Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[Presuming Ed]

Minutes of last November's ISAF Executive Committee meeting.

© Secretary General’s Report
i) International Laser Class Association
An update was given on the relationship between Laser Performance and the design rights holder.

Decision
ISAF will obtain advice from lawyers on the sale of ISAF plaques.

 

[torrid]

Minutes of last November's ISAF Executive Committee meeting.

© Secretary General’s Report
i) International Laser Class Association
An update was given on the relationship between Laser Performance and the design rights holder.

Decision
ISAF will obtain advice from lawyers on the sale of ISAF plaques.

Interesting item a few lines below about suspending MNAs "who were threatening the autonomy of our sport" which I think may be a clue how this is headed. You've got all these committees trying to protect a variety of interest, none of which have to do with how I race my boat locally on weekends. They are absolutely incapable of making a wise decision.

I'm assuming that BK and his new builders have actually been making their plans for some time, and that new boats will start appearing this year. Once that happens, the national-level class associations will sign on very quickly to a hybrid Torch/Laser class association and bypass the ILCA/ISAF. There are simply not enough class officers or regatta organizers to support two or three class associations.

 

[redstar]

If I was Performance Sailcraft Australia (the owner of the Laser trademark in Australia), and was serious about working with Bruce Kirby to change the name of the Laser class to the Torch, the first thing I would do is register the Torch trademark in Australia.

However, a quick search of the Australian trademark database at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au shows nothing. Searching for PSA finds all the Laser trademarks they own but there is no sign of a Torch trademark, registered or pending, owned by anyone.

So have they forgotten to do this, leaving the opportunity for someone else to register it themselves and potentially onsell it later for a wad of cash?

Or is it an indication that the whole suggestion to rename the class as the Torch just a legal gambit from Kirby, with no real intention to follow through?

Or is it just that the process in Australia is slow and the trademark isn't in the database yet?

Also interesting is that Bruce Kirby Inc submitted an application in the US for the Laser Trademark (text and symbol) last month, even though these are already registered to Karaya (Jersey) Pty Ltd (i.e. Rastegar). Now why would BK do that?

 

[Reht]

I can't believe they would have overlooked that kind of detail, especially as that's one of the major problems that brought all this nonsense up anyway. Probably just not in the system yet...

 

[KiwiJoker]

Big meeting this weekend on your end of the pond on the subject; working on details.

Another teaser from Clean!

By "your end of the pond" I'm guessing he meant somewhere east of the Scillies.

It's almost a week later. Anyone heard anything?

 

[jwlbrace]

am I the only one thinking there's an embargo somewhere... nothing on this topic for a while now.

 

[Icedtea]

Nothing because nothing new has happened....could be like this for a while until everyone's lawyered up and ready to go.

 

[Rohanoz]

If I was Performance Sailcraft Australia (the owner of the Laser trademark in Australia), and was serious about working with Bruce Kirby to change the name of the Laser class to the Torch, the first thing I would do is register the Torch trademark in Australia.

However, a quick search of the Australian trademark database at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au shows nothing. Searching for PSA finds all the Laser trademarks they own but there is no sign of a Torch trademark, registered or pending, owned by anyone.

So have they forgotten to do this, leaving the opportunity for someone else to register it themselves and potentially onsell it later for a wad of cash?

Or is it an indication that the whole suggestion to rename the class as the Torch just a legal gambit from Kirby, with no real intention to follow through?

Or is it just that the process in Australia is slow and the trademark isn't in the database yet?

Also interesting is that Bruce Kirby Inc submitted an application in the US for the Laser Trademark (text and symbol) last month, even though these are already registered to Karaya (Jersey) Pty Ltd (i.e. Rastegar). Now why would BK do that?

Nows your chance! Go register the Torch Redstar! (And the domain name for all the countries while you're at it!)

 

[JimC]

Well, the ILCA appears to have a policy of not communicating with the members who pay their wages at all, so we wouldn't expect to hear anything from any meeting they might have had.

