Page 4 of 5
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:48 am
speculation again, if anyone has any facts and not "I think" or hunches about this , that wouid actually be useful
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:53 am
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:57 am
i was refering to this comment below being speculation from the psot you quoted - sorry for the confusion. notice the 2 sentences start with i think... i think... i think... there is no fact basis... you don't know what is happening so its just guessing....
Ocean Extreme Sports however operates 4 states away in Florida. Lessons seem to be minor part of their business as opposed to REAL. I think the issue with Ocean Extreme is that they are such an excellent retailer - they do a lot of business, will beat almost any price and in my opinion have better selection and cost than does REAL. I think that the lawsuit directed at Ocean Extreme is designed to be punitive for their expertise as a retailer and the competition they represent rather than anything to do with infringing on intellectual property regarding lessons.
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:02 am
Funny. You would think one of them would hop on if this wasn't true,
Surely each shop got at least one phone call about it today.
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:03 am
maybe they can't because of the laws?
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:11 am
We don't know all the details but it seems that most posters disapprove of REAL's lawsuits. It's kind of tricky for REAL, what should they do?
-Ignore the flame and anger and keep going with the suit hoping with time, people will forget.
- Keep going while trying to justify their actions.
-Drop the suit, proving that most posters were right.
- Drop the suit, while trying to prove most posters were wrong.
I think these are the main possibilities.
None of them sounds like a winner.
It sure would be great to find out all the details, but I understand that all involved parties must be prudent. I guess we'll have to wait.
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:14 am
no company involved will write an official comment...could be used against them in court...so they have to be quiet about it.
And since no official statement will follow, these discussions will lead to nowhere, and just steer up trouble. No one, including me, wants that!
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:15 am
I thought that, if you could find a single example of a trade mark's holder using the trade mark without the magical "TM" after it, it invaldated the registration of the trade mark?
Here's some interesting info on trademark utilization:
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:25 am
Real trademarked the phrases in August 2007. It safe to say these schools where using these terms before they where trademarked.
I would expect this not to go very far and the defense attorneys to file a motion for dismissal.
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:26 am
Re: Toby's comments
I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't they just state the facts that all parties already know.
These discussions (if they stay civilized and articulated) could hopefully influence the parties action by giving them their clients opinion...