Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

Why not offer to sell them the trademark and concepts for a couple mil?

"Jason Williams" <Jason90715@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0500d7c.0312161554.2982a297@posting.google.c om...
> 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

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

On 16 Dec 2003 15:54:25 -0800, Jason90715@yahoo.com (Jason Williams)
wrote:

>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

Guys, Jeep _has_ to protect its trademark, even in stupid,
inconsequential cases or they will lose it entirely.

Yes, you are just little guys, but to the law you're no different than
Ford or GM. If Jeep lets you use it, then they lose it.

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

On 16 Dec 2003 15:54:25 -0800, Jason90715@yahoo.com (Jason Williams)
wrote:

>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

Guys, Jeep _has_ to protect its trademark, even in stupid,
inconsequential cases or they will lose it entirely.

Yes, you are just little guys, but to the law you're no different than
Ford or GM. If Jeep lets you use it, then they lose it.

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

On 16 Dec 2003 15:54:25 -0800, Jason90715@yahoo.com (Jason Williams)
wrote:

>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

Guys, Jeep _has_ to protect its trademark, even in stupid,
inconsequential cases or they will lose it entirely.

Yes, you are just little guys, but to the law you're no different than
Ford or GM. If Jeep lets you use it, then they lose it.

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

Roughly 12/16/03 15:54, Jason Williams's monkeys randomly typed:


> 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.

You could always call the clothing line something along
the lines of SevenSlots, but I can see where that could
have at least a couple meanings not politically correct.
Which of course could make it an instant best seller
amongst upperteens and twenty-somethings.


--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

Roughly 12/16/03 15:54, Jason Williams's monkeys randomly typed:


> 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.

You could always call the clothing line something along
the lines of SevenSlots, but I can see where that could
have at least a couple meanings not politically correct.
Which of course could make it an instant best seller
amongst upperteens and twenty-somethings.


--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

Roughly 12/16/03 15:54, Jason Williams's monkeys randomly typed:


> 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.

You could always call the clothing line something along
the lines of SevenSlots, but I can see where that could
have at least a couple meanings not politically correct.
Which of course could make it an instant best seller
amongst upperteens and twenty-somethings.


--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

DougW wrote:
> Tirya did pass the time by typing:
>
>>Do any of you understand intellectual property rights and copyright law?
>
>
> Some do, some don't.
>
> FWIW, two companies can have a trademark on the same name
> providing there is no confusion to the consumer.
>
> Take for example Pinto. Someone could sell Pinto brand beans
> and not the Pinto automobile. (yea.. poor example but you see
> the point) Can't drive a bean and can't eat an automobile.

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.

Regards,

DAve

Oh! Good luck to Jason!

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

DougW wrote:
> Tirya did pass the time by typing:
>
>>Do any of you understand intellectual property rights and copyright law?
>
>
> Some do, some don't.
>
> FWIW, two companies can have a trademark on the same name
> providing there is no confusion to the consumer.
>
> Take for example Pinto. Someone could sell Pinto brand beans
> and not the Pinto automobile. (yea.. poor example but you see
> the point) Can't drive a bean and can't eat an automobile.

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.

Regards,

DAve

Oh! Good luck to Jason!

Re: Hello Nathan Collier
 

DougW wrote:
> Tirya did pass the time by typing:
>
>>Do any of you understand intellectual property rights and copyright law?
>
>
> Some do, some don't.
>
> FWIW, two companies can have a trademark on the same name
> providing there is no confusion to the consumer.
>
> Take for example Pinto. Someone could sell Pinto brand beans
> and not the Pinto automobile. (yea.. poor example but you see
> the point) Can't drive a bean and can't eat an automobile.

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.

Regards,

DAve

Oh! Good luck to Jason!