Log in

View Full Version : Is Our Patent/Trademark System Completely Idiotic?


Brad Adrian
06-25-2004, 03:26 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.mtexpress.com/2004/04-06-23/04-06-23scottlawsuit.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.mtexpress.com/2004/04-06...cottlawsuit.htm</a><br /><br /></div>There have been several news stories this week that are making me seriously wonder if the U.S. patent system is completely off its rocker!<br /><br />Okay, I'll concede that <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29358">Microsoft's latest patent</a>, though a bit weird, at least has some bit of scientific basis to it and seems to be aimed at some truly unique technologies. But this morning I read a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5497048">Reuters news report</a> explaining that Washington Mutual Inc., a financial services company, has received a patent for the design and layout of its branch offices. This means that if another bank has its teller stations, ATMs and concierge desk situated similarly to Washington Mutual's, they're infringing on the patent and liable to be sued!<br /><br />But the latest patent news (<a href="http://www.mtexpress.com/2004/04-06-23/04-06-23scottlawsuit.htm">from the Idaho Mountain Express</a>) that REALLY gripes me relates to (of course) the <a href="http://www.scottevest.com/">SCOTTeVEST company</a>. Even though Scott Jordan, the founder and CEO of SCOTTeVEST, holds a registered trademark for his logo, he is being sued by Scott USA, which produces sporting goods (most notably, ski goggles). <br /><br />"Scott USA alleges that the violations committed by ScotteVest are related largely in part to ScotteVest’s use of the word 'Scott' to promote and sell ski-related products from the Ketchum area."<br /><br />"He’s using a logo very close to the ‘Scott’ logo," said Dave Stevens, Scott USA chief financial officer. "It creates confusion in the mind of the consumer."<br /><br />Stevens said the word "Scott," as it is written in the ScotteVest logo, notably resembles several of Scott USA’s trademarked uses of the same word.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/adrian/bothscottlogos.jpg" /><br /><br />Okay, you be the judge. Taking a look at the two logos above, do you honestly think that consumers would actually confuse the two? Sure, they both have the name "Scott" in them, but the last I heard you cannot claim a total copyright for a person's name.<br /><br />This just strikes me as idiotic. Even more idiotic is the fact that Scott USA is trying to get SCOTTeVEST to turn over every bit of revenue they've received while using the SCOTTeVEST logo! <b>PU-LEASE!!</b> :bad-words: <br /><br />You know, I'm sure that the attorneys who file these kinds of lawsuits serve some useful purpose on this planet, but I can't figure out what it is (kindling, perhaps?). It just goes to show that Americans are losing the ethic to actually EARN their income, chosing instead to try to steal it from others via idiotic lawsuits.

Ed Hansberry
06-25-2004, 03:34 PM
This is actually a trademark case, not a patent. On this, I honestly see no problem with it. If you don't protect it when an infringement is possible, you may lose your right to sue when an infringement is absolute. That is why the name Kleenex cannot be trademarked. The company that owns it never sued anyone until the 70's or 80's and the courts told them "tough. You haven't cared for 50 years. It is too late to care now."

If there is no infringement (and I think there is none here, my 2˘) then the plaintiff has it in their records they are adequately defending their name.

c38b2
06-25-2004, 03:45 PM
Sort of reminds me of Pilot vs. Palm... 8)

SubFuze
06-25-2004, 03:56 PM
When I saw the title, I thought you were referring to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jun04/0604aca.html which is thousands of times worse. Basically, its an article about a company who doesn't make anything on its on, it only buys patents and collects money on them either by license or lawsuit. They made a lot of money by doing this with the v-chip and now are after pretty much anyone who has ever made money from streaming or downloadable audio/video (think websites, entertainment media companies like Disney, Time Warner and Sony, even content distributers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon). Ever put music on a digital media player? Ever watched movie trailers online? Maybe previewed or downloaded music from iTunes or a similar service? If so, you could be their next target. Since they have no product to protect, they will try to extort money out of whoever they can get it from.

serpico
06-25-2004, 03:58 PM
I'm sorry, but looking at the logos, it does not add to my confusion. I can tell they are two different companies. Maybe people sue when it starts hurting in the pocket from poor sales of their own products?

rfischer
06-25-2004, 03:59 PM
I have been to a Washington Mutual branch that was set up in a very unique configuration, which I happened to like very much so I agree with the patent to some extent.

Just to play devil's advocate here, image you are Washington Mututal and you have hired Architects, Interior Designers and Construction outfits at the cost of millions of dollars to get a new and unique look and feel to your bank that draws in new customers because of the "experience". Then a few months later "Jimmy-Bob Savings and Loan" copies your layout/design without having to hire expensive companies to create that same look and feel. I personally would not be too happy about that when I spent a lot of $$ on a new marketing tool. Just my 2 cents. :-)

Dave Potter
06-25-2004, 04:08 PM
I have been to a Washington Mutual branch that was set up in a very unique configuration, which I happened to like very much so I agree with the patent to some extent.

Just to play devil's advocate here, image you are Washington Mututal and you have hired Architects, Interior Designers and Construction outfits at the cost of millions of dollars to get a new and unique look and feel to your bank that draws in new customers because of the "experience". Then a few months later "Jimmy-Bob Savings and Loan" copies your layout/design without having to hire expensive companies to create that same look and feel. I personally would not be too happy about that when I spent a lot of $$ on a new marketing tool. Just my 2 cents. :-)


Hey, I bank at "Jimmy-Bob Savings and Loan"! What ya got against them? They give free samples of road-kill with every deposit!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pony99CA
06-25-2004, 04:08 PM
Sort of reminds me of Pilot vs. Palm... 8)
Not really. Pilot made pens, Palm made PDAs, and those seem like quite different markets. Also, "Pilot" wasn't in the Palm company name.

