Wess

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Is that the same as saying that the name of the class and the contents of the constitution will be fully decoupled from the word Laser?  

I just checked the official proposal and this was the quote;

Quote

If approved, other class rules affected by this rule change will be modified to be consistent with the amended definition of Builder. This will include all rules covering the brand name of the equipment.

This does however, not included changing the constitution which specifically states the name as International Laser Class Association. Changing that would require another  membership vote. My guess is that for the case of amending all the other affected class rules, they'll swap "Laser" for "ILCA approved"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, drLaser said:

Nobody ever implied this anywhere.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding, let me note that the above "nobody ever" qualification specifically refers to the terms of the "Commercial Undertakings Agreement", or at best to all other WS-imposed agreements we are discussing nowadays.

Share this post


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

you canntt be serious

I cann but probably not today. It’s almost weekend and time to go sailing!

Anybody know who ILCA and WS is using for legal counsel? 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sosoomii said:

So Lasers that don’t measure for racing should still be welcomed into ILCA. 

It's not boats that are members of ILCA. It's people. Not even organizations. And any real person can be a member of ILCA, and they are welcome. They don't have to own Lasers, ILCA-approved or not.

4 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Is that the same as saying that the name of the class and the contents of the constitution will be fully decoupled from the word Laser?

 I believe the rule change referred to only the Class Rules and not to the Constitution. However, I agree that some changes will also need to be made in the Constitution, too.

2 hours ago, greenwhiteblack said:

Changing that would require another  membership vote.

Absolutely right.

Share this post


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

I cann but probably not today. It’s almost weekend and time to go sailing!

Anybody know who ILCA and WS is using for legal counsel? 

World Sailing - Saul Goodman
ILCA - It doesn't matter what his name is as long he has the right measurements.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drLaser said:

And any real person can be a member of ILCA, and they are welcome.

I take that back.

Any real person except for me, and thousands like me from "Green" countries without a local Laser Class Association.

MNA says, "There are no class associations for you to join; you just join the Federation". ILCA says, "No, you are a member of your District. There is a District there. Contact the 'Contact Person'." The Contact Person says, "STFU, who are you to become a member and vote? We will vote for you." The Constitution says, if there is no local class association, I can join the ILCA Region. But the ILCA Region (EurILCA) says, "No, you  can't join me. I don't collect membership fees.)

In the meantime, I have no ILCA membership number, no ILCA ID card, etc. Me, and thousands like me.

I'm racing Lasers since 1976. And since I moved from the US to Istanbul, I don't even know whether my vote counts or not.

This has to be corrected.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wess said:

You made me laugh.  Well done.  But it is.  @RobbieB is really making southern man look bad, being part of the ILCA shakedown of us grass roots sailors.

Now we shall see if he is capable and has learned how to play the music game.  This is a softball Robbie. A gimmme. There is a very obvious musical response...

Lets see if you can figure it out while we wait to see if LPE has beat down ILCA or if WS is going to extend things so ILCA can beat down on us poor club sailors.

Silly southern man...  have you ever been to Alabama Lynyrd?

 

Damnit!  I lack the internet agility to post songs.  Actually, I've never tried... Anyway, I did live in Birmingham a few years.  Fairhope is a beautiful spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Wess said:

Have you been sipping... no gulping my rum?  How about the new PSA forward deck that was adopted without notice and obsoleted all the older boats?  How about mast rake?  How about... oh what's the point you know this list is very long.  The simple truth is that ILCA never did any real meaningful inspection of anyone or anything.  I don't mean they never inspected.  I mean its a joke.  You could order custom Laser boats.  Do I think it made a difference at the club level?  No!  Do I think it made a difference at an elite level?  Hell yes.

Your statement is BS and you know it.

And if you would take the time to read and understand Sosoo's post you would realize it has virtually nothing to do with what you wrote.

Sticking with the sci fi theme... are all you ILCA leadership wired like the borg... not capable of free thought?  Come on Man (football season coming)!

 

So your point is: "It's always been a free for all and it all ways will be." ?  Nope, I'm not buying that.  While it's obvious there's been issues I believe the overall integrity of the class, (ILCA) and the overall build of the boats is and has been in tact.  I'd wager less than 1% of all hulls built had any "knowingly" altered measures taken.  Has it happened?  Absolutely!  I mean WTF we're humans and some cheat.  That's life man.  However, overall my statement is NOT BS and YOU KNOW THAT.  So, get the tinfoil off your head.

Case in point:  The last 3 lasers I've owned, (all Vanguard US built hulls) have had mast rakes from 148.5" to 150", (measured in US inches from the top of a standard bottom section sitting in the mast step to the curve of the deck where the rudder hangs).  I weighed the 1st hull which had the 148.5" rake at 130 lbs.  Have not weighed the others as I've developed a decent enough "feel" over years of lifting boats to know "obviously" heavy from light.  I'd estimate though all 3 have been within 5lbs of each other.  I think the 148.5" rake was a 1/2" inch outside of the build tolerance, but don't know for sure.

My current 2001 hull has the 150" rake and is well equipped with all the latest, greatest gear.  In my district I race against much newer hulls sailed by very capable folks, but I'm a top finisher in all conditions.

When I go to FL for the Masters stuff I'm a mid-fleeter.  I'm smart enough to know it's not the boat.  One thing I have taken away from nearly 40 years at the helm is "Always stay on top of your gear so you can never blame the boat."  Across multiple OD fleet endeavors I never have.  Accept that one time I had a 74 laser hull.  That thing was soft and heavy, but it wasn't the builders fault.  It was age and poor boat care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dgmckim said:

why? this is the part i'm getting hung up on

He's not letting this go even though it's been discussed at painful length the reason's why it DOES NOT have to be called a Laser...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Damnit!  I lack the internet agility to post songs.  Actually, I've never tried... Anyway, I did live in Birmingham a few years.  Fairhope is a beautiful spot.

Its easy.  Find the video you want and cut and paste the ink into your message.  Easy as ILCA and WS stealing money from grass roots sailors Mr Southern Man.

So your response would then be...

"Southern Man don't need him around anyhow..."

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

He's not letting this go even though it's been discussed at painful length the reason's why it DOES NOT have to be called a Laser...

We will have to disagree on the PSA better boats thing.  They simply were.  And are.  On the name it is you not getting it.  Lets try this a different way.  See how smart and honest you can be.  The purpose of all this per Tracy and ILCA is to preserve the Olympics (stated fact).  WS said it had to be done by August 1 (stated fact).  Tracey then said ILCA would need a few more days for the vote count and that he expected WS was OK with that (stated fact).  Lets ignore that we are 9 days past that date already.  Assume LPE is gone. Simple questions for you. 

