Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing:Falck)

From: "peter naiman" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:01:56

Jerry: Your argument may have validity in a legal sense. But my outrage comes from the wording of the ad by Omega stating "one of the most famous marques in cycling is back". This quote comes directly from the ad Andrew Moore sent to me earlier. The outrage also comes from the fact that I wrote a letter to Omega earlier this year and they have no sense of decency to respond. They have been curiously quiet. My earlier letters to the CR Group have contained sarcasm etc, but not in this letter. I believe that Omega is aware of what they are doing, in stealing the Hetchins name etc. I firmly believe if these were decent businessmen, they would not be pursuing such business practices. If David Miller's consortium failed to register the trademark, it may back to haunt them. If Hetchins had not been produced for several years by Miller, I could agree with your point. But, they have continued production although limited. At some point morality and decency in business practice, I hope would prevail over technicality of law. In all seriousness, all in our community should consider twice before purchasing any product from Omega. They do not deserve our business. Peter Naiman Boston, Massachusetts

>From: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <>
>To: "Bob Reid" <>, <>
>Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.
>Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 22:56:33 -0600
>Bob, I think this is the best explanation of why this matter had not been
>resolved in the courts. If the Hetchins name is indeed an unregistered
>trademark as most of the information available seems to imply, then I think
>Miller et al would be hard pressed to meet the conditions you quote for
>prevailing in court. It would appear that all Omega need do is apply
>sufficiently different decals so that the Miller and Omega products can be
>distinguished from each other. And given Miller's production of only 10 to
>20 frames per year, a suit of doubtful success does seem ill-advised.
>I must confess that I, like Ritchie, do not feel the sense of outrage
>against Omega that some seem to have expressed. While some may find Omega
>somehow being "unfair" to Miller, it strikes me this situation is akin to
>the principle of "adverse possession" in US law, which I am almost certain
>originated in English common law. I believe this is most commonly applied
>in the US to matters of land use and ownership, whereby if land is not
>cultivated or otherwise used by an owner, and if another person occupies
>utilizes the land for some significant period of time without serious
>by the landowner to evict him or claim rent, then the occupant may gain
>ownership of the land under adverse possession. The social judgment
>embodied in adverse possession laws is that if the owner of an asset wiil
>not make significant use of it, then society is best served if ownership
>passes to another who will use it.
>One might similarly take the view that if Miller is only going to make 10
>20 Hetchins style frames a year and cannot justify the trouble and expense
>of registering the trademark, then perhaps it is better if Omega also be
>allowed to make such frames using the Hetchins name, thereby making a
>number of "Hetchins" frames available on the market. Perhaps this is why
>the trademark law Bob quotes developed as it did - tradesmen were expected
>to make a living from producing useful goods, not from owning a popular
>trademark. It would appear that an artisan like Miller is only entitled to
>insist that a competitor like Omega not deceive the public into thinking
>two products are one and the same. I must say I don't find such a law so
>Jerry Moos
>in Houston, TX
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Reid" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.
> > Sadly in the absence of any contribution directly from David Miller or
> > owning consortium or for that matter Omega Cycles, with the exception of
> > Hilary's contribution this discussion is pure conjecture and only adding
> > the Hetchin's mythology. Protection of the name in the UK is generally
> > trademark - nothing else and not copyright. Anyone can come up with an
> > unregistered trademark providing it meets certain criteria, but only
> > companies with big budgets and/or intentions apply for them and have
> > registered officially, gaining far greater protection. The biggest
> > difference is in what redress is available when someone uses your mark,
> > to quote the UK Trademarks database ;
> >
> > > If your trade mark is not registered you may seek redress through the
> > > under common law in a passing off action. For this to succeed you must
> > > persuade the court, first that the mark used by someone else is
>associated in
> > > the public mind with your own product or service, and secondly that
> > > person's goods have been mistaken for your own.
> > >
> > > However, if your mark is registered you may sue for infringement under
> > > marks law. For this to succeed you have only to show that someone else
> > > used a mark which is the same as (or similar to) your own registered
>mark on
> > > goods or services which are the same as (or similar to) the goods or
> > > for which your mark is registered.
> > >
> > > In certain circumstances the deliberate use of your registered mark on
> > > by another person and without your knowledge, may be classed as
> > > counterfeiting. This is a criminal offence, and criminal proceedings
> > > initiated under trade marks law by police and Trading Standards
> >
> > Unfortunately with the exception of the last paragraph enforcement of
> > rights to any trademark, registered or not would cost an absolute
> > both time and money, as does applying for one to be registered in the
> > place. I cannot believe for one minute that if David Millar produces
> > 20 frames a year, he would even generate sufficient cash to merit
> > registering the trademark, let alone merit any defence of an alleged
> > infringement of the company's rights beyond a stock threat of legal
> > on the assumption that they bought the right's to an unregistered
> > - using the original company name ?. Sad but very true, and nowhere on
> > Trademarks database can I find any record of the Hetchins name being
> > registered buy either of the parties involved.
> >
> > <Warning ! massive dose of personal opinion coming up >
> >
> > I am of the camp anyway that believes that once the last vestiges of the
> > original company that produced the Hetchin's (or any other marque for
> > matter) are gone i.e. the last original owner / partner / framebuilders
> > died / retired / moved to assembling Taiwanese Coke (tm) Can's then the
> > no longer carries any weight in the "originality" stakes. They might all
> > well executed Hetchin's but they are not a real Hetchins by any manner
> > perhaps "in-the-style-of". Would you honestly buy a Ferrari built in
> > Skoda factory because they had bought the rights to use the name even if
> > was a replica Daytona ? (classic content = they didn't use Campagnolo
> > as far as I know)
> >
> > Time to leave this topic alone again till we hear some proven fact
> > from the horses mouth........
> >
> > best wishes for the season
> >
> > Bob Reid
> > Stonehaven (3" more snow fell today)
> > Scotland.