Jon Ison
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 07:17 PM |
|
|
What we gonna do next year ?
|
|
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
how the hell can a company trademark the number 7
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
Surely that is a joke...
Would Cateringham really be SO anal? There are loads of cars out there using '7' in their model names.
What a total bunch of w7a7n7k7e7r7s...
|
|
|
Jonte
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
Oops.... I won´t tell them what my car is registrered as then 
We have an official Caterham delare here in sweden 
Didn´t Birkin in south africa get sued by Caterham in the 80´s for using the 7 for their cars. But they found out the hard way that Chapman
sold the rights to use the 7/seven to Birkin also.
Click it
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
i would agree that manufacturers should not be able to sell a similar car specifically as a 7 or seven, however they take it too far by trying to stop
people using the number at all.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 10:12 PM |
|
|
Might be worth dropping a line to The Office of Fair Trading about restrictive practice.
They can copyright the '7 in a triangle' logo but I don't see how they can claim exclusive use of the number on it's own or as
part of a company name.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
ed_crouch
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 10:39 PM |
|
|
Yeh cos the people that published my engineering maths textbook would be right in the sh*t.
As would the producers of countdown............
Ed.
I-iii-iii-iii-ts ME!
Hurrah.
www.wings-and-wheels.net
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 8/12/06 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
I bet they can't copyright the number 7, but can copy the right to use it as a trade mark in association with cars that resemble a 1950's
lotus or a trade in such cars.
If you had a sandwich shop called '7' then they'd have no arguement.
That said, they're a bit letigious and it doesn't make me feel sorry for them.
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 9/12/06 at 12:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
Surely the term "Seven" has become fairly generic. After all, the magazines use it all the time to describe a Sevenesque car but you
don't see Caterham suing them on them!!
Absolutely. Just as we tend to say Land Rovers whilst refering to 4x4's, and Hoovers as vacuum cleaners, etc, etc.
But as in all of my examples, there have been better since...
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
zetec7
|
| posted on 9/12/06 at 03:36 AM |
|
|
"Ladies and gentlemen...here we are at Cape Canaveral for the latest voyage of the space shuttle Discovery, and we're go for
launch....10...9...8...7 ("WHAT? Whaddya mean we're getting sued?!?!" ...okay, the launch is on hold..."
http://www.freewebs.com/zetec7/
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 9/12/06 at 04:02 AM |
|
|
I thought Austin got there first?
My mate was in a band called CNN, till the lawyers called, then it was XC-NN.
DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!
|
|
|
foskid
|
| posted on 9/12/06 at 11:09 AM |
|
|
call it a "STILL" after all it's still a 7
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 9/12/06 at 11:23 AM |
|
|
I swore twenty years back I would never buy a Caterham because of the attitude of the company.
If you read up on Lotus history interesting bit is wide boy Chapman also sold rights to the Seven design to other companies/individuals, the proceeds
money going into Chunky's back pocket. A big question also exists as to if the rights belonged to Chunky or to one of the Lotus group of
companies. In the wake of the De Lorean affair a judge later remarked that if Chapman had been alive he would have been sent to jail for 10 years for
an "outrageous and massive fraud".
One thing is for sure only Chunky and his sidekick Fred Bushell would ever know.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 9/12/06 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
It seems obvious that you could use other numbers as Chapman/Lotus only sold the 7 to Caterham (irrespective of whether Chapman should/could have
registered the 7 trademark)
Maybe time for a replica lotus 37...
http://georgecushing.net/7Specials.html
A butch manly 7
|
|
|
cct7kitcars
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 12:32 PM |
|
|
so what shall i do
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, Chardonnay in one hand, Tequila in the other, body bearing battle scars and totally worn out, screaming- WOO HOO!! What a Ride!
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
Send them a letter asking "Why?"
Phil
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
It isnt Caterham... Its their Lawyers who smell some business for themselves protecting their clients name.
Personally I cannot see how they can "own" a number.
Lotus 7, Caterham 7, funny little car 7, etc makes sense, they can own a brand / product name.
But to Own a single number... Sounds mad to me. Do I have to pay royalites to Caterhan every time I write the word 7 on a documnet / letter etc?.
Problems is they have more money than you, which how they can "afford" justice.
