Wess

ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, IPLore said:

Clean.....Real corporate clients NEVER pay on time  and whatever the fee schedule in the LOE, there is always the request for a "courtesy discount".  Its all a game.

But I know what you mean, sometimes sailing and earning money are best kept in different hard drives. 

Shhh about Tess and her sister Teas, we dont want to make it all sound too easy. But in all seriousness, there is still enough BS and hassle around getting a trademark application right that it is worth paying someone to do it correctly.  Your average class association and small corporate client is not going to get their head around Madrid Protocol forms. IP is an interesting and  intellectually stimulating branch of the legal profession with interesting clients (large and small) doing interesting work.  IMHO, its better than family court. 

Maybe your corporate clients, ours are perfect.  Maybe it's because my partner owns an affiliate that's a collection agency and he doesn't fuck around when anyone's past due. 

I agree that IP law is better than family law, which is a nightmare, but this transactional work for financial institutions surprisingly has some interesting intellectual challenges.  This week: Operating agreements and subscription packages for a Credit Union Service Organization LLC where the 10 members are all state credit union leagues.  Sounds dull but reconciling all the different controlling laws and regs and all the different members needs definitely gets my brain going.

Maybe not as much as IP but it is what it is.  My sister is doing her best to get me involved with some of the big cannabis law startups here too.  If there's a business whose language I speak, it's that one.  It's kind of fun to have choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

it's almost as though LaserPerformance lost confidence in ILCA's inspection regime a few years ago

unfortunately for LP that's not how a contract works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

@IPLore is there any point at which ILCA is in the wrong for not accommodating an opportunity to resolve the dispute? like if it's a perfectly reasonable solution (LP requests a joint inspection between ILCA and WS, for instance) but they don't agree are they at fault for not trying to find a solution? I know they have all kinds of reasons for wanting to ditch LP,  but is there a point in which they are obligated to help find a compromise?

Not how contracts work, and note that typically, evidence of whether or not a party agrees to some kind of settlement conference is inadmissible in court. 

Generally this is how it works:

1) LP breaches contract.

2) ILCA notifies and gives opportunity to cure.

3) LP refuses to cure.

4) ILCA repudiates contract, essentially calling it 'void' because of the breach.  

5) LP's remedies depend on the agreement, either arbitration after giving notice or court and asking the judge for an injunction declaring the contract valid or damages. 

6) If the finder of fact (jury or judge) determines that LP did breach the agreement and that it was a material breach, LP is S.O.L. and probably liable for damages itself.

7) if the finder of fact determines that LP did not materially breach the agreement, LP may seek damages from ILCA and/or a finding that the contract is valid and LP can continue to be an approved builder.   It's pretty rare for a judge to order two organizations to continue to work together after this kind of action though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Maybe your corporate clients, ours are perfect.  Maybe it's because my partner owns an affiliate that's a collection agency and he doesn't fuck around when anyone's past due. 

I agree that IP law is better than family law, which is a nightmare, but this transactional work for financial institutions surprisingly has some interesting intellectual challenges.  This week: Operating agreements and subscription packages for a Credit Union Service Organization LLC where the 10 members are all state credit union leagues.  Sounds dull but reconciling all the different controlling laws and regs and all the different members needs definitely gets my brain going.

Maybe not as much as IP but it is what it is.  My sister is doing her best to get me involved with some of the big cannabis law startups here too.  If there's a business whose language I speak, it's that one.  It's kind of fun to have choices.

Uh Oh....major diversion. 

1. Much bigger corporate clients.

2. Financial Institutional law is fascinating complex stuff. I know little about it but I know someone who knows a lot and has made a good living. I guess I belong to the group who questions why we have so many different types of banking institutions, governed by so many different regulators , with so many different regulations ...which are doing essentially the same thing.  US banking laws and regulations seem arcane and almost archaic.  There is a reason that so many Silicon Valley companies have taken so long to get involved in payments, because they do not want to become regulated financial institutions.  The whole credit card payment supply chain is absurd (This I know a bit about due to some IP) .

3. Hmmm Cannabis law.  I dont see Skadden jumping on that one .  

4. And this has nothing to do with the ILCA :rolleyes:     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not how contracts work, and note that typically, evidence of whether or not a party agrees to some kind of settlement conference is inadmissible in court. 

Generally this is how it works:

1) LP breaches contract.

2) ILCA notifies and gives opportunity to cure.

3) LP refuses to cure.

4) ILCA repudiates contract, essentially calling it 'void' because of the breach.  

5) LP's remedies depend on the agreement, either arbitration after giving notice or court and asking the judge for an injunction declaring the contract valid or damages. 

6) If the finder of fact (jury or judge) determines that LP did breach the agreement and that it was a material breach, LP is S.O.L. and probably liable for damages itself.

7) if the finder of fact determines that LP did not materially breach the agreement, LP may seek damages from ILCA and/or a finding that the contract is valid and LP can continue to be an approved builder.   It's pretty rare for a judge to order two organizations to continue to work together after this kind of action though.

thanks for clarifying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a class members vote to ditch a particular builder would not work.  Too many people with uninformed opinions.  What makes more sense, at least to me, is voting to give the class leadership the ability to appoint or deep-six a builder given certain circumstances.  I believe the class did just this in the vote a few years back to change the Prime Directive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IPLore said:

 

 And this has nothing to do with the ILCA :rolleyes:     

 

Glad to chat though!  The ILCA stuff is a little boring and needs more documents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not how contracts work, and note that typically, evidence of whether or not a party agrees to some kind of settlement conference is inadmissible in court. 

Generally this is how it works:

1) LP breaches contract.

2) ILCA notifies and gives opportunity to cure.

3) LP refuses to cure.

4) ILCA repudiates contract, essentially calling it 'void' because of the material breach.   

5) LP's remedies depend on the agreement, either arbitration after giving notice.   The parties in the WS agreement agreed to arbitration and that English law is governing law. They would have to seek arbitration first. Clean would have to look at the arbitration clause to determine if arbitration is binding (and even some binding arbitration can eventually end up in court)  or court and asking the judge for an injunction declaring the contract valid or damages. LP has not made a move yet.  My guess (purely a guess) is that they would really be after an injunction but obviously would ask for both (one always does). But the most important thing is that , thus far, nobody has fired up the lawyers. This is a good thing. The best path here would be some vigorous, out of court discussions.

6) If the finder of fact (jury or judge) determines that LP did breach the agreement and that it was a material breach, LP is S.O.L. and probably liable for damages itself. 

7) if the finder of fact determines that LP did not materially breach the agreement, LP may seek damages from ILCA and/or a finding that the contract is valid and LP can continue to be an approved builder.   It's pretty rare for a judge to order two organizations to continue to work together after this kind of action though. The difference here is that ILCA is not the customer.  If the arbitrator found in favor of LP, they could merely insist that the ILCA recommence issuing plaques.  

dgm ,

Nothing much to add to Clean's answer. He has nailed the key points.

