EAL

Your right Steven. It's not a patent issue. Patents are strictly federal in nature and a patent grants you the exclusive right to prevent someone from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing a product that infringes the claims of your patent.

Trademark law is a product of federal law, state law and common law that, for the most part, prevents confusion as to origin or quality of goods.

An interesting test. Without revealing the nature of the dispute, ask your non Pac NW friends who makes the Stumptown bicycle. Let me know the results.

Ed

Steven B wrote:
It's not stumpJUMPER vs stumpLEAPER which are similar,
it's stumTOWN which is where they're manufactured not
what they do. It's not a patent issue even, it's
Specialized worrying about something trivial and
creating bad PR for themselves no matter what the
outcome rather than using their energy and resources
to encourage people to use their products.

--- EAL wrote:

> Actually, my initial reaction was firmly in the camp
> of MC, and I had even started to draft an indignant
> letter to Specialized. Then I stopped to consider a
> few things. First, This isn't the use of Stumptown
> for coffee or online services or even a bicycle
> shop. They are using it on a bicycle. Then I put
> myself in the position of the average consumer, not
> the consumer who is lucky enough to live on
> Portland and understands the local meaning of
> Stumptown. When I do that, and when I consider how
> valueable a mark is and what must be done to protect
> it, and I consider the fact that Specialized could
> have come on much more agressively than it has, I
> begin to see Specialized's point of view and I can't
> cast them in this in the simple light of evil versus
> good.
>
> Do I support and want to see MC be a wildly
> successful company? Most certainly. Do I think
> they are being unfairly treated? No. I think this
> is a case where reasonable minds can differ and I
> think it's a case where both parties should be
> willing to arrive at a resolution that works for
> both.
>
> Ed Lanton
>
> Brooke Hoyer
wrote:
> >From: EAL
> >To: obra@list.obra.org
> >Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Stumpjumper vs. Stumptown
> >Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:17:19 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >The fact is that trademark infringement usually
> occurs in the context
> >trying to create the impression that the
> infringer's product as the same
> >qualities as the trademarked product.
>
> Bingo, Ed. And in this case, do you think there is
> any liklyhood that
> Mountain Cycles was trying to create the impression
> that the Stumptown
> cyclocross bicycle had the same qaulities as the
> Specialized Stumpjumper?
>
> Answer: NO
>
> Brooke Hoyer
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.