Re: [FWDLK] parts book - copying

["Richard Main" <main2@xxxxxxxx>]

Oh!, that's a trademark issue.  If Chrysler doesn't work deligently to
protect its trademarks, e.g.,
"Mopar" & "Chrysler," they could lose their exclusive rights in the
trademark(s).  The economic loss would be in the tremendous
name-recognition and "good-will" that Chrysler has built over several
decades.  (Could be valued in the $billions.)  Copyright is different.
Patents are also quite distinct and a third form of intellectual property.

With trademarks, the touchstone is whether a consumer would be confused or
deceived as to the commercial source of the goods.  So "aftermarket sources
of restoration parts with Mopar markings on them" would be a REAL HOT
BUTTON that Chrysler absolutely should jump on quick.  But photocopying old
parts manuals is altogether different.  Also, no danger of adverse market
effects, because the documents are obsolete and on obsolete products.

Richard Main
attorney-at-law



At 2:03 PM -0700 6/12/98, Dan Davids wrote:
>Thanks for educating us all and keeping us honest, Richard.
>I hereby nominate you as legal beagle for the list -- pro bono, of course!
>If it weren't for the fact that Chrysler, in particular, has been making
>life rough on aftermarket sources of restoration parts with Mopar
>markings on them, I wouldn't be so concerned. One of the clubs I
>belong to, and a couple of the magazines out there, bowed to
>Chrysler and even changed their names to keep 'em happy. Does
>anyone know whether Chrysler has eased up on this front lately?
>I know, it doesn't make sense, but they have indeed spent lots of money
>chasing people that could better have been spent in promotional opportunities.
> - Dan
>
>----------
>| From: Richard Main <main2@xxxxxxxx>
>| To: L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| Subject: Re: [FWDLK] parts book - copying
>| Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 12:19 PM
>|
>| The 55-56 Parts Book I have claims no copyright at all and has no notice of
>| any copyright or reservation of rights.  Under the Copyright Act as it
>| existed in 1955, does that mean Chrysler forfeited rights?  Also, what
>| would Chryslers legal damages be if someone where to copy a book they no
>| longer sell and have zero interest in republishing?  Would a Court be
>| motivated to enter judgment and impose damages on a copier that made a
>| couple dozen copies for zero profit?  Would Chrysler be motivated to bring
>| an action in Federal Court that would cost them a minimum retainer of $250K?
>|
>| Richard Main
>| Attorney-at-Law
>| (Intellectual Property)
>|
>|