Threats to Dive Operation

This is about a Multi National Dive Operator trying to stop a small
independant dive instructor from carrying out his normal business.

And i think it stinks........

The small time instructor trades and resides here in the UK, he has been
carrying out his trade for years using the same name now as he has done
for those years...........

A rather large Multi National company that is big lets say in the southern
hemisphere wants to move into the uk, they also use the same name (in the
southern hemisphere) as Little Joe......so......they register their
company in the uk, not in the name they use else where but in the exact
same way that Little Joe trades.

Little Joe has now received solicitors (thats lawyer in American) papers
telling him to stop trading using THEIR name..........

I think it suck's.......what do you think.

www.seatreker.com
Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK

<morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote

> Little Joe has now received solicitors (thats lawyer in American) papers
> telling him to stop trading using THEIR name..........
>
> I think it suck's.......what do you think.

1. I think he should have registered his name when he could do so unopposed.
2. I think he should talk with a solicitor of his own.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a1iHf.10790$pM6.6676@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .
> <morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Little Joe has now received solicitors (thats lawyer in American) papers
>> telling him to stop trading using THEIR name..........
>>
>> I think it suck's.......what do you think.
>
> 1. I think he should have registered his name when he could do so
> unopposed.
> 2. I think he should talk with a solicitor of his own.
>
It would probably be cheaper for Little Joe to tweak his shop's name
slightly and then register it - avoid the lawyers.

For example, Little Joe could drop the "Little" or add "Big", or "Limey", or
if its "Joe's Dive Shop" he could change it to "Joe's Scuba Shop" - his
regular customers won't care.

Tell us the current name, and I'm sure we could come up with some
alternatives.

jim frei wrote:
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:a1iHf.10790$pM6.6676@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>><morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Little Joe has now received solicitors (thats lawyer in American) papers
>>>telling him to stop trading using THEIR name..........
>>>
>>>I think it suck's.......what do you think.
>>
>>1. I think he should have registered his name when he could do so
>>unopposed.
>>2. I think he should talk with a solicitor of his own.
>>
>
> It would probably be cheaper for Little Joe to tweak his shop's name
> slightly and then register it - avoid the lawyers.
>
> For example, Little Joe could drop the "Little" or add "Big", or "Limey", or
> if its "Joe's Dive Shop" he could change it to "Joe's Scuba Shop" - his
> regular customers won't care.
>
> Tell us the current name, and I'm sure we could come up with some
> alternatives.

Where is "our" legal giant Greg when you need him.

Yes, it is a pain in the neck for him to be bothered with a name
change. I personally feel, the other group should not be allowed to
use their name as he has been using for a long time but in the World
over, registration of names has legal priority. Tweeking would be the
fast route to go and I would add that he should notify every customer
he ever had of the reason for the change and announce in the newspaper!
Bullies are not really admired by customers of good people.
morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> This is about a Multi National Dive Operator trying to stop a small
> independant dive instructor from carrying out his normal business.
>
> And i think it stinks........
>
> The small time instructor trades and resides here in the UK, he has been
> carrying out his trade for years using the same name now as he has done
> for those years...........
>
> A rather large Multi National company that is big lets say in the southern
> hemisphere wants to move into the uk, they also use the same name (in the
> southern hemisphere) as Little Joe......so......they register their
> company in the uk, not in the name they use else where but in the exact
> same way that Little Joe trades.
>
> Little Joe has now received solicitors (thats lawyer in American) papers
> telling him to stop trading using THEIR name..........
>
> I think it suck's.......what do you think.
>
> www.seatreker.com
> Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK

"TonyP" <arpierre@hooptown.net> wrote in message
news:4FmHf.3$0Y3.1@fe08.lga...

> Where is "our" legal giant Greg when you need him.

Working. But I'm no help in a British situation. God only knows what sort
of funny laws they have over there. They can't even drive on the right side
of the street.

In the U.S., the basic rule for federal trademarks is the first to register
wins. That said, one can oppose registration if he can claim prior use of
the mark. If this were a U.S. case, I might advise the dive shop to oppose
U.S. registration. If the mark is published for opposition and no
opposition is filed within the statutory deadline, it then becomes more
difficult to prevail. Free legal advice for trademark owners: check (or
have your attorney check) published pending trademarks periodically so you
can nip this sort of problem in the bud, and look into federally registering
your mark for additional protection.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...ate=dqbjfn.1.1

Greg Mossman wrote:

> "TonyP" <arpierre@hooptown.net> wrote in message
> news:4FmHf.3$0Y3.1@fe08.lga...

>>Where is "our" legal giant Greg when you need him.

> Working. But I'm no help in a British situation. God only knows what sort
> of funny laws they have over there. They can't even drive on the right side
> of the street.
>
> In the U.S., the basic rule for federal trademarks is the first to register
> wins. That said, one can oppose registration if he can claim prior use of
> the mark. If this were a U.S. case, I might advise the dive shop to oppose
> U.S. registration. If the mark is published for opposition and no
> opposition is filed within the statutory deadline, it then becomes more
> difficult to prevail. Free legal advice for trademark owners: check (or
> have your attorney check) published pending trademarks periodically so you
> can nip this sort of problem in the bud, and look into federally registering
> your mark for additional protection.

So, what you are saying is that if you can prove that you have used a
"name" before some else registers it, you could win a case?

"travelmom" wrote

> Yes, it is a pain in the neck for him to be bothered with a name
> change. I personally feel, the other group should not be allowed to
> use their name as he has been using for a long time but in the World
> over, registration of names has legal priority.

Usually, but not necessarily.

> Tweeking would be the fast route to go and I would add that he should
> notify every customer
> he ever had of the reason for the change and announce in the newspaper!
> Bullies are not really admired by customers of good people.

It may require more than a tweek, but changing his shop's name is probably
the easiest route, particularly if he originally picked a name similar to an
internationally well known one. He who benefits from the name of another,
doesn't have a lot of room for complaint if called on to quit doing so.

I still want to know the shop's name and the international organization
that's trying to get him to change it.

Lee

"TonyP" <arpierre@hooptown.net> wrote in message
news:9sxHf.99$Kt6.57@fe12.lga...

> So, what you are saying is that if you can prove that you have used a
> "name" before some else registers it, you could win a case?

Depending on how widespread your use of the mark. For a local diveshop, it
might be able to "win" concurrent registration, i.e. the ability to continue
to use the mark within its local geographical area.

Thus spake "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> :

>"TonyP" wrote
>
>> So, what you are saying is that if you can prove that you have used a
>> "name" before some else registers it, you could win a case?
>
>In the US, yes, but "could" is the operative word.

Can you afford to win. Big corporation, big bucks, big lawyers.

>
>Lee
>
--
dillon

Could have been is in the past
Could be is in the future
There is only the now