That is also why there are no 'Wrangler' Jeeps in Canada. They are YJ's
or TJ's only.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Mike Hall wrote:
>
> I made reference to the 1960's Triumph, not the one circulating now.. and
> Trademark/copyright infringement is the same all over the world..
>
> --
> History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:3FE08EC7.BB0B2482@***.net...
> > Bull Sh*t! Don't put Ford in with your daimler's **** gestapo
> > tactics. The Triumph's Thunderbird is alive and well:
> > http://www.hermys.com/triumph/thunderbirdsport/
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Mike Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > Consider this.. if you or Nathan had a thriving parts/clothes business
> with
> > > a good reputation (real or 'in the mind') and I started up a similar
> > > business using your names but selling possibly sub-standard stuff of the
> > > same type, how would you feel about that?.. DC want to protect their
> image,
> > > and have some or complete control over the quality of stuff sold in that
> > > image.. I am in no way suggesting that either of you are guilty of
> selling
> > > junk, BTW..
> > >
> > > Many years ago, Ford America stopped a small British motorcycle company
> from
> > > using the name 'Thunderbird'.. one could hardly mistake a British
> Triumph
> > > 650 motorcycle with a Ford Thunderbird of the era, but stop it they
> did.. it
> > > is not just German companies that do this kind of thing..
> > >
> > > --
> > > History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..

 

How about "Jeoples"?

They'd have a much harder time asserting an infringement claim when
the spelling is different, and just a PART of the word sounds like
their name...
(Admittedly it's not as cool as Jeeples, though)



Jason90715@yahoo.com (Jason Williams) wrote in message news:<c0500d7c.0312161554.2982a297@posting.google. com>...
> Nathan,
> I have followed your past dealings with DC and I can now feel your
> pain. My wife has always refered to me and my Jeep'n buddies as 'Jeep
> Creeps'. What other group of people will waive at total strangers
> just because of what they drive? She always, still does, when I
> return or initiate a 'Jeep Wave'. she then started calling us
> Jeeples. Well, she decided to start a business called Jeeples. With
> a slogan of "A different kind of people". She applied for a trademark
> of Jeeples. We just recieve this today.
>
> "We are trademark counsel for DaimlerChrysler Corporation. As you are
> no
> doubt aware, DaimlerChrysler Corporation is the owner of the JEEP
> trademark. In addition to using JEEP to identify vehicles,
> DaimlerChrysler
> uses JEEP trademark in connection with other products including, but
> not
> limited to, clothing, baby carriages, and toys. By virtue of
> DaimlerChrysler's long use of JEEP and extensive advertising, JEEP has
> become a well known, if not famous, trademark entitled to a broad
> scope of
> protection or exclusivity of use.
>
> It has come to DaimlerChrysler's attention that your application for
> the
> mark JEEPLES for clothing was published in the November 25, 2003 issue
> of
> the Trademark Official Gazette. On December 8, 2003, we filed a
> request
> for an extension of time to file a Notice of Opposition.
>
> In our opinion, your JEEPLES trademark is confusingly similar to the
> JEEP
> trademark and likely to cause confusion. Accordingly, DaimlerChrysler
> respectfully requests that you expressly abandon that application and
> cease
> any plans to use the mark. If you do not expressly abandon the
> application, DaimlerChrysler will have no choice but file a Notice of
> Opposition. Moreover, if you begin to use the mark on clothing,
> DaimlerChrysler will not hesitate to assert its legal and equitable
> rights.
>
> We hope that this issue may be resolved on an amicable basis. If you,
> or
> your legal counsel, have any questions, please do not hesitate to
> contact
> me."
>
> At least I'm not out too much money.
> I didn't think we would worry them too much as we are promoting Jeeps
> in a positive style. You know, responsible off roading.
> Oh well.
> Jason

 

How about "Jeoples"?

They'd have a much harder time asserting an infringement claim when
the spelling is different, and just a PART of the word sounds like
their name...
(Admittedly it's not as cool as Jeeples, though)



Jason90715@yahoo.com (Jason Williams) wrote in message news:<c0500d7c.0312161554.2982a297@posting.google. com>...
> Nathan,
> I have followed your past dealings with DC and I can now feel your
> pain. My wife has always refered to me and my Jeep'n buddies as 'Jeep
> Creeps'. What other group of people will waive at total strangers
> just because of what they drive? She always, still does, when I
> return or initiate a 'Jeep Wave'. she then started calling us
> Jeeples. Well, she decided to start a business called Jeeples. With
> a slogan of "A different kind of people". She applied for a trademark
> of Jeeples. We just recieve this today.
>
> "We are trademark counsel for DaimlerChrysler Corporation. As you are
> no
> doubt aware, DaimlerChrysler Corporation is the owner of the JEEP
> trademark. In addition to using JEEP to identify vehicles,
> DaimlerChrysler
> uses JEEP trademark in connection with other products including, but
> not
> limited to, clothing, baby carriages, and toys. By virtue of
> DaimlerChrysler's long use of JEEP and extensive advertising, JEEP has
> become a well known, if not famous, trademark entitled to a broad
> scope of
> protection or exclusivity of use.
>
> It has come to DaimlerChrysler's attention that your application for
> the
> mark JEEPLES for clothing was published in the November 25, 2003 issue
> of
> the Trademark Official Gazette. On December 8, 2003, we filed a
> request
> for an extension of time to file a Notice of Opposition.
>
> In our opinion, your JEEPLES trademark is confusingly similar to the
> JEEP
> trademark and likely to cause confusion. Accordingly, DaimlerChrysler
> respectfully requests that you expressly abandon that application and
> cease
> any plans to use the mark. If you do not expressly abandon the
> application, DaimlerChrysler will have no choice but file a Notice of
> Opposition. Moreover, if you begin to use the mark on clothing,
> DaimlerChrysler will not hesitate to assert its legal and equitable
> rights.
>
> We hope that this issue may be resolved on an amicable basis. If you,
> or
> your legal counsel, have any questions, please do not hesitate to
> contact
> me."
>
> At least I'm not out too much money.
> I didn't think we would worry them too much as we are promoting Jeeps
> in a positive style. You know, responsible off roading.
> Oh well.
> Jason