Do you understand why ILCA has failed the test to be done by August 1 (or even thereabouts)?  Do you understand why if they try to go forward as things presently sit they will be sued and lose?  Can you explain what still needs to be done and how long it will take to be done? If no, then you don't understand Sosoo's point. 

Why are the LPE lemming so angry today? Are the rumors of some problems in paradise accurate? :lol:

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least someone gets it...

The reason I am not letting it go is that we will end up in the position where a boat can be a Laser but not be called a Laser, and are currently in the position where a boat can be called a Laser but not be a Laser.  

That situation is absurd and probably not sustainable.  

Delays, litigation and more rule/constitution changes will follow and an LP led rival class may form, which will divide the class.  

To think that the rule change is the end of all problems is wishful thinking.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

At least someone gets it...

The reason I am not letting it go is that we will end up in the position where a boat can be a Laser but not be called a Laser, and are currently in the position where a boat can be called a Laser but not be a Laser.  

That situation is absurd and probably not sustainable.  

Delays, litigation and more rule/constitution changes will follow and an LP led rival class may form, which will divide the class.  

To think that the rule change is the end of all problems is wishful thinking.

 

And all to keep the runner-up boat at the Olympic evaluation in a regatta that's only sailed once every 4 years and only about 40 men and 40 women are allowed to sail in it.

Is it worth it people? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At no point have I commended LP for good work.  I’m just not so simple as to think every story has a goody and a baddy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We will have to disagree on the PSA better boats thing.  They simply were.  And are.  On the name it is you not getting it.  Lets try this a different way.  See how smart and honest you can be.  The purpose of all this per Tracy and ILCA is to preserve the Olympics (stated fact).  WS said it had to be done by August 1 (stated fact).  Tracey then said ILCA would need a few more days for the vote count and that he expected WS was OK with that (stated fact).  Lets ignore that we are 9 days past that date already.  Assume LPE is gone. Simple questions for you. 

Do you understand why ILCA has failed the test to be done by August 1 (or even thereabouts)?  Do you understand why if they try to go forward as things presently sit they will be sued and lose?  Can you explain what still needs to be done and how long it will take to be done? If no, then you don't understand Sosoo's point. 

Why are the LPE lemming so angry today? Are the rumors of some problems in paradise accurate? :lol:

Some of this stuff is funny.  Most of it does not aggravate me.  What is starting to get on my nerves is several non-laser sailing or non-laser class members running off at the mouth with their opinions that just don't matter.  That's right.  the opinions of those stated above don't matter.  If you were really that twisted up about it you should have joined the class and voted, (or at least sail the damn boat).  I do the same with people who complain about elected officials, "Did you vote?" "Well, uh, no".  Then STFU and save it for the next go'round when you step up and vote!  

In sales we call these folks, "time wasters". They'll talk your ear off all day, ask for pricing in various configurations, tell you your price it too high or someone else has a better one, (of something they've never owned) and all kinds of crap knowing full well they have no intentions of buying something.  Time wasters.

I bet PSA does have better boats.  LPE sure wasn't getting it done, (according to various reports and I wouldn't know cause I haven't seen a new laser hull in so long I forgot what they looked like) so the bar wasn't that high to begin with.  

Behind the silence of the ILCA and WS things are happening.  It's like when big changes are about to come down in the corporate world.  You don't know what it's going to be until the moment it's announced.  While ILCA is a mostly volunteer organization it's still a business and this deal involves a decent amount of interested parties who have legitimate business interests.  So, I'm sure it's likely overwhelmingly complicated.

So- 1) The vote was done by Aug 1.  We all knew there was no was no way this was gonna be buttoned up anywhere near the Aug 1 date.  Obviously WS has allowed for an extension as stated in the presser.  2)- Who the hell knows where things presently sit?  I'm not about to speculate on that, (which is what you are doing). 3)- No.  I have no idea what's left to be done because I, (nor any other blowhards here) have a clue where, exactly things actually are!

So given 1, 2, and 3 how can anyone understand SoSoomii's speculative point?  I just think he's hung up on, "If it doesn't say Laser then it's not thing."

Jesus.  I'm going on a boat ride and having nice oversized, ice cold beer.  Until next week folks. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The reason I am not letting it go is that we will end up in the position where a boat can be a Laser but not be called a Laser, and are currently in the position where a boat can be called a Laser but not be a Laser.  

Thanks for your succinct summary of your position.  This could end up being a problem and leading to a name change of the class. At the end of the day, if it has an ILCA placque on it, it's a class legal boat. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. 

4 minutes ago, tillerman said:

Is it worth it people? 

It's still my opinion that we wouldn't have half of the youth participation we currently have in the Laser if it weren't an Olympic boat. Further, if the rule change can help improve supply in some parts of the world which have been under-serviced, that's also worth it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Some of this stuff is funny.  Most of it does not aggravate me.  What is starting to get on my nerves is several non-laser sailing or non-laser class members running off at the mouth with their opinions that just don't matter.  That's right.  the opinions of those stated above don't matter.  If you were really that twisted up about it you should have joined the class and voted, (or at least sail the damn boat).  I do the same with people who complain about elected officials, "Did you vote?" "Well, uh, no".  Then STFU and save it for the next go'round when you step up and vote!  

In sales we call these folks, "time wasters". They'll talk your ear off all day, ask for pricing in various configurations, tell you your price it too high or someone else has a better one, (of something they've never owned) and all kinds of crap knowing full well they have no intentions of buying something.  Time wasters.

I bet PSA does have better boats.  LPE sure wasn't getting it done, (according to various reports and I wouldn't know cause I haven't seen a new laser hull in so long I forgot what they looked like) so the bar wasn't that high to begin with.  

Behind the silence of the ILCA and WS things are happening.  It's like when big changes are about to come down in the corporate world.  You don't know what it's going to be until the moment it's announced.  While ILCA is a mostly volunteer organization it's still a business and this deal involves a decent amount of interested parties who have legitimate business interests.  So, I'm sure it's likely overwhelmingly complicated.

So- 1) The vote was done by Aug 1.  We all knew there was no was no way this was gonna be buttoned up anywhere near the Aug 1 date.  Obviously WS has allowed for an extension as stated in the presser.  2)- Who the hell knows where things presently sit?  I'm not about to speculate on that, (which is what you are doing). 3)- No.  I have no idea what's left to be done because I, (nor any other blowhards here) have a clue where, exactly things actually are!

So given 1, 2, and 3 how can anyone understand SoSoomii's speculative point?  I just think he's hung up on, "If it doesn't say Laser then it's not thing."

