General DeLorean Texas sued by DeLorean estate [Archive] - DMCTalk Forum

Stainless

02-26-2014, 12:14 PM

Came across this article today:

http://blog.northjersey.com/business/2585/carmakers-estate-sues-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

02-26-2014, 12:22 PM

I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere.

thirdmanj

02-26-2014, 12:49 PM

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

Malevy

02-26-2014, 12:53 PM

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

02-26-2014, 01:05 PM

thirdmanj

02-26-2014, 01:14 PM

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

02-26-2014, 01:16 PM

hahaha
America! Land of the sued!:bootyshake:
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

02-26-2014, 01:25 PM

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

02-26-2014, 01:25 PM

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

02-26-2014, 01:27 PM

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

1. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810: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/showfield?f=doc&state=4810: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/showfield?f=doc&state=4810: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)

thirdmanj

02-26-2014, 01:27 PM

Kane

02-26-2014, 01:29 PM

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!

Money always trumps sentimentality.

louielouie2000

02-26-2014, 01:45 PM

Out of curiosity- has anyone in the community ever met Sally DeLorean? I know Kathryn DeLorean likes to rant against her, but I can't say I've ever even seen a picture of JZD's widow.

opethmike

02-26-2014, 01:48 PM

Dangermouse

02-26-2014, 01:48 PM

1. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810: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.

Looks like this one, for the "clothing" part was only registered in 2012. Is the lawsuit for sales prior to that?

Henrik

02-26-2014, 01:55 PM

Here is an article that may indicate that Sally Delorean is pretty sue-happy:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BARKING+MAD%3B+Delorean+in+$5m+lawsuit+for+return+ of+sheepdogs+left...-a095081147

I say "indicate" since articles are often biased. Now I wonder if they got their dogs back....

Malevy

02-26-2014, 02:42 PM

hahaha
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?

You don't have it "straight". A *new* company was registered in Texas, "DeLorean Motor Company inc." which then bought a bunch of used parts from another company "KPAC". Best I can tell, KPAC never owned any intellectual property to begin with, so none of it was could be transferred with the parts.

The company in Texas then registered a new trademark that looked SIMILAR to the DMC logo that is on the front of our cars. This logo happens to also be seen on a number of DMC documents dating back as far as 1977 (establishing that the logo pre-existed). Even so, they were granted the trademark. DMCH then used that registration to "claim" they also owned the logo on the front of the car. Their lawyers send out letters, and scare people in to complying... But that does not mean they "have the right to use the DMC trademark".

Out of curiosity- has anyone in the community ever met Sally DeLorean? I know Kathryn DeLorean likes to rant against her, but I can't say I've ever even seen a picture of JZD's widow.

Yes, I have met her twice. No memorable conversation.

ALEXAKOS

02-26-2014, 02:43 PM

This is getting more interesting by the post!!!!

Malevy

02-26-2014, 02:46 PM

This is getting more interesting by the post!!!!

Actually, this is all very old news.. It is (another) rehash of an almost 20 year old discussion. As I said before, plenty of information in the DML archives.

OverlandMan

02-26-2014, 04:01 PM

waste of time & money... moving on.

David T

02-26-2014, 04:32 PM

waste of time & money... moving on.

Even bringing a suit with no merit can sometimes produce *some* money just to make it go away. My guess is she needs the money and is looking for any way she can to get some income from the Delorean name. Sally would have to prove she (and the Estate) actually still retains ownership of the trademarks. Just because DMCH may not have the right to use it does not mean Sally has the right to claim against DMCH. It will be interesting to watch but as happens in most of these cases, they get settled and the terms are not made public.

Kane

02-26-2014, 04:58 PM

waste of time & money... moving on.

waste of time reading your comment... moving on.

David T

02-26-2014, 09:50 PM

waste of time reading your comment... moving on.

On a side note, many of us got to see (not actually meet) Sally when JZD was in Cleveland, Ohio for one of Ken's shows. She followed him around all day. She was loyal all through his problems and stuck it out even when it had to have been hard. As opposed to Christina who split just as soon as she could when she saw the party was over. Sally preferred to stay out of the limelight and support JZD any way she could. She was his personal secretary for many years before he married her (at least that is the story I was told). I am sure Ken K could shed more light on this, he was able to spend more time with Sally and JZD. She seemed nice but is now probably desperate for money. JZD was not able to leave her a lot after the bank took away the Bedminster Estate.

Malevy

02-26-2014, 09:57 PM

Sally is no angel....

OverlandMan

02-26-2014, 10:03 PM

waste of time reading your comment... moving on.

? :fu:

LordFly

02-27-2014, 12:24 AM

Michael

02-27-2014, 07:54 AM

OMG. Your use of lingo I don't understand impresses me so much.

The thing about people like that is they always think they are the smartest person in the room....The problem is they want to make sure everyone knows it.

NightFlyer

02-27-2014, 01:05 PM

The thing about people like that is they always think they are the smartest person in the room....The problem is they want to make sure everyone knows it.

The thing about people like the person who posted the above comment is that they clearly have a superiority complex and want to make sure that everyone knows it.

