Re: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.


Example: Events:BVVW

From: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
To: <hetchinspete@hotmail.com>, "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, <CNye113219@aol.com>, <OROBOYZ@aol.com>
References: <20011230.132837.-209273.13.richardsachs@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:13:30 -0600


Don't know if Richie is being a bit tongue-in-cheek here or not, but this is not an unprecedented idea. After all, TJ cycles makes the Baines "flying gate" but labeled "TJ Cycles" and Waterford for a time produced essentially the Schwinn Paramount bearing the "Waterford" name. I'd personally have considered the current Bates attractive, even if Ray had labeled them "Etherton".

Regards,

Jerry "What's in a name?" Moos Houston, TX


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M Sachs"
To:
Cc: ; ;


<CNye113219@aol.com>; <OROBOYZ@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.


> >The fact still remains, that David Miller has been producing
> cycle frames of quality under the Hetchins logo for quite some time.<
>
> i propose the entire issue could be resolved if he rebadged them
> as 'millers'.
> e-RICHIE
> in Chester
>
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 18:08:31 "peter naiman" <hetchinspete@hotmail.com>
> writes:
> > Jerry; I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the owner for whom David
> > Miller
> > works bought the name etc. but that the legal system in the UK is
> > rather
> > weak in this area. Maybe Clive or other from the UK could clear this
> > up for
> > us. The fact still remains, that David Miller has been producing
> > cycle
> > frames of quality under the Hetchins logo for quite some time. For
> > someone
> > to come along and claim to make Hetchins cycles is a bit wrong in
> > many ways
> > despite legalities.
> > Peter Naiman
> > Boston, Mass
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
> > >To: "peter naiman" <hetchinspete@hotmail.com>,
> > ><classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, <CNye113219@aol.com>,
> > <OROBOYZ@aol.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.
> > >Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:19:36 -0600
> > >
> > >I know we've discussed this topic before, but what was the
> > conclusive
> > >evidence that David Millar is making the "real" Hetchins, while the
> > others
> > >are "fakes"? As far a I've heard, neither Millar nor his
> > competitors have
> > >any direct link to the original Hetchins company. If that is true,
> > then
> > >the
> > >whole matter comes down to whether in fact Millar purchased
> > exclusive
> > >rights
> > >to the Hetchins name and other intellectual property or whether he
> > did not.
> > >Perhaps I'm a bit naive about the British legal system, but if
> > Millar's
> > >rights are clear, shouldn't a lawsuit or even a threatened lawsuit
> > resolve
> > >the matter? Could the other party possibly be so bold as to
> > virtually
> > >invite a lawsuit which they would surely lose? Would not the
> > losing party
> > >have to pay the prevailing party's costs as in the US? It would
> > seem that
> > >either there is more to the story than we have heard, or the
> > effectiveness
> > >of the UK legal system (after which much of the US system was
> > modeled) is
> > >less than we naive ex-colonials have been led to believe.
> > >
> > >Of course, I have seen neither the Millar frames nor the "fakes" "in
> > the
> > >flesh, so perhaps those of you who, unlike myself, are qualified to
> > express
> > >an opinion consider the Millar frames accurate and well made, while
> > the
> > >others are crap by comparison. That would certainly be a valid
> > reason to
> > >refuse to buy the non-Millar frames and to advise others to do
> > likewise,
> > >but
> > >avoiding a product because it is crap is quite different than
> > avoiding it
> > >because it is a fake.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Jerry Moos
> > >Houston, TX
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "peter naiman" <hetchinspete@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>; <CNye113219@aol.com>;
> > ><OROBOYZ@aol.com>
> > >Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:24 PM
> > >Subject: [CR]Fake Hetchins controversy.
> > >
> > >
> > >To all Hetchins lovers and lightweight enthusiasts in the CR Group.
> > This
> > >letter comes to me from a fellow cycling friend in the UK with
> > regard to
> > >"Fake" Hetchins. Included in the ad is the email address of these
> > "fake"
> > >makers as well as their phone number in the UK. I can only ask that
> > we all
> > >support David Miller in his efforts to get clear title to Hetchins
> > >production and to put pressure on the other maker to cease
> > production.
> > >Please write by email or contact by any means these fake makers
> > about your
> > >opinions. Hopefully as a group we can help spread the word as far
> > and wide
> > >as possible. The address by email to contact the fakers is
> > > >hetchins@sales.com< . To contact Andrew Moore about this issue,
> > please
> > >email
> > >andrew.d.moore@btinternet.com.
> > >Peter(Hetchinspete)Naiman
> > >Boston, Mass
> > >
> > > >Attached is an advert from Omega Cycles with regards to what best
> > can be
> > > >discribed as a copy of the original and at worst a FAKE. The
> > advert
> > >seemes
> > > >to be mistaken with regards to it's comment about being back, "to
> > be back
> > > >you first have to go" As we all know the geniune Hetchins has
> > never
> > > >stopped trading.
> > > >
> > > >I've passed the details to both David Millar and Flash
> > > >
> > > >Happy new year to you all
> > > >regards
> > > >Andrew Moore
> > > >Wiltshire England