Jesus.  I'm going on a boat ride and having nice oversized, ice cold beer.  Until next week folks. 

Well we agree the last at least.  I am at the beach rigging my Laser.  Nice breeze here.   Sounds like ignorance in the breeze over by you!   Its not speculative; its fact.  But we shall wait and see. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

At no point have I commended LP for good work.  I’m just not so simple as to think every story has a goody and a baddy. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 8:44 PM, Ginko said:

By what means / process does Rastegar access building IP (manual), to enable him to issue license of same ?

He would be Licencing the Laser trademark. Not the LCM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lemonpepper said:

You should log off and go sailing. We all completely believe that you are on the beach and actually rigging a boat. Nice touch. You too have put in a hard week of work and I'm sure that all seven people who read this forum are now very concerned about a pending lawsuit that will lead to the immediate downfall of the world's largest youth and adult racing class. Go put your feet up, talk to the boss and get ready to go Monday morning! 

Ha ha ha ha ha.  Have you figure it out yet Lemons?  Did I sail my Laser or.... maybe you are right and I canntt even afford a Laser.  Maybe I will never be able to after WS and ILCA get done stealing money for nothing from grass root sailors.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

It's OK Wuss. Just relax and regroup. You have another hard week of absurd legal innuendos and unsubstantiated rumours to spread. You deserve a day off once in a while.

 

 

 

Thanks man.  OK, I will let somebody else do the work...

This seems on point!

https://optimist-openbic-sailing.blogspot.com/2019/08/fake-lasers-one-step-closer-to-be.html

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 1:09 AM, sosoomii said:

So if I go to Devoti to buy an Olympic singlehander boat, Devoti won’t call it a Laser.  And ILCA won’t call it a Laser.  Yet it will be able to race in International Laser Class Association events.

Going way back. My apologies for addressing this issue.

If you go to Devoti to buy an Olympic singlehander boat, Devoti will call it a "Laser Devoti" (or "Devoti Laser"). And @SFBayLaser will call it a "Laser Devoti". And, sure, it will be able to race in International Laser Class Association events.

Laser Devoti, Laser FarEast, Laser MagMarin, etc.

To support a trademark infringement claim in court, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the average consumers about the source of the goods. There is no confusion when the product is screaming "Laser Devoti". If there is no confusion, there is no weakening of the value of the plaintiff’s mark. (However, adding a prefix or suffix, changing letters or adding clarifying information may not always avoid a claim of similarity of marks. The courts decide.)

Of course, there is also the issue of the Laser "logo", the starburst symbol. The "Laser Devoti" logo, if any, must be revised so that it is not probable, under any circumstances, that consumers of the relevant goods will be confused.

On the other hand, there is also the issue of a generic trademark, also known as a proprietary eponym, which is a trademark or brand name that, due to its popularity or significance, has become the generic name for, or synonymous with, a general class of product, usually against the intentions of the trademark's holder. When we say "Laser", we automatically think of the product, the dinghy, as defined in the LCM, not any particular manufacturer. Just like the words "dumpster", "fridge", "frisbee", "escalator" or "zipper".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that is where they are headed.  Nope no confusion there.  No basis for litigation at all. Ha ha ha ha.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea where this is headed, Wess. These are my personal opinions. I can think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, I was hoping you had talked to Tracy again. Guess not.  Fair enough. On a serious note whatever comes next in this mess will be interesting!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, drLaser said:

Going way back. My apologies for addressing this issue.

If you go to Devoti to buy an Olympic singlehander boat, Devoti will call it a "Laser Devoti" (or "Devoti Laser"). And @SFBayLaser will call it a "Laser Devoti". And, sure, it will be able to race in International Laser Class Association events.

Laser Devoti, Laser FarEast, Laser MagMarin, etc.

To support a trademark infringement claim in court, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the average consumers about the source of the goods. There is no confusion when the product is screaming "Laser Devoti". If there is no confusion, there is no weakening of the value of the plaintiff’s mark. (However, adding a prefix or suffix, changing letters or adding clarifying information may not always avoid a claim of similarity of marks. The courts decide.)

Of course, there is also the issue of the Laser "logo", the starburst symbol. The "Laser Devoti" logo, if any, must be revised so that it is not probable, under any circumstances, that consumers of the relevant goods will be confused.

On the other hand, there is also the issue of a generic trademark, also known as a proprietary eponym, which is a trademark or brand name that, due to its popularity or significance, has become the generic name for, or synonymous with, a general class of product, usually against the intentions of the trademark's holder. When we say "Laser", we automatically think of the product, the dinghy, as defined in the LCM, not any particular manufacturer. Just like the words "dumpster", "fridge", "frisbee", "escalator" or "zipper".

If Fiat build an automobile and call it the Porsche-Fiat, they would be infringing a trademark.

If Fiat's automobile, looked identical to a Porsche 911, then the trademark infringement case wouldnt even last a day before the judge awarded damages.

If Devoti build a boat that is essentially identical to the Laser and called it the Laser-Devoti, any court in Europe or the USA is going to find that the average consumer is going to assume that it is related to the product supplied by Laser Performance or at the very least be confused by two boats that look the same and carry the same brand name.  The court will not allow the consumer to be knowledgeable about who devoti is or the history of this dispute, or someone with knowledge about sailing boats. The benchmark will be the average consumer. Trademarks and brands cost millions to establish and outside of China, the courts protect the people who create them assiduously.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, drLaser said:

G

 

On the other hand, there is also the issue of a generic trademark, also known as a proprietary eponym, which is a trademark or brand name that, due to its popularity or significance, has become the generic name for, or synonymous with, a general class of product, usually against the intentions of the trademark's holder.

When we say "Laser", Kit Kat we automatically think of the product, the dinghy candy bar, as defined in the KCM, not any particular manufacturer. Just like the words "dumpster", "fridge", "frisbee", "escalator" or "zipper".

Kit Kat, is a chocolate candy bar originally manufactured by Rowntree's in the UK and now manufactured globally by Nestle of Switzerland, except in the USA where it is manufactured by Hershey according to a common confidential process. Some have suggested that KitKats in Europe taste imperceptibly better. Others have complained that it is hard to obtain a ready supply of Kit Kats everywhere in North America, and even that Nestle manufactured Kit Kat bars can be obtained illegally in Texas. 

Nonetheless, I can tell you with complete confidence that if you tried to alleviate the shortage of KitKat bars in North America by manufacturing and selling Kit Kat bars and calling them "Joe's Kit Kat" bars, you would immediately be sued. 