FYI - I don't give a crap what anyone thinks of me, least of all you. The thread concerns the discussion of the probability of success of a lawsuit. I merely offered my two cents to the table just like everyone else. If you don't understand the terminology, there's this fabulous tool on the internet called Google - you may want to check it out.

Cheers :smile:

thirdmanj

02-27-2014, 01:41 PM

The thing about people like the person who posted the above comment is that they clearly have a superiority complex and want to make sure that everyone knows it.

FYI - I don't give a crap what anyone thinks of me, least of all you. The thread concerns the discussion of the probability of success of a lawsuit. I merely offered my two cents to the table just like everyone else. If you don't understand the terminology, there's this fabulous tool on the internet called Google - you may want to check it out.

Cheers :smile:

Ooooh! And he's witty too!!

NightFlyer

02-27-2014, 02:44 PM

Ooooh! And he's witty too!!

You know you love me Peter Weller 8)

Michael

02-27-2014, 04:09 PM

FYI - I don't give a crap what anyone thinks of me, least of all you. The thread concerns the discussion of the probability of success of a lawsuit. I merely offered my two cents to the table just like everyone else. If you don't understand the terminology, there's this fabulous tool on the internet called Google - you may want to check it out.

Actually it was Thirdman that said he didn't understand the termo ...terminil....termali....all that fancy stuff you said.

I do find fault in your statement. Even though you said that you don't care what anyone thinks, to say that I am least on your "Don't give a crap" list is to say there is indeed a ranking, which also stands to reason that someone like Thirdman or Ron ranks above me,(since I'm least). So you do care what they think, even though it may be a small amount, you do care to some degree.

The thing about people like the person who posted the above comment is that they clearly have a superiority complex and want to make sure that everyone knows it.

There is one whose intellect is superior to mine:
http://thetrektrek.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wokkhanshush.jpeg

Tillsy

02-27-2014, 05:23 PM

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25733&d=1393539740
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!

Kane

02-27-2014, 05:40 PM

And here I was thinking I could have a Khan-free day...

valdez

02-27-2014, 05:55 PM

Holy Nerd Fight Batman!

Michael

02-27-2014, 06:03 PM

And here I was thinking I could have a Khan-free day...

Not possible on this board
http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25735&d=1393542328

Tillsy

02-27-2014, 06:50 PM

OMG that is AWESOME!!! :thumbup:

thirdmanj

02-27-2014, 06:58 PM

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/02/28/rabe3unu.jpg

Michael

02-27-2014, 07:30 PM

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25739&d=1393548020

NightFlyer

02-27-2014, 07:54 PM

Actually it was Thirdman that said he didn't understand the termo ...terminil....termali....all that fancy stuff you said.

I do find fault in your statement. Even though you said that you don't care what anyone thinks, to say that I am least on your "Don't give a crap" list is to say there is indeed a ranking, which also stands to reason that someone like Thirdman or Ron ranks above me,(since I'm least). So you do care what they think, even though it may be a small amount, you do care to some degree.

There is one whose intellect is superior to mine:
http://thetrektrek.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wokkhanshush.jpeg

OK, you got me. And for that, you move up the list :partyhat:

As for Kahn...

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1039267584/h7A8270FA/

Michael Babb

02-27-2014, 08:02 PM

OMG that is AWESOME!!! :thumbup:

I agree! Nicely done . . .I could not resist a further merging:

25741

Michael

02-27-2014, 08:03 PM

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25740&d=1393549230

Michael

02-27-2014, 08:20 PM

I agree! Nicely done . . .I could not resist a further merging:

25741

Ouch....Looks like a bad transporter accident....Boost your matter gain!! We need more signal!

Rich_NYS

02-27-2014, 08:53 PM

Holy Nerd Fight Batman!

25742

NightFlyer

02-27-2014, 10:27 PM

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25740&d=1393549230

:hysterical:

We're just picking on each other.

And while Michael may have won the battle, he had to go full Khan to do it :smile:

thirdmanj

02-28-2014, 06:12 AM

:hysterical:

We're just picking on each other.

And while Michael may have won the battle, he had to go full Khan to do it :smile:

I think he's under the impression there's a mutual respect now. :hysterical:

Michael

02-28-2014, 07:35 AM

I think he's under the impression there's a mutual respect now. :hysterical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX-qP76Kclk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

LordFly

02-28-2014, 10:16 AM

If this thread were any more off topic, you guys would be discussing beanie baby trades.

Michael Babb

02-28-2014, 10:49 AM

If this thread were any more off topic, you guys would be discussing beanie baby trades.

I would be down with that if someone had a DeLorean Beanie Baby. :)

thirdmanj

02-28-2014, 10:52 AM

I would be down with that if someone had a DeLorean Beanie Baby. :)

Well one things for certain, DMCH won't be licensing them anytime soon.

Michael

02-28-2014, 08:39 PM

:hysterical:

We're just picking on each other.

And while Michael may have won the battle, he had to go full Khan to do it :smile:

I'm not above opening up a KHAN of whoop ass
http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=25765&d=1393637868