boneheads at jeep corporate
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
The white YJ was a favorite...
"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
news:NtSdnUMq26g6CGrcRVn-pQ@magma.ca...
>I miss CJ-5
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
>> which D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>>
>>>He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
>>>flexed
>>>their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>>>win
>>>because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
>>>are
>>>not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
>>>DC
>>>said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>>>product offerings.
>>>
>>>It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>>>version.
>>>I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>>>for
>>>that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.c om...
>>>
>>>>I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>>>>>that
>>>>>he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't this
>>>>>make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and vociferous
>>>>>pledge? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow and
>>>
>>>sienna
>>>
>>>>>>from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would make
>>>
>>>my
>>>
>>>>>>color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a coin).
>>>
>>>next,
>>>
>>>>>>some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>>>
>>>grey...luckily
>>>
>>>>>>that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon i
>>>
>>>finally
>>>
>>>>>>decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my '03
>>>>>>http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when i
>>>
>>>went
>>>
>>>>>>down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>>>
>>>bonehead
>>>
>>>>>>decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>>>
>>>top/interior.
>>>
>>>>>>you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with a
>>>
>>>black
>>>
>>>>>>top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the khaki
>>>
>>>jeep.
>>>
>>>>>>i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>>>
>>>making
>>>
>>>>>>stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can get
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if you
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>>>some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
news:NtSdnUMq26g6CGrcRVn-pQ@magma.ca...
>I miss CJ-5
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
>> which D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>>
>>>He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
>>>flexed
>>>their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>>>win
>>>because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
>>>are
>>>not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
>>>DC
>>>said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>>>product offerings.
>>>
>>>It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>>>version.
>>>I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>>>for
>>>that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.c om...
>>>
>>>>I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>>>>>that
>>>>>he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't this
>>>>>make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and vociferous
>>>>>pledge? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow and
>>>
>>>sienna
>>>
>>>>>>from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would make
>>>
>>>my
>>>
>>>>>>color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a coin).
>>>
>>>next,
>>>
>>>>>>some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>>>
>>>grey...luckily
>>>
>>>>>>that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon i
>>>
>>>finally
>>>
>>>>>>decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my '03
>>>>>>http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when i
>>>
>>>went
>>>
>>>>>>down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>>>
>>>bonehead
>>>
>>>>>>decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>>>
>>>top/interior.
>>>
>>>>>>you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with a
>>>
>>>black
>>>
>>>>>>top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the khaki
>>>
>>>jeep.
>>>
>>>>>>i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>>>
>>>making
>>>
>>>>>>stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can get
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if you
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>>>some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
The white YJ was a favorite...
"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
news:NtSdnUMq26g6CGrcRVn-pQ@magma.ca...
>I miss CJ-5
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
>> which D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>>
>>>He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
>>>flexed
>>>their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>>>win
>>>because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
>>>are
>>>not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
>>>DC
>>>said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>>>product offerings.
>>>
>>>It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>>>version.
>>>I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>>>for
>>>that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.c om...
>>>
>>>>I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>>>>>that
>>>>>he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't this
>>>>>make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and vociferous
>>>>>pledge? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow and
>>>
>>>sienna
>>>
>>>>>>from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would make
>>>
>>>my
>>>
>>>>>>color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a coin).
>>>
>>>next,
>>>
>>>>>>some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>>>
>>>grey...luckily
>>>
>>>>>>that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon i
>>>
>>>finally
>>>
>>>>>>decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my '03
>>>>>>http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when i
>>>
>>>went
>>>
>>>>>>down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>>>
>>>bonehead
>>>
>>>>>>decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>>>
>>>top/interior.
>>>
>>>>>>you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with a
>>>
>>>black
>>>
>>>>>>top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the khaki
>>>
>>>jeep.
>>>
>>>>>>i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>>>
>>>making
>>>
>>>>>>stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can get
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if you
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>>>some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
news:NtSdnUMq26g6CGrcRVn-pQ@magma.ca...