On the other hand, Scott USA does make some outer wear, I believe, and consumers could believe that the SCOTTeVEST was made by Scott USA (especially as they are now located in the same city). Whether Scott USA has been damaged is another issue, and asking for all of SCOTTeVEST's revenue seems extreme.

Of course, that's how you're supposed to negotiate -- ask for something you know you probably won't get so that, when the negotiation is finished, you have what you wanted. If you asked for reasonable damages in the first place, you wouldn't be able to negotiate, and would look stubborn.

When I posted this story at pocketnow, I actually made some suggestions to resolve this issue. Specifically, I suggested renaming the SCOTTeVEST the TECeVEST. I think it sounds more "techie" and would avoid the problem. You can see why I chose "TEC" in my story (http://pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=2449).

Steve

sesummers
06-25-2004, 04:09 PM
There have been several news stories this week that are making me seriously wonder if the U.S. patent system is completely off its rocker!


That took you until this week to conclude? :wink:

You should make this a Poll question. I'll bet you'll find that there's no real need for a "no" choice.

Kacey Green
06-25-2004, 04:09 PM
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way

Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)

Brad Adrian
06-25-2004, 04:10 PM
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sure, I thought of the same kind of scenario. But the difference is that WAMU did not actually "create" anything that is tangible. They "created" the location of various items. I just don't see how you can patent a "location." Now, if there are actual design elements (like unique wallpaper, fabrics, etc.) I can see how that might be a better fit. If they're going to allow that, then waht's to keep someone from quickly patenting the layout of their local MacDonalds store and suing them for infringement?

It all just sounds too silly to me.

Brad Adrian
06-25-2004, 04:11 PM
This is actually a trademark case, not a patent.
You're right; I was incorrectly lumping them together. They are both handled by the same governmental body, though, I think.

serpico
06-25-2004, 04:13 PM
I understand your point and agree, but these two logos don't even look that same. I don't think it confuses anyone one bit.

scott911
06-25-2004, 04:29 PM
Thanks for the post, and I do appreciate hearing your thoughts. If you want to read the full complaint, see http://www.scottevest.com/Lawsuit/scott%20usa%20lawsuit.pdf

The simple fact is that in almost 4 years of business no one has ever confused us with SCOTT USA. Although there website shows some jackets, I have NEVER seen a SCOTT USA jacket or vest in a store. Our distribution channels are completely different in any event. According to my lawyers, we will prevail easily, but not without spending a lot of money in legal fees. It is worth noting that we have received a registered trademark for the name SCOTTeVEST, and there are no less than 42 other CLOTHING companies that have received a registered trademark with the word Scott in them.

Thanks for your support.

Scott (my name and not intended to infringe on anybody) Jordan

serpico
06-25-2004, 04:31 PM
Good luck Scott.

Brad Adrian
06-25-2004, 04:39 PM
Scott (my name and not intended to infringe on anybody) Jordan
LOL! It's good to see that you've retained at least SOME sense of humor about this.

Maybe you should start a SCOTTeVEST Legal Defense Fund! That way, we could make donations, maybe put a few of those jars with your picture on them in convenience stores, etc.!

Bill Gunn
06-25-2004, 04:46 PM
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way

Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)


You are wrong. If Bob McDonald tries to open a "McDonald's" Hamburger resturant he will get hammered, and rightfully so. If he opens McDonald's car wash he's probably ok.

scott911
06-25-2004, 04:48 PM
Actually, you are not the first one to suggest a legal defense fund. I just got the retainer letter from our attorneys - $525/hr!!!!!!!!! This will be expensive but I believe it is a fight worth fighting. We are thinking of giving away tshirts that say SCOTTeVEST on the front, with a big SCOTT on back with an "X" through it and "Just in Case You Confused Us"

If anyone would like to make a contribution to help offset our legal fees, I would graciously accept it. Please feel free to donate using paypal to [email protected] at www.paypal.com.

Thanks.

MBaas
06-25-2004, 04:52 PM
This is amazing and so stupid. Yet I thought IBM's battle against the "e" (http://www.scottevest.com/htmlemail/sev_vs_ibm.html) in "eVEST" was extremely stupid - and S.J. (to avoid trademark-issues with my posting) changed the logo.

Good luck S - beat these freakin' lawyers this time!

Michael

Kati Compton
06-25-2004, 04:55 PM
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sure, I thought of the same kind of scenario. But the difference is that WAMU did not actually "create" anything that is tangible. They "created" the location of various items. I just don't see how you can patent a "location." Now, if there are actual design elements (like unique wallpaper, fabrics, etc.) I can see how that might be a better fit. If they're going to allow that, then waht's to keep someone from quickly patenting the layout of their local MacDonalds store and suing them for infringement?
Layouts are copyrighted - ask any architect. ;) The tangible thing is the plans. Now, if an architect designs a house with a gameroom over the garage, that doesn't mean that no one else can build a house with a gameroom over the garage without buying the architect's plans. So I am splitting hairs here. But the original plans would be protected by copyright.

Brad Adrian
06-25-2004, 05:15 PM
Layouts are copyrighted - ask any architect.
Sure, and I understand that. But WAMU is PATENTING their design, which strikes me as silly; as you state, I'd expect it to be copyrighted. But even so, WAMU is trying to lock down the actual placement of items within their building -- concierge desk, etc. To me, that's like trying to patent my design of putting my couch in front of my television set.

In any event, the WAMU example does point out how drastically banks are trying to grab customers and how they're trying to reinvent the branch so that more people will visit them.

