TVS Cease and Desist

Tornado said:

I have to agree with the new owners exercising their legal authority on trade mark protection. If a company does not defend their trademarks, they lose all legal claims to them going forward. It is not a mean spirited attack on others using their TM, but a legally require action to keep control their property. I don't like like, but that is the fact.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but you can only defend something you use. Herein lays the issue, they can't even say or prove how they are going to use the TM's, not even the sole registration for a belt buckle.
Use it or lose it comes to mind, and they can't prove they have used it or intend to use it. Selling a few items no longer cuts it, it has to be considerable and consistent.

Does anyone have knowledge of how Triumph handled similar issues as it was resurrected? I'm actually wearing one of my several Triumph logo'd t-shirts as I type this (SACRILEGE!!). It did not come from a proper Triumph supplier, and I can walk down the street to a shop that has tons of them (and BSA, Indian, HD and yes even Norton shirts/mugs etc) on the shelves....

I don't think they realize they are attacking the Core base of future buyers.
Norton owners have been very loyal the Brand. To go after the heart of the Core seems very short sighted.
I suspect a Non motorcycle riding person/persons are responsible for such a foolish act.

The market isn't a bunch of 60-80 year old marque fanatics. Most of us won't be buying a new Norton branded
motorcycle made in India. The market is 20-40 year olds who are oblivious about the history of the marque, and
the future market won't be USA, Australia and USA. It will be India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and China.

lazyeye6 said:

The market isn't a bunch of 60-80 year old marque fanatics. Most of us won't be buying a new Norton branded
motorcycle made in India. The market is 20-40 year olds who are oblivious about the history of the marque, and
the future market won't be USA, Australia and USA. It will be India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and China.

Click to expand...

Mid capacity trail bikes for those markets don't sit in their plan to be a premium product.
Making bikes to compete with a saturated market of the big 4 seems pointless, and makes the built in Great Britain tag worthless.

Without any actual legal action this is just saber-rattling.
A pity but just ignore for now.

lazyeye6 said:

The market isn't a bunch of 60-80 year old marque fanatics. Most of us won't be buying a new Norton branded
motorcycle made in India. The market is 20-40 year olds who are oblivious about the history of the marque, and
the future market won't be USA, Australia and USA. It will be India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and China.

Click to expand...

Yeah and then when the bikes go wrong the new younger owners will come to this forum for advice and then they will see this post.

Tornado said:

Does anyone have knowledge of how Triumph handled similar issues as it was resurrected? I'm actually wearing one of my several Triumph logo'd t-shirts as I type this (SACRILEGE!!). It did not come from a proper Triumph supplier, and I can walk down the street to a shop that has tons of them (and BSA, Indian, HD and yes even Norton shirts/mugs etc) on the shelves....

Click to expand...

Lately, non-motorcycle companies that use bikes in their television commercials are using Triumphs.

Take a look at what Carrol Shelby did with his reestablished and rejuvenated company Shelby American not so many years ago.
And, the actions SA took in protecting all the rights that had anything to do with the name, logo or anything else affiliated with Shelby Cobra, Shelby American or his name.
Carrol Shelby himself was steering that boat early on, prior to his passing. There were some long and drawn out legal battles with companies producing knockoffs, copies, kits etc. worldwide and utilizing the names or employing the name "Shelby" and "Cobra" and he was not getting a dime for the use of his very famous moniker and name.
The old man went after them all, successfully.
Even FOMOCO very quietly had to play ball with his long established name and logo rights.

This is not so different.

IF the new ownership comes after Access Norton it will be about the money...fees, logo usage payments etc.
When in doubt follow the money.
99.99% of the time its about the money.

I might suggest that those who utilize this site or have used it for YEARS without contributing anything on the monetary front buck up for the VIP membership.
If the resentment expressed toward the new Norton ownership's action's are that sincere me thinks backing Access Norton would be a solid route to the high road.
Just one members opinion.

Tornado said:

I have to agree with the new owners exercising their legal authority on trade mark protection. If a company does not defend their trademarks, they lose all legal claims to them going forward. It is not a mean spirited attack on others using their TM, but a legally required action to keep control of their property. I don't like it, but that is the fact.

Click to expand...

This is 100% correct.

But doesn't mean they are doing it correctly. They need to partner with the NOC and the INOA (and their chapters) and give them clear guidelines.

This forum should be exempt as I've never seen the Norton logo associated with the site or forum.

Triumph tried to do something similar and gave up and abandoned the old logo and came up with a new one.

In fact Garner did something similar with a revised logo. I don't know if he tried to protect the old one.

If our club gets something like this we'll ignore it. The reality is that the brand needs to show tried to defend the logo, but they don't have to show that they were 100% effective.