The association of Kit Kat Konsumers have decided to drop the name Kit Kat and have authorized  several manufacturers to bring out a bar called the KKK candy bar. The name has not proved to be popular. Despite the supply problems and poor service, the average candy bar eater who enjoys a chocolate rush on a Saturday afternoon at their local yacht club, prefers their candy bar to be called a KIt Kat.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect all of you fanboys will disagree but Kirby Torch is a better name! A global trademark. Licensing will be much easier. Laser brand will be close to worthless. Snap!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Kit Kat, is a chocolate candy bar originally manufactured by Rowntree's in the UK and now manufactured globally by Nestle of Switzerland, except in the USA where it is manufactured by Hershey according to a common confidential process. Some have suggested that KitKats in Europe taste imperceptibly better. Others have complained that it is hard to obtain a ready supply of Kit Kats everywhere in North America, and even that Nestle manufactured Kit Kat bars can be obtained illegally in Texas. 

Nonetheless, I can tell you with complete confidence that if you tried to alleviate the shortage of KitKat bars in North America by manufacturing and selling Kit Kat bars and calling them "Joe's Kit Kat" bars, you would immediately be sued. 

The association of Kit Kat Konsumers have decided to drop the name Kit Kat and have authorized  several manufacturers to bring out a bar called the KKK candy bar. The name has not proved to be popular. Despite the supply problems and poor service, the average candy bar eater who enjoys a chocolate rush on a Saturday afternoon at their local yacht club, prefers their candy bar to be called a KIt Kat.

The Kit Kat bar is very popular but some consumers prefer their chocolate bars to be lighter and more exciting. They find what they are looking for in the Aero bar - also manufactured by Nestlé, after a takeover of Rowntree's. (You can't make this shit up!)



teacndy1000006038_-00_nestle-aero-milk-c

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, the entertaining Porsche 911 and Kit Kat examples do not share the characteristics of this case and are irrelevant. Will get back after sailing. I reserve my right to acknowledge that IP guys know best. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I expect all of you fanboys will disagree but Kirby Torch is a better name! A global trademark. Licensing will be much easier. Laser brand will be close to worthless. Snap!

That is a pretty fair and accurate statement. And frankly it’s kinda shocking ILCA didn’t go down this path as obvious and easy at it is. This will be over the head of many but there are some other contractual benefits to this approach as well. If they are bringing back the Kirby fee anyway it’s surprising they didn’t do exactly what you said. It really would have been game over for LPE and a walk in the park into the Olympics. Unless Kirby wasn’t willing to do FRAND.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

If Fiat build an automobile and call it the Porsche-Fiat, they would be infringing a trademark.

If Fiat's automobile, looked identical to a Porsche 911, then the trademark infringement case wouldnt even last a day before the judge awarded damages.

If Devoti build a boat that is essentially identical to the Laser and called it the Laser-Devoti, any court in Europe or the USA is going to find that the average consumer is going to assume that it is related to the product supplied by Laser Performance or at the very least be confused by two boats that look the same and carry the same brand name.  The court will not allow the consumer to be knowledgeable about who devoti is or the history of this dispute, or someone with knowledge about sailing boats. The benchmark will be the average consumer. Trademarks and brands cost millions to establish and outside of China, the courts protect the people who create them assiduously.

Good to hear from you again. But that advice doesn’t fit the naive wishful of most on here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 I reserve my right to acknowledge that IP guys know best. :) 

I'm sure that IPlore is correct. My amateur understanding of the law is that a european court would find for Velum  against Devoti Laser in very short order, and even a US court might be able to find for them in less than five years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many tell them, lemmings don’t believe. I think I am starting to understand what the L stands for LOL. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

No matter how many tell them, lemmings don’t believe. I think I am starting to understand what the L stands for LOL. 

I think it all goes back to the wish to see all this as being about goodies and baddies.

Baddies - Mr. Rastegar and his companies.
Goodies - everyone else - PSA, PSJ, Global Sailing and ILCA.

It seems like 95% of the people on this thread want it to be true that PSA can do no wrong. 

In the real world it isn't that simple. Especially when it comes to trademark law.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think it all goes back to the wish to see all this as being about goodies and baddies.

Baddies - Mr. Rastegar and his companies.
Goodies - everyone else - PSA, PSJ, Global Sailing and ILCA.

It seems like 95% of the people on this thread want it to be true that PSA can do no wrong. 

In the real world it isn't that simple. Especially when it comes to trademark law.
 

Yea fair enough but some of this stuff even Captain Obvious can understand. There are no goodies. Just various shades of grey. I mean a person had to be pretty much brain dead to not be able to find some level of fault with everyone on this mess. Even if you want  ILCA to win regardless of fault then there is some stuff you would and wouldn’t want them doing right now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I'm sure that IPlore is correct. My amateur understanding of the law is that a european court would find for Velum  against Devoti Laser in very short order, and even a US court might be able to find for them in less than five years...

I think I have to agree, german customs would make an end to this within hours. Trademark dilution does not work either. Maybe we use Jeep as a generic term for offroad cars  of different manufactures, but when BMW would try to sell an BMW Jeep X6 they would propably end in trouble.

Share this post


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

I'm sure that IPlore is correct. My amateur understanding of the law is that a european court would find for Velum  against Devoti Laser in very short order, and even a US court might be able to find for them in less than five years...

Above, Dr Laser put forward his scenario. I doubt that it will match what Luci Devoti actually does.

---

If sold as "the Devoti Laser" that would most result in legal action.

If sold as "the Devoti that complies with the Laser class rules" less so, but still.

If sold as "the Devoti that complies with ILCA rules" then I can't see how that breaches trademark law in any way.

If simply sold as "the Devoti", "the Olympic Devoti" or something else which does not use the name Laser at all, then there is no breach of Trademark to answer.

---

There is no breach of trademark law to answer when a trademark is not used.

---

IPLore yet again promotes the notion that Laser trademark is somehow tied up in the right to build the boat designed by Bruce Kirby and first built by Ian Bruce.

It never was.

---

The rule requiring builders to use "a Laser trademark" is being removed.

There are new contracts to build (already agreed to by Laser Performance).

The LCM has been changed.

ILCA no longer use the Laser trademark.

My prediction is that we are on the eve of an official announcement from World Sailing confirming the Olympic 2024 selection.

---
ILCA are on solid legal ground.

PSA are on solid legal ground.

---

Because of the above, the phrase "ILCA dinghy" may still be used, and might even catch on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@IPLore I have a question that I am hoping you can answer. If a boat is plaqued by ILCA is it, de facto, a Laser regardless of what the builder may call it or what logo is on the sail?  If it is a Laser and it does not have the Laser trademark holder’s approval is that an infringement of the trademark regardless of the name and logo on the boat?  Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Share this post


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

There is no breach of trademark law to answer when a trademark is not used.

