big powerful company that has lots of financial backing, and most (if not all) of the power in the DeLorean community? Or an overweight balding guy sitting in bed at a computer keyboard arguing for what I believe is morally right?
The company you work for took art work that clearly pre-dates them (so they did not create it). You also make no claims that it was purchased from whoever owned it before. Therefore, how can DMCH own it?
Why not tell the story of how all this came about? How did DMCH come to own the trademarks? We know all of the parts were purchased from KPAC, we also know that DMCH got lots of drawings and other goodies in that purchase. But, what about the trademark?
The way I see it, DMCH took advantage of (BULLY) their financial situation and monopoly in the community. Someone at DMCH had the idea of quietly registering the "stylized" logo (with the outline) since it had never been registered before (the logo on the front of the car was registered and DEAD) although it does appear on a number of DeLorean documents from the late 1970's. Anyone who may possibly have a legitimate case to dispute the claim, or the financial means to fight it, is someone who now probably relies on DMCH for their livelihood. Sure, they could win the case but I doubt you would supply them with parts anymore.
Since then, I have been told that an individual re-registered the DMC logo on the front of our cars. I think even you (James) were surprised that this could happen because the USPTO could see in their own database that this trademark was already "DEAD". I think this demonstrates the due diligence at work at USPTO. To say "USPTO actions to date say that we are" is kinda humorous.
In Las Vegas this year, you told me DMCH made a deal with the new owner of the DMC trademark (as it appears on our grilles). Assuming this is true, I have to admit I like the fact that the company you work for is at least remaining consistent in honoring someone else's claim for something they did not create or buy, and just CLAIMED they owned by filling out some paper work and sending a filing fee to USPTO.
Since that conversation in Vegas, I went back and checked the USPTO database and found that DMCH is now also claiming ownership to the "De Lorean" on the rear bumper of the car. I guess the licensing for the DMC trademark have been so lucrative, why not double that?
As I see it, This is exactly the same thing as "squatting". In some places that may still be legal, but I think most of us know it is unethical.
> Interestingly, however, those that talk the loudest about
> it invariably have no interest other than making noise.
By "no interest", you mean "no profit"?? Anyone who wants to buy the Diamond Select toy is impacted by this nonsense.
> In the end, for me at least, it seems that the people who are the most upset
> about it really have academic interest at best. The people
"Academic interest"? or "no other interest other than making noise"?? Which is it?
How about, speaking up for what RIGHT?
> who do have a financial interest either work with us or find a
> workaround. We're eager to work with the former, and I've not yet seen one instance
> where working with us did not lead to better financial results for them in the
> form of greater sales volume numbers and exposure.
"Better financial results". I am glad you finally stated the motive behind all of this.
But, back to the point at hand. Do you dispute the DMCH ownership claim for the trademarks are anything other than "Squatters Rights"?? If you admit this is the case, then it is up to each individual to decide if "Squatters Rights" is something they agree with or not.
KEIN ALU !
Re: DMCH und die Rechte an der Marke
Und noch ein Kommentar von Kevin Abato der - wie ich finde - das ganze auch nochmal auf den Punkt bringt.
Wenn Ihr Euch also wundert wieso das Blinke-1/15-Modell das derzeit angeboten wird kein DMC-Logo hat -
Hust Hust Houston wars !
Unterm Strich - we die 3 Jungs hier kennt weiß, daß sie beim nächsten Treffen eh alle gemeinsam um die
Kontakt-Area herumstehen würden wenn sie nur Romy kennen würden
(die waren alle in Vegas 2009 - Gruppenkusclen in ner geilen Location )
Correct Mike. Every ten years a trademark must be re-registered for use, or it is considered "abandoned" and can be re-registered by anyone
Marc and I did do some recent research on this. I am sure he will correct me on anything I am about to say if it is wrong, but some of the forthcoming words are personal views, while others are facts
The logo was "abandoned" when the Delorean estate failed to re-register it, but was in use by several small vendors, etc and used on various products they produced. DMCH did indeed register it, and ask some people not to use it. I was told this once with an embroidered jacket I tried to sell, and again with my delorean PHOTO merchandise that was removed from Zazzle.com.
One my points: James asked me directly not to produce the jackets, but did OK me to use zazzle (since the photos are mine, and of my car, etc. They don't own that). Zazzle sucks and keeps pulling my stuff down despite this agreement, but that is another story...
Back to the points....
DMCH did register it and claimed as their own. The only people who can contest are the ones who used the logo prior to it being registered by DMCH. As Marc pointed out, those people have little to gain by going against DMCH and pissing them off and wasting money on legal fees to fight the battle since so little would be gained. These people/vendors instead just make an agreement to use the logo, or don't use it anymore.
Marc: is it fair? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on points of view I guess. I personally don't think it is, but in the end DMCH is in this to make money. Just like any other business. I am sure many (but not all) of us would do the same if it could make us extra cash and had that business. They registered it and are "squatting" on it and making cash. Yes, it pisses me off, yes I want to use it from time to time, and yes it makes me mad to see toys without the logo on it.
