smplfyi
Experienced Member
As a proud (and now outraged) Cromemco Z2 owner...
Sony, how dare you
Sony, how dare you
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
Class Action Anybody
- Thread starter smplfyi
- Start date
Oscar
Experienced Member
Hi,
Disgusting trademark infringement as this is, as a Z2-D owner I guess I cannot join in filing for damages.
But if you sue, maybe you should let Sony off the hook on the proviso they can credibly show their pathetic little Z2 is also able to keep running reliably for 30+ years too - so it may not be too much of a slur on the reputation of the One And Only Real Z2.
Regards,
Oscar.
Disgusting trademark infringement as this is, as a Z2-D owner I guess I cannot join in filing for damages.
But if you sue, maybe you should let Sony off the hook on the proviso they can credibly show their pathetic little Z2 is also able to keep running reliably for 30+ years too - so it may not be too much of a slur on the reputation of the One And Only Real Z2.
Regards,
Oscar.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
I thought that a trademark was valid for a product only as long as the product is offered for sale. That is, if you're not selling it, there's nothing to protect. And then there's the matter of the question "Is anyone likely to confuse the two products or does the use of the trademark damage the original holder?" There's no way I'd confuse Wondra flour with Wondra hand lotion, for example.
What I find unconscionable, however, is the re-use of a trademark by its owner for something else entirely. It used to be that Pyrex(tm) signified an item made with a special type of borosilicate glass, known for its toughness. Apparently, the holder of the trademark has decided that ordinary soda-lime glass can also be called Pyrex when it applies to cookware. The result is that the long-advertised claim of "from freezer to stovetop" no longer applies. Try it with the bakeware being sold today as Pyrex and your bakeware can to explosively self-destruct. (Hint: if it's Pyrex cookware you want, go to a thrift store and purchase the stuff that doesn't have a green tint to it.)
What I find unconscionable, however, is the re-use of a trademark by its owner for something else entirely. It used to be that Pyrex(tm) signified an item made with a special type of borosilicate glass, known for its toughness. Apparently, the holder of the trademark has decided that ordinary soda-lime glass can also be called Pyrex when it applies to cookware. The result is that the long-advertised claim of "from freezer to stovetop" no longer applies. Try it with the bakeware being sold today as Pyrex and your bakeware can to explosively self-destruct. (Hint: if it's Pyrex cookware you want, go to a thrift store and purchase the stuff that doesn't have a green tint to it.)
MikeS
Veteran Member
Just got rid of my Z2-D and Z2-H a while back, so I guess it's up to Marcus to carry the ball; we'll be with you in spirit!! ;-)
vwestlife
Veteran Member
A trademark can be renewed regardless if the product is still being sold or not. For example, Microsoft renewed their trademark of "MS-DOS" in 2005:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:9jd49.3.1