Ive added a little context in red.

My biggest misgiving about any analysis is that we do not have the documentation. We do not know what the current WS agreement looks like and we do not have any idea if there are other agreements.

For example.....purely to illustrate....Its remotely possible that LP pooched its documentation when it assigned its trademark rights to its offshore entities. The WS agreement contemplates successors to the trademark owners but if LP did not do it correctly, then the arbitrator might find that LP has not any claim under the WS agreement because LP (or rather LP's associated offshore entities) are not a party to the agreement.  There are really thousands of possibilities.  Clean describes very succinctly and accurately the issues under contract if they are raised but its all speculation.  My sincere hope is that we never find out because its resolved by grown ups sitting around a table.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, torrid said:

Having a class members vote to ditch a particular builder would not work.  Too many people with uninformed opinions.  What makes more sense, at least to me, is voting to give the class leadership the ability to appoint or deep-six a builder given certain circumstances.  I believe the class did just this in the vote a few years back to change the Prime Directive.

The vote a few years back that I think you are referring to was to remove from the Rules the need for an approved Laser builder to have a contract with the designer (or with the company who had bought the designer's rights.)

The issue now is that the class wants to unapprove a builder who owns the Laser trademarks for much of the world, and replace that builder with owners who have no rights to use the Laser trademark (hence the proposed name change.)

Not exactly the same thing, but similar in that, then and now, ILCA are freeing themselves of restrictions that limit their ability to hire and fire builders.  Seems like we are in a transition between a structure which carefully balanced the rights of class, builders, designer and trademark owners to a new one in which the class can call all the shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tillerman said:

The vote a few years back that I think you are referring to was to remove from the Rules the need for an approved Laser builder to have a contract with the designer (or with the company who had bought the designer's rights.)

The issue now is that the class wants to unapprove a builder who owns the Laser trademarks for much of the world, and replace that builder with owners who have no rights to use the Laser trademark (hence the proposed name change.)

Not exactly the same thing, but similar in that ILCA are freeing themselves of restrictions that limit their ability to hire and fire builders.  Seems like we are in a transition between a structure which carefully balanced the rights of class, builders, designer and trademark owners to a new on in which the class can call all the shots.

But dont forget that the Class signed a contract agreeing that any new builder has to be approved in writing by the trademark owner.

Changing the class rules does not abrogate that obligation.

Changing the name of the boat does not abrogate that obligation (because the boat is described in the contract as the 13' 10 1/2" dinghy  designed by Bruce Kirby and attaches design drawings)

A mandate from the class members (even if they could get it) does not remove that obligation

What we dont know is whether that contract is still valid or not. Nor do we have sight of the most recent version of that contract.

IPL...out . Im going to try and stay away from this thread for a few days. You are in good hands with Clean. Its Gantt that scares me

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IPLore said:

My sincere hope is that we never find out because its resolved by grown ups sitting around a table.

 

Having been a spectator for years of the sordid tales of the owner of LPE both inside and outside sailing, I'll be shocked if that happens.

Ya never know though - maybe in his old age he's becoming a straight shooter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Having been a spectator for years of the sordid tales of the owner of LPE both inside and outside sailing, I'll be shocked if that happens.

Ya never know though - maybe in his old age he's becoming a straight shooter.  

The operative word was "hope".

It would be better for his business. But he seems to be the kinda business man who would attach grenades to his head to stop people stealing his cap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, torrid said:

Having a class members vote to ditch a particular builder would not work.  Too many people with uninformed opinions.  What makes more sense, at least to me, is voting to give the class leadership the ability to appoint or deep-six a builder given certain circumstances.  I believe the class did just this in the vote a few years back to change the Prime Directive.

Oh, I agree.  Its just that many folks posting seem to think the membership vote will be about the builder.  I don't. I think the membership vote will be about the name of the boat from a new builder and the name of the class.  Period.  No vote about the old terminated builder.  If folks want boats still called Laser from the old builder they will have to go join a class that LPE may or may not start and may or may not adequately support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tillerman said:

Not exactly the same thing, but similar in that, then and now, ILCA are freeing themselves of restrictions that limit their ability to hire and fire builders.  Seems like we are in a transition between a structure which carefully balanced the rights of class, builders, designer and trademark owners to a new one in which the class can call all the shots.

Not so sure about that.  I think there is some potential they will now be firmly enslaved by new overlord PSA and to whatever extent they still owe Kirby.   KInda funny and cyclical if its so.  Didn't I read something about the class requiring the new builder have a contact with PSA which assumed the rights of BKI.  Which would actually be potentially in conflict with the last membership vote, LOL, and not that it matters.  Hard to herd these cats....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Not so sure about that.  I think there is some potential they will now be firmly enslaved by new overlord PSA and to whatever extent they still owe Kirby.   KInda funny and cyclical if its so.  Didn't I read something about the class requiring the new builder have a contact with PSA which assumed the rights of BKI.  Which would actually be potentially in conflict with the last membership vote, LOL, and not that it matters.  Hard to herd these cats....

Oh yes. From one perspective this whole shenanigans started when Global Sailing bought BKI from Bruce Kirby. Somewhere along the way LP stopped paying royalties and in any case GS terminated their contract with LP. At this stage is anybody paying anybody royalties - part from perhaps PSA paying GS who own them anyway, and PSJ paying GS which is small beer?

So are GS looking to start raking in royalty payment from any new builders? Is that what this is all about?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tillerman said:

Oh yes. From one perspective this whole shenanigans started when Global Sailing bought BKI from Bruce Kirby. Somewhere along the way LP stopped paying royalties and in any case GS terminated their contract with LP. At this stage is anybody paying anybody royalties - part from perhaps PSA paying GS who own them anyway, and PSJ paying GS which is small beer?

So are GS looking to start raking in royalty payment from any new builders? Is that what this is all about?

 

All about?

For the class it seems like its all about retaining their Olympic slot and to hell with all else (including who has control over them)

For LPE it seems like its all about protecting the IP they bought and own and to hell with all else (including if they have to walk away from the current Laser class)

For PS/GSA/BK it seems like its all about worldwide reach and control of a never ending revenue stream and to hell with everything else (including if they have to walk away from the Laser name)

None of them have much of anything in common with any of the others so battle they will!

But that is just the guess of a crazy multihullin fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which contract covers the issue where ILCA issue the button via Kirbys authorisation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cant believe we still dont know where Rastegar builds his Lasers or do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet they would if somebody ordered one LOL. But I get your point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sailabout said:

which contract covers the issue where ILCA issue the button via Kirbys authorisation?

