Whats the story here ? Mark Underwood
25 July 2002, 08:55 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 July 2002, 12:00 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"sour grapes on their part"
Strange, a company finds that someone is "allegedly" countfeiting their products, and using their good name to brand products they have nothing to do with, and it's "sour grapes"
I find it even stranger that some people would even countenance this !
Mark.
Strange, a company finds that someone is "allegedly" countfeiting their products, and using their good name to brand products they have nothing to do with, and it's "sour grapes"
I find it even stranger that some people would even countenance this !
Mark.
Trending Topics
26 July 2002, 08:31 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a dodgy link!
None of the hypers on the top of the page work, go to the main Zymol site and there's no link to this warning page anywhere (that I can see anyway...)
None of the hypers on the top of the page work, go to the main Zymol site and there's no link to this warning page anywhere (that I can see anyway...)
26 July 2002, 08:48 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in the US when this first started and went to a Zymol stockist (as listed on their web site). They hadn't heard of Zymol let alone stockist.
I've got loads of Marks' stuff and its great and he's very helpful
I've got loads of Marks' stuff and its great and he's very helpful
26 July 2002, 09:09 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark,
That's a good point, if it wasn't for the fact that Mark told me that Zimol tried to take him to court over the affair in Germany and Switzerland and both cases were thrown out, and Zimol had to pay Swissol's costs. I don't know for a fact that this is true but I believe Mark and I'm sure this info is in the public domain and could be proved if someone so wished....
So, the fact that Zimol are still baning on about it would imply there is some truth the the "Sour Grapes" line....
Matt
Strange, a company finds that someone is "allegedly" countfeiting their products, and using their good name to brand products they have nothing to do with, and it's "sour grapes"
So, the fact that Zimol are still baning on about it would imply there is some truth the the "Sour Grapes" line....
Matt
26 July 2002, 10:41 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gastro & R19KET....YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN.
This is really old such hat. Its been on their website for 3 yrs...great all that free advertising.
Indeed they have sour grapes. Last year they told tons of people that there were 16 arrest warrants on me here in the UK....what a load of b*ll*cks
Oh dear...go back to normal again. And yes this aint the first time that this has cropped up.
You the site that contains the warning are owned by someone who is bitter and thought he could vent his frustration on me but laughingly failed. In fact the dispute was over the trademark that zymol in the USA uses which does not belong to them but to a gentleman in Germany
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/cgi-bin/casablanca/cb_cgi?cb_dialogue=dlg_tmer85&detailsrequested=C&t rademark=E526624
So can we get back to normal please?
[Edited by Mark Underwood - 7/26/2002 10:44:20 AM]
This is really old such hat. Its been on their website for 3 yrs...great all that free advertising.
Indeed they have sour grapes. Last year they told tons of people that there were 16 arrest warrants on me here in the UK....what a load of b*ll*cks
Oh dear...go back to normal again. And yes this aint the first time that this has cropped up.
You the site that contains the warning are owned by someone who is bitter and thought he could vent his frustration on me but laughingly failed. In fact the dispute was over the trademark that zymol in the USA uses which does not belong to them but to a gentleman in Germany
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/cgi-bin/casablanca/cb_cgi?cb_dialogue=dlg_tmer85&detailsrequested=C&t rademark=E526624
So can we get back to normal please?
[Edited by Mark Underwood - 7/26/2002 10:44:20 AM]
26 July 2002, 11:51 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/cgi-bin/casablanca/cb_cgi?cb_dialogue=dlg_tmer85&detailsrequested=C&t rademark=1543862
I'm sure someone like Adam M, could explain what's going on with this.
It appears that Zymol was first registered in 1993, and the patents relate to wax's, polishes, etc'.
It then appears that a Curt Blob applied to register the Zymol name during 1997.
At the very least I would have thought this would be "passing off", since Mr. Underwood, started off as an official Zymol distributor.
Guess it comes down to legal loopholes.
Mark. Ps. thanks for the link.
I'm sure someone like Adam M, could explain what's going on with this.
It appears that Zymol was first registered in 1993, and the patents relate to wax's, polishes, etc'.
It then appears that a Curt Blob applied to register the Zymol name during 1997.
At the very least I would have thought this would be "passing off", since Mr. Underwood, started off as an official Zymol distributor.
Guess it comes down to legal loopholes.
Mark. Ps. thanks for the link.
26 July 2002, 11:59 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carnetix, Adams and Nitosport
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know who I would rather deal with and I haven't even used the products yet (there is a parcel waiting for in at the office though).
Zymol - faceless company
Mark - Happily gives his mobile number out for questions on how to use the products. He even spoke to me for 20 minutes yesterday explaining how everything worked and completely put me off using certain other products on my windscreen to dispel the water better!
Mark
Zymol - faceless company
Mark - Happily gives his mobile number out for questions on how to use the products. He even spoke to me for 20 minutes yesterday explaining how everything worked and completely put me off using certain other products on my windscreen to dispel the water better!
Mark
26 July 2002, 12:15 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carl is right.
I have no problem with mark underwood, but just because someone is a good salesman and looks after their customers does not entitle them to pass off their goods as those of another company nor does it alow them to infringe a valid trademark.
If a product speaks for itself then why does its name need to be so similar to those of another much larger company in the same industry?
I am not accusing mark underwood of anything here (I have every intention of getting him to do my car when it comes back). I dont know any facts of the case, merely pointing out to those who choose to assume someones innocence based on them looking after you need to consider the law in more detail!
I am actually very interested to see how this panned out.
there is an issue here of a community trademark versus a national trademark and I would like to see why it was thrown out of court just like that, when from where I am standing, legally there is a solid case for the american company.
Again I want to point out, that according to Mark this case has already been shut, so he should not be judged on this ground, I am going to look at it for interest sake, and perhaps to learn a little more about conflicts between two types of trademarks.
[Edited by Adam M - 7/26/2002 12:37:54 PM]
I have no problem with mark underwood, but just because someone is a good salesman and looks after their customers does not entitle them to pass off their goods as those of another company nor does it alow them to infringe a valid trademark.
If a product speaks for itself then why does its name need to be so similar to those of another much larger company in the same industry?
I am not accusing mark underwood of anything here (I have every intention of getting him to do my car when it comes back). I dont know any facts of the case, merely pointing out to those who choose to assume someones innocence based on them looking after you need to consider the law in more detail!
I am actually very interested to see how this panned out.
there is an issue here of a community trademark versus a national trademark and I would like to see why it was thrown out of court just like that, when from where I am standing, legally there is a solid case for the american company.
Again I want to point out, that according to Mark this case has already been shut, so he should not be judged on this ground, I am going to look at it for interest sake, and perhaps to learn a little more about conflicts between two types of trademarks.
[Edited by Adam M - 7/26/2002 12:37:54 PM]
26 July 2002, 12:36 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
right just for interests sake again, I have done some research:
it would appear that the american company owning the right the british trade mark zymol have the right to oppose the existence of the community trade mark (1 for all of europe) since their right was earlier and blatantly exactly the same.
This would have to be brought before the patents high court and so would be damn expensive, and so unless the market of the american company is large enough that damage from the zymol ctm is significant, I doubt they would do anything about it.
Stuff regarding warrants for arrest of mark underward on this basis at least must be rubbish as you cannot be arrested for trademark infringement. Also it is more likely the manufacturer who will be in trouble, not the supplier.
either way, the GB trademark gives you the right to use and to stop others from using, whereas the mark that mark underwood is operating under is a negative right only and is weaker than that of an earlier national right.
as it stands I cannot see why the owners of the earlier national mark cannot remove the later ctm trademark.
Mark is not doing anything wrong unless the other company decide he is, and even then, they can prevent him from continuing so long as they can be bothered to come up with the cash to stop him.
Either way, it doesnt change the fact that I will be using his services to make my car beautiful.
it would appear that the american company owning the right the british trade mark zymol have the right to oppose the existence of the community trade mark (1 for all of europe) since their right was earlier and blatantly exactly the same.
This would have to be brought before the patents high court and so would be damn expensive, and so unless the market of the american company is large enough that damage from the zymol ctm is significant, I doubt they would do anything about it.
Stuff regarding warrants for arrest of mark underward on this basis at least must be rubbish as you cannot be arrested for trademark infringement. Also it is more likely the manufacturer who will be in trouble, not the supplier.
either way, the GB trademark gives you the right to use and to stop others from using, whereas the mark that mark underwood is operating under is a negative right only and is weaker than that of an earlier national right.
as it stands I cannot see why the owners of the earlier national mark cannot remove the later ctm trademark.
Mark is not doing anything wrong unless the other company decide he is, and even then, they can prevent him from continuing so long as they can be bothered to come up with the cash to stop him.
Either way, it doesnt change the fact that I will be using his services to make my car beautiful.
26 July 2002, 01:22 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a quick correction.
the case must be brought before OHIM in alicante(not patents high court).
it can only be brought up at the patents high court as a counter claim to an infringement action.
also section 11(1) of the trademarks act 1994 gives you the rigth to use your trademark, but it does not allow you to use that as a defence if being sued for infringement. In this circumstance you would need to countersue for an invalid trademark.
the case must be brought before OHIM in alicante(not patents high court).
it can only be brought up at the patents high court as a counter claim to an infringement action.
also section 11(1) of the trademarks act 1994 gives you the rigth to use your trademark, but it does not allow you to use that as a defence if being sued for infringement. In this circumstance you would need to countersue for an invalid trademark.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