>I miss CJ-5
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
>> which D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>>
>>>He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
>>>flexed
>>>their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>>>win
>>>because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
>>>are
>>>not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
>>>DC
>>>said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>>>product offerings.
>>>
>>>It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>>>version.
>>>I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>>>for
>>>that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.c om...
>>>
>>>>I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>>>>>that
>>>>>he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't this
>>>>>make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and vociferous
>>>>>pledge? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow and
>>>
>>>sienna
>>>
>>>>>>from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would make
>>>
>>>my
>>>
>>>>>>color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a coin).
>>>
>>>next,
>>>
>>>>>>some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>>>
>>>grey...luckily
>>>
>>>>>>that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon i
>>>
>>>finally
>>>
>>>>>>decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my '03
>>>>>>http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when i
>>>
>>>went
>>>
>>>>>>down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>>>
>>>bonehead
>>>
>>>>>>decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>>>
>>>top/interior.
>>>
>>>>>>you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with a
>>>
>>>black
>>>
>>>>>>top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the khaki
>>>
>>>jeep.
>>>
>>>>>>i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>>>
>>>making
>>>
>>>>>>stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can get
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if you
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>>>some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Which is the basis of trademark law.
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Z7qdnXSA7pbhSGrcRVn-1Q@ez2.net...
> The "legal" argument was that consumers could be confused that Nathan's
> site
> was somehow to be construed as an official site.
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6dnS4AyOlPDWrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
> which
>> D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>> > He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
> flexed
>> > their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>> > win
>> > because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
> are
>> > not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
> DC
>> > said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>> > product offerings.
>> >
>> > It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>> > version.
>> > I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>> > for
>> > that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.com. ..
>> >> I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>> >> > Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>> >> > that
>> >> > he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't
>> >> > this
>> >> > make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and
>> >> > vociferous
>> >> > pledge? ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>> >> > > first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow
> and
>> > sienna
>> >> > > from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would
> make
>> > my
>> >> > > color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a
> coin).
>> > next,
>> >> > > some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>> > grey...luckily
>> >> > > that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon
>> >> > > i
>> > finally
>> >> > > decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my
>> >> > > '03
>> >> > > http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when
>> >> > > i
>> > went
>> >> > > down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>> > bonehead
>> >> > > decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>> > top/interior.
>> >> > > you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with
> a
>> > black
>> >> > > top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the
>> >> > > khaki
>> > jeep.
>> >> > > i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>> > making
>> >> > > stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can
>> >> > > get
>> > the
>> >> > > black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if
>> >> > > you
>> > have
>> >> > > some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Z7qdnXSA7pbhSGrcRVn-1Q@ez2.net...
> The "legal" argument was that consumers could be confused that Nathan's
> site
> was somehow to be construed as an official site.
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6dnS4AyOlPDWrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
> which
>> D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>> > He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
> flexed
>> > their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>> > win
>> > because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
> are
>> > not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
> DC
>> > said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>> > product offerings.
>> >
>> > It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>> > version.
>> > I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>> > for
>> > that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.com. ..
>> >> I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>> >> > Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>> >> > that
>> >> > he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't
>> >> > this
>> >> > make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and
>> >> > vociferous
>> >> > pledge? ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>> >> > > first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow
> and
>> > sienna
>> >> > > from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would
> make
>> > my
>> >> > > color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a
> coin).
>> > next,
>> >> > > some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>> > grey...luckily
>> >> > > that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon
>> >> > > i
>> > finally
>> >> > > decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my
>> >> > > '03
>> >> > > http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when
>> >> > > i
>> > went
>> >> > > down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>> > bonehead
>> >> > > decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>> > top/interior.
>> >> > > you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with
> a
>> > black
>> >> > > top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the
>> >> > > khaki
>> > jeep.
>> >> > > i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>> > making
>> >> > > stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can
>> >> > > get
>> > the
>> >> > > black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if
>> >> > > you
>> > have
>> >> > > some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Which is the basis of trademark law.