 

Ah, the infamous button.

311934347_Rastysbutton.thumb.jpg.e653ee77e3eec38e41ecc3e583739117.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

According to me, LP has not sent a boat to an austin dealer in twice that long. 

So why not I wonder... When I was in the bike trade we as a dealer bought the bikes from the UK importer, but as I recall (and I was barely involved in the financials) with a fairly long credit line so we'd hope to sell much of the stock before we had to pay for it. 

How is/was it done with Lasers? It seems unlikely LPE are refusing to supply resellers who would pay cash on delivery, are the supply problems something to do with dealers wanting/needing credit terms that LPE are unwilling to give?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

How is/was it done with Lasers? It seems unlikely LPE are refusing to supply resellers who would pay cash on delivery, are the supply problems something to do with dealers wanting/needing credit terms that LPE are unwilling to give?

 

You are overthinking this and applying the wrong lessons.
 

LP (at least in North America), does not offer any terms to any dealers, nor does anyone bother asking them at this point.  Been that way for years.

Every dealer pre-pays for EVERYTHING.  We are waiting on big orders of stock I ordered in October and again in December (all I have paid for many months ago).
No idea when any of it will arrive.

I can't share a lot more than this, as it goes fundamentally deeper as you might imagine. But, it's not an issue of any of us not paying for the stuff  (in some cases 6+ months in advance), that's for sure.


 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This is not complicated. LP has suffered from cashflow problems for years. I know some of their suppliers have waited for a long time and imposed cash terms on LP. So what LP does is take orders from the USA with cash up front to fund their business. As they are always behind, they spend the pre-payments on European orders hoping to make enough money to be able to build the US boats. Well, that's the simple version. Add to that all the holding companies and the money that shifts between them to pay for royalties on things like use of the trademark - yes, one Rastegar pays another for the right to use the trademark. The boats are actually built by another. 

I was also told last weekend that ILCA has been working with a top lawyer in the UK to find a cast iron case to get rid of LP. This started some time ago as LP continually broke promises, disrupted supply and simply refused to play ball with the rest of the Laser community. It seems there are numerous breaches, but the others were of a nature that if push came to shove, LP could rectify them to ensure they didn't have their contract torn up. It seems that this time, the lawyers are confident that there is no way back for LP. I don't know enough detail for the legal eagles on here to be able to confirm this, but I trust my source. My feeling is that quite deliberately at this stage, we haven't heard everything about the ILCA case while what we are hearing from LP should not be trusted.

I was also told that the other builders, trademark holders, association and other key memebrs of the wider Laser community who know what is going on are very confident and are in the process of negotiating new builders. They have been overwhelmed by how many top quality manufacturers have made approaches. It rather flies in the face of the idea that this was a move for PSA to take over markets such as the USA. My bet is on more builders in more countries which should drive down costs and improve reliability of supply.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, WestCoast said:

Every dealer pre-pays for EVERYTHING.  We are waiting on big orders of stock I ordered in October and again in December (all I have paid for many months ago).
No idea when any of it will arrive.

Thanks. That's, umm, yes. That's not a situation I can make rational comment on!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

^ This is not complicated. LP has suffered from cashflow problems for years. I know some of their suppliers have waited for a long time and imposed cash terms on LP. So what LP does is take orders from the USA with cash up front to fund their business. As they are always behind, they spend the pre-payments on European orders hoping to make enough money to be able to build the US boats. Well, that's the simple version. Add to that all the holding companies and the money that shifts between them to pay for royalties on things like use of the trademark - yes, one Rastegar pays another for the right to use the trademark. The boats are actually built by another. 

I was also told last weekend that ILCA has been working with a top lawyer in the UK to find a cast iron case to get rid of LP. This started some time ago as LP continually broke promises, disrupted supply and simply refused to play ball with the rest of the Laser community. It seems there are numerous breaches, but the others were of a nature that if push came to shove, LP could rectify them to ensure they didn't have their contract torn up. It seems that this time, the lawyers are confident that there is no way back for LP. I don't know enough detail for the legal eagles on here to be able to confirm this, but I trust my source. My feeling is that quite deliberately at this stage, we haven't heard everything about the ILCA case while what we are hearing from LP should not be trusted.

I was also told that the other builders, trademark holders, association and other key memebrs of the wider Laser community who know what is going on are very confident and are in the process of negotiating new builders. They have been overwhelmed by how many top quality manufacturers have made approaches. It rather flies in the face of the idea that this was a move for PSA to take over markets such as the USA. My bet is on more builders in more countries which should drive down costs and improve reliability of supply.

The first two paragraphs I had head as well but the third is new and boy do I hope that is correct!  Woo hoo!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sailabout said:

which contract covers the issue where ILCA issue the button via Kirbys authorisation?

The buttons are affixed to the sail and are therefore a part or finishing of the sail. The contracts that prescribe all fittings and finishing the sails are the IYRU Agreement and the Builder's Agreements, which say the Construction Manual must be followed. See attachment below for the exact wording of the IYRU Agreement, which is repeated in Article 1 (h) of the Builder's Contract.

Changes to the Construction Manual are made by the copyright holder boat design owner (Kirby, see clause 1) and as per clause 8 of the IYRU Agreement, approved by:

  • The IYRU (ISAF, then World Sailing)
  • The IYRU chief measurer
  • The ILCA advisory committee
  • The ILCA chief measurer

Each builder agreed to the terms and conditions of the IYRU in their Builder's Agreement, and to be bound as if party to it.

In addition, the Trade Mark Holder licenses the use of the trademark on the sail. In clause 11 of the IYRU, the Trade Mark Holder is responsible for approving the sailmaker.

This is consistent with Kirby licensing of the builders to manufacture the boats, and the trademark holder licensing use of the trademark.

We can confirm that the button is a Construction Manual requirement because of the 2017 change where the ILCA advised:

Quote

The Laser Construction Manual requires that class legal sails must have attached near the tack an ILCA supplied sail button.

 

Construction Manual.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gantt said:

The buttons are affixed to the sail and are therefore a part or finishing of the sail. The contracts that prescribe all fittings and finishing the sails are the IYRU Agreement and the Builder's Agreements, which say the Construction Manual must be followed. See attachment below for the exact wording of the IYRU Agreement, which is repeated in Article 1 (h) of the Builder's Contract.

Changes to the Construction Manual are made by the copyright holder boat design owner (Kirby, see clause 1) and as per clause 8 of the IYRU Agreement, approved by:

  • The IYRU (ISAF, then World Sailing)
  • The IYRU chief measurer
  • The ILCA advisory committee
  • The ILCA chief measurer

Each builder agreed to the terms and conditions of the IYRU in their Builder's Agreement, and to be bound as if party to it.

