Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[Reht]

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

Ah, but there-in lies the problem they've stepped in. How do they guarantee that the new boats are built identical to the old ones when the old ones were built to a manual they no longer have (therefore can't guarantee the exactitude of their build) and they can't copy as that would be a breach of copyright law (which even they are most likely aware of).

That manual, if Kirby has any legal claim to it, is going to be a strong ace up his sleeve...

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Plenty of options if the ILCA and membership wants Rastegar's group building boats: They can rewrite the manual so it doesn't infringe, they can build a new manual based on existing construction techniques, etc. No biggie.

That being said, there is a mountain of back story and it seems more than a little dirty laundry on all sides here, and I have a feeling a lot of it is going to come out.

 

[couchsurfer]

....until the Laser(lack of)Class is run by people who resemble members who actually sail,,,rather than self interested,,lifetimer stuff-shirts,,I don't expect anything bright to come <_<

 

[Reht]

Plenty of options if the ILCA and membership wants Rastegar's group building boats: They can rewrite the manual so it doesn't infringe, they can build a new manual based on existing construction techniques, etc. No biggie.

That being said, there is a mountain of back story and it seems more than a little dirty laundry on all sides here, and I have a feeling a lot of it is going to come out.

I'm sure you will have a ball. We can already see inklings of what's hidden and nobody's even seen a court house yet...

 

[dogwatch]

That didn't have anything to do with it dogwatch; ILCA and ISAF lawyers took the weeks to do the research, and more or less figured out what many of those here have: Other than the copyrighted manual, there's just nothing for Kirby to own or to collect license fees or royalties for.

As you say, that's long been figured out. But the same could be said of LP - other than a trademark that's hardly an essential and some easily replicable moulds, what do they own? Therefore (sentiment aside), why side with one or the other? There has to be a reason that ISAF has been long leaning one way but finally jumped the other.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

anyone got a current phone number for Kirby? send me via PM please.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Trademark is a pretty powerful thing dog. Especially when your trademark is also the most recognizable boat in all of sailing. Trademarked names are bought and sold for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. That being said, I'm sure there is a process for changing a class name under ISAF rules...

Thing is, this is a potentially pretty big case, and their statement's confidence likely means they just don't think the case has much chance of success. Let's hope it's not some kind of continental arrogance that's pumping them up; that didn't go too well for the last major European sailor to defend himself in a US court.

 

[dogwatch]

^

One thing that has puzzled me is that the complaint is directed against Rashegar personally as well as the cluster of companies he controls. That would not make sense in the UK where companies have a distinct legal personality and owners/directors are not normally defendants when a company is sued. Any comments on that?

 

[Der_Dude]

Some of you guys here are way off track. As I see it, ISAF and ILCA don't really have many options at the moment. In fact, their reaction might very well be the only option presently.

ISAF depends on class associations to define class legal boats. ISAF is no class ass. and doesn't aspire to become one, let alone a head ass. for all sailing classes worldwide. Therefore they need to work with what the class ass.define as a class legal boat if they want to accept or keep a class in the ISAF game.

Presently the ILCA's rule book defines a class legal boat as, among other things, having been built by a Laser trademark holder.

The ILCA-reps, like most of us, probably did not expect this dispute and the way it developed. Anyway, the class rules are the the way they are. They cannot be changed in a wink because you need to ask and inform 15.000 members worldwide and get an approval from the ISAF (the information prior to the vote on the change of the fundamental rule was less than ideal, but it's the rule and proposals for changes that matter here).

Therefore, presently, if the reps ILCA want to ensure the supply of boats and parts in NA and Europe, including charter boats at certain championships, for the near future in order to enabe ILCA members to exercise the sport, i.e. if they want to fulfil their basic job description, they are pretty much stuck with the builder who owns the rights to the Laser trademark for NA and Europe for the moment, aren't they?

Whether the trade mark actually is a right that grants exclusice use of the name and logo and a right that could effectively be defended in court is another story. The ILCA reps can hardly act against the present class rules and define Torches as class legal starting from day X whithout changing the fundamental rule again, regardless of their personal feeling and relationship with Rastegar and his companies' reps. Or can they?

The ILCA reps probably did the only thing sensible in view of BK's legal action and proposed a rule change that should ensure that the supply of boats is not interrupted even if the agreement between BK and LP - whatever it says - is terminated (which seems to be what happened): they proposed a rule change that should limit the effect of the LP-BK dispute on class events. I believe they served me as a member well.

Now, I think they should go one step further and abolish the phrase in the definition of a class legal builder about the Laser trademark too, thereby creating the option to negiotate a builder agreement with LP, BK, BK licensed companies or whoever, one that serves the class members best and not the needs of BK, BK Inc, the Australian builder, Rastegar or whoever. The reference to the construction manual and the approval by both ILCA and ISAF should ensure that the ILCA can still control the adherence to the strict OD principle.