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Z7qdnXSA7pbhSGrcRVn-1Q@ez2.net...
> The "legal" argument was that consumers could be confused that Nathan's
> site
> was somehow to be construed as an official site.
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6dnS4AyOlPDWrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
> which
>> D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>> > He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
> flexed
>> > their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>> > win
>> > because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
> are
>> > not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
> DC
>> > said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>> > product offerings.
>> >
>> > It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>> > version.
>> > I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>> > for
>> > that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.com. ..
>> >> I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>> >> > Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>> >> > that
>> >> > he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't
>> >> > this
>> >> > make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and
>> >> > vociferous
>> >> > pledge? ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>> >> > > first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow
> and
>> > sienna
>> >> > > from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would
> make
>> > my
>> >> > > color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a
> coin).
>> > next,
>> >> > > some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>> > grey...luckily
>> >> > > that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon
>> >> > > i
>> > finally
>> >> > > decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my
>> >> > > '03
>> >> > > http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when
>> >> > > i
>> > went
>> >> > > down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>> > bonehead
>> >> > > decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>> > top/interior.
>> >> > > you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with
> a
>> > black
>> >> > > top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the
>> >> > > khaki
>> > jeep.
>> >> > > i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>> > making
>> >> > > stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can
>> >> > > get
>> > the
>> >> > > black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if
>> >> > > you
>> > have
>> >> > > some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Z7qdnXSA7pbhSGrcRVn-1Q@ez2.net...
> The "legal" argument was that consumers could be confused that Nathan's
> site
> was somehow to be construed as an official site.
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6dnS4AyOlPDWrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
> which
>> D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>> > He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
> flexed
>> > their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>> > win
>> > because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
> are
>> > not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
> DC
>> > said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>> > product offerings.
>> >
>> > It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>> > version.
>> > I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>> > for
>> > that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.com. ..
>> >> I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>> >> > Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>> >> > that
>> >> > he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't
>> >> > this
>> >> > make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and
>> >> > vociferous
>> >> > pledge? ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>> >> > > first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow
> and
>> > sienna
>> >> > > from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would
> make
>> > my
>> >> > > color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a
> coin).
>> > next,
>> >> > > some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>> > grey...luckily
>> >> > > that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon
>> >> > > i
>> > finally
>> >> > > decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my
>> >> > > '03
>> >> > > http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when
>> >> > > i
>> > went
>> >> > > down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>> > bonehead
>> >> > > decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>> > top/interior.
>> >> > > you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with
> a
>> > black
>> >> > > top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the
>> >> > > khaki
>> > jeep.
>> >> > > i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>> > making
>> >> > > stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can
>> >> > > get
>> > the
>> >> > > black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if
>> >> > > you
>> > have
>> >> > > some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Which is the basis of trademark law.
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Z7qdnXSA7pbhSGrcRVn-1Q@ez2.net...
> The "legal" argument was that consumers could be confused that Nathan's
> site
> was somehow to be construed as an official site.
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6dnS4AyOlPDWrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
> which
>> D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>> > He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
> flexed
>> > their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>> > win
>> > because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
> are
>> > not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
> DC
>> > said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>> > product offerings.
>> >
>> > It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>> > version.
>> > I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>> > for
>> > that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.com. ..
>> >> I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>> >> > Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>> >> > that
>> >> > he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't
>> >> > this
>> >> > make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and
>> >> > vociferous
>> >> > pledge? ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>> >> > > first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow
> and
>> > sienna
>> >> > > from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would
> make
>> > my
>> >> > > color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a
> coin).
>> > next,
>> >> > > some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>> > grey...luckily
>> >> > > that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon
>> >> > > i
>> > finally
>> >> > > decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my
>> >> > > '03
>> >> > > http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when
>> >> > > i
>> > went
>> >> > > down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>> > bonehead
>> >> > > decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>> > top/interior.