If I were a party I don't think I'd do anything very much until I saw the LPE response to Kirby's lawsuit, which isn't due until early June. At that point there'll be some kind of idea what the basis for LPE's actions are. You never know, they might come up with something which gives as all a different viewpoint.

 

[jwlbrace]

If I were a party I don't think I'd do anything very much until I saw the LPE response to Kirby's lawsuit, which isn't due until early June. At that point there'll be some kind of idea what the basis for LPE's actions are. You never know, they might come up with something which gives as all a different viewpoint.

couldn't agree more*, best keep the powder dry. Besides that could be the first of several extensions couldn't it? (US law commentator???)

*Expect maybe I'm less inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt over 'something significant' being in existence that would give me a different perspective on this.

 

[dogwatch]

Odds are this will never reach a court. 90%+ of suits are settled. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005549432&Trial_vs_Settlement&slreturn=20130318081954

1 Less than 5% of the cases filed are actually tried. See: Folberg, "Use of ADR in California Courts: Findings and Proposals," 26 U.S.F. L. Rev. 343, 351 n. 23 (1992); John M. Seitman, Inaugural Address, The State Bar of California 4 (Sept. 15, 1991) ("more than 90 percent of all cases filed in California are settled before they get to trial-but settlement often comes after vast amounts of time and money have been expended on pre-trial proceedings and trial preparation").

See also: President's Council on Competitiveness, Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America: A Report 7 (1991) ("More than 92 percent of all civil lawsuits are settled or otherwise disposed of prior to trial"); Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director (1985) (95% of cases filed settle or are otherwise disposed of before trial); McMunigal, "The Cost of Settlement: The Impact of Scarcity of Adjudication on Litigating Lawyers," 37 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 833, 838 n. 15 (1990) ("In 1988, only 5.3% of the civil cases terminated in the federal courts ending in trial").

Well, the ILCA appears to have a policy of not communicating with the members who pay their wages at all, so we wouldn't expect to hear anything from any meeting they might have had.

If they are smart, they are negotiating, and if they are negotiating, they'd do well not to give a running commentary.

 

[jwlbrace]

it's all going down the shit now... ISAF pick Rastegar.

http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php

 

[couchsurfer]

it's all going down the shit now... ISAF pick Rastegar.

http://www.sailing.org/news/34222.php

----------------------

On 23 April 2013 ISAF approved a proposed amendment to the Laser Class Rules which was approved by ILCA members in 2012. The amended rule permits ISAF and ILCA to approve builders of the Laser who have the right to use the Laser trademark.

The requirements for new classes to obtain designation as an ISAF Class are defined in ISAF Regulation 10. ISAF Regulation 23 defines how an ISAF Class can be selected as equipment for the Olympic Sailing Competition.

ISAF remains committed to working with all the parties to the dispute in order to negotiate a settlement. Our primary concern is for the sailors around the world and we will continue to work towards a resolution.

-----------------------------

WOW.....nothing like taking a stand!!! :blink: :blink:

.......it's hard to see how the 3rd paragraph quoted above is in accord with the previous two :huh:

.....seems like the old man of Falmouth still has some friends :mellow:

......I'm guessing ISAF realized it HAD to act when it realized Gouv was angling for the torch job :lol:

 

[Reht]

Well that certainly changes things up. So who enforces everything now? Previously it was supposedly Kirby who oversaw that everything was according to spec, is some other entity going to take over that responsibility?

 

[jwlbrace]

ILCA - as an Isaf class, by the wording???

 

[couchsurfer]

the full ISAF Statement.............
On 22 March the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) published a statement concerning the Laser Class dispute and proceedings filed by attorneys acting for Bruce Kirby.

