what was it? magnequest.com/sector7g

your claim of not having a problem with me going into the TX business is a Lie. You have a problem with *EVEYTHING* about me which pertains to TX's.

But I should figure a way for you to excuse yourself gracefully. I will devote as much time to that topic as you devote to persecuting me.
cheers,
Douglas

Several of the small specialty firms I looked up lacked this federal registration of a trademark or service mark. These companies include One-Electron, Wavelength Audio, Welborne Labs, and Bottlehead just for starters.

So I assume that any of the names of the above companies could be pirated by a poster on the audioroundtable... so any or all of these companies are "fair game" for pirates in your view?

MSL

just to give you a moreso complete historical picture;

you wrote;

:::I know for sure that DST has been using the name prior to you, and so I don't think you can actually claim it.:::

Peerless...which was organized as Peerless Elecrical Products Company (Pepco for short) was organized in 1934 in the state of Michigan and has continuously used the Peerless name in association with transformer production since that time.

The trademark as originally sought out by Peerless doesn't come much before 1956. Perhaps because they did not in the first 22 years have any issues with pirates on bulletin boards misappropiating their namesake.

The other firm you mention has a trademark on the name Peerless for speakers and in fact this company (and it's earlier business organizations) used the namesake in conjunction with the sale and marketing of speakers and speaker related parts and etc.

Their was never (to my knowledge) any difficulty with Peerless the transformer maker and Peerless the speaker maker co-existing peacefully together.

And since, apparently, now that Peerless the speaker maker does not have the namesake Peerless federally registered as a trademark... that, again, it would be fine for anyone to appropiate that namesake and start calling some speakers or speaker drivers "Peerless"?

Can we apply the rule evenly... no federal registration of a trademark or namesake... then no protection from audioroundtable...

metasonix, Welborne Labs, and the list I gave earlier plus I have two more business candidates who appear to lack federal registration of a trademark.... Lundahl and Electra-Print.

Actually the Lundahl name has quite a few listings... including firms who make and sell circuit boards (located in Utah) and another Lundahl registration for a company who makes\sells farm equipment.

again... it's a common sense standard... everyone would know (or should know) that using the name Metasonix to represent or sell certain electronic gear steps on Eric's toes.... whether he has a federal registration for Metasonix or not....

best I can see is that the standard that you propose would be enforced wholly arbitrarily.

msl

I run into situations like yours from time to time. Sometimes DIY'ers will build speakers they describe as π clones or whatever. It can be a problem for me if they deviate substantially and then their speaker may or may not perform the same. That's the biggest concern of the trademark holder, that there might be public confusion. So I understand your concern.

Don't misunderstand, these aren't my standards or whatever. I've just been having a discussion with you about IP, and what I've said to you simply reflects my understanding of the PTO.

You have asked AudioRoundTable.com to assist you in protecting your intellectual property. You don't have to ask, by the way, if something is in violation of IP law here, it gets deleted. We're pretty good about uniformity of enforcement of the rules here.

• Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights

just a quick note... and then I have to finish moving our storage facitlities from point A to point B. Don't ever move...

I don't want to discuss the fine points of law... and I assume your not an attorney with expertise in patents and trademarks and I certainly am not. But I have had an attorney represent us in all matters relating to the assignment and the subsequent reissue of the said trademark and will be contacting him soon for his guidance.

again, this is on a common sense level, very clear... we have used the name in interstate commerce with reference to audio transformers for a number of years and the Peerless mark itself had been in force as early as 1956. And the founders of the company began use of the name Peerless as a mark of a specific brand of transformers as early as 1934.

again, what I find unsettling is the prospect that any number of small specialty audio related business's would appear to not be afforded any protection of their namesake on the audioroundtable unless they can prove to you that they have a federal registration. And as I have shown many of these small firms lack such federal registration.

I thought that given our long usage of the subject trademark and a clear understanding of what it stands for... would have been enough "proof" for you...

I can only imagine how other small companies would make out under the same tests.

Mike

you wrote:

:::See, but the problem is that both transformers and loudspeakers are in Class 9. That makes it a sticky situation.:::

for the sake of debate... suppose that the Peerless speaker people have constructive sole property of the namesake Peerless.

Even if your hypothesis would be correct... and that both transformers and loudspeakers fall into class 9... then...

Douglas' use of the namesake Peerless would still be in violation of someone else's ownership rights to the namesake.

Namely, that any finding that would deprive us of use and ownership of the Peerless name in reference to transformers because of any alleged rights of ownership accruing to Peerless the speaker company would also apply equally across the board to Douglas' use of the namesake.

Of course, I am not acceding this point except to argue that a consistent argument would still find Douglas' use of the Peerless namesake illicit if in fact that name is owned solely by Peerless the speaker people.

msl

You've asked for protection on ART. What exactly do you want done? I can assure you that there won't be a Peerless Transformers forum started here. We won't be setting up a Magnequest forum either. What more would you like to see done that hasn't been done? AudioRoundTable.com respects intellectual property, and that should not be called into question. So I guess I'm not understanding why you bring ART into the equation at this point.