>> >> > > you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with
> a
>> > black
>> >> > > top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the
>> >> > > khaki
>> > jeep.
>> >> > > i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>> > making
>> >> > > stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can
>> >> > > get
>> > the
>> >> > > black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if
>> >> > > you
>> > have
>> >> > > some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:Z7qdnXSA7pbhSGrcRVn-1Q@ez2.net...
> The "legal" argument was that consumers could be confused that Nathan's
> site
> was somehow to be construed as an official site.
>
>
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6dnS4AyOlPDWrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> You neglected to mention the pictures of nekkid wimmin on his website,
> which
>> D-C, the owner of the trademark "Jeep," objected to.
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:RqednUxowbsbmmrcRVn-3g@ez2.net...
>> > He used "jeep" in the URL to his website. DC got a little testy and
> flexed
>> > their muscles. I think that today, Nathan could probably fight them and
>> > win
>> > because there have been recent rulings that product names in a website
> are
>> > not indicators by themselves that consumers can be confused. Basically,
> DC
>> > said that consumers will go to Nathan's site and be confused about the
>> > product offerings.
>> >
>> > It was more complicated than that, but this is the reader's digest
>> > version.
>> > I think DC was WAY off base in their attacks on Nathan, and many others
>> > for
>> > that matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Marc" <none@all.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c60be254354f497989696@netnews.mchsi.com. ..
>> >> I'm somewhat new to the group, why was he sued by DC?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In article <l4DJd.19259$xu.18295@fed1read05>, jerrypb@***.net says...
>> >> > Is this the same Nathan W. Collier that swore publically MANY times
>> >> > that
>> >> > he would never buy another Jeep after being sued by DC? Doesn't
>> >> > this
>> >> > make your second Jeep purchased since making that loud and
>> >> > vociferous
>> >> > pledge? ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nathan W. Collier wrote:
>> >> > > first some bonehead down at jeep corporate decides to drop yellow
> and
>> > sienna
>> >> > > from the wranger lineup (if either color were available it would
> make
>> > my
>> >> > > color choice easy. if both were available, id probably flip a
> coin).
>> > next,
>> >> > > some bonehead decides to replace the black top/flares with
>> > grey...luckily
>> >> > > that mistake was corrected. in preparing to order my '05 rubicon
>> >> > > i
>> > finally
>> >> > > decided on another khaki with the black top/interior (just like my
>> >> > > '03
>> >> > > http://7slotgrille.com/reviews/performance/doors/6.jpg ) and when
>> >> > > i
>> > went
>> >> > > down to make the final order, i found out for '05 some corporate
>> > bonehead
>> >> > > decided that you cannot get the khaki wrangler with the black
>> > top/interior.
>> >> > > you can get a green jeep (rolling off the same assembly line) with
> a
>> > black
>> >> > > top/interior, but you can only get the khaki top/interior on the
>> >> > > khaki
>> > jeep.
>> >> > > i cant help but wonder what the hell these people are thinking in
>> > making
>> >> > > stupid decisions like this. it just makes no sense why you can
>> >> > > get
>> > the
>> >> > > black top/interior on EVERY color rubicon except the khaki. if
>> >> > > you
>> > have
>> >> > > some insight on why this bonehead decision was made, please share.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
things.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F7FD9F.BE9F2D5@***.net...
> Hi Sandman,
> I believe you, and so do the people that once own these sites:
> http://www.jeepin.com/
> http://jeepsunlimited.com/
> http://www.jeepthing.com/
> http://www.jeepforum.com/
> http://www.jeepaccessories.com/
> http://jeep-hispano.com/
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/
> http://www.jeep-store.com/
> http://www.ultimatejeep.com/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>>
>> smoke and mirrors matt. at one time i was getting requests from levels
>> of
>> management above those who filed suit. legally it all boiled down to
>> using
>> "jeep" in the domain.
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
things.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F7FD9F.BE9F2D5@***.net...