Since then, Bruce Kirby Inc. published information regarding the launch of the "Kirby Torch" boat. The legal situation is on-going but ISAF can confirm that:

• ISAF has been named a co-defendant in the legal proceedings filed in the US District Court by attorneys acting for Bruce Kirby.
• ISAF strongly denies the allegations made against it in the proceedings.
• The International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is recognized by ISAF as responsible for the organization and administration of Laser dinghy activities worldwide.
• The Laser dinghy has been selected by ISAF as the equipment for the Men's and Women's One Person Dinghy events at the 2016 Olympic Sailing Competition (with corresponding contractual arrangements in place).

ISAF regards the recent announcement of the Kirby Torch dinghy as a fundamental breach of contractual arrangements between the parties concerned with the Laser class. ISAF has therefore exercised its right to end those arrangements and will negotiate new arrangements directly with the ILCA.

On 23 April 2013 ISAF approved a proposed amendment to the Laser Class Rules which was approved by ILCA members in 2012. The amended rule permits ISAF and ILCA to approve builders of the Laser who have the right to use the Laser trademark.

The requirements for new classes to obtain designation as an ISAF Class are defined in ISAF Regulation 10. ISAF Regulation 23 defines how an ISAF Class can be selected as equipment for the Olympic Sailing Competition.

ISAF remains committed to working with all the parties to the dispute in order to negotiate a settlement. Our primary concern is for the sailors around the world and we will continue to work towards a resolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

.....today's announcement is stated clearly as a reflex to kirby's announcement of the 'torch' class within what,the last couple of weeks??!

...never in the history of sailing beaurocracy has an organization like ISAF,,,or the ever so secretive Laser Class moved so quickly!!!

 

[NYBOZO1]

Gouvs' fault. No doubt about it.

 

[Reht]

the full ISAF Statement.............

• The International Laser Class Association (ILCA) is recognized by ISAF as responsible for the organization and administration of Laser dinghy activities worldwide.

ISAF regards the recent announcement of the Kirby Torch dinghy as a fundamental breach of contractual arrangements between the parties concerned with the Laser class. ISAF has therefore exercised its right to end those arrangements and will negotiate new arrangements directly with the ILCA.

On 23 April 2013 ISAF approved a proposed amendment to the Laser Class Rules which was approved by ILCA members in 2012.

.....today's announcement is stated clearly as a reflex to kirby's announcement of the 'torch' class within what,the last couple of weeks??!

...never in the history of sailing beaurocracy has an organization like ISAF,,,or the ever so secretive Laser Class moved so quickly!!!

Well that makes it a little clearer. I guess the contract said that nobody else could use the design? Otherwise, where did he breach contract, there are plenty of companies who build identical items and market them under different names, assuming they both have permission to use any copyrighted/trademark/whatever material.

That was an exceptionally slow knee-jerk response from ISAF, but I guess it's to be expected when lawyers and courts are involved. Basically telling Kirby that he's welcome to the Torch class at the cost of being excluded from Lasers, oh and have fun trying to become an approved class. I guess this is the way for the least change from an outsider's perspective and as long as ISAF can keep its nose above water the laser will survive until the next mess comes along. I guess now Kirby can actively go after those "illegal" boats he was being so nice about without being the bad guy.

 

[couchsurfer]

.....exceptionally slow???....Reht,,how long has the 'torch' idea been brewing??.....I was thinking not very long!

....these organizations are reminding me of monty python's knight,,,who despite losing all limbs is still fighting for some sort of status quo of personal interest,,,in spite of what might be good for the whole!

 

[Reht]

.....exceptionally slow???....Reht,,how long has the 'torch' idea been brewing??.....I was thinking not very long!

....these organizations are reminding me of monty python's knight,,,who despite losing all limbs is still fighting for some sort of status quo of personal interest,,,in spite of what might be good for the whole!

My comment being based on the fact that I assumed they took into consideration that Kirby could/would try to make his own class and that ISAF would prepare to have a statement out quickly. If they didn't then they should be asking themselves why they didn't see it coming.

I figure your analogy isn't too far from truth, there's plenty of self-interest involved and as far as I can tell (from an outside sailor's perspective) there's little to no consultation with the sailors...