Of course.

Contract law on the other hand may be an entirely different matter. For what little my opinion is worth if there's a battle then I suspect that will be the scene. But recent discussion has been some way the far side of ridiculous flights of fancy with unsupported speculation piled on unsupported speculation. At least that was something there was some kind of an answer to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pains me to write about this after the comments of some of you. I don't think it's worth it.

What I am discussing mainly relates to US laws. Not German laws, not EU laws. Of course, not Canadian laws, either. Haven't had time to look into that (yet). And probably I won't look into that, since I don't think this thread is worth it.

In US law, the determining factor always is: Is it probable, under the circumstances, that a typical  buyer of a Laser boat will be confused about who the manufacturer is?

When determining this "likelihood of confusion", US Courts look at several factors, which include: Similarity of the products, the "junior user’s" intent in adopting the mark, sophistication of the buyers, etc. There are six other factors, too, but the ones I listed are the ones that relate most to the Laser case.

Among these, the "sophistication of the buyers", or the degree of care exercised by the buyer, is especially relevant for the "Laser Devoti" example that I gave - to suggest how such boats could race in ILCA-sanctioned regattas (and that I regret suggesting to this forum of animosity). 

Generally, a buyer making a very expensive purchase like a $7000 dinghy  is more likely to be discriminating and is less likely to be easily confused as to similarity of marks. The reason for this higher degree of care is because the consumer buys expensive items less frequently. Therefore the courts assume that such purchasers are likely to be more discriminating and source-conscious when purchasing boats, cars, real estate services, insurance or other "high ticket" items. Under these circumstances, the courts require a more substantial showing of "confusion" of buyers between a "Laser" brand hull and a "Laser Devoti" brand hull. The same is true for items that are purchased by "professional buyers" like Olympians, seasoned Laser sailors or serious racers. Such a buyer arrives at the dealer already knowledgeable about the boats. A Laser sailor is less likely to be confused because of his/her superior knowledge as to purchasing options.

An ordinary purchaser, particularly one that buys inexpensive items like a Kit Kat bar on impulse is the most likely to be confused by similarity of marks. This consumer, for example, may quickly scan the aisle of a supermarket and impulsively purchase a box of "Joe's Kitty Kat bars" without realizing that (s)he has been confused as to the choice of brands. In this instance, a lesser degree of care has been exercised. Therefore, less similarity may be necessary to prove likelihood of buyer "confusion".

Thus, anybody who bothered to read up on these a  bit can see that the "Laser" versus "Laser Devoti" case can not even be compared to a "Kit Kat" versus "Joe's Kit Kat" case, whoever suggested it.

You can do your own research on the irrelevance of the "Porsche-Fiat" example. 

Until we hear new factual developments, I remain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person who suggested it is an IP attorney who also called the last case exactly correctly but no doubt you know better. 

God I love this place. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

@IPLore I have a question that I am hoping you can answer. If a boat is plaqued by ILCA is it, de facto, a Laser regardless of what the builder may call it or what logo is on the sail?  If it is a Laser and it does not have the Laser trademark holder’s approval is that an infringement of the trademark regardless of the name and logo on the boat?  Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

1. For a boat to be able to race it needs to be class legal. If it is class legal it will get a plaque. If ILCA class rules state that a builder needs to be a trademark holder, than all PSA, PSJ and LPE boats with plaques are class legal worldwide. There is no class rule that states that a Laser decal has to be on the boat. There is no need for the boat to be called Laser due to class rules. 

2. Trademarks can be hold in a specific country or region as the EU. A trademark gives the exclusive right to use this mark in specific countries. Nobody else is allowed to use the trademark. A PSA Laser may be sold as a Laser with Laser decals only in AUS snd NZL. A Trademark protects only the name and/or Logo. There is no relation to design or building rights. So if there is no trademark on a product there can't be any infrigements. 

Hope IPL agrees

Share this post


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

The person who suggested it is an IP attorney who also called the last case exactly correctly but no doubt you know better. 

God I love this place. 

I'm sure ILCA have also consulted their own IP attorneys who have obviously given them different advice. 

Luckily for all of us here, differences in opinion are the reason the legal profession exist, and continue to give us something to talk about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck using 'Olympic' in the name of your dinghy or even mentioning it in your promotional materials in any country without paying a massive licence fee and probably lots of payoffs too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good luck using 'Olympic' in the name of your dinghy or even mentioning it in your promotional materials in any country without paying a massive licence fee and probably lots of payoffs too.

Quote

London 2012 Olympic Laser

Source: http://blog.laserperformance.com/297-2/

 

Share this post


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

 

Thus, anybody who bothered to read up on these a  bit can see that the "Laser" versus "Laser Devoti" case can not even be compared to a "Kit Kat" versus "Joe's Kit Kat" case, whoever suggested it.

You can do your own research on the irrelevance of the "Porsche-Fiat" example. 

Until we hear new factual developments, I remain.

Dr Laser

Perhaps the Turkish company Ulker could become an official sponsor and post their chewing gum branding ”Lazer”  on the Kirby dinghy ? and host Lazer regattas via the International Lazer Class Association.

Share this post


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

If I were an officer of the ILCA at any level, I would be consulting lawyers about my potential personal liability. 

Do ILCA not have documented legal rights to use the brand name trademark for Laser events?

Why should ILCA not have the right to permit Torch dinghies and Intensity Olympic dinghies and whatever other equipment they decree eligible for ILCA placards (including some but maybe not all Laser dinghies) at their legally branded Laser sailing events?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

D9604609-963C-4709-BD91-D6A2C056ABD3.jpeg

1 hour ago, tillerman said:

IPLore called it back in April. 

Opening in a court room near you one day soon.

Mt Stupid takes on the appearance of a foothill.

Stephen King wrote a whole book about "it".

The above statement by Tillerman is hollow.

---

11 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

If I were an officer of the ILCA at any level, I would be consulting lawyers about my potential personal liability. 

On the basis of a conspiracy theory?

Or something else?

---

We all heard Mr Rastegar promote the notion of taking ILCA to court on the Sailing Illustrated interview. And PSA.

Nobody, including the so-called experts, have yet to figure out on what exact basis legal action will be taken, without making huge leaps of logic.

I'm not saying that there won't be legal action. I'm just saying that there is no basis for it that I or others are aware of - without making some big assumptions.

---

Mr Rastegar has rights for Laser trademark in a defined territory. I am absolutely sure there will be no legal action for any party not using the Laser trademark.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Mr Rastegar has rights for Laser trademark in a defined territory. I am absolutely sure there will be no legal action for any party not using the Laser trademark.