> Hi Sandman,
> I believe you, and so do the people that once own these sites:
> http://www.jeepin.com/
> http://jeepsunlimited.com/
> http://www.jeepthing.com/
> http://www.jeepforum.com/
> http://www.jeepaccessories.com/
> http://jeep-hispano.com/
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/
> http://www.jeep-store.com/
> http://www.ultimatejeep.com/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>>
>> smoke and mirrors matt. at one time i was getting requests from levels
>> of
>> management above those who filed suit. legally it all boiled down to
>> using
>> "jeep" in the domain.
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
things.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F7FD9F.BE9F2D5@***.net...
> Hi Sandman,
> I believe you, and so do the people that once own these sites:
> http://www.jeepin.com/
> http://jeepsunlimited.com/
> http://www.jeepthing.com/
> http://www.jeepforum.com/
> http://www.jeepaccessories.com/
> http://jeep-hispano.com/
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/
> http://www.jeep-store.com/
> http://www.ultimatejeep.com/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>>
>> smoke and mirrors matt. at one time i was getting requests from levels
>> of
>> management above those who filed suit. legally it all boiled down to
>> using
>> "jeep" in the domain.
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
things.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F7FD9F.BE9F2D5@***.net...
> Hi Sandman,
> I believe you, and so do the people that once own these sites:
> http://www.jeepin.com/
> http://jeepsunlimited.com/
> http://www.jeepthing.com/
> http://www.jeepforum.com/
> http://www.jeepaccessories.com/
> http://jeep-hispano.com/
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/
> http://www.jeep-store.com/
> http://www.ultimatejeep.com/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>>
>> smoke and mirrors matt. at one time i was getting requests from levels
>> of
>> management above those who filed suit. legally it all boiled down to
>> using
>> "jeep" in the domain.
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
things.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F7FD9F.BE9F2D5@***.net...
> Hi Sandman,
> I believe you, and so do the people that once own these sites:
> http://www.jeepin.com/
> http://jeepsunlimited.com/
> http://www.jeepthing.com/
> http://www.jeepforum.com/
> http://www.jeepaccessories.com/
> http://jeep-hispano.com/
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/
> http://www.jeep-store.com/
> http://www.ultimatejeep.com/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>>
>> smoke and mirrors matt. at one time i was getting requests from levels
>> of
>> management above those who filed suit. legally it all boiled down to
>> using
>> "jeep" in the domain.
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
things.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F7FD9F.BE9F2D5@***.net...
> Hi Sandman,
> I believe you, and so do the people that once own these sites:
> http://www.jeepin.com/
> http://jeepsunlimited.com/
> http://www.jeepthing.com/
> http://www.jeepforum.com/
> http://www.jeepaccessories.com/
> http://jeep-hispano.com/
> http://www.jeepsonly.com/
> http://www.jeep-store.com/
> http://www.ultimatejeep.com/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>>
>> smoke and mirrors matt. at one time i was getting requests from levels
>> of
>> management above those who filed suit. legally it all boiled down to
>> using
>> "jeep" in the domain.
>> --
>> Nathan W. Collier
>> http://7SlotGrille.com
>> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Yes, and the sites I listed came back to life, that's why I deleted
my post. But that wasn't so last year when Daimlers ***** were suing for
them.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rusted wrote:
>
> You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
> out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
> Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
> things.
my post. But that wasn't so last year when Daimlers ***** were suing for
them.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rusted wrote:
>
> You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
> out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
> Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
> things.
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Yes, and the sites I listed came back to life, that's why I deleted
my post. But that wasn't so last year when Daimlers ***** were suing for
them.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rusted wrote:
>
> You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
> out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
> Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
> things.
my post. But that wasn't so last year when Daimlers ***** were suing for
them.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rusted wrote:
>
> You just named off 9 sites, but did you know there are currently 4,084 sites
> out there right now with the phrase "jeep" in the url? I have one of them.
> Domainsurfer.com is one of the utilities you can use to look for these
> things.