Pony99CA
06-25-2004, 05:18 PM
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way

Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)'
You're wrong about two things. First, "Scott" isn't his "surname" (family name or last name), it's his "given name" or "first name".

Second, as Bill Gunn pointed out, just having a name won't protect you. I recall Sony suing (or at least sending a cease-and-desist letter to) a woman named Sony who opened something like "Sony's Flower Shop".

Yes, I think it's ridiculous, but some company's interpret their trademarks very broadly. I've heard Radio Shack tries to prevent other businesses from using "Shack" in their names and that McDonald's tries to prevent using "Mc" (at least in food businesses).

Regarding the government having approved the trademark, remember that this is the same government that approved the patents Brad is complaining about (and one for a method allowing somebody to swing sideways on a normal swing). :-D

As for the logo, the "Scott" part does look like it's in a similar typeface, but the rest of the logos look quite different.

Steve

T-Will
06-25-2004, 05:35 PM
I think this calls for a republishing of my patent haiku. ;)

So many patents
We drown in a flood of them
Where's our common sense???!!!

Pony99CA
06-25-2004, 05:36 PM
The simple fact is that in almost 4 years of business no one has ever confused us with SCOTT USA. Although there website shows some jackets, I have NEVER seen a SCOTT USA jacket or vest in a store. Our distribution channels are completely different in any event.
To play :devilboy:'s advocate, how can you know that nobody has ever confused your two companies? I doubt you've polled every person alive (or who died in the last four years).

Also, what difference does it make that you have different distribution channels? Some companies produce two lines of goods, and may well sell them through different distribution channels (online vs. brick-and-mortar, cheap retail stores like K-Mart vs. luxury stores like Nordstrom's). It seems reasonable that some people may think SCOTTeVESTs are a new venture from Scott USA, especially now that you're in the same city.

Finally, the fact that you've never seen a Scott USA jacket in a store seems completely irrelevant. If somebody had never seen your product, would you want them using a name which you thought could be confused with your name (like Scotty's Vest?).

Did you read my suggestion about renaming the product to TECeVEST? I even think it sounds better. While I realize you have name recognition with the current name, maybe renaming it would be cheaper in the long run. Do you really want to pay those lawyers? As long as people can find your Web site and buy your products, it's all good, right? :-)

Try to negoitate a phased withdrawal -- when your current stock labelled SCOTTeVEST runs out, you'll rename the product to TECeVEST (or whatever). Get them to allow you to keep the scottevest.com domain, but redirect it to the new name.

If I were Scott USA, that would be sufficient for me.

Steve

gorkon280
06-25-2004, 05:49 PM
Maybe Scott's lawyers should consider calling Scott and licensing the TEC technology so Scott can start making clothing with extra pockets and conduits and all. Not that that is innovative. I have seen others at least putting a hole in the jacket for passing headphone wires thru. If you read the tages and the like that are on your evest when you get it, you have to license the "technology" from TEC (the company that scott set up for licensing the "technlogy")

I was thinking the other day how nice it would be if I could cruise down to JcPenny's and pick my specific ScotteVest. You know, try it on, see how I look....etc. I bet Columbia may also be interested seeing as they came up with the concept of a jacket in a jacket as well (like the 3.0 scottEvests).

terrys
06-25-2004, 05:51 PM
I'm affraid Pony99CA is right. The names are confusing. I think the average person would think the two are related. The typefaces (for the word SCOTT) are nearly identical.

Paul P
06-25-2004, 05:57 PM
This means that if another bank has its teller stations, ATMs and concierge desk situated similarly to Washington Mutual's, they're infringing on the patent and liable to be sued!

You make a great point that WM did not create anything tangible, but I think that there is potential for lost profits should another bank recreate their design. A lot of thought goes into how everything is situated and positioned within a branch. The goal is not just to create an aesthetically pleasing atmosphere, but more importantly one that will minimize costs and improve customer service. For instance, design has to be such so as to minimize waiting times (how and where lines are formed within the given space impacts that directly). All these banks have quite detailed statistics on average times a customer spends in the bank, how long they wait for service, and stuff like that. It's definitely a formula. There is also the brand element, which attaches to the design.

Charles Pickrell
06-25-2004, 05:59 PM
If you would like to register you displeasure with the Scott USA company, use the contact information below:

Email US Customer Support:
» Wintersport
» Motorsport
» Paintball

Mailing Address:
PO Box 2030
Sun Valley, ID 83353

Shipping Address:
101 Lewis Street
Ketchum, ID 83340

Tel: 208-622-1000
Fax: 208-622-1005

Toll-Free Numbers:
800-292-5877 (Motorsport Division)
800-292-5874 (Wintersport Division)

Office Hours:
8:00AM – 5:00PM (Mountain Standard Time)

stlbud
06-25-2004, 06:05 PM
Well, let's see, There's an "S" ...

and I see a "C"...

HMMM...

Oh, lookey, there's an "O"

What's that? They gots 2 "T"s

must be the same

duh!

Pony99CA
06-25-2004, 06:23 PM
Well, let's see, There's an "S" ...

and I see a "C"...

HMMM...

Oh, lookey, there's an "O"

What's that? They gots 2 "T"s

must be the same

duh!
Actually, they don't even have to have the same letters to cause trouble. Lexis (the legal database) tried to stop Lexus (the car company) from using the name. I guess you wouldn't want people thinking lawyers were designing cars now. :roll:

However, in this specific case, I can actually find some merit in Scott USA's claims. Whether there were any actual damages is, to me, the real question. I'd be hard-pressed to find any unless Scott USA showed convincing evidence that the confusion really hurt them.