Mr. Rastegar indicated in his recent interview that boats imported to Canada under ILCA trademark would be seized. That was a legal remedy he said was available for him to use.

Did I miss something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Wess said:

...

If they are bringing back the Kirby fee anyway it’s surprising they didn’t do exactly what you said.

...

Unless Kirby wasn’t willing to do FRAND.

I can’t imagine why Kirby would NOT do FRAND. 

More plaques = more royalties

But if GS owns BKI then, yes, your point would be valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been told that Canadian law is similar to our Brtish law that frivolous legal action is itself illegal, unlike US. law where parties can be tied up in the courts for no good reason, by a vexacious litigant. So I suspect that the suggestion that litigation might be brought to bear in Canada is an idle one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Mr. Rastegar indicated in his recent interview that boats imported to Canada under ILCA trademark would be seized. That was a legal remedy he said was available for him to use.

Did I miss something?

The devil is in the detail. 

In this case, there was no detail.

Those of us who have been involved with international trade and using trademarks have a pretty good idea - but that in itself is not enough.

Mostly it is about seeking advice and looking up the relevant legislation. 

---

Mr Rastegar said a lot of stuff.

Perhaps the 'tell' was the ferocity in his statement, and the inclusion of ILCA in the legal action Mr Rastegar described. 

In fact the boats did not use the ILCA trademark (which was already known at the time of the interview), and even if they did, exactly what law would incite a 'seizure' of Laser boats? There are grounds for product seizure in Canada, but none that I and others looked at came close to applying. 

---

If there is a legal basis for seizing boats by the Laser trademark owner in Canada for not using the Laser trademark, I and others are not aware of it - having looked.

Maybe there is a civil case to answer, though again, on what basis? There was no detail in Mr Rastigar's statement, nor has there been since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if LP has approved the factory inspection scheduled for this coming week?  I hope Clive has a backup plan for a holiday or similar if he's not let into the factory again

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jgh66 said:

1. For a boat to be able to race it needs to be class legal. If it is class legal it will get a plaque. If ILCA class rules state that a builder needs to be a trademark holder, than all PSA, PSJ and LPE boats with plaques are class legal worldwide. There is no class rule that states that a Laser decal has to be on the boat. There is no need for the boat to be called Laser due to class rules. 

I agree with everything prior to the last sentence.  My question relates to the last sentence - Regardless of what a builder calls her boat on her website and what decals it has, if it is sanctioned to race in ILCA events is it, de facto, a Laser.  

2. Trademarks can be hold in a specific country or region as the EU. A trademark gives the exclusive right to use this mark in specific countries. Nobody else is allowed to use the trademark. A PSA Laser may be sold as a Laser with Laser decals only in AUS snd NZL. A Trademark protects only the name and/or Logo. There is no relation to design or building rights. So if there is no trademark on a product there can't be any infringements.

Again, no disagreement with everything prior to the last sentence.  However, as the trademark protects the name and if the answer to the first question is “yes, it is a Laser regardless of what her builder called her” then is there still a trademark infringement? In other words, regardless of the decals put on it, is there still an infringement of the trademarked name if the boat is accepted  by ILCA? 

ILCA proposed a rule change to make such boats class legal, but are they actually legal?  

Hope IPL agrees

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sell black limonade, and you don't use any Pepsi decals on a generic bottle, can Pepsi sue you? 

Sorry I can't follow your logic. You can only infringe a trademark if you use it illegally, or the trademark you use is so close to the original that it may lead to confusion. Läser, Lazer, Loser may be too close. No Name can't be close. 

Maybe this helps:

 

Traps for the Unwary – Protecting Product Shape and Appearance

January 19, 2017 • By eneumann

A recent decision of the Federal Court considered the rights associated with a line of playground sculptures.

The Facts

The plaintiff specializes in the design, development, manufacturing, marketing, and branding of playground equipment. They developed a line of so called playground sculptures which included works entitled Performer Arch, Performer Dome and Explorer Dome. The plaintiff’s playground equipment was designed and built for the use of children on playgrounds and to be played with and climbed on etc. While the sculptures have aesthetic features they are also designed to be playful and safe, and are subject to technical safety requirements including requirements relating to arm reach and rope size.

The Performer Dome, which is representative of the plaintiff’s products, is shown below:

Image2

The defendant is an Ontario corporation which is a competitor of the plaintiff’s. The defendant received requests from its distributors for products similar to the plaintiff’s sculptures. As a result the defendant engineered a line of playground equipment that was designed to be the equivalent of the plaintiff’s sculptures.

The Action

The plaintiff claimed that the design of their playground sculptures was a distinguishing guise. In addition, it was alleged that the defendant directed attention to its products in such a way as to cause or to be likely to cause confusion between the two lines of playground structures. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that it was the owner of copyright relating to its playground sculptures and that the defendants infringed the copyright.

The defendant denied any responsibility and said that the plaintiff’s failure to seek protection under the Industrial Design Actwas fatal to their case.

The Trademarks Act

The definition of a trademark under the Act includes a “distinguishing guise” which is defined as consisting of “a shaping of goods…the appearance of which is used by a person for the purposes for distinguishing goods manufactured, or sold by them from those manufactured, or sold, by others.”

The plaintiff alleged that the appearance of its playground structures was recognised by the public as having a particular source and that the visual external appearance and three dimensional shape of each of the sculptures, was a distinguishing guise.

Unfortunately, for the plaintiff the court found that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the relevant market recognized the shape and appearance of its playground sculptures as having a single source or that the shape of the sculptures was used to market them. On the contrary the evidence seemed to indicate that the plaintiff used a traditional written trademark to indicate the source of its products to customers.

The judge observed that despite the connection with a product, a trademark must not be confused with the product. A trademark is something else, a symbol of connection between the source of the product and the product itself.

For the same reasons the plaintiff was unsuccessful in asserting a claim for passing off. In addition, the plaintiff was not in a position to show that there was any goodwill associated with its playground sculptures in Canada.

Copyright

The plaintiff established that it owned copyright in its sculptures and that the defendant had made reproductions of its playground sculptures that were prima facie infringing. The Copyright Act provides there is no liability for infringement where copyright subsists in a design applied to a useful article and with the authority of the copyright owner the article is reproduced in a quantity of more than 50. For the purposes of this provision a useful article is “an article that has a utilitarian function”.  A “utilitarian function” means a function other than merely serving as a substrate or carrier for artistic or literary matter.

The plaintiff argued that its sculptures were not useful. However, it was evident to the court that they were since they were designed and built for use on children’s playgrounds, to be played with and climbed on.