They would sink your business and take you home.
Best thing is to become a pennyless employee of the company, give it all to the wife, or your kids then let them sue you.
They can sue you, you can plead guilty, but they cant take what you dont have.
or go into voluntary liquidation, then start another new business.
People seem to do this with alarming regularity on TV's Watchdog. It seems a popular thing to do
Good luck. I hate to see the little man done over by the rich companies.
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
cct7kitcars
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 02:30 PM |
|
|
its a shame cause i dont think there cars are any good mine runs rings round them hey they must just not like compertion
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, Chardonnay in one hand, Tequila in the other, body bearing battle scars and totally worn out, screaming- WOO HOO!! What a Ride!
|
|
|
jono_misfit
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 03:10 PM |
|
|
I thought that once the the name became the generic term for the style of product (hoover etc), the trademarking on the name lost some of its
protection?
The company name is protected (as in you can be the only hoover vacuume company) as with their logo, but they loose the ability to sue etc of the use
in other names?
I thought i covered this in an Open Uni course on things but could be well wide of the mark.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 03:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
...
Personally I cannot see how they can "own" a number.
Lotus 7, Caterham 7, funny little car 7, etc makes sense, they can own a brand / product name.
...
They don't they own the number as it, but only with respect of 2 seater sportscars and their parts (and model cars) and interestingly only if it
has "THE" with it. I suspect it would be relatively easy to challenge them IF you could afford the lawyers (if BMW assist them to protect
their own marks it's going to get very expensive).
Their full list of trademarks is here
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-adp?propnum=0421660001
Interestingly there are Special circumstances for "THE 7"
Advertised before acceptance by reason of use and special circumstances. Section 18(1) (proviso).
Wonder what that means in English. Be interesting if it was something along the lines of Chapman was given it my mistake.
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 10/12/06 at 06:24 PM |
|
|
Well as I see it, they don't own the number!
In an earlier reply on this thread there was a link, which gave a few pages of an appeal by Catram, for that precise reason. The appeal was
disallowed, for the reason being that you cannot trade mark a numeral or the word 'super' on their own.
On the latest link posted, of the Trade Marks, if you click on the number of most of them, scroll down, it does stipulate that they cannot have the
exclusive right to 'seven', '7' or 'super' on their own, hence the marks they do own are 'Super 7'
'The Seven' and so on. It also does say that a triangle with 7 inside is a valid trade mark.
This may be a simplistic interpretation of all the jargon I have read so far, and I am not a lawyer, but, using a '7' or
'seven' without one of Catrams 'models' before it/after it, I would have thought perfectly legitimate...
Any 'legal-eagles' on the site?
Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
cct7kitcars
|
| posted on 11/12/06 at 11:35 AM |
|
|
well i have 14 days to sort this all out but i could never sort things out in time
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, Chardonnay in one hand, Tequila in the other, body bearing battle scars and totally worn out, screaming- WOO HOO!! What a Ride!
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 11/12/06 at 02:46 PM |
|
|
I think it is quite likely that Caterham could successfully make a court claim that you were using the number 7 in your name as "passing
off" in which case you would have to change the name, and pay all costs. If your car is superior to the Caterham offering why not call it 8?
That is higher, implying better, than 7. Why do you want to use 7 in your name? Presumably it is to gain credibility based on the reputation of a car
which looks similar which is called 7. Therefore you are probably "passing off". I am not a lawyer, by the way, so may be talking rubbish
(not unusual).
My new company is called KM and we are making a car called the Indy 2 - any objections?
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 11/12/06 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
Could always register an opinion by e-mailing sales@caterham.co.uk. We're all potential Caterham customers and things like this make me for
one, less likely to be a customer so they may want to know about it.
Keep it polite
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 12/12/06 at 12:27 PM |
|
|
Got it in one Jonte!
Its more accurate a s3 than a catervan as very few changes were ever made. still had a solid axle till a few years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Jonte
Oops.... I won´t tell them what my car is registrered as then
We have an official Caterham delare here in sweden
Didn´t Birkin in south africa get sued by Caterham in the 80´s for using the 7 for their cars. But they found out the hard way that Chapman
sold the rights to use the 7/seven to Birkin also.
|
|
|
fastavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