Anyway, all you people pissing at the ILCA and ISAF reps: where is your solution to the current clusterfuck? When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies? If see a viable option for class, spell it out.

I am in no way associated with any of the parties involved except that I sail a Laser, and am, through my nat'l Laser class ass, an ILCA member. Also, I don't really care whether the Laser remains an Olympic class. This is simply about trying to do the ILCA and ISAF reps some justice in this fucked up matter.

 

[Otterbox]

When you are being dragged before the Courts, it seems a pretty bold move to increase the possible damages if you lose.

 

[JimC]

When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies?

The old situation tied up all the parties in a mesh of contracts in which everyone had some rights and some responsibilities, and no-one could rock the boat without creating a mess in which everyone would lose. That's why it worked reasonably well for so long. For example because the companies held the trademarks they couldn't be **** on by ILCA and ISAF, and could make secure investments in the class etc.
What we have now is a situation where one party has decided to rock the boat and create the mess for whatever reason, and as one would expect chaos has descended and everyone is losing... I don't think its any great surprise that the resulting nonsense is a nightmare to sort out: so many variable very hard for anyone to predict anything once irrationality kicked in.

 

[Board skiff]

It seems to come down to whether there are contracts or merely a Class Rule that specify that BK is on the plaque. The ILCA and ISAF can change a class rule (although the vote was surely unconstitutional in the manner it was presented?) but that vote can not change any contractual obligations between the designer and the builder.

One thing that does come out of this to me, is that Class Associations should have no say in commercial matters. They are essentially just a fan club, and should have no more say on what a Laser looks like or is called than the Britney Spears Fan Club has a say on her hairstyle or name.

 

[jwlbrace]

I think they are more than a fan club- they control the aspects of the specific game - one design racing in universal equipment, the game itself being controlled at macro level by ISAF. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a highly valued part of our game, it even has an Olympic slot given its (relative) low cost of entry - one I personally would like to see continue going forward.

That is something I understand Kirby is interested in protecting, even at the cost of the name 'Laser'.

If you want the fan club, run by the manufacturer, please see this and this

 

[redstar]

Some of you guys here are way off track. As I see it, ISAF and ILCA don't really have many options at the moment. In fact, their reaction might very well be the only option presently.

ISAF depends on class associations to define class legal boats. ISAF is no class ass. and doesn't aspire to become one, let alone a head ass. for all sailing classes worldwide. Therefore they need to work with what the class ass.define as a class legal boat if they want to accept or keep a class in the ISAF game.

Presently the ILCA's rule book defines a class legal boat as, among other things, having been built by a Laser trademark holder.

The ILCA-reps, like most of us, probably did not expect this dispute and the way it developed. Anyway, the class rules are the the way they are. They cannot be changed in a wink because you need to ask and inform 15.000 members worldwide and get an approval from the ISAF (the information prior to the vote on the change of the fundamental rule was less than ideal, but it's the rule and proposals for changes that matter here).

Therefore, presently, if the reps ILCA want to ensure the supply of boats and parts in NA and Europe, including charter boats at certain championships, for the near future in order to enabe ILCA members to exercise the sport, i.e. if they want to fulfil their basic job description, they are pretty much stuck with the builder who owns the rights to the Laser trademark for NA and Europe for the moment, aren't they?

Whether the trade mark actually is a right that grants exclusice use of the name and logo and a right that could effectively be defended in court is another story. The ILCA reps can hardly act against the present class rules and define Torches as class legal starting from day X whithout changing the fundamental rule again, regardless of their personal feeling and relationship with Rastegar and his companies' reps. Or can they?

The ILCA reps probably did the only thing sensible in view of BK's legal action and proposed a rule change that should ensure that the supply of boats is not interrupted even if the agreement between BK and LP - whatever it says - is terminated (which seems to be what happened): they proposed a rule change that should limit the effect of the LP-BK dispute on class events. I believe they served me as a member well.

Now, I think they should go one step further and abolish the phrase in the definition of a class legal builder about the Laser trademark too, thereby creating the option to negiotate a builder agreement with LP, BK, BK licensed companies or whoever, one that serves the class members best and not the needs of BK, BK Inc, the Australian builder, Rastegar or whoever. The reference to the construction manual and the approval by both ILCA and ISAF should ensure that the ILCA can still control the adherence to the strict OD principle.

Anyway, all you people pissing at the ILCA and ISAF reps: where is your solution to the current clusterfuck? When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies? If see a viable option for class, spell it out.

I am in no way associated with any of the parties involved except that I sail a Laser, and am, through my nat'l Laser class ass, an ILCA member. Also, I don't really care whether the Laser remains an Olympic class. This is simply about trying to do the ILCA and ISAF reps some justice in this fucked up matter.

