boneheads at jeep corporate
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner hasn't
authorized, and which it objects to.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site and
> DCs...
> UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> jeep.com.
> Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner hasn't
authorized, and which it objects to.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site and
> DCs...
> UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> jeep.com.
> Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner hasn't
authorized, and which it objects to.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site and
> DCs...
> UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> jeep.com.
> Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner hasn't
authorized, and which it objects to.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site and
> DCs...
> UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> jeep.com.
> Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner hasn't
authorized, and which it objects to.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site and
> DCs...
> UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> jeep.com.
> Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner hasn't
authorized, and which it objects to.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site and
> DCs...
> UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> jeep.com.
> Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Well, I could paint naked babes all over both my Jeeps (or get naked babes
to sit on them), and there isn't a damn thing DC can do about it. I'm sure I
could post pictures of it as well.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:adydnZnTVOqKuWXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
> issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner
hasn't
> authorized, and which it objects to.
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> > Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site
and
> > DCs...
> > UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> > jeep.com.
> > Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
to sit on them), and there isn't a damn thing DC can do about it. I'm sure I
could post pictures of it as well.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:adydnZnTVOqKuWXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
> issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner
hasn't
> authorized, and which it objects to.
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> > Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site
and
> > DCs...
> > UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> > jeep.com.
> > Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Well, I could paint naked babes all over both my Jeeps (or get naked babes
to sit on them), and there isn't a damn thing DC can do about it. I'm sure I
could post pictures of it as well.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:adydnZnTVOqKuWXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
> issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner
hasn't
> authorized, and which it objects to.
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> > Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site
and
> > DCs...
> > UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> > jeep.com.
> > Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
to sit on them), and there isn't a damn thing DC can do about it. I'm sure I
could post pictures of it as well.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:adydnZnTVOqKuWXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
> issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner
hasn't
> authorized, and which it objects to.
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> > Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site
and
> > DCs...
> > UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> > jeep.com.
> > Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
Well, I could paint naked babes all over both my Jeeps (or get naked babes
to sit on them), and there isn't a damn thing DC can do about it. I'm sure I
could post pictures of it as well.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:adydnZnTVOqKuWXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
> issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner
hasn't
> authorized, and which it objects to.
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> > Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site
and
> > DCs...
> > UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> > jeep.com.
> > Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
to sit on them), and there isn't a damn thing DC can do about it. I'm sure I
could post pictures of it as well.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:adydnZnTVOqKuWXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> There's not only the confusion issue, but the trademark dilution
> issue...which deals with a use of the mark which the trademark owner
hasn't
> authorized, and which it objects to.
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:thVJd.409$8B3.322@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
> > Nobody was so totally braindead as to get confused between Nate's site
and
> > DCs...
> > UNTIL DC chose to capitalise on it by re-directing hardcorejeep.com to
> > jeep.com.
> > Really brainy given their distaste for nekkid babes ...
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:CMmdnRloMOyFYGrcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
He probably could have fought it THEN and won, as well.. (or rather,
sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff lawyers..
in fact, a whole, well payed legal department with countless disposable assets
and the willingness to spend a lot more on such things... Often times with
cases like this its not about the right or wrong.. its not about whether it
COLD be fought, but whether it makes sense.
Nathan did exactly what he had to.. he has a family to worry about. the costs
for ongoing trademark cases can easily top 30,000 a month, for just basic
defenses (going by local patent and IP firms i've dealt with in nyc) during
trial and tens of thousands while in the discovery phase before trial...
Nathan had no choice, regardless of the validity of his defense... simply
because companies like DC can afford to be the legal bullies.
As if court is ever won on facts :P (OJ? )
> 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.
-Steve, former 98 TJ
sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff lawyers..
in fact, a whole, well payed legal department with countless disposable assets
and the willingness to spend a lot more on such things... Often times with
cases like this its not about the right or wrong.. its not about whether it
COLD be fought, but whether it makes sense.
Nathan did exactly what he had to.. he has a family to worry about. the costs
for ongoing trademark cases can easily top 30,000 a month, for just basic
defenses (going by local patent and IP firms i've dealt with in nyc) during
trial and tens of thousands while in the discovery phase before trial...