It won't be the first time. https://trib.com/news/state-and-reg...cle_8be41dc4-c6f0-54a6-af1b-edfdf838fa09.html

and about half way down this page https://www.bikernet.com/pages/October_20_2005_Part_2.aspx

swooshdave said:

This is 100% correct.

But doesn't mean they are doing it correctly. They need to partner with the NOC and the INOA (and their chapters) and give them clear guidelines.

Click to expand...

Your concept of "doing it correctly" has zero to do with the legalities involved and they do not need to partner with anyone nor offer them guide lines.
What those wishing to use the trademark can do is approach the legal owners and make a deal, money, endorsements, promotions etc.
The onus of responsibility is on those using a specified registered trademark without permission.
Legal precedence supersedes emotional reaction.

Doing it correctly was my opinion on how to do it. Let me rephrase it, “How I’d suggest handling it.”

No wonder Myron Calof didn't play ball with the court all those years ago - I bet he is laughing out of his office, he saw something others didn't. No way was he going to pay court awards.

In my opinion they are going it about completely wrong. All Norton owners clubs are "friends of Norton" surely? so should have been contacted with that in mind. We all agree that they need to protect the name, but to start by threatening legal action to organizations that do not profit from the association & have helped keep the name alive is going to have an adverse effect (as we have seen here) on the way we regard them.

To put it another way, it's simply

Cliffa, in the US at least that variation would probably be construed as infringement, here come the lawyers and to there goes the money, or a large portion of it.

cliffa said:

In my opinion they are going it about completely wrong. All Norton owners clubs are "friends of Norton" surely? so should have been contacted with that in mind. We all agree that they need to protect the name, but to start by threatening legal action to organizations that do not profit from the association & have helped keep the name alive is going to have an adverse effect (as we have seen here) on the way we regard them.

Click to expand...

Its early in the game with a new ownership.

The new ownership, and I am only speculating , has probably had their legal reps researching anyone and everyone who is utilizing their well paid for registered trademark in some form or fashion.
Considering the cash outlay who wouldn't?
And, until they can sort it out they have made a legal determination that this Norton site or that company selling goods under the Norton logo is realizing income utilizing the Norton moniker.
Once they have more insight and research applied this too will likely change.

This whole cease and desist mandate is standard issue. A "blanket coverage" if you will until who's who is sorted out.
Call it a first step reaction to getting their new house in order until they can sort out what trademark usage is beneficial to their product and what usage is taking advantage of it for monetary gain.

As you noted, and I agree, new ownership's stance does strike me as somewhat of a knee jerk reaction and comes across as unnecessarily aggressive.
Just maybe they are new to this game but it sounds like legal/lawyer influence to me.
Dunno'.
This one is still open ended. Future actions will determine a whole lot.

With that being said I always kept one concept in mind, don't let the lawyers kill the deal.
I would be reasonably confident that once it is determined that a site such as Access Norton for example, is determined to be an endorsement of the Norton brand, restriction would be lifted and maybe even support could be forthcoming.
Any business worth their salt would recognize that.

Again, just JMHO, should be interesting.

They were ripped off in paying what they did, the second report from BDO confirms that. The IP advisors and other experts they used were clearly not Norton experts and now they lash out because they have been had. Strange how they failed to talk any of the past TM owners apart from Garner, had they done so I doubt we would where we are now. Last time I checked 4 are still with us. The second BDO report says it all, how one party bid so little, how did they get approved as interested parties, clearly BDO saw TVS coming. This is not secret squirrel stuff the details are avaliable publicly. To sum up -
1. They failed to conduct due diligence.
2. Do they honestly think that there were so few interested parties interested in buying iaw the TM.
3. They must use the TM or lose it, that is the rules these days, clearly they are not using it or have no current intent to in the markets they have registered.
4. Just because you have registered a TM or own it does not always mean you can keep it - ask Myron Calof, he lost two motorcycle trademarks.

Madnorton said:

The IP advisors and other experts they used were clearly not Norton experts

Click to expand...

Yup.
I wouldn't hire an agricultural attorney to advise me on investment strategies.

This is ultimately on the buyer. If they are the real deal they will come around regardless of the legal advice/guidance (or lack thereof) they are receiving.
Unless, of course, they run short on cash. Then the parameters change.

Certain aspects of the market become obvious...which does raise a flag regarding immediate actions.

Like I said, should be interesting.

Lineslinger said:

Yup.
I wouldn't hire an agricultural attorney to advise me on investment strategies.

This is ultimately on the buyer. If they are the real deal they will come around regardless of the legal advice/guidance (or lack thereof) they are receiving.
Unless, of course, they run short on cash. Then the parameters change.

Certain aspects of the market become obvious...which does raise a flag regarding immediate actions.

Like I said, should be interesting.

Click to expand...

TVS are not going to run out of cash. Money talks (JJ Cale)