Steve

CoreyJF
06-25-2004, 07:23 PM
The simple fact is that in almost 4 years of business no one has ever confused us with SCOTT USA. Although there website shows some jackets, I have NEVER seen a SCOTT USA jacket or vest in a store. Our distribution channels are completely different in any event.
To play :devilboy:'s advocate, how can you know that nobody has ever confused your two companies? I doubt you've polled every person alive (or who died in the last four years).

Also, what difference does it make that you have different distribution channels? Some companies produce two lines of goods, and may well sell them through different distribution channels (online vs. brick-and-mortar, cheap retail stores like K-Mart vs. luxury stores like Nordstrom's). It seems reasonable that some people may think SCOTTeVESTs are a new venture from Scott USA, especially now that you're in the same city.

Finally, the fact that you've never seen a Scott USA jacket in a store seems completely irrelevant. If somebody had never seen your product, would you want them using a name which you thought could be confused with your name (like Scotty's Vest?).

Did you read my suggestion about renaming the product to TECeVEST? I even think it sounds better. While I realize you have name recognition with the current name, maybe renaming it would be cheaper in the long run. Do you really want to pay those lawyers? As long as people can find your Web site and buy your products, it's all good, right? :-)

Try to negoitate a phased withdrawal -- when your current stock labelled SCOTTeVEST runs out, you'll rename the product to TECeVEST (or whatever). Get them to allow you to keep the scottevest.com domain, but redirect it to the new name.

If I were Scott USA, that would be sufficient for me.

Steve

Why!!!!!!!!!! Your suggestions are ridiculous. No “Reasonable” person looking at those labels is going to assume they belong to the same company. It is not necessary to poll every customer. The law takes into consideration what a reasonable person would think. The legal test does not fall to the least common denominator, the stupid, moronic, or otherwise mentally challenged. As for your suggestion that they change the name of the product because it cheaper, why should anyone allow them selves to be bullied and blackmailed. Attitudes like that are why bullies rule the playground of a litigious America. I am sure you were trying to be helpful with your suggestion of a name change, but why should he have to change the name of his business and product he has had for over 4 years and of course if he did, how would he know you would not sue him for stealing your idea.

Rob Alexander
06-25-2004, 07:57 PM
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way

Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)

Others have already commented on your being wrong on this count, but no one has mentioned one of the most famous cases along these lines.

From a founding in the late 1800's, Taylor wines was a family vinyard in New York that gained a significant reputation and eventually operated in two locations. Later, those two locations were owned separately by two grandsons of the original Taylor. One used the Taylor label and the other used the label Bully Hill, but made reference in their sales and promotional literature to the Taylor background. In fact, the Bully Hill property was the original Taylor vinyard and the owner was named Walter Taylor.

But in 1977, the other Taylor vinyard and label was sold to Coca-cola and they sued Bully Hill and Walter Taylor to prevent their use of the Taylor name. The courts ruled in Coca-cola's favor and injoined Walter Taylor and Bully Hill from using the name Taylor in any form. They were ordered "to publicly destroy all Paintings, Art Work, Poetry, and Promotional Materials, that told others about Walter S. Taylor and his heritage".

So you see, having a particular name means nothing in trademark law. As someone here already said, you can't open a McDonald's restaurant even if your name is McDonald, nor open a department store named Macy's even if your name is Macy, etc. Scott's issue here is solely about whether his use of the name is likely to confuse potential consumers. That's a very nebulous area as you can see from the replies here where some people think the logos are similar enough to be confusing and others do not.

ctmagnus
06-25-2004, 08:07 PM
The first Google Adword at the top of the page I'm currently looking at is for Scottie Dog Adventures. Maybe Scott should sue them? :roll:

Rob Alexander
06-25-2004, 08:09 PM
Layouts are copyrighted - ask any architect. ;) The tangible thing is the plans. Now, if an architect designs a house with a gameroom over the garage, that doesn't mean that no one else can build a house with a gameroom over the garage without buying the architect's plans. So I am splitting hairs here. But the original plans would be protected by copyright.

That's what's really getting disturbing about the recent trends in patent law. People are successfully patenting things that should be covered by copyright. Instead of protecting the expression of an idea, they are now claiming ownership of the idea itself. The bank layout patent is exactly the same concept as the architect trying to patent putting a game room over a garage. It doesn't matter if they paid a lot of money for it. The principles of traffic flow, color choices, efficient layout, etc. have been around for a long time. There is no invention here, just another in the endless permutations that are possible using architectural design practices. The exact design may be copyrighted and protected, but the concept of moving customers efficiently through a pleasant environment should not be appropriable.

Brad Adrian
06-25-2004, 08:24 PM
People are successfully patenting things that should be covered by copyright.
BINGO!

You hit the nail on the head. The two processes of patents and copyright have become bastardized. The purpose of a copyright is to prevent unauthorized use of a trademark or name. But, contrary to popular belief, the original purpose of the patent was NOT to protect an inventor. It was to prevent people from copying inventions, thus "forcing" them to innovate and create newer, better products. The sole purpose of the patent was to drive innovation.

CoreyJF
06-25-2004, 08:43 PM
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way

Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)

Others have already commented on your being wrong on this count, but no one has mentioned one of the most famous cases along these lines.

From a founding in the late 1800's, Taylor wines was a family vinyard in New York that gained a significant reputation and eventually operated in two locations. Later, those two locations were owned separately by two grandsons of the original Taylor. One used the Taylor label and the other used the label Bully Hill, but made reference in their sales and promotional literature to the Taylor background. In fact, the Bully Hill property was the original Taylor vinyard and the owner was named Walter Taylor.