James: no offense, but you make it sound like every penny gained from licensing of the logo goes into parts development and product improvement. Don't sugar coat it, you are a business....ultimately it goes into people's pockets at the top of the food chain. Some money is "re-invested" into parts, but ultimately those parts are sold for cash profit too. Don't be shy to admit it. It just business. BUT....don't expect everyone to agree, like it, or be "ok" with your business practices.
I have mentioned the logo topic to James many times and really gave him a hard time over it. After research, the conclusion is that there are people out there with a right to contest, but they likely never will. In time memories will blur, assumptions will be made, and the "unfair" truth is that it will be registered to DMCH until/unless proven otherwise.
Kevin Abato
Vin# 16680
http://www.grenexmedia.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wenn Ihr Euch also wundert wieso das Blinke-1/15-Modell das derzeit angeboten wird kein DMC-Logo hat -
Hust Hust Houston wars !
Unterm Strich - we die 3 Jungs hier kennt weiß, daß sie beim nächsten Treffen eh alle gemeinsam um die
Kontakt-Area herumstehen würden wenn sie nur Romy kennen würden
(die waren alle in Vegas 2009 - Gruppenkusclen in ner geilen Location
)Correct Mike. Every ten years a trademark must be re-registered for use, or it is considered "abandoned" and can be re-registered by anyone
Marc and I did do some recent research on this. I am sure he will correct me on anything I am about to say if it is wrong, but some of the forthcoming words are personal views, while others are facts
The logo was "abandoned" when the Delorean estate failed to re-register it, but was in use by several small vendors, etc and used on various products they produced. DMCH did indeed register it, and ask some people not to use it. I was told this once with an embroidered jacket I tried to sell, and again with my delorean PHOTO merchandise that was removed from Zazzle.com.
One my points: James asked me directly not to produce the jackets, but did OK me to use zazzle (since the photos are mine, and of my car, etc. They don't own that). Zazzle sucks and keeps pulling my stuff down despite this agreement, but that is another story...
Back to the points....
DMCH did register it and claimed as their own. The only people who can contest are the ones who used the logo prior to it being registered by DMCH. As Marc pointed out, those people have little to gain by going against DMCH and pissing them off and wasting money on legal fees to fight the battle since so little would be gained. These people/vendors instead just make an agreement to use the logo, or don't use it anymore.
Marc: is it fair? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on points of view I guess. I personally don't think it is, but in the end DMCH is in this to make money. Just like any other business. I am sure many (but not all) of us would do the same if it could make us extra cash and had that business. They registered it and are "squatting" on it and making cash. Yes, it pisses me off, yes I want to use it from time to time, and yes it makes me mad to see toys without the logo on it.
James: no offense, but you make it sound like every penny gained from licensing of the logo goes into parts development and product improvement. Don't sugar coat it, you are a business....ultimately it goes into people's pockets at the top of the food chain. Some money is "re-invested" into parts, but ultimately those parts are sold for cash profit too. Don't be shy to admit it. It just business. BUT....don't expect everyone to agree, like it, or be "ok" with your business practices.
I have mentioned the logo topic to James many times and really gave him a hard time over it. After research, the conclusion is that there are people out there with a right to contest, but they likely never will. In time memories will blur, assumptions will be made, and the "unfair" truth is that it will be registered to DMCH until/unless proven otherwise.
Kevin Abato
Vin# 16680
http://www.grenexmedia.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
KEIN ALU !
-
Sebastian_6577
- Beiträge: 2124
- Registriert: 24. Okt 2006, 19:49
- Wohnort: MG
Re: DMCH und die Rechte an der Marke
Hm, wenn man den Kram aufkauft soll man auch die Rechte am Logo haben;
die Bude soll ja Geld abwerfen und da finde ich es nur logisch das jemand
Geld zahlen muss wenn ein DMC Logo irgendwo aufpappt.
Ob man Kleinstanbieter verklagen soll wegen einem Schaltknauf ist eine
andere Sache.
die Bude soll ja Geld abwerfen und da finde ich es nur logisch das jemand
Geld zahlen muss wenn ein DMC Logo irgendwo aufpappt.
Ob man Kleinstanbieter verklagen soll wegen einem Schaltknauf ist eine
andere Sache.
Re: DMCH und die Rechte an der Marke
Schaltknauf ?
es ging damals um den Kleber der auf dem Automatik-Hebel oben drauf ist mit dem DMC-Logo darin.
Mein Lieblingsfreund "Videobob" durfte die nicht mehr vertreiben...
es ging damals um den Kleber der auf dem Automatik-Hebel oben drauf ist mit dem DMC-Logo darin.
Mein Lieblingsfreund "Videobob" durfte die nicht mehr vertreiben...
KEIN ALU !