In addition, the Trade Mark Holder licenses the use of the trademark on the sail. In clause 11 of the IYRU, the Trade Mark Holder is responsible for approving the sailmaker.

This is consistent with Kirby licensing of the builders to manufacture the boats, and the trademark holder licensing use of the trademark.

We can confirm that the button is a Construction Manual requirement because of the 2017 change where the ILCA advised:

 

Construction Manual.png

 

prairie dog hole.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on @tillerman!?!!#$$#!#.  You canntt quote lawnmowers.  Its a rule in the bylaws!  #ignoremakesdumbdissappear(untilyouquoteit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a lot of private comments on my reply.
To clarify, I don't think LaserPerformance is working to deliberately defraud US dealers.
That wasn't what I was trying to infer.

Rather, my point was to use facts to explain to Jim C that his assumptions were incorrect.

To wit:
- No US dealer gets credit terms from LaserPerformance.
- We all have to pay for everything before it leaves. 
- Our company specifically will prepay for items well ahead of time to try to ensure timely supply. 

 

In many situations, despite forecasting and sending in orders and paying in advance, we don't get accurate information about when our orders will be fulfilled, what is causing the delays, or any remedies to try to get product on our shelves. This has been the case in North America, without a lot of substantive change, for the last 9 years.

 

So again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting LP is deliberately committing fraud or anything nefarious.
We work with their team closely to get the product we order and pay for as soon as we can.
It is what it is at this point, sorry if I sound frustrated.  Summertime and people want stuff and we're working hard as we do every year to source it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like with LPE's pre-paid credit terms, local dealers are pretty much shut out even if they had people wanting to buy boats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

 

The trust has been violated and neither cares to EVER again give LP money up front. ( see Westcoast Post above. LP has a bad delivery history on prepaid orders) 

 

My understanding is that no existing supplier to LP will give them terms either.  Everything is COD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

My understanding is that no existing supplier to LP will give them terms either.  Everything is COD.

That's much more generous that the pre-payment months in advance that LP requires from their dealers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't kept up with this thread but a thing Gouvernail was saying when I last read it has lead me to realise that in my excitement to see LP getting the boot I've missed probably more significant bad behaviour by the ILCA Execs.

Apologies if this has been done to death in the meantime :o

 

Maybe ILCA rules are different with the huge numbers spread across the globe but in the much smaller National Classes I've been involved in the Class Execs wouldn't go ahead with the stuff ILCA have been doing without first making presentation of planned steps via Newsletter/AGM and receiving an affirmative 'go ahead' vote from the Members, providing regular progress updates via newsletter/subsequent AGMs and finally via a vote at AGM/Special GM before making any official decisions.

If this had been done in those Classes I'd be demanding the Execs suspend the decisions & resign their positions pending new elections & confirmation votes from the Members at a round of AGM/Special GMs.

Even in the case of go-ahead votes I'd be inclined to deny those Execs permission to stand for re-election due to their mis-behaviour calling the Class into disrepute & even outright threatening the future of the Class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoom said:

Maybe ILCA rules are different with the huge numbers spread across the globe but in the much smaller National Classes I've been involved in the Class Execs wouldn't go ahead with the stuff ILCA have been doing without first making presentation of planned steps via Newsletter/AGM and receiving an affirmative 'go ahead' vote from the Members, providing regular progress updates via newsletter/subsequent AGMs and finally via a vote at AGM/Special GM before making any official decisions.

If this had been done in those Classes I'd be demanding the Execs suspend the decisions & resign their positions pending new elections & confirmation votes from the Members at a round of AGM/Special GMs.

Even in the case of go-ahead votes I'd be inclined to deny those Execs permission to stand for re-election due to their mis-behaviour calling the Class into disrepute & even outright threatening the future of the Class.

The rules the ILCA exec have to adhere are a bit different, plus the ILCA has agreements with the manufacturers, multiple trademark holders, World Sailing and design rights holders (note that these rights are derived from contracts) - plus the ILCA along with World Sailing must approve changes to the Construction Manual. Finally, the way members of the ILCA Advisory Committee are selected is not the same.  The way these changes must be made is prescribed in the IYRU Agreement, the World Sailing rules, and the class rules.

This puts the ILCA exec between a rock and a hard place when making changes, more so when you consider the gravity of the changes being considered right now - it is more than a name change, there are changes to the assignment of rights and obligations that need to be carefully executed. It isn't just the ILCA who are working on this - they are one of several parties. While there were a few mistakes made back in 2011 with the fundamental rule change was made by the ex President and ex Executive Secretary, the current President and Executive Secretary are in my view doing a good job.

The ILCA have announced that the proposed changes include the proposed name change to "ILCA Dinghy". They are also working as part of a team to appoint a new builder in Europe; also mentioned is better supply for North America - and say that by the end of May, ILCA members will be advised how "... their orders filled more quickly and efficiently than under the previous builder”.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hoom said:

but in the much smaller National Classes I've been involved in the Class Execs wouldn't go ahead with the stuff ILCA have been doing without first making presentation of ...

It's what I'd expect too but that's not the way the ILCA seems to go about things. The fundamental rule change that removed the need for a builder to be approved by Kirby/his successor was pushed through with nothing in advance and a bare minimum of communication which seemed more intended to rush the CA members into voting the right way than it was to enable them to make an informed decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

The way for the Executives ( or any other member of the International Laser Class Association to propose changes is CLEARLY spelled out in the International Laser Class Association Constitution and rules. 

Those changes such as removing the IP requirement or amending the Constitution have ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION!!!

Sorry if I'm coming across as an apologist. ;) 

For most organizations, what you describe is how it works. And it would work that way for the ILCA, unless they agreed to be bound to an agreement with other parties - as they have - relating to their management, administration etc. There are multiple agreements which obligate the ILCA in certain ways, and the ILCA cannot change their rules without changing their agreement/s (or breaking them).

So if Tracy had agreement stipulating any changes to his boat must be approved by Gouv, then Tracy can propose to call his boat fartblossom, but the change can only be made if Gouv approves. Which you may think is stink.

Here's one example from the IYRU Agreement which the ILCA was a party to, which stipulates that the ILCA must have their changes approved by the IYRU (now World Sailing) - which I'm guessing is why it is the class rules:

ILCA Clause.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait, there's more. World Sailing require the ILCA to have such an agreement, a requirement in place for the ILCA since 1973.

So while the ILCA is no doubt working hard to put in place the right solution, in my view it is a bit like juggling chainsaws. They'll be working with several parties. 