But in 1977, the other Taylor vinyard and label was sold to Coca-cola and they sued Bully Hill and Walter Taylor to prevent their use of the Taylor name. The courts ruled in Coca-cola's favor and injoined Walter Taylor and Bully Hill from using the name Taylor in any form. They were ordered "to publicly destroy all Paintings, Art Work, Poetry, and Promotional Materials, that told others about Walter S. Taylor and his heritage".

So you see, having a particular name means nothing in trademark law. As someone here already said, you can't open a McDonald's restaurant even if your name is McDonald, nor open a department store named Macy's even if your name is Macy, etc. Scott's issue here is solely about whether his use of the name is likely to confuse potential consumers. That's a very nebulous area as you can see from the replies here where some people think the logos are similar enough to be confusing and others do not.

You are absolutely right that having the name does not protect one against trade mark infringements, and as you said that is not what this case is about. It can’t be considering as Scott said, SCOTTeVEST is already a registered trademark. I agree that the points of this case should focus on potential confusion of customers. What I do not agree with is that it is in any way confusing. Can you honestly look at those two logos and say they look similar? Yes they both say scott in them. The font, layout colors, and over design are completely different. Since SCOTTeVEST is a registered trade mark, he has every right to use it. The Taylor was a very different case, the sold the name and refereeing back to a product they were once tied to could certainly create market confusion. But Using your own trademarked logo and name that happens to contain the name Scott, is a wholly different case. If the made a logo using the same colors and fonts and layout, there could be grounds, but this is clearly not the case.

rfischer
06-25-2004, 08:47 PM
This is too sad. I need a Scott Tissue. :mrgreen:

bjornkeizers
06-25-2004, 09:03 PM
I'm affraid Pony99CA is right. The names are confusing. I think the average person would think the two are related. The typefaces (for the word SCOTT) are nearly identical.

No they wouldn't. One company is called Scott, the other company is called SCOTTeVEST. Since SEV doesn't advertise without the eVEST part, I doubt anyone would confuse them that easily.

Now, had SJ named the company Scott and advertised with 'we are scott, and we sell an Evest' then that would be a different story.

Just another silly claim. Goddamn lawyers. They should all be put up against a wall and shot. Friggin' bottomfeeders. They don't care if they're right or wrong, all they care about is that big paycheck. They know how easy it is to intimidate the little guy who can't afford a long and expensive court process - they're likely to settle, and they know that. Trust me, I know this from first hand experience, I'm sad to say.

Paul P
06-25-2004, 09:11 PM
It doesn't matter if they paid a lot of money for it. The principles of traffic flow, color choices, efficient layout, etc. have been around for a long time. There is no invention here, just another in the endless permutations that are possible using architectural design practices. The exact design may be copyrighted and protected, but the concept of moving customers efficiently through a pleasant environment should not be appropriable.

That is true, but we're not talking about any one principle individually, but a confluence of them. Permutations are of course infinite, but the challenge is creating one that is effective. That is not easy. To arrive at the most winning permutation (sort of speak) is something deserving of protection, IMO.

Mark Johnson
06-25-2004, 10:12 PM
...if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.

If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it


What we need here is Willam Wallace to come back from the grave to get all these Scotts to work this out...

Maybe this could be solved by a "winner-take-all" caber-toss.

:wink:

But seriously, this makes me wonder if we would be better with a "loser-pays" civil suit system. The way large companies can intimidate smaller ones simply because they cannot afford to litigate the issue is corporate bullying at it's worst. They know they don't have to be right, they just need deeper pockets.

DavidRoss
06-25-2004, 11:08 PM
I’m surprised that Viacom has not sued ScottEVest, i think he infringes on their copyright much more then on Scott USA's. I always just assumed it was a play on words to mean "Scotty’s vest" Scotty being from star trek, and being a technical guy... I see now its the creators name, but I bet Paramount/Viacom might have a case here that people would think the vest was star trek related.

Edit: this comment is not meant to be sarcastic, if it was interpreted that way.

laner
06-25-2004, 11:43 PM
Maybe SCO might want to sue SCOTT? Icon to the left and first three letters are the same. It would make about as much sense as anything they've done in the last year.

http://sco.com//images/sco_logo.gif

Pony99CA
06-26-2004, 01:24 AM
You hit the nail on the head. The two processes of patents and copyright have become bastardized. The purpose of a copyright is to prevent unauthorized use of a trademark or name.
Now you've confused patents, trademarks and copyrights. :-D

Copyrights protect "artistic" works like paintings, books, music, etc. They won't protect single words (at least not generally) like trademarks do.

Trademarks are marks (logos, names, slogans, etc.) used in "trade" (business).

Your homework for tonight, Brad, is to explain how trademarks differ from "service marks". :lol:

Steve

Pony99CA
06-26-2004, 01:44 AM
The simple fact is that in almost 4 years of business no one has ever confused us with SCOTT USA. Although there website shows some jackets, I have NEVER seen a SCOTT USA jacket or vest in a store. Our distribution channels are completely different in any event.
To play :devilboy:'s advocate, how can you know that nobody has ever confused your two companies? I doubt you've polled every person alive (or who died in the last four years).

Also, what difference does it make that you have different distribution channels? Some companies produce two lines of goods, and may well sell them through different distribution channels (online vs. brick-and-mortar, cheap retail stores like K-Mart vs. luxury stores like Nordstrom's). It seems reasonable that some people may think SCOTTeVESTs are a new venture from Scott USA, especially now that you're in the same city.

Finally, the fact that you've never seen a Scott USA jacket in a store seems completely irrelevant. If somebody had never seen your product, would you want them using a name which you thought could be confused with your name (like Scotty's Vest?).

Did you read my suggestion about renaming the product to TECeVEST? I even think it sounds better. While I realize you have name recognition with the current name, maybe renaming it would be cheaper in the long run. Do you really want to pay those lawyers? As long as people can find your Web site and buy your products, it's all good, right? :-)
Why!!!!!!!!!! Your suggestions are ridiculous. No “Reasonable” person looking at those labels is going to assume they belong to the same company. It is not necessary to poll every customer.
First, the polling comment was facetious. Get a sense of humor. It was meant to point out how ridiculous it was to claim that nobody had ever confused the two companies.

Second, I also agree that the standard should be what a "reasonable" person would believe. I also agree that it's not likely that reasonable people would think the logos were the same, although I do think the typefaces are similar.

However, I thnk that it is reasonable that people could think SCOTTeVEST is a new line of clothing produced by Scott USA. A new line may well have a new logo. Can't you see that? If not, why not?

The one thing you have on your side is that SCOTTeVEST was granted a trademark. I wonder if the PTO ever reverses trademark decisions like they do with patents.

Finally, my suggestions are hardly "ridiculous". They're meant as something for Scott Jordan to consider as opposed to spending good money litigating this. As I said, I can certainly see how a reasonable person would be confused by the two.

Just so you know that I'm not some corporate dupe :-) I tend to find most trademark disputes I've heard about foolish. Even the Taylor Wine one Rob mentioned I thought was foolish. Bully Hill should be allowed to relate their corporate history, as long as they make it clear that they are not affiliated with Taylor Wines.

Steve

Pony99CA
06-26-2004, 01:51 AM
Maybe SCO might want to sue SCOTT? Icon to the left and first three letters are the same. It would make about as much sense as anything they've done in the last year.
Geeze, don't give them any ideas. :lol:

Steve

yslee
06-26-2004, 04:25 AM
Actually, Pony99CA pretty much got it right. The typeface looks similar enough such that it looks like SCOTTeVEST is a new subsidary of SCOTT USA.

Now, I'm guessing you guys aren't familiar with the SCOTT USA brand, that's why you don't think there's confusion, but as a cyclist (Scott USA makes some great bikes, but sell them only outside of USA), and having heard of Scott USA first before the eVests, I did think they were a new subsidary of Scott USA; it was only upon reading the press release did I realise they were seperate ventures.

However I do think fighting this lawsuit is pointless. Scott, have you tried going for arbritation?

Phoenix
06-26-2004, 08:06 AM
Oh give me a break!

This is simply retarded. They look NOTHING alike. I don't wish to come across argumentative, but if people can't tell the difference between these two logos, they need to have their eyes checked.

Don't believe me? Take Dave's logo and put another name in there besides "Scott" and then tell me what you think. There wouldn't be any confusion then. This would tell me that if anyone is confused, which is really, really difficult for me to believe, that the problem is not anything other than the two companies both using the name "Scott". It's not the colors, the fonts, or anything else. Just the name.

Does this other company really expect Scott Jordan to cease using his own name?

Maybe Scott Towels should jump on in to the mix, too. Maybe they're a subsidiary of one of these companies. :roll:

The type fonts are different, the backgrounds are a different color, one has the word "eVest" in it while the other doesn't, they have different graphics and words, and they don't look anything alike!

If what I suggested as the problem above isn't the case, then what IS the problem? That they're both using a little itty-bitty amount of red in their logos, along with black and white? It's not as if you can exactly get away from using black and white somewhere in your logo if you want your name to stand out, so neither company can quit using black and white. And it's not as if either company is going to cease using the name Scott. Like I said before, the fonts are different, the graphics are different, black and white are being used differently. So what does that leave as the problem? The color red? Would it really make a difference if either company used blue or green, for instance, instead of red?

The only way you could differentiate it more is if either company stopped using the name Scott, which clearly is not going to happen.

Maybe Dave Stevens can ask Scott to use purple as the background color peppered with white daisies. Maybe that will alleviate confusion. :roll: Are consumers really this dense?

Seems awfully silly to me.

Jonathon Watkins
06-26-2004, 11:48 AM
I'm affraid Pony99CA is right. The names are confusing. I think the average person would think the two are related. The typefaces (for the word SCOTT) are nearly identical.

Welcome TerryS.

I'm afraid I disagree with you. Both fonts are san serifs types, but other than that, they don't look alike.

The small wavy part to the logos look vaguely similar, but really, it is obvious that these are different companies. This is a daft lawsuit.

Kati Compton
06-26-2004, 03:15 PM
I'm afraid I disagree with you. Both fonts are san serifs types, but other than that, they don't look alike.

The small wavy part to the logos look vaguely similar, but really, it is obvious that these are different companies. This is a daft lawsuit.
If there's going to be a font comparison, then I'd like to point out that they are both Star Trek-y fonts (though not exactly the same as each other) in addition to both using the Scott name. So if Scott Jordan loses, maybe he can set the dogs of Trek on Scott USA for infringement of something or another. :twisted:

yslee
06-26-2004, 05:34 PM
This is simply retarded. They look NOTHING alike. I don't wish to come across argumentative, but if people can't tell the difference between these two logos, they need to have their eyes checked.


Thanks for knowing my eyes need to be checked. Would you like to guess if I've any fatal diseases soon? :roll:

Phoenix
06-26-2004, 07:57 PM
This is simply retarded. They look NOTHING alike. I don't wish to come across argumentative, but if people can't tell the difference between these two logos, they need to have their eyes checked.