 

How about "Jeoples"?

They'd have a much harder time asserting an infringement claim when
the spelling is different, and just a PART of the word sounds like
their name...
(Admittedly it's not as cool as Jeeples, though)



Jason90715@yahoo.com (Jason Williams) wrote in message news:<c0500d7c.0312161554.2982a297@posting.google. com>...
> Nathan,
> I have followed your past dealings with DC and I can now feel your
> pain. My wife has always refered to me and my Jeep'n buddies as 'Jeep
> Creeps'. What other group of people will waive at total strangers
> just because of what they drive? She always, still does, when I
> return or initiate a 'Jeep Wave'. she then started calling us
> Jeeples. Well, she decided to start a business called Jeeples. With
> a slogan of "A different kind of people". She applied for a trademark
> of Jeeples. We just recieve this today.
>
> "We are trademark counsel for DaimlerChrysler Corporation. As you are
> no
> doubt aware, DaimlerChrysler Corporation is the owner of the JEEP
> trademark. In addition to using JEEP to identify vehicles,
> DaimlerChrysler
> uses JEEP trademark in connection with other products including, but
> not
> limited to, clothing, baby carriages, and toys. By virtue of
> DaimlerChrysler's long use of JEEP and extensive advertising, JEEP has
> become a well known, if not famous, trademark entitled to a broad
> scope of
> protection or exclusivity of use.
>
> It has come to DaimlerChrysler's attention that your application for
> the
> mark JEEPLES for clothing was published in the November 25, 2003 issue
> of
> the Trademark Official Gazette. On December 8, 2003, we filed a
> request
> for an extension of time to file a Notice of Opposition.
>
> In our opinion, your JEEPLES trademark is confusingly similar to the
> JEEP
> trademark and likely to cause confusion. Accordingly, DaimlerChrysler
> respectfully requests that you expressly abandon that application and
> cease
> any plans to use the mark. If you do not expressly abandon the
> application, DaimlerChrysler will have no choice but file a Notice of
> Opposition. Moreover, if you begin to use the mark on clothing,
> DaimlerChrysler will not hesitate to assert its legal and equitable
> rights.
>
> We hope that this issue may be resolved on an amicable basis. If you,
> or
> your legal counsel, have any questions, please do not hesitate to
> contact
> me."
>
> At least I'm not out too much money.
> I didn't think we would worry them too much as we are promoting Jeeps
> in a positive style. You know, responsible off roading.
> Oh well.
> Jason

 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:

> DougW wrote:

> The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
> label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
> company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
> ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.

I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for the
record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
"Apple" name only on computer products.

A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that music
synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.

At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.

--
[ ]
__OIIIIO__
|||=oo=|||
||| |||

 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:

> DougW wrote:

> The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
> label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
> company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
> ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.

I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for the
record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
"Apple" name only on computer products.

A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that music
synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.

At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.

--
[ ]
__OIIIIO__
|||=oo=|||
||| |||

 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:

> DougW wrote:

> The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
> label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
> company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
> ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.

I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for the
record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
"Apple" name only on computer products.

A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that music
synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.

At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.

--
[ ]
__OIIIIO__
|||=oo=|||
||| |||

 

In my opinion that's just plain silly.
It would seem then, that all apple farmers
would have a right to sue both the record and
computer companies.

Patrick Mills wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:
>
>
>>DougW wrote:
>
>
>>The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
>>label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
>>company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
>>ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.
>
>
> I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for the
> record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
> undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
> "Apple" name only on computer products.
>
> A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that music
> synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
> agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
> Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
> for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.
>
> At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
> iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
> legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
> in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
>

 

In my opinion that's just plain silly.
It would seem then, that all apple farmers
would have a right to sue both the record and
computer companies.

Patrick Mills wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:
>
>
>>DougW wrote:
>
>
>>The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
>>label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
>>company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
>>ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.
>
>
> I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for the
> record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
> undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
> "Apple" name only on computer products.
>
> A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that music
> synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
> agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
> Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
> for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.
>
> At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
> iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
> legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
> in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
>

 

In my opinion that's just plain silly.
It would seem then, that all apple farmers
would have a right to sue both the record and
computer companies.

Patrick Mills wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:
>
>
>>DougW wrote:
>
>
>>The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
>>label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
>>company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
>>ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.
>
>
> I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for the
> record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
> undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
> "Apple" name only on computer products.
>
> A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that music
> synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
> agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
> Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
> for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.
>
> At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
> iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
> legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
> in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
>