It was not disputed that the plaintiff had authorized that more than the 50 reproductions of each of its playground sculptures be manufactured on a worldwide basis, which had occurred before the defendant copied the plaintiff’s sculptures. However, each of the plaintiff’s playground structures had not been reproduced more than 50 times in Canada when the defendant commenced selling and manufacturing the impugned products.

When the judge considered the wording of the relevant provision of the Copyright Act,she said it was clear that the section should be interpreted by reference to the actions of the parties on a worldwide basis. As a result, the plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement was dismissed.

Industrial Designs

The Industrial Design Act applies to designs which means features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament and any combination of those features that, in a finished Article, appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. A registration could likely have been obtained under the Act for the plaintiff’s sculptures. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, if a design has been published anywhere in the world more than 1 year prior to date of the application in Canada, a registration will be refused. In this case the plaintiff failed to obtain protection in Canada under the Industrial Design Act.

Comment

This situation in Canada as illustrated by this case is substantially different from that in the United Kingdom or in the European Union. In the U.K. and countries which are members of the EU it is possible to assert rights relating to a non-registered design right that protects the shape and configuration of the products in issue. The term of protection of the relevant rights in the U.K. and EU vary as does the term of protection for registered designs.

Frequently the failure to file a timely application for industrial design in Canada is a trap for the unwary. This is particularly so for businesses from the U.K. or the EU who may be relying on the non-registered design right. It would make sense for the Government to consider making a non-registered design right available in Canada.

John McKeown

Goldman Sloan Nash & Haber LLP

480 University Avenue, Suite 1600

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V2

Share this post


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

Anyone know if LP has approved the factory inspection scheduled for this coming week

ILCA won't fly him if LP haven't signed the required documentation beforehand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, greenwhiteblack said:

ILCA won't fly him if LP haven't signed the required documentation beforehand

What documentation?

New contract with GSL on designer fees or licensing of the TM to all interested builders worldwide?

Share this post


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

Mr Rastegar has rights for Laser trademark in a defined territory. I am absolutely sure there will be no legal action for any party not using the Laser trademark.

Legal action **for trademark infringement** against a party which does not use the trademarks isn't going to succeed. That doesn't preclude successful legal action on other grounds. 

Share this post


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

ILCA won't fly him if LP haven't signed the required documentation beforehand

I don't really know what ILCA are up to with European builders, and I'm not sure many of the rest of you do either in spite of the confident speculation and sweeping quasi legal statements. We're not, to my knowledge, party to what contracts exist.

But  if the contract with whatever Laser Performance company has been terminated then I can see no reason to do a factory inspection, unless either the termination has been rescinded, or else LP LLC has applied to become a Laser builder. The recent "we've terminated you as a builder and here are a load more plaques" confuses me greatly. But I don't think you can go around umming and aahing about whether or not a builder has been terminated according to how you feel. I doubt that would go down well in court.

Share this post


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

But  if the contract with whatever Laser Performance company has been terminated then I can see no reason to do a factory inspection, unless either the termination has been rescinded, or else LP LLC has applied to become a Laser builder. The recent "we've terminated you as a builder and here are a load more plaques" confuses me greatly. But I don't think you can go around umming and aahing about whether or not a builder has been terminated according to how you feel. I doubt that would go down well in court.

It's easy to miss the posts from Tracy with the amount of speculation going on here, but:
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/207638-ilca-gives-lpe-the-boot-seeking-new-laser-builder/&do=findComment&comment=6673164

"LaserPerformance status as a builder... Yes, LP’s approval as a builder was revoked and they were terminated as a party to the construction manual agreement. This should by now be ancient history and not worth rehashing yet again. However, LP can certainly be re-approved as a builder. There are some technical details here but ultimately, just as any builder will be required to do, they have to demonstrate compliance with the construction manual which means not only that they build boats according to it but that they comply with its other provisions too - like not selling non class legal equipment (e.g. “club boats”). Somehow some think this is a minor detail… I guess I would say that if it was considered a minor detail when the construction manual was written then such a provision would not have been included. Anyway, the ILCA Technical Officer has reserved dates for visiting the UK facility after they reopen from their August shutdown. I would assume that LP will demonstrate full compliance with the construction manual and will be re-approved as a builder. "
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I saw that, but "reserved dates for visiting" !== "have arranged a visit". And I haven't seen anything about LP LLC applying to become a builder. Indeed statements from that direction seem to be claiming that the contract termination was illegal. And LP were still offering club Lasers on their website when I looked last week. It seems to be a complex mess of stuff we aren't party to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sosoomii said:

@IPLore I have a question that I am hoping you can answer. If a boat is plaqued by ILCA is it, de facto, a Laser regardless of what the builder may call it or what logo is on the sail?  If it is a Laser and it does not have the Laser trademark holder’s approval is that an infringement of the trademark regardless of the name and logo on the boat?  Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

If I can narrow your question a bit, the short answer is "No, A boat is not likely to represent a cause for trademark infringement merely because it has been plaqued by the class association"

If a boat builder builds and sells a replica of the current dinghy known as the Laser, but makes no reference to name or logo of Laser in their sales process and does not have the name or logo anywhere on the boat or components then the builder is not infringing a trademark. Depending what is written on the plaque , then attaching the World Sailing plaque, does not cause the builder to infringe a trademark. It is merely marking the generic boat as legal to participate in racing in the eyes of the ILCA and WS.

I have previously remarked on this thread that I do not recommend that the class association and World Sailing call the boat "The ILCA Dinghy". It does not create a strong cause for trademark infringement but it opens the door. Why take the risk?  It would allow a plaintiff to ask a builder "What does the "L" stand for?"  

Kirby has previously taken the position that he would only lend his name to the class in return for a license fee. If he wanted to immortalize his association with the class, perhaps he should relent and allow the boat to be called the Kirby 14.  Alternatively, perhaps the Ian Bruce's family would like to honor the man who first conceived of the Laser concept and brought it from concept to reality, by offering to allow the boat to be called the Bruce 14, or the Bruce Single Hander BSH. It would be a fitting honor for Ian and would not open any doors for trademark infringement.

The IBCA could describe Ian Bruce as the father of the Laser because he is already called that and give the factual history of the class and how it was originally called the laser without any trademark issues.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Legal action **for trademark infringement** against a party which does not use the trademarks isn't going to succeed. That doesn't preclude successful legal action on other grounds. 

Indeed.  If I was the ILCA and WS, I would be reappointing LP as builder as fast as I possibly could. Not because I like LP but because there is zero upside in having terminated them and various risks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know why the vote results have not been announced yet?  11 days after the vote is over?