But we already know this:

Quote

ILCA emphasizes that a vote of the members will be conducted before the changeover will be official and that process has already begun. Some weeks ago, the necessary amendment to the ILCA Fundamental Rule (to remove the requirement for a Builder to have rights to use a Laser trademark) was approved by the ILCA World Council. The approved rule change was then submitted to World Sailing for consultation as recommended under World Sailing Regulation 10.11.1. ILCA has been awaiting the response to this request for consultation and will proceed with the member voting after the consultation is received, which we expect to be after the World Sailing Mid-Year Meeting. 

“It’s a big change for a racing class that hasn’t seen anything like this in our almost 50-year history,” said Class President Tracy Usher. “Our staff and our network of stakeholders have been working tirelessly to ensure minimal disruption to ILCA members and class racers in all regions of the globe.”

Source = https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/04/25/olympic-one-person-sailing-dinghy-completes-name-change/

The current World Sailing requirement includes:
 

World Sailing requirements10-3.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do other big classes have those kind of World Sailing agreements (like to be an International class?) or just Laser? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoom said:

Do other big classes have those kind of World Sailing agreements (like to be an International class?) or just Laser? :blink:

SMOD or 'Single Manufacture One Design' (or in the Laser's case with one builder for specific regions) have these sort of WS multi party agreements. Whereas other international classes  allow many builders to build to tight tolerance have a different set of agreements. different again for design rule.

  • SMOD designs: Laser, 49er, Melges24, Sunfish
  • Many builders, tight tolerances: Finn, 470, Optimist, OK
  • Design rule: A-Class, International Moth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoom said:

Do other big classes have those kind of World Sailing agreements (like to be an International class?) or just Laser? :blink:

Yes. 

By the way, what used to be called an "international class" is now known as a "World Sailing Class."

World Sailing Regulation 10.3 quoted by @Gantt in the post above applies to all World Sailing Classes.

You can read more about the requirement for World Sailing Classes at http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingClassEntryGuidelines2019-[24647].pdf

You can find a list of Centerboard Classes which are World Sailing Classes  at http://www.sailing.org/classesandequipment/index.php



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't smart enough to link it but check out the Laser Crazy song on the SA Front Page.  Don't know which one of you knuckleheads did that but its pretty funny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chuso007 said:

That didn't take too long...

 

59993526_2206613569434412_40733371394613

No... well, maybe the intention is to achieve the fairness that all are espousing by ensuring that the European supply situation is as bad as the US one? Not quite sure how that will be applied in Australia & Japan, though. Maybe there are further announcements coming (though it would surely have been easier to cut PSA off, at least, when it came to light that they were building out-of-class hulls?).

  Glad I'm not thinking of buying a new boat this year... and I have massive sympathy for my local dealer.

Cheers,

                  W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief.  Too many rumors and too little fact.  I gotta wonder if ILCA could help it self out by being a bit more transparent (with what I think are facts in its favor but maybe I am misinformed)

1.) The termination of LPE does not require a membership vote and was handled through a World Council vote with WS aware and consulted as a party to the agreement.  If this is true then all these EU PR releases are a bit unfair because they had their vote and lost.

2.) The proposed name change for both the class boat and organization will be put to a membership vote as required but in reality even if the vote failed a name change would likely eventually be ordered by a court because the old name is associated with a trademark that is owned by the now terminated builder LPE.

The REAL issue here is not the name change. Once LPE is fired a name change is coming one way or the other like it or not.  The real issue is was the termination of the old builder LPE handled properly or not. If it was then the rest of this crap is just noise.  If it wasn't... well that I don't want to contemplate

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute. Did I not read earlier that the agreement LPE wanted to sign was very very anti-FRAND and that LPE was refusing to even talk about the need for the class to become FRAND?

If that is the case, then the Spanish and Italians do not care if the dinghy is out of Olympic equipment contention?

Does anyone have a copy of the LPE agreement, so everyone can see the whole picture?  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

No... well, maybe the intention is to achieve the fairness that all are espousing by ensuring that the European supply situation is as bad as the US one? Not quite sure how that will be applied in Australia & Japan, though. Maybe there are further announcements coming (though it would surely have been easier to cut PSA off, at least, when it came to light that they were building out-of-class hulls?).

  Glad I'm not thinking of buying a new boat this year... and I have massive sympathy for my local dealer.

Cheers,

                  W.

Maybe once the Italians get a taste of the supply issues other parts of the world have been experiencing they'll understand what the hell is going on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the document that ILCA refused to sign. Look at the date, it fits with what I have heard, it appears the author is a trademark attorney, that's what a Google search just told me. It came to me anon. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Otterbox said:

I think this is the document that ILCA refused to sign. Look at the date, it fits with what I have heard, it appears the author is a trademark attorney, that's what a Google search just told me. It came to me anon. 

 

Good opportunity for Gantt to prove his legal acumen.  I have a massive affinity agreement negotiation to deal with so not a lot of time for legal analysis this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I said executed, not converted.  You know what that means, I assume

No idea. Did the document murder someone or perform some other capital crime? Is there a death penalty for documents like this? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Word version listed author by name, as best I can tell this is the agreement that LPE has been complaining that ILCA was refusing to sign.

Waiting for someone with expertise in these things to detail what it would all mean if it had been signed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Otterbox said:

The Word version listed author by name, as best I can tell this is the agreement that LPE has been complaining that ILCA was refusing to sign.

Waiting for someone with expertise in these things to detail what it would all mean if it had been signed.

 

 

Not really worth the time to analyze a rejected offer, which is all we can assume based on the lack of signatures.  But for Gantt or another non-lawyer it might be good practice

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Otterbox said:

what it would all mean if it had been signed.

 

 

If signed the earth would have stopped rotating on its axis.  And Bill, Hillary, Obama, Trump, Putin, and Kirby would all be in prison for their crimes against humanity.  Or least their crimes against Laser sailors.

But truth be told its not a totally unreasonable documents and even if its actually an accurate version of an early one sided unsigned draft it still doesn't matter.  Why would ILCA license a name they have already proven clear willingness to walk away from?  They obviously don't hate the Laser name.... they hate the crap from the builder that comes along with it... and here is the interesting part... while it would not have hurt them to sign it, it would have compromised their strategy to get rid of LPE.  By not signing there is less of a web for ILCA and WS to untangle.  And most importantly by not signing ILCA leaves LPE with only 4 doors - none of them very attractive - they could walk through.  Its a squeeze play that was available last time in the barrel and nobody used and I wondered why. By not signing ILCA leaves LPE between a rock and a hard place - and I am guessing here but with no friends left nobody who could help LPE escape the trap was going to help them escape the trap. I am kinda surprised by the door LPE picked but I ain't no lawyer and so maybe there are good reasons they picked the one they did.  Or maybe they still do have a friend.  We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Otterbox said:

I think this is the document that ILCA refused to sign. Look at the date, it fits with what I have heard, it appears the author is a trademark attorney, that's what a Google search just told me. It came to me anon. 

Have given it a first read.

It is a proposed agreement which on the surface, is all about the ILCA using the trademark Laser.

There are a few issues I can immediately see, mostly to do with the ILCA already having obligations with the IYRU Agreement that appear to be at odds with this proposed agreement. For example, Velum makes strong statements that it is manufacturing, selling or distributing boats etc (or licensing to a 3rd party) "without limit" whereas the ILCA has already agreed that there are limits relating to the Laser trademark use, particularly for builders.

So if the ILCA was intent on signing (which they weren't), they would need to revise the IYRU Agreement first, which needs the agreement of all of the parties (which ironically includes the trade mark holder).

From what the ILCA have announced, they are already well underway with that process.

The proposed agreement includes following definition of their territory: "All countries of the world other than Japan, South Korea, Australia and Oceania." Oceania is not a country. In fact it covers Australasia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. The northernmost extreme of Oceania is Hawaii. But I digress.

The following clause is unusual:

Quote

11. VELUM shall be entitled by its authorised representative to visit the premises of ILCA, or the premises of sub-contract manufacturer of any of the goods, upon reasonable prior notice being given, during normal business hours, for the purpose of inspecting the Goods produced under this Agreement. Furthermore a representative of VELUM’ shall also be entitled on reasonable notice to attend and observe any function, race, regatta or other event or occasion at which ILCA is providing Services or Goods under this Agreement.

 Then this:
 

Quote

SCHEDULE 3

ILCA “Services” and “Goods”

A. Sail Buttons, building plaques, publications, printed materials, trophies, flags, neck ties, lapel pins, membership stickers, information and images including any digital versions of the foregoing, electronic media and such other items as may from time to time be agreed in writing between the parties and not intended for sale or resale.

B. Free promotional items such as event clothing and memorabilia associated strictly with championships regattas and races organised by the ILCA subject to approval by VELUM, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. For the avoidance of doubt, any promotional item permitted must bear event date and name.

C. Services of (i) Organisation and promotion of Laser class sailing, race meetings, regattas and social events, publications of year books, newsletters, and promotional materials by all means including electronic means; and (ii) Such other services as are related to carrying out the Objects of ILCA as defined in the ILCA Constitution.

It seems to me that Velum want the ability to micro manage the ILCA. The agreement gives Velum the right to reject any use of Laser according to standards Velum controls. Further, the ILCA must have written permission for using the trademark. It is my view that under this contract Velum could make it difficult for the ILCA to perform normal duties.

People are commenting that proposed agreements to do with the Laser trademark or ex builders are not relevant, however such comments are premature. There needs to be new proposed agreements which meet the requirements of multiple parties, including: ILCA, World Sailing and existing Laser builders (PSA and PSJ). Once that small mountain of documentation is drafted, it then needs to be voted on by the ILCA membership.

Just a question of process, can (or should) the ILCA exec sign new agreements before a membership vote takes place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not really worth the time to analyze a rejected offer, which is all we can assume based on the lack of signatures.  But for Gantt or another non-lawyer it might be good practice

 

 

4 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Have given it a first read.

It is a proposed agreement which on the surface, is all about the ILCA using the trademark Laser.

There are a few issues I can immediately see, mostly to do with the ILCA already having obligations with the IYRU Agreement that appear to be at odds with this proposed agreement. For example, Velum makes strong statements that it is manufacturing, selling or distributing boats etc (or licensing to a 3rd party) "without limit" whereas the ILCA has already agreed that there are limits relating to the Laser trademark use, particularly for builders.

So if the ILCA was intent on signing (which they weren't), they would need to revise the IYRU Agreement first, which needs the agreement of all of the parties (which ironically includes the trade mark holder).

From what the ILCA have announced, they are already well underway with that process.

The proposed agreement includes following definition of their territory: "All countries of the world other than Japan, South Korea, Australia and Oceania." Oceania is not a country. In fact it covers Australasia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. The northernmost extreme of Oceania is Hawaii. But I digress.

The following clause is unusual:

 Then this:
 

It seems to me that Velum want the ability to micro manage the ILCA. The agreement gives Velum the right to reject any use of Laser according to standards Velum controls. Further, the ILCA must have written permission for using the trademark. It is my view that under this contract Velum could make it difficult for the ILCA to perform normal duties.

People are commenting that proposed agreements to do with the Laser trademark or ex builders are not relevant, however such comments are premature. There needs to be new proposed agreements which meet the requirements of multiple parties, including: ILCA, World Sailing and existing Laser builders (PSA and PSJ). Once that small mountain of documentation is drafted, it then needs to be voted on by the ILCA membership.

Just a question of process, can (or should) the ILCA exec sign new agreements before a membership vote takes place?

Was just about to comment and provide some background, but Mr. Gantt, you have done a very nice job of summing up the situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegedly LPE says they refused to allow their production to be inspected, because ILCA refused to sign.

So, it seems, they really wanted it signed to control the scene?

ILCA Council, including Europeans presumably decided not to sign it? 

Can someone ask them all for comments? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Where does it say in the International Laser Class Association Constitution or rules “members get to vote on new agreements with the owner of the IP”????

I'm not aware it does. The ILCA have obligations to the agreements it is party to.

The issue in my view is when the agreements the ILCA exec sign which prescribe the ILCA rules to be written in a certain way.

To me, the ILCA are already saying that the membership will get to vote before the changes are adopted:

Quote

ILCA emphasizes that all necessary votes and approvals of the class members and World Sailing will be obtained before the changeover is completed. That process already began with an ILCA World Council vote some weeks ago to remove the requirement in the ILCA Class Rules that a Builder must have rights to use the Laser trademark.  The World Council voted to approve that change and submitted the approved change to World Sailing for consultation as recommended under World Sailing Regulation 10.11.1. ILCA hopes to hear back soon with World Sailing’s official response so we can continue forward to a vote of our members as required under our rules.

Source = https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/05/04/ilca-statement-clarifying-approval-procedures/

World Sailing regulation 10.11.1, referenced above says:

Quote

Before applying to World Sailing for approval, the class/owners association is encouraged to consult with the Chief Executive Officer who shall respond in a timely manner and shall have approved the changes in accordance with its constitution and its class rules.

Source = http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2019RegulationsClean-[24772].pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gantt said:

Have given it a first read.

It is a proposed agreement which on the surface, is all about the ILCA using the trademark Laser.

There are a few issues I can immediately see, mostly to do with the ILCA already having obligations with the IYRU Agreement that appear to be at odds with this proposed agreement. For example, Velum makes strong statements that it is manufacturing, selling or distributing boats etc (or licensing to a 3rd party) "without limit" whereas the ILCA has already agreed that there are limits relating to the Laser trademark use, particularly for builders.