Thanks for knowing my eyes need to be checked. Would you like to guess if I've any fatal diseases soon? :roll:

Just to clear the air, my words weren't an attack on you - my apologies if you felt that was the case.

It's just my opinion that they look nothing alike.

I'll leave the fatal diseases issue up to the doctors :lol:

Brad Adrian
06-27-2004, 03:20 AM
I know in other types of civil lawsuits, the complaintant (or whatever the word is) has to prove that damage has been done in order to collect. In something like the SCOTTeVEST, is that still the case? Wouldn't demonstrating damage be a pretty hard thing to do?

I guess it must not be too hard, or lawsuits like this wouldn't be so common.

scott911
06-27-2004, 03:57 AM
Yes, they would have to prove that our use of the registered trademark SCOTTeVEST caused damages, and that there is a liklihood of further confusion by the reasonable consumer.

This would be very difficult and costly for both of us. In 4 years in business, no one has ever asked us if we were in anyway affiliated with SCOTT USA or asked to include some goggles or ski poles with their order.

What irks me so much is that over 2 years ago, when they first complained, we were using the words SCOTT and eVEST separately, and agreed to use them as one word as registered and approved. We thought that settled the matter, but then out of nowhere, without so much as a threatening letter much less a telephone call, they slapped this suit on us seeking ALL REVENUES earned since day one and insisting that we change our name. My lawyer has advised me not to get too involved with these discussions, but it is important that all the facts are known.

I would be happy to post the full complaint, which is of public record.

We paid lots of money to obtain a registered trademark, which included advertisements/publication to provide legal notice to all parties who might have a problem with our use of the name SCOTTeVEST. If SCOTT USA had a problem with our name, the time to voice its concerns was then, not when they believe we are a threat after building our brand.

We did not move to Ketchum/Sun Valley to confuse people either. We have been dreaming of moving here well before we started the company.

In any event, neither SCOTT USA nor SCOTTeVEST has a retail establishment in the same location, and we don't emphasize our company as a Sun Valley company.

Most importantly all of our products are being marketed for the primary purpose stated in our trademark application, i.e., to hold electronic devices.

I appreciate the thoughts and views expressed here. It is interesting to know how people think about this issue.

Sincerely,

Scott Jordan

Rob Alexander
06-27-2004, 07:10 PM
My lawyer has advised me not to get too involved with these discussions, but it is important that all the facts are known.

Your lawyer is totally right, and you should probably not post anything more about this in a public forum. It's always amazing how a good lawyer can take something innocuous that you've said and twist it around to sound like you've admitted something against your own interests. Anyway, I'm sure we all wish you the best of luck in this matter. I certainly do. It's great to see a company start up with just an idea, bring it to life and become successful as you have, and I really hope this doesn't distract you too much from your real business.

Brad Adrian
06-29-2004, 04:53 AM
...agreed to use them as one word as registered and approved...
Unbelievable! In fact, that may be your saving grace. If you've had previous discussions and all parties agreed to your blending the "scott" and "evest" words, they may not have a very strong case. It seems a little like double jepardy. You can't arrive at a settlement and then decide a few years later that you want to renegotiate it.

IMO, they just noticed that SCOTTeVEST is starting to become famous and making some money, and decided they want a cut. Parasites!

In any event, Scott, you know we're pulling for you. If there's anything that you think we can do to help (petitions, bribes, threats, etc.) please let us know.

RobertCF
07-03-2004, 01:17 AM
....wasted no time in sending those losers at Scott a nasty-gram. I told them how I'd never heard of their lousy company, but that I would make sure any sports-minded people I met knew how stupid the company was and that since they couldn't make a frelling dime legitimately that they like to extort money from others, and that any self-respecting consumer would avoid SCOTT like the plague. I hope ScottEVest overcomes this one, because any ethical judge would fine the SCOTT sports company a huge amount for the audicity of such a frivolous attack. Of course, I have yet to hear a response from the smooth-brained crack addicts that apparently run that company.

TinMan
07-04-2004, 12:16 AM
...agreed to use them as one word as registered and approved...
Unbelievable! In fact, that may be your saving grace. If you've had previous discussions and all parties agreed to your blending the "scott" and "evest" words, they may not have a very strong case. It seems a little like double jepardy. You can't arrive at a settlement and then decide a few years later that you want to renegotiate it.
Actually, and I certainly don't expect Scott to respond (due to proper legal advise), that would depend on exactly what transpired during the previous encounter with Scott USA. If Scott USA simply threatened, without filing a complaint (as they indicate they did, in this complaint), then there's not much there without written acknowledgement from Scott USA that using the concatenated version was OK with them. Whatever the case, Scott USA has mentioned the prior dialog in the current complaint (but they do not mention any further written response, from Scott USA to SeV, subsequent to the response letter sent by SeV to Scott USA). This prior tangle could help, or hinder, SeV's defense of the current complaint (can't really tell without seeing copies of the letters themselves).

BTW: I think there is indeed similarity in the "SCOTT" part of the logos. They both use a similar font (from Star Trek--particularly noticeable on the "S"); both are sans-serif; both spell "SCOTT" in uppercase; both italicized. How can you not see the similarities? In any event, Scott USA states in the complaint that they have "extensively promoted certain custom fonts for SCOTT."

The only person, in this entire thread (to date), who actually claimed to be a potential customer for both companies did indeed claim he assumed SeV was a new division/product from Scott USA. If he stated what he did here in an affidavit/deposition, it could lend credibility to Scott USA's case (get ready for the order to turn over that IP address! ;) ).