This is absolutely spot on.

The best outcome for the sailors is that the sailors control the class. This action gets us one step closer to that dream. We are still beholden to the trademark owner, at least for as long as we are tied to the Laser name. Give up the Laser name and the class dies - we would be completely insane to give up the most recognised brand in the sailing world.

Having said that, I do believe that the sailors have an ongoing moral debt to Kirby. The most frustrating thing in this whole saga is that everything is painted as either pro-Kirby or anti-Kirby. It doesn't have to be so absolute. I would have no objection to a new class rule that, while allowing the class to choose the builder, requires that builder to pay a due of some sort to Kirby. I don't know that too many class members would object to maintaining the current 2% royalty charge under the new arrangements. A win win for all perhaps?

One other point ... to those who keep bagging the ILCA - if you don't like it, get involved and make a positive difference. Many of the world council do still sail - Tracy obviously, and Ken is tireless at the grassroots level getting new kids into the class, giving up every single saturday to give them free training, etc. I don't know everyone on the World Council, but I can guarantee that the ones I do know would be doing their absolute best to deliver the best possible outcomes for the sailors, for you and me. Give them a break and back them up - they're on your side and they're involved because they love the class and the boat.

 

[Board skiff]

CA's are a self serving entity. In a SMOD design they should have no say in what the manufacturer wants to do with his product. Sure, they can have an opinion, and attempt to influence, but to grant them specific powers in the manufacture of equipment is crazy. It is different in other, traditional, classes which run on a different model with free design/build options (Merlins, 14s etc) but the Laser is a consumer product and just as the Coca Cola fan club can't decide who makes Coke, or what the ingredients are the same should be true of the Laser.

In a sensible world, the design rights holder would be free to choose who he wants to build his boats, and not have the CA dictate this to him. We appear to be in a situation where possibly there is no 'design rights holder' so anyone can make a boat that looks like a Laser, but only Rastegar (in Europe and NA) can call it a laser.

If the owners of the laser trademark in other terratories decide they don't want to play with Rastegar, what then? He has no rights to sell Lasers in Oz or Asia (unless that is challenged as well). It is entirely conceivable that the only person allowed to make Lasers in Australia may choose not to. He may prefer to build Torches for Kirby whilst sitting on the Laser name.

 

[dogwatch]

In a SMOD design they should have no say in what the manufacturer wants to do with his product.

That's naive. In a successful racing class, the class association and manufacturer need a close relationship where each listens to what the other has to say, including at times commercial questions that can't be discussed in detail with the wider membership. The manufacturer wants to sell more boats and needs an energetic class association to help them to do that. Racing sailors don't just buy a boat - they buy into a class. The class association needs the technical and financial resources of the manufacturer. Btw I helped run a SMOD class association for several years, including administration of rule changes.
The Laser isn't a consumer product like Coca-Cola. It's bought because of the class racing. Otherwise it would have been replaced by more modern, better and cheaper products long ago. Think about sporting goods like skis where there are new models every season. That's what a consumer market looks like.

 

[jwlbrace]

If the owners of the laser trademark in other terratories decide they don't want to play with Rastegar, what then? He has no rights to sell Lasers in Oz or Asia (unless that is challenged as well). It is entirely conceivable that the only person allowed to make Lasers in Australia may choose not to. He may prefer to build Torches for Kirby whilst sitting on the Laser name.

and export (or co-locate production) of torches in direct competition with Rastegar into EMEA, APAC and the American continents.

Of course, unless the ILCA open up the territory to LPE, this would force anzac sailors who want to buy a Laser Laser to grey import one from (probably) another APAC nation.

If sold EXW from a factory in China, would it breach TM legislation covered under the GS / ILCA / Kirby agreement?

 

[Board skiff]

Hmmm, good question.

Dogwatch - Of course you should listen to your customers, but to give them authority rather than merely an opinion is not sensible. Tail wagging the dog and all that.

The fleet racing aspect is but one reason for the Laser’s success. It is easy to buy, easy to look after, easy to sail. As a consequence of this consumer focused design, fleets built.

Why not start a Lazer association which grandfathers Lasers, Kirbys and Chinese ex-works boats? If you offer membership at $1, you could soon have enough members to meet ISAF standards for becoming an International Class.

 

[Phil S]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think at the beginning of this saga:

LP had the Laser trademark but no agreement with Kirby and decided not to pay him royalties any more,

The Aust Builder had an agreement with Kirby but no trademark rights, but paid the royalties.

The rules used to require builders to have both the trademark rights and an agreement with Kirby, but ISAF and ILCA let both builders operate without both.

Then when Kirby put pressure on LP and they started failing to deliver product, the Nth Hemi Laser people decided to change the rule so builders no longer need to have the agreement with Kirby.

The ILCA members agreed and voted for the rule change last year, and today ISAF approved the change.