Nathan had no choice, regardless of the validity of his defense... simply
because companies like DC can afford to be the legal bullies.
As if court is ever won on facts :P (OJ? )
> 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.
-Steve, former 98 TJ
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
He probably could have fought it THEN and won, as well.. (or rather,
sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff lawyers..
in fact, a whole, well payed legal department with countless disposable assets
and the willingness to spend a lot more on such things... Often times with
cases like this its not about the right or wrong.. its not about whether it
COLD be fought, but whether it makes sense.
Nathan did exactly what he had to.. he has a family to worry about. the costs
for ongoing trademark cases can easily top 30,000 a month, for just basic
defenses (going by local patent and IP firms i've dealt with in nyc) during
trial and tens of thousands while in the discovery phase before trial...
Nathan had no choice, regardless of the validity of his defense... simply
because companies like DC can afford to be the legal bullies.
As if court is ever won on facts :P (OJ? )
> 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.
-Steve, former 98 TJ
sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff lawyers..
in fact, a whole, well payed legal department with countless disposable assets
and the willingness to spend a lot more on such things... Often times with
cases like this its not about the right or wrong.. its not about whether it
COLD be fought, but whether it makes sense.
Nathan did exactly what he had to.. he has a family to worry about. the costs
for ongoing trademark cases can easily top 30,000 a month, for just basic
defenses (going by local patent and IP firms i've dealt with in nyc) during
trial and tens of thousands while in the discovery phase before trial...
Nathan had no choice, regardless of the validity of his defense... simply
because companies like DC can afford to be the legal bullies.
As if court is ever won on facts :P (OJ? )
> 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.
-Steve, former 98 TJ
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
He probably could have fought it THEN and won, as well.. (or rather,
sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff lawyers..
in fact, a whole, well payed legal department with countless disposable assets
and the willingness to spend a lot more on such things... Often times with
cases like this its not about the right or wrong.. its not about whether it
COLD be fought, but whether it makes sense.
Nathan did exactly what he had to.. he has a family to worry about. the costs
for ongoing trademark cases can easily top 30,000 a month, for just basic
defenses (going by local patent and IP firms i've dealt with in nyc) during
trial and tens of thousands while in the discovery phase before trial...
Nathan had no choice, regardless of the validity of his defense... simply
because companies like DC can afford to be the legal bullies.
As if court is ever won on facts :P (OJ? )
> 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.
-Steve, former 98 TJ
sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff lawyers..
in fact, a whole, well payed legal department with countless disposable assets
and the willingness to spend a lot more on such things... Often times with
cases like this its not about the right or wrong.. its not about whether it
COLD be fought, but whether it makes sense.
Nathan did exactly what he had to.. he has a family to worry about. the costs
for ongoing trademark cases can easily top 30,000 a month, for just basic
defenses (going by local patent and IP firms i've dealt with in nyc) during
trial and tens of thousands while in the discovery phase before trial...
Nathan had no choice, regardless of the validity of his defense... simply
because companies like DC can afford to be the legal bullies.
As if court is ever won on facts :P (OJ? )
> 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.
-Steve, former 98 TJ
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: boneheads at jeep corporate
"Goat Crapp" <goatcrapp@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20050126194751.02008.00000275@mb-m14.aol.com...
> He probably could have fought it THEN and won, as well.. (or rather,
> sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
> needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff
> lawyers..
you are 100% correct. froggy over at dc legal asked me "mr collier, who do
you think is going to run out of money (for legal expenses) first, you or
daimler chrysler?". it was pure extorsion.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:20050126194751.02008.00000275@mb-m14.aol.com...
> He probably could have fought it THEN and won, as well.. (or rather,
> sucessfully defended his right to own the site, as it was, with no changes
> needed) but thats exactly the problem.. fighting it. DC has staff
> lawyers..
you are 100% correct. froggy over at dc legal asked me "mr collier, who do
you think is going to run out of money (for legal expenses) first, you or
daimler chrysler?". it was pure extorsion.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com