Further, Scott Jordan has admitted, again in this thread, that he moved to Ketchum/Sun Valley not because of Scott USA, but because he was "dreaming of moving here well before we started the company." At face value that would seem to help SeV. But since that pretty much paints Scott Jordan as a skiing/winter sports enthusiast (why else would you dream of moving there?), to Scott USA that only proves that Scott Jordan should have, and indeed must have, known about Scott USA, and their logo/trademark prior to forming his current or near-current companies. (The complaint specifically mentions that Scott Jordan "has been a snow skier for many years.") This is one reason Scott's attorneys don't want him spewing in public. :)

For the record, I seriously doubt Scott USA has been damaged by SeV, but I can see why they might feel the need to protect their trademark (the complaint also claims unfair competition). I'm just pointing out what I find obvious (the "SCOTT" similarities of the logos). I do think an injunction against the logo is a distinct possibility, albeit in no way guaranteed. This is assuming that Scott USA actually did register their (graphical) logo in a timely manner (the complaint's supporting documentation lists the first graphical SCOTT USA logo with a registration date of 6/25/02, which, I believe, is after SeV registered their logo).


-Mike

Zab
07-13-2004, 10:20 PM
Getting slightly off topic here...this reminds me of the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself then sued mcdonalds because her coffee was hot..... and the woman who sued wal mart because a pillow fell and hit her in the head causing no damage whatsoever. but, wal mart has a statement that no items will fall off the top shelf. the statement was gone within 24 hours of the wal mart finding out about the lawsuit.


suing over petty little things seemed to be a fashion trend of the 90's that i remember. kinda trickled away in the past few years but seems to be building back up again.

i personally laugh my ass off at the two girls that are suing mcdonalds saying that mcdonalds made them fat when they ate there like 3 times a day for years....one word for them.... DUH!

Kati Compton
07-13-2004, 10:48 PM
BTW: I think there is indeed similarity in the "SCOTT" part of the logos. They both use a similar font (from Star Trek--particularly noticeable on the "S"); both are sans-serif; both spell "SCOTT" in uppercase; both italicized. How can you not see the similarities? In any event, Scott USA states in the complaint that they have "extensively promoted certain custom fonts for SCOTT."

Well, if "our" Scott loses this battle, he should set the dogs of the Star Trek franchise on Scott USA. :twisted:

esher2292
07-14-2004, 01:10 AM
If Microsoft can patent skin, than I can patent urine as a jelly fish sting reliever (it does work!!)----yay!

yslee
07-14-2004, 03:24 AM
The only person, in this entire thread (to date), who actually claimed to be a potential customer for both companies did indeed claim he assumed SeV was a new division/product from Scott USA. If he stated what he did here in an affidavit/deposition, it could lend credibility to Scott USA's case (get ready for the order to turn over that IP address! ;) ).

You referring to me? =P Well, I'm not a potential customer of Scott USA; I am one. Have a very nice and well made bicycle from them. :)

esher, that was too much information. :pukeface2:

Kati Compton
07-14-2004, 03:56 AM
If Microsoft can patent skin, than I can patent urine as a jelly fish sting reliever (it does work!!)----yay!
I think there's enough "prior art" that you wouldn't get that one. ;)

esher2292
07-14-2004, 09:44 PM
heh :spam: :soapbox: :google: :rofl: :drool:

minimage
07-18-2004, 05:47 PM
Personally, I think this is yet another example of laziness and greed. As one who once confused Phillip Gall's (a sporting goods company) with Gall's (a cop and fireman outfitting company), I will admit that some confusion can happen. Perhaps I am a weak link. To me, the logos just don't look that similar, other than that one doggoned name, and I honestly think Scott USA should take an example from the two *Galls (I've never heard of them fighting) up there and make their own danged money. This ticks me off as much as when Nissan Motors sued Uzi Nissan, who'd started Nissan Computer Co. before Datsun became Nissan, for his domain. The car company wasn't right; they just had more resources and expected to be able to fund the legal battle longer. I decided never to buy another Nissan again, and it wasn't too much longer that my family finally convinced me to replace my 11 yr-old Sentra with something THEY felt was more reliable. That Murano sounded nice, but the RAV4 sits in my driveway, now.

Ok...back to the original. I went to the websites. Having never even heard of SCOTT USA, I wasn't even sure they had one (don't remember seeing it in the list of contact info), but it was easy enough to find. Even before going there, it seemed rather obvious to me that the niches the two companies fill are so different as to make prolonged confusion almost impossible, even for me. The designs of the sites seem to me vastly different. So where's the harm, or even the intent to harm? In the ether, which is apparently where the complainants lost their minds, or scruples, or both.

I want an easy buck as much as the next tech, but some things just really irk me, and we can add SCOTT USA's actions to the list.

Kacey Green
07-19-2004, 05:13 PM
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way

Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)'
You're wrong about two things. First, "Scott" isn't his "surname" (family name or last name), it's his "given name" or "first name".

Second, as Bill Gunn pointed out, just having a name won't protect you. I recall Sony suing (or at least sending a cease-and-desist letter to) a woman named Sony who opened something like "Sony's Flower Shop".

Yes, I think it's ridiculous, but some company's interpret their trademarks very broadly. I've heard Radio Shack tries to prevent other businesses from using "Shack" in their names and that McDonald's tries to prevent using "Mc" (at least in food businesses).

Regarding the government having approved the trademark, remember that this is the same government that approved the patents Brad is complaining about (and one for a method allowing somebody to swing sideways on a normal swing). :-D

As for the logo, the "Scott" part does look like it's in a similar typeface, but the rest of the logos look quite different.

Steve

fine, I stand corrected and still outraged over this waste of time bullying by the sporting goods manufacturer