Hilary, have you any idea then, why the owners of the rights have not pursued legal action against Omega? It certainly seems they've had ample time to do so.
<email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <CNye113219@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.
> The Hetchins sho, name and stock was bought from Alf Hetchins by a
> consortium of owners in 1985. This same consortium still owns the assets it
> bought which includes the name. The freehold of the shop was sold after a
> couple of years and production and sales were moved to Bob Jacksons. David
> Miller was taken on to manage the Hetchins side of the business. When Bob
> Jackson was put into liquidation Hetrchins was not affected as they were two
> separate businesses though with common owners. David Miller continues to
> manage Hetchins to this day now from Preston. There has never been a loss of
> Hilary Stone in slightly wintery Bristol
> Jerry Moos wrote:
> > I guess I didn't previously note the bit about Millar having been shop
> > manager at Jackson. I suppose that does establish a continuity of sorts,
> > though a skeptic might argue that any real continuity was lost when
> > production was transferred to Bob Jackson, unless of course Millar, Jackson
> > himself, or someone in that firm had been involved with building the frames
> > at the original Hetchins company. I haven't heard that that is the case.
> > Given that possible break in continuity, I'm afraid that I might regard the
> > Millar frames as more "authentic", but only just. This would change of
> > course, if Millar can prove his claims in a court of law, which he so far
> > seems either unable or unwilling to do. Failing that, I think I would
> > conclude that the only "real" Hetchins were those made before Jackson took
> > over, and that both the modern versions are "reproductions" or perhaps
> > "re-creations". Which to buy then (if any)? I'd say the one that most
> > accurately matches the pre-Jackson original.
> > Come to think of it, trueness to the original is probably at least as
> > important as legal title in establishing the "genuineness" of a classic
> > marque. For example, I don't think anyone disputes the right to produce
> > Bates, formerly held by Ray Etherton and perhaps still retained by him or
> > perhaps sold or perhaps licensed nonexclusively to Classic Cycles UK. But
> > suppose Ray had used his undisputed legal rights to have Bates TIG welded in
> > Taiwan from aluminum. Would the result have been "genuine"? Not in my
> > opinion. What lends the most geniuneness is that Ray had the frames built
> > by a craftsman like Ron Cooper, using Diadrant forks and Cantiflex tubing.
> > This would have lent significant legitimacy to these frames, even if the
> > legal title had been in dispute, as now seems the case with Hetchins.
> > I would have originally been reluctant to buy an Omega-built Hetchins for
> > fear of abetting copyright infringement, but unless Millar presses his case
> > soon, I'd become interested in a good deal on a well made Hetchins
> > "re-creation" from Omega. In fact, will not Millar's failure to enforce his
> > claimed rights at some point be deemed under British law as having waived
> > exclusive rights, as I believe would be the case under US law?