So if the ILCA was intent on signing (which they weren't), they would need to revise the IYRU Agreement first, which needs the agreement of all of the parties (which ironically includes the trade mark holder).

From what the ILCA have announced, they are already well underway with that process.

The proposed agreement includes following definition of their territory: "All countries of the world other than Japan, South Korea, Australia and Oceania." Oceania is not a country. In fact it covers Australasia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. The northernmost extreme of Oceania is Hawaii. But I digress.

The following clause is unusual:

 Then this:
 

It seems to me that Velum want the ability to micro manage the ILCA. The agreement gives Velum the right to reject any use of Laser according to standards Velum controls. Further, the ILCA must have written permission for using the trademark. It is my view that under this contract Velum could make it difficult for the ILCA to perform normal duties.

People are commenting that proposed agreements to do with the Laser trademark or ex builders are not relevant, however such comments are premature. There needs to be new proposed agreements which meet the requirements of multiple parties, including: ILCA, World Sailing and existing Laser builders (PSA and PSJ). Once that small mountain of documentation is drafted, it then needs to be voted on by the ILCA membership.

Just a question of process, can (or should) the ILCA exec sign new agreements before a membership vote takes place?

 

prairie dog hole.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aroy210677 - Given the likely litigation I am surprised (but glad) you are commenting on this thread so can we ask you to confirm that you are in fact the Andy Roy who sits on the ILCA World Council?  If yes could you let us know how the decision to terminate LPE as a builder was reached; specifically did the World Council take a vote as to if LPE should be removed as a builder? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Otterbox said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Wess said:

@aroy210677 - Given the likely litigation I am surprised (but glad) you are commenting on this thread so can we ask you to confirm that you are in fact the Andy Roy who sits on the ILCA World Council?  If yes could you let us know how the decision to terminate LPE as a builder was reached; specifically did the World Council take a vote as to if LPE should be removed as a builder? 

Hi Wess,  I'm making a few remarks to address just a few of the fallacies in LP's recent public releases. For example, Laser has NOT (certainly to my knowledge) "invited ILCA and World Sailing to together inspect our UK manufacturing facilities in Banbury"; and, ILCA does not want to "opt out of its decades long license granted by LP". On the contrary, we consistently wanted to maintain the decades long license agreement as written and agreed to in 1998, as it has worked well all that time. It is not a "renewal" that LP is seeking us to sign, but rather an amended agreement that, in our opinion, broadens LP's control of the class, and that is why we have refused to sign. We have continually offered to maintain the 1998 agreement. 

The decision to terminate is best said in the previous ILCA release:  "The previously approved builder of class-legal boats in Europe breached the terms of the Laser Construction Manual Agreement (LCMA), which seeks to ensure the identical nature of all Laser class boats wherever they are built which is a fundamental principle of the class.  This is the same Agreement signed by every ILCA approved builder worldwide.  After the European builder unequivocally indicated that they wouldn’t abide by the term of the LCMA that requires all builders to allow ILCA to inspect their factories, ILCA terminated the agreement with respect to the European builder only in order to protect the one-design principle of the class."  Yes, WC took a vote.

One more LP statement I'll address: "Coupled with the ILCA/PSA/PSJ secret alliance to replace the Radial and 4.7 Laser boats with C series rigs".  This is absurd. There is no "secret alliance" and there is no plan to "replace the Radial and 4.7 boats...".  LP was informed of the C5 development from its very beginning.    

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aroy210677: thank you for your information; this thread had become overwhelmed by speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could an IP specialist comment on what that trademark agreement actually gives ILCA. My understanding is anyone can use the Laser trademark to describe the products in question, so a trademark agreement isn't needed to, for example, run Laser races. I assume that if the ILCA wish to sell merchandise or whatever in the LPE area with the trademarked logo etc on then they would need an agreement, but what else is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

 

 Yes, WC took a vote.   

That is a big deal.  Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimC said:

Could an IP specialist comment on what that trademark agreement actually gives ILCA. My understanding is anyone can use the Laser trademark to describe the products in question, so a trademark agreement isn't needed to, for example, run Laser races. I assume that if the ILCA wish to sell merchandise or whatever in the LPE area with the trademarked logo etc on then they would need an agreement, but what else is there?

You are going to get really varied opinions on all of that I bet.  And I will begin at the end, which is to say at least for me it doesn't matter because in my estimation the act of not signing such an agreement - in any form - is the key that unlocks the door that gets the class free of LPE.

But to directly answer your question we have Andy saying ILCA would have signed an extension of the old agreement (and we know what that says).  And then we have a form here that may (or may not) be legit but lets assume it is... that appears to be LPE's first draft of their version of what the license should be and what they would sign.  To be as fair as I possibly can to both sides... nothing really bad happens if either of those versions are signed and they are not so far apart that reasonable people could not have found a way to middle ground.  And I hate to say this because you know I favor the class over LPE by a mile... but in trying to be fair here to all... the biggest risk in this agreement is to LPE not ILCA.  By that I mean LPE has far more to lose than ILCA and will care more than ILCA about protecting the IP it owns.  Just my opinion and my guess is you will get extremists on either side saying why either form/position was the end of the world.   I just don't see it that way.

But to finish where I started I don't think it matters and I don't think anyone who knows the full truth could say the full truth.  Because in my estimation if ILCA wanted to get rid of LPE the one and truly best way to do that is to simply not sign any trademark agreement and simply refuse to discuss it.  It forces LPE to pick from just a few paths; none of which are attractive.  And LPE did (pick a path) and in so doing now they are voted out.  Voted out by the WC per Andy Roy of the WC.  That is a bid deal.  No way back for LPE.  The class vote will be about boat and class names not LPE.  And even then it still doesn't matter because if the class does not vote to change the name a court is going to force them too.  I don't know who does the strategic thinking at ILCA but whoever did this is one smart person.  And the shame is, they will never get credit because you can't ever say this (not signing) was part of a broader strategy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before.  I've always felt the class was/is in good hands with the actions being taken.  Thanks Andy for coming in and commenting where you can.  We certainly understand you are restricted to what you can say, but info from the source is soooo much better than sorting through hours of speculative comments! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't understand.

AIUI if ILCA don't sign the Trademark agreement then AIUI they have no more rights (or fewer) to use the Trademark than anyone else in the world. So AIUI they can't use the Trademarked laser logo, and they need to be very careful that they are using the term Laser(Tm) Dinghy in the permitted way. But  don't see how that would be a major problem for LPE. It would make life exceedingly difficult for ILCA though.

I would have expected LPE to say something like "OK, if you don't want to sign a trademark agreement so be it. Stop using our trademarked logo in any shape or form, and don't use the word Laser other than in these defined circumstances and with this disclaimer. And when you find that makes life just about impossible for you we'll talk again" Then ILCA would have been on the back foot, in the same position re class names etc, but without being able to claim a contract breach by LPE.

Now I'm quite sure the people at LPE are quite aware of all that, so it follows refusing the inspection was a deliberate strategy, and they must have known where it would lead. So still mystified!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward, if ILCA organize events for WS approved ILCA Dinghies and Lasers and only use the word Laser in this fashion, that can’t be a TM violation. So anybody with a “legacy” Laser from LPE, a Laser from PSA or PSJ, or an ILCA Dinghy from the new builders can race in an ILCA event. They just need to be members of ILCA and have a WS sticker in their boats. The newsletter changes it’s name to “ILCA World”, gets rid of the logo and carries on. Maybe PSA and PSJ can drop the Laser name, too...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JimC said:

Don't understand.

AIUI if ILCA don't sign the Trademark agreement then AIUI they have no more rights (or fewer) to use the Trademark than anyone else in the world. So AIUI they can't use the Trademarked laser logo, and they need to be very careful that they are using the term Laser(Tm) Dinghy in the permitted way. But  don't see how that would be a major problem for LPE. It would make life exceedingly difficult for ILCA though.

I would have expected LPE to say something like "OK, if you don't want to sign a trademark agreement so be it. Stop using our trademarked logo in any shape or form, and don't use the word Laser other than in these defined circumstances and with this disclaimer. And when you find that makes life just about impossible for you we'll talk again" Then ILCA would have been on the back foot, in the same position re class names etc, but without being able to claim a contract breach by LPE.

Now I'm quite sure the people at LPE are quite aware of all that, so it follows refusing the inspection was a deliberate strategy, and they must have known where it would lead. So still mystified!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that once the class decides it can and will live without the name and trademark (and clearly the class has decided this... its the stated path they are on) there is nothing LPE can do to stay if the class wants them gone (and again clearly they do as the WC vote proves).  LPE made it easy such that they could be terminated prior to the name change vote.  That was absurdly dumb from a strategic perspective.  That forces the class to live without the name and trademark, ensures they are gone, and that the class vote re names is meaningless from a practical perspective.  Even if the class votes no to the name change, LPE takes them to court for using their name/IP and the court forces the class to change the name.  LPE had a chance if the class name change vote had to happen before they got terminated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wess said:

Even if the class votes no to the name change, LPE takes them to court and the court forces the class to change the name.  

I'm not sure its quite as simple as that. If the class votes down the rule change then there are no builders in Europe and USA. Builders can build ILCA class boats, but I'm not at all sure the ILCA can represent them. The ILCA doesn't cease to exist, because it still represents the existing class.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JimC said:

I'm not sure its quite as simple as that. If the class votes down the rule change then there are no builders in Europe and USA. Builders can build ILCA class boats, but I'm not at all sure the ILCA can represent them. The ILCA doesn't cease to exist, because it still represents the existing class.

 

Not saying its simple but that in the instance of that contingency (failed vote) - which I think is unlikely assuming reports that ILCA has builders lined up that they can/will announce prior is true - WS and ILCA have ways to make it work. I do not think a failed vote opens the door for LPE to walk back in.  I think the only way LPE walks back in is by starting and running their own builder controlled Laser class distinct from ILCA's class.  And I don't think LPE can actually do that (from a cash and competency standpoint, not a legal standpoint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aroy210677 said:

 

"World Sailing has now proposed three dates for joint World Sailing -ILCA Laser inspection of our Banbury factory (May 28,29 or 30). LaserPerformance has agreed and is waiting for confirmed date. Will ILCA stand by its word to make sure Laser sailing and events are not hurt by issuing plaques after factory inspection certification?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LPE has caved in, then that makes things very interesting. Maybe that explains why aroy removed his comment...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No and no @JimC  and what is more worrying to the path we are on and outcome I like are the words "World Sailing has now proposed [...] joint"... 

Have not seen WS correct anything LPE has posted re WS but they did correct ILCA comments re WS. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have trouble understanding, is why LPE apparently does not want the North American market, but yet it isn't possible to negotiate a builder in North America while LPE keeps the markets they like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimC said:

If LPE has caved in, then that makes things very interesting. Maybe that explains why aroy removed his comment...

I don’t think LPE has caved in, they have always maintained they are open to an inspection supported by WS.  That is why I am concerned that ILCA acted hastily in unapproving LP as a builder.  

Found this online at https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-503-7324?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

A repudiatory breach occurs where a party has committed a sufficiently serious breach of contract (given the importance of the term and the nature of the breach), or has indicated by words or conduct an intention not to perform the contract in the future. A repudiatory breach entitles the other party to treat himself as discharged from further obligations under the contract, instead of or as well as claiming damages. 
A repudiatory breach does not end the contract automatically. It is for the innocent party to choose either to treat his future obligations under the contract as discharged and claim damages or to affirm the contract and claim damages for any breach.
When a party purports to exercise a contractual right to terminate, it must ensure it is justified in doing so under the contract and that it follows the correct contract procedure. If it does not, the other party may argue that the wrongful termination was a repudiation of the contract, and seek damages.
 
AIUI ILCA are claiming that LPs refusal to be inspected amounts to a repudiatory breach.  But a. It’s not clear to me that it is a repudiatory breach given that LP requested, and WS agreed to, an inspection supported by WS, b. ILCA did not, I believe, get WS agreement to the deselection of LP as they probably are required to do (as a WS and Olympic class they are not fully autonomous and independent of WS). Therefore, if ILCA were not justified in terminating the contract or the incorrect procedure was followed, LP themselves could claim a repudiatory breach. 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Gouv but can't you see that is what they are doing AND that haste regarding a vote would be stupid.  If done earlier it would have alerted LPE which would not have been without defenses at that early stage; its better to vote on a name change AFTER they have been terminated. And two canntt you see that its better for all - including you and your desires - to have the vote after a new builder is announced so class members can see and read who it is and what they commit to do?????  And if you next questiuon is why not announce who that is already can I refer you to many previous posts many of which suggest it would be a good idea to get ducks in a row first and avoid these nasty things called damages

So for gosh sake... SIT TIGHT AND EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT... like mellow out already bro!  However as an added caveat it might not be so alright if WS aligns with LPE (this TBD but not so happy to see the LPE announcement today citing WS) but at that point there is no saving the mess vote or no vote.  In this worst case its still better to have not voted.

Chillax.  Do what Willie does...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VWAP said:

"World Sailing has now proposed three dates for joint World Sailing -ILCA Laser inspection of our Banbury factory (May 28,29 or 30). LaserPerformance has agreed and is waiting for confirmed date. Will ILCA stand by its word to make sure Laser sailing and events are not hurt by issuing plaques after factory inspection certification?"

Interesting. News to us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites