DeLorean Texas sued by DeLorean estate

[Stainless]

Came across this article today:

http://blog.northjersey.com/business...-new-delorean/

I thought that DMCH had legally acquired the rights to use the DeLorean trademarks. Can anyone offer some additional information about this?

[Patrick C]

I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere.

[thirdmanj]

Ooooh. Isn't that odd. I thought they had a good relationship?

[Malevy]

I have posed MANY times about this.. Tons of information in the DML Archives.

Short answer is (based on my research); DMCH just has "claims".

Hopefully this lawsuit will bring all of the information out in the open.

[ALEXAKOS]

hahaha
America! Land of the sued!
Somebody over at the estate is short of cash and needs to play a new game.

So lte me get this straight...
DMCH has the right to use the DMC as a trademark but not the name and/or word "Delorean"?
Aren't those two things linked for life??
So their site delorean.com is also under suspicion?

[thirdmanj]

I'd sure be happy if I were DPI right now.

There could be an upside to this. Maybe people will finally get the message that DMCH has no affiliation whatsoever with DMCL.

[Kane]

hahaha
America! Land of the sued!
Somebody over at the estate is short of cash and needs to play a new game.

So lte me get this straight...
DMCH has the right to use the DMC as a trademark but not the name and/or word "Delorean"?
Aren't those two things linked for life??
So their site delorean.com is also under suspicion?

US Trademark law is very specific. When you claim trademark, it is only for a specific usage. So for example, in this case, DMCH may have gotten rights to "DMC", but they may be restricted to only using it in relation to cars. When you get into luggage, pens, ornaments, etc, you get into a different area of products that are not related to cars. You would need a separate trademark registration to protect that "use". So, given the way trademark laws work here, the estate may have a point depending on what the original trademark transfer agreement was at the time.

And no, "DMC" and "DeLorean" wouldn't automatically go together. You would need separate trademarks for each. And then a further separate trademark for the stylized logo. And separate ones for each of those for each "use" you intend to have it for (cars, clothes, etc).

I'm no lawyer, but I have researched trademark law on my own.

[NightFlyer]

I honest don't see such a suit going anywhere. The affirmative defenses of the expiration of a legal statute of limitations/repose and/or the equitable doctrine of laches would surely apply to such a case.

[ALEXAKOS]

Thanx Kane! I see how clear all this is. I am just wondering why the estate would be sticking needles into the people who keep John Z's dream alive!

[Kane]

So after a quick trademark search, it appears that DMCH currently has 3 trademarks registered.

1. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...810:wh2qw8.2.1
This is the "DMC" logo that they have registered. It is registered with the following categories of "uses":
IC 012. US 019 021 023 031 035 044. G & S: automobiles and structural parts.
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: clothing, namely, coats, jackets, shirts, and hats.
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: automobile dealerships.

2. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...810:wh2qw8.2.3
This is the "DeLorean" logo. (registered in 2009)
IC 012. US 019 021 023 031 035 044. G & S: Automobiles, automobile parts and accessories, namely, fitted car cover, trim insignia for vehicles.

3. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...810:wh2qw8.2.4
This is the "DeLorean" logo (registered in 2011)
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, coats, jackets, shirts, hats.

So, they have the "DMC" logo to use for cars and parts, clothing, and the dealerships. They have the "DeLorean" logo to use for cars, parts, accessories, and clothing.

Anything outside of these uses is not protected. So they couldn't make "DeLorean" breakfast cereal or something.

(Again, I'm not a lawyer)