So now LP can build Lasers without any agreement with Kirby,

BUT it must now also mean that the Australian Builder can no longer build Lasers without buying trademark rights from LP, and this may well be unlikely as they have been adversaries right through this whole issue.

So does it mean that ILCA and ISAF have backed the Nth Hemi builder to ensure that the Nth Hemi can get a better supply of boats but that the Sth Hemi builder can no longer legally make Lasers to supply the Sth Hemi Laser sailors.

Too complicated, Lawyers will get richer, sailors will suffer, our sport of sailing will suffer as a consequence.

Glad I sail a class which is run by the sailors not the builders.

 

[Wess]

Plus one more. Its about time ILCA and ISAF took this step. Frankly surprised it took ISAF this long but in my opinion its the right thing to do and am glad they did it.

Some of you guys here are way off track. As I see it, ISAF and ILCA don't really have many options at the moment. In fact, their reaction might very well be the only option presently.

ISAF depends on class associations to define class legal boats. ISAF is no class ass. and doesn't aspire to become one, let alone a head ass. for all sailing classes worldwide. Therefore they need to work with what the class ass.define as a class legal boat if they want to accept or keep a class in the ISAF game.

Presently the ILCA's rule book defines a class legal boat as, among other things, having been built by a Laser trademark holder.

The ILCA-reps, like most of us, probably did not expect this dispute and the way it developed. Anyway, the class rules are the the way they are. They cannot be changed in a wink because you need to ask and inform 15.000 members worldwide and get an approval from the ISAF (the information prior to the vote on the change of the fundamental rule was less than ideal, but it's the rule and proposals for changes that matter here).

Therefore, presently, if the reps ILCA want to ensure the supply of boats and parts in NA and Europe, including charter boats at certain championships, for the near future in order to enabe ILCA members to exercise the sport, i.e. if they want to fulfil their basic job description, they are pretty much stuck with the builder who owns the rights to the Laser trademark for NA and Europe for the moment, aren't they?

Whether the trade mark actually is a right that grants exclusice use of the name and logo and a right that could effectively be defended in court is another story. The ILCA reps can hardly act against the present class rules and define Torches as class legal starting from day X whithout changing the fundamental rule again, regardless of their personal feeling and relationship with Rastegar and his companies' reps. Or can they?

The ILCA reps probably did the only thing sensible in view of BK's legal action and proposed a rule change that should ensure that the supply of boats is not interrupted even if the agreement between BK and LP - whatever it says - is terminated (which seems to be what happened): they proposed a rule change that should limit the effect of the LP-BK dispute on class events. I believe they served me as a member well.

Now, I think they should go one step further and abolish the phrase in the definition of a class legal builder about the Laser trademark too, thereby creating the option to negiotate a builder agreement with LP, BK, BK licensed companies or whoever, one that serves the class members best and not the needs of BK, BK Inc, the Australian builder, Rastegar or whoever. The reference to the construction manual and the approval by both ILCA and ISAF should ensure that the ILCA can still control the adherence to the strict OD principle.

Anyway, all you people pissing at the ILCA and ISAF reps: where is your solution to the current clusterfuck? When did you raise your voice during the past 30-something years that the old fund. rule was in effect that effectively ties the ILCA to a trade mark holder, to Mr. Rastegar and his companies? If see a viable option for class, spell it out.

I am in no way associated with any of the parties involved except that I sail a Laser, and am, through my nat'l Laser class ass, an ILCA member. Also, I don't really care whether the Laser remains an Olympic class. This is simply about trying to do the ILCA and ISAF reps some justice in this fucked up matter.

This is absolutely spot on.

The best outcome for the sailors is that the sailors control the class. This action gets us one step closer to that dream. We are still beholden to the trademark owner, at least for as long as we are tied to the Laser name. Give up the Laser name and the class dies - we would be completely insane to give up the most recognised brand in the sailing world.

Having said that, I do believe that the sailors have an ongoing moral debt to Kirby. The most frustrating thing in this whole saga is that everything is painted as either pro-Kirby or anti-Kirby. It doesn't have to be so absolute. I would have no objection to a new class rule that, while allowing the class to choose the builder, requires that builder to pay a due of some sort to Kirby. I don't know that too many class members would object to maintaining the current 2% royalty charge under the new arrangements. A win win for all perhaps?

One other point ... to those who keep bagging the ILCA - if you don't like it, get involved and make a positive difference. Many of the world council do still sail - Tracy obviously, and Ken is tireless at the grassroots level getting new kids into the class, giving up every single saturday to give them free training, etc. I don't know everyone on the World Council, but I can guarantee that the ones I do know would be doing their absolute best to deliver the best possible outcomes for the sailors, for you and me. Give them a break and back them up - they're on your side and they're involved because they love the class and the boat.