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


Example: Racing

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:40:06 -0800
To: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>, "Hilary Stone" <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>, <OROBOYZ@aol.com>, <hetchinspete@hotmail.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, <CNye113219@aol.com>
From: Scott Goldstein <sgpnet@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Claim-to-Hetchins-name controversy.
In-Reply-To: <05ab01c19168$4b47d670$efddfea9@mooshome>
References: <B8551887.2E08%hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>


I'd like to know the answer to that as well but here is my guess.

The whole wonderful Hetchins enterprise David Miller runs is basically a non profit company. He made all of ten frames last year!. Why would anyone spend money on barristers when there is basically no profit in the first place?

I have been told (confidentially) the name of the head of the consortium that Hilary mentioned. He got involved to keep the Hetchins linage alive....it was passion not profit.

I don't have a clue if Omega under British law is entitled to use the Hetchins name. But I don't approach this thing from a legal viewpoint but rather from a moral one and David Miller group is Hetchins. at least to me.

Scott "owner of three bikes made under Alf's banner and one by David's and they are all Hetchins" Goldstein

At 11:29 AM 12/30/2001, Jerry & Liz Moos wrote:
>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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jerry Moos
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hilary Stone" <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>
>To: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>; <OROBOYZ@aol.com>;
><hetchinspete@hotmail.com>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.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
> > continuity.
> >
> > 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?