There were supposedly 3,000 votes cast.  That is not a lot of votes to verify, once you have eliminated the dozen or so variations of B. Hudson, Bruce Hudson, Bruce H, Bruce L Hudson, Bruce Hudson jnr, Brewce Hadsome, etc.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Anyone know why the vote results have not been announced yet?  11 days after the vote is over?

There were supposedly 3,000 votes cast.  That is not a lot of votes to verify, once you have eliminated the dozen or so variations of B. Hudson, Bruce Hudson, Bruce H, Bruce L Hudson, Bruce Hudson jnr, Brewce Hadsome, etc.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Anyone know why the vote results have not been announced yet?  11 days after the vote is over?

There were supposedly 3,000 votes cast.  That is not a lot of votes to verify, once you have eliminated the dozen or so variations of B. Hudson, Bruce Hudson, Bruce H, Bruce L Hudson, Bruce Hudson jnr, Brewce Hadsome, etc.

I cannttt imagine why it is taking so long. My lawnmower could verify votes faster than this.

Share this post


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

If I can narrow your question a bit, the short answer is "No, A boat is not likely to represent a cause for trademark infringement merely because it has been plaqued by the class association"

If a boat builder builds and sells a replica of the current dinghy known as the Laser, but makes no reference to name or logo of Laser in their sales process and does not have the name or logo anywhere on the boat or components then the builder is not infringing a trademark. Depending what is written on the plaque , then attaching the World Sailing plaque, does not cause the builder to infringe a trademark. It is merely marking the generic boat as legal to participate in racing in the eyes of the ILCA and WS.

I have previously remarked on this thread that I do not recommend that the class association and World Sailing call the boat "The ILCA Dinghy". It does not create a strong cause for trademark infringement but it opens the door. Why take the risk?  It would allow a plaintiff to ask a builder "What does the "L" stand for?"  

Kirby has previously taken the position that he would only lend his name to the class in return for a license fee. If he wanted to immortalize his association with the class, perhaps he should relent and allow the boat to be called the Kirby 14.  Alternatively, perhaps the Ian Bruce's family would like to honor the man who first conceived of the Laser concept and brought it from concept to reality, by offering to allow the boat to be called the Bruce 14, or the Bruce Single Hander BSH. It would be a fitting honor for Ian and would not open any doors for trademark infringement.

The IBCA could describe Ian Bruce as the father of the Laser because he is already called that and give the factual history of the class and how it was originally called the laser without any trademark issues.     

Any comments about Bruce Kirby’s moral rights to the Laser replica (flop moulding) that is built without his knowledge ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about my moral right to not pay immoral fees, imposed without notice on customers who receive nothing in return? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

What about my moral right to not pay immoral fees, imposed without notice on customers who receive nothing in return? 

Rule #4 You sail a Laser because you like pain.
The sooner you appreciate this fact, the happier you'll be.

Share this post


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

Any comments about Bruce Kirby’s moral rights to the Laser replica (flop moulding) that is built without his knowledge ?

3 hours ago, jgh66 said:

This situation in Canada as illustrated by this case is substantially different from that in the United Kingdom or in the European Union. In the U.K. and countries which are members of the EU it is possible to assert rights relating to a non-registered design right that protects the shape and configuration of the products in issue. The term of protection of the relevant rights in the U.K. and EU vary as does the term of protection for registered designs.

Moral rights exist when the design is protected under copyright.

Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.[1] The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".[2] Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work.[3]

Moral rights were first recognized in Franceand Germany,[4] before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928.[5]:37Canada recognizes moral rights (droits moraux) in its Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d'auteur).[6] The United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989,[7] and incorporated a version of moral rights under its copyright law under Title 17 of the U.S. Code.

Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights.[5]:44-45 In the United States, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA)recognizes moral rights, but applies only to a narrow subset of works of visual art.[8]

Some jurisdictions like Austria differentiate between narrow and wide moral rights. Whilst the former is about integrity of the work, the latter limits usages, which may harm the author's integrity. Some copyright timestamp services allow an author to publish allowed and disallowed usage intentions to prevent a violation of such wider moral rights.[9

Share this post


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

Anyone know why the vote results have not been announced yet?  11 days after the vote is over?

There are over 100 associations registered with ILCA. That's over 100 volunteers who have to put aside time to find their files, go through a list of names, sort out typos, deal with address changes, contact the person who has just taken over but we haven't got round to telling ILCA, evaluate hanging chads, all the rest of it. Personally I'd be surprised if it happened within a month, although they'll probably know the result to a reasonable  accuracy by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have to pay immoral fees then?

@tillerman - I thought it was because I liked sending my class due to lawyers??

But @JimC - Tracy said a few days.  How many is a few?  Apparently its kind like asking what the L stands for, LOL.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks IPL.  So essentially a boat may be a Laser as far as being eligible for entry to Internationally Laser Class Association events, but simultaneously is not a Laser as far as the trademarked name is concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not such a big deal. Aspirin is generic in the US, but in Canada it's still a protected trademark that belongs to Bayer. The headaches are the same whether you take store brand A.S.A in Canada, or look for genuine Bayer in the U.S.

Share this post


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

Legal action **for trademark infringement** against a party which does not use the trademarks isn't going to succeed. That doesn't preclude successful legal action on other grounds. 

Agreed. I was basing my comments on Mr Rastegar's extraordinary statements on the Sailing Illustrated interview.

Share this post


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

There are over 100 associations registered with ILCA. That's over 100 volunteers who have to put aside time to find their files, go through a list of names, sort out typos, deal with address changes, contact the person who has just taken over but we haven't got round to telling ILCA, evaluate hanging chads, all the rest of it. Personally I'd be surprised if it happened within a month, although they'll probably know the result to a reasonable  accuracy by now.

...85 voted. My expectation is that the vast majority would have verified quickly.

I would expect that the only ones to have not gotten back will be the larger ones. Given Lutz's comment on FB - I'd expect Germany has verified. 

That leaves countries like Spain, Italy and France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jgh66 said:

What documentation?

I believe it's documentation which guarantees LP allowing him to inspect the factory

 

12 hours ago, JimC said:

The recent "we've terminated you as a builder and here are a load more plaques" confuses me greatly. But I don't think you can go around umming and aahing about whether or not a builder has been terminated according to how you feel. I doubt that would go down well in court.

I think that was an offer from ILCA to help LP unload any boats which had been produced pre-termination. 

Thanks @IPLore for your analysis of the situation. It seems that your opinion is similar to many people who have posted here saying that a boat not sold as a Laser, but approved by ILCA is not a trademark infringement. 

As for the vote, it could easily be held up by a few countries who are not happy with the result as a sabotage attempt. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites