donlindich@mac.com (Don L.) wrote:

>Dear Auto Enthusiast,
>
>BMW is threatening a lively and useful website serving MINI
>enthusiasts (and in the UK, even owners of independent Mini garages!)
>because of "trademark violations". The story is compelling and
>shocking.

Only to people who think it's shocking that companies protect their
trademarks.

>... We are all car nuts,

Can't you be a car nut without violating companies' trademark rights
and using their property without their permission?

>let's help each other out! (Please
> the word and save out favorite website for us- car nuts,
>motorcycle nuts, EVERYONE!)
>
>Please post this on your respective car message boards and send a
>message to BMW, and others who would take away our right to freely
>assemble on the web under the banner of our favorite cars.

Of course you have the right to freely assemble. But since when do you
have the "right" to use *their* valuable banner to do it? What kind of
admiration are you showing by being so disdainful of the rights of the
organization for which you're professing your admiration?


--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

 

It's rather silly actually. Jeep (or whoever owns them) did the same thing.

I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:97m9jvo1c7ffeidrh8o1jar673gj970prm@4ax.com...
> donlindich@mac.com (Don L.) wrote:
>
> >Dear Auto Enthusiast,
> >
> >BMW is threatening a lively and useful website serving MINI
> >enthusiasts (and in the UK, even owners of independent Mini garages!)
> >because of "trademark violations". The story is compelling and
> >shocking.
>
> Only to people who think it's shocking that companies protect their
> trademarks.
>
> >... We are all car nuts,
>
> Can't you be a car nut without violating companies' trademark rights
> and using their property without their permission?
>
> >let's help each other out! (Please
> > the word and save out favorite website for us- car nuts,
> >motorcycle nuts, EVERYONE!)
> >
> >Please post this on your respective car message boards and send a
> >message to BMW, and others who would take away our right to freely
> >assemble on the web under the banner of our favorite cars.
>
> Of course you have the right to freely assemble. But since when do you
> have the "right" to use *their* valuable banner to do it? What kind of
> admiration are you showing by being so disdainful of the rights of the
> organization for which you're professing your admiration?
>
>
> --
> Harlan Messinger
> Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
> Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

 

It's rather silly actually. Jeep (or whoever owns them) did the same thing.

I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:97m9jvo1c7ffeidrh8o1jar673gj970prm@4ax.com...
> donlindich@mac.com (Don L.) wrote:
>
> >Dear Auto Enthusiast,
> >
> >BMW is threatening a lively and useful website serving MINI
> >enthusiasts (and in the UK, even owners of independent Mini garages!)
> >because of "trademark violations". The story is compelling and
> >shocking.
>
> Only to people who think it's shocking that companies protect their
> trademarks.
>
> >... We are all car nuts,
>
> Can't you be a car nut without violating companies' trademark rights
> and using their property without their permission?
>
> >let's help each other out! (Please
> > the word and save out favorite website for us- car nuts,
> >motorcycle nuts, EVERYONE!)
> >
> >Please post this on your respective car message boards and send a
> >message to BMW, and others who would take away our right to freely
> >assemble on the web under the banner of our favorite cars.
>
> Of course you have the right to freely assemble. But since when do you
> have the "right" to use *their* valuable banner to do it? What kind of
> admiration are you showing by being so disdainful of the rights of the
> organization for which you're professing your admiration?
>
>
> --
> Harlan Messinger
> Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
> Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

 

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
<flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:

>I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.

It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
(the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
doing is creating bad feeling. A family we know has three "old" Minis,
and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.

BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
allowing these places to keep their names. Without their names, many
would go out of business, seriously pissing off BMW's own customers.

Whatever the rights of BMW owning the trademark, it is their
commercial decision how they enforce it. They could equally easily
provide a licence to use the trademark on application by businesses
working with the old cars. In this case, the corporate lawyers seem to
be in control rather than the commercial people.

 

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
<flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:

>I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.

It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
(the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
doing is creating bad feeling. A family we know has three "old" Minis,
and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.

BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
allowing these places to keep their names. Without their names, many
would go out of business, seriously pissing off BMW's own customers.

Whatever the rights of BMW owning the trademark, it is their
commercial decision how they enforce it. They could equally easily
provide a licence to use the trademark on application by businesses
working with the old cars. In this case, the corporate lawyers seem to
be in control rather than the commercial people.

 

In article <kq3ajv03nki2dnkmlq8hlrd5nkbkhjiqrr@4ax.com>,
Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:

> >I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.
>
> It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
> in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
> There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
> things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
> (the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
> doing is creating bad feeling. A family we know has three "old" Minis,
> and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.
>
> BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
> allowing these places to keep their names.

That's a judgment that BMW disagrees with. Since they're the owner of
the trade mark, that's their prerogative.

 

In article <kq3ajv03nki2dnkmlq8hlrd5nkbkhjiqrr@4ax.com>,
Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:

> >I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.
>
> It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
> in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
> There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
> things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
> (the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
> doing is creating bad feeling. A family we know has three "old" Minis,
> and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.
>
> BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
> allowing these places to keep their names.

That's a judgment that BMW disagrees with. Since they're the owner of
the trade mark, that's their prerogative.

 

Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
><flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:
>
>>I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.
>
>It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
>in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
>There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
>things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
>(the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
>doing is creating bad feeling.

Why would they care about creating bad feeling among people who do
harm to their property?

>A family we know has three "old" Minis,
>and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.
>
>BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
>allowing these places to keep their names. Without their names, many
>would go out of business, seriously pissing off BMW's own customers.

The point is that it's BMW's decision to make.

>
>Whatever the rights of BMW owning the trademark, it is their
>commercial decision how they enforce it. They could equally easily
>provide a licence to use the trademark on application by businesses
>working with the old cars. In this case, the corporate lawyers seem to
>be in control rather than the commercial people.

It would be irresponsible of any corporation's marketing people not to
let the legal people handle the legal issues. The legal people are the
ones who know what the law *requires* a company to do to protect its
trademarks.

Do you know what happens when a company doesn't sufficiently protect
its trademarks? Eventually, a court can rule that that they have,
through their own inaction, *allowed* the trademark to pass into the
public domain. And then they lose all control of the trademark. So,
for those of you who are just beside yourselves that companies do
things like this, that's the reason why.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

 

Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
><flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:
>
>>I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.
>
>It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
>in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
>There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
>things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
>(the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
>doing is creating bad feeling.

Why would they care about creating bad feeling among people who do
harm to their property?

>A family we know has three "old" Minis,
>and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.
>
>BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
>allowing these places to keep their names. Without their names, many
>would go out of business, seriously pissing off BMW's own customers.

The point is that it's BMW's decision to make.

>
>Whatever the rights of BMW owning the trademark, it is their
>commercial decision how they enforce it. They could equally easily
>provide a licence to use the trademark on application by businesses
>working with the old cars. In this case, the corporate lawyers seem to
>be in control rather than the commercial people.

It would be irresponsible of any corporation's marketing people not to
let the legal people handle the legal issues. The legal people are the
ones who know what the law *requires* a company to do to protect its
trademarks.

Do you know what happens when a company doesn't sufficiently protect
its trademarks? Eventually, a court can rule that that they have,
through their own inaction, *allowed* the trademark to pass into the
public domain. And then they lose all control of the trademark. So,
for those of you who are just beside yourselves that companies do
things like this, that's the reason why.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

 

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:06:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:

>Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
>><flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.
>>
>>It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
>>in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
>>There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
>>things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
>>(the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
>>doing is creating bad feeling.
>
>Why would they care about creating bad feeling among people who do
>harm to their property?

Grow up ....what harm......... get a life..... Oh by the way these are
the people that have bought the products, it is very wise to alienate
a portion of ones customer base especially enthusiastic
ones......wonderful attitude.


>>A family we know has three "old" Minis,
>>and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.
>>
>>BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
>>allowing these places to keep their names. Without their names, many
>>would go out of business, seriously pissing off BMW's own customers.
>
>The point is that it's BMW's decision to make.

And people cannot petition them to change their mind?

>>
>>Whatever the rights of BMW owning the trademark, it is their
>>commercial decision how they enforce it. They could equally easily
>>provide a licence to use the trademark on application by businesses
>>working with the old cars. In this case, the corporate lawyers seem to
>>be in control rather than the commercial people.
>
>It would be irresponsible of any corporation's marketing people not to
>let the legal people handle the legal issues. The legal people are the
>ones who know what the law *requires* a company to do to protect its
>trademarks.

On the contrary, failure to consider the ramifications of the exact
way of protecting the trademark is not a wise move, you are correct
about the necessity to protect the trademark but a lot of thought
should be undertaken into the METHODS used to protect ones rights.


>Do you know what happens when a company doesn't sufficiently protect
>its trademarks? Eventually, a court can rule that that they have,
>through their own inaction, *allowed* the trademark to pass into the
>public domain. And then they lose all control of the trademark. So,
>for those of you who are just beside yourselves that companies do
>things like this, that's the reason why.


Not the action but the way it is being done,

 

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:06:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:

>Paul Spencer <ps@boynings.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
>><flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see what the boruhaha is. They own the trademark end of story.
>>
>>It is slightly different in this case because there was the old Mini,
>>in which BMW have no interest (except that they own the trademark).
>>There is a thriving industry (at least in the UK) in maintaining these
>>things, through small dealerships with names like "The Mini Centre"
>>(the one in my town). These guys are doing BMW no harm, and all BMW is
>>doing is creating bad feeling.
>
>Why would they care about creating bad feeling among people who do
>harm to their property?

Grow up ....what harm......... get a life..... Oh by the way these are
the people that have bought the products, it is very wise to alienate
a portion of ones customer base especially enthusiastic
ones......wonderful attitude.


>>A family we know has three "old" Minis,
>>and a "new" one, so it is not that the markets are so different.
>>
>>BMW would not compromise its trademark (or devalue its brand) by
>>allowing these places to keep their names. Without their names, many
>>would go out of business, seriously pissing off BMW's own customers.
>
>The point is that it's BMW's decision to make.

And people cannot petition them to change their mind?

>>
>>Whatever the rights of BMW owning the trademark, it is their
>>commercial decision how they enforce it. They could equally easily
>>provide a licence to use the trademark on application by businesses
>>working with the old cars. In this case, the corporate lawyers seem to
>>be in control rather than the commercial people.
>
>It would be irresponsible of any corporation's marketing people not to
>let the legal people handle the legal issues. The legal people are the
>ones who know what the law *requires* a company to do to protect its
>trademarks.

On the contrary, failure to consider the ramifications of the exact
way of protecting the trademark is not a wise move, you are correct
about the necessity to protect the trademark but a lot of thought
should be undertaken into the METHODS used to protect ones rights.


>Do you know what happens when a company doesn't sufficiently protect
>its trademarks? Eventually, a court can rule that that they have,
>through their own inaction, *allowed* the trademark to pass into the
>public domain. And then they lose all control of the trademark. So,
>for those of you who are just beside yourselves that companies do
>things like this, that's the reason why.


Not the action but the way it is being done,

 

Then it's easy. Stop buying there products and go buy a Trabant and open
TrabantWerks and live a happy life then. That'll show them ;-)

Easypeasy.

"Question" <nospam@nospamehere.co> wrote in message
news:s71bjv0s6jv4u2b2p2hl32ggm078gg6f0m@4ax.com...
> Not the action but the way it is being done,

 

Then it's easy. Stop buying there products and go buy a Trabant and open
TrabantWerks and live a happy life then. That'll show them ;-)

Easypeasy.

"Question" <nospam@nospamehere.co> wrote in message
news:s71bjv0s6jv4u2b2p2hl32ggm078gg6f0m@4ax.com...
> Not the action but the way it is being done,

 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:31:40 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
<flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:

>Then it's easy. Stop buying there products and go buy a Trabant and open
>TrabantWerks and live a happy life then. That'll show them ;-)

Why just a Trabant? Why not a Lotus or a Corvette or a Ferrari?
Why not buy from a company who encourages their fans?

 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:31:40 GMT, "iBuyMinis.Us"
<flymini@ibuyminis.us(no spam)> wrote:

>Then it's easy. Stop buying there products and go buy a Trabant and open
>TrabantWerks and live a happy life then. That'll show them ;-)

Why just a Trabant? Why not a Lotus or a Corvette or a Ferrari?
Why not buy from a company who encourages their fans?