• Peerless transformers

I could see pretty early on that it was a sensitive issue, and probably might be better discussed here. It certainly didn't have anything to do with an amplifier build or circuit design. So I thought about responding here to start off with, and probably should have right from the start.

I am sympathetic to Mike or anyone else that works hard to build a company, product or trade name. So I'm definitely interested in what he has to say, and I'm concerned about the IP issues we've been talking about. But I also know that Douglas has been pretty supportive of everyone on this website, and has offered some very valuable assistance and good designs. I think he probably has the right to call his transformers Peerless or Peerless clones, unless some legal arangement has been made that I'm not aware of. I guess I'm of two minds on this deal and hope everyone comes to good terms.

I think this is kind of what Mike is worried about, a sort of end run around the real owner, an unethical way to beat the system. But I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure what Douglas is doing is anything like that. And I'm also not sure the legal claim to the name is nearly as clear, because Peerless was used for so long by DST.

If Magnequest had been using the name since the 1970's and then DST came along and quietly registered it in 1990's, that would be one thing. But actually, DST was using it in the 1960's and Magnequest started using it in the 1980's. At that time, I think Peerless was very well known. I saw Peerless speakers in McGee catalogs, a company that was popular in the 70's and 80's sort of like Parts Express is now. So this one is pretty thorny.

just a few short notes. Altec Lansing was the owner and original registrant of the subject Peerless trademark which we have been discussing. It was assigned to my wife after we purchased Peerless by the President of the Altec Lansing Corp.

my reference to John Atwood was and is... that if the test on the audioroundtable is that a namesake or brand name must be federally registered to accord it any protection on these forums...

than many small audio companies are in danger of having their names misappropiated or mis-used since they have not (apparently) registered their marks or names as a with the federal trademark office.

I have suggested that this would be a very unfortunate and poor standard to apply. And that all of us should accord small manufacturer's who have taken the time to develop products and build up their own reputations the protections that common ethics would accord them. One-Electron, in the case of JA, is his namesake and brand name... whether or not he has it registered. And it would be wrong for anyone to come along and appropiate that name for anyone's business but JA's business. That has been my stance.

MSL

As for aknowledgement of trademark rights by AudioRoundTable.com or me personally (or anyone else in America for that matter), the litmus test is actually pretty clear. First use in commerce. That's what determines who owns trademarks, and that's what ART recognizes because that's what trademark law says.

The complication is in trademark law itself. All the things that can damage a mark, dillution, becoming generic, misuse, etc. Since trademark law is really there to protect the public and not the trademark owner, it's kind of weird. The law is actually there to protect the public from being deceived, to keep people from buying one thing when they think they are buying another.

there is not much if any confusion at all. Everyone knows who Peerless transformers is and it sure would be interesting to see what basis Douglas could use to stake his claim of ownership on of the Peerless brand name. that he has advertised to sell reverse engineered copies at cheap prices of our products? Me thinks, that's not constructive establishment or use of a brand name but actually (as my attorney stated) points in exactly the opposite direction.

and like I said earlier... even if Wayne's hypothesis was correct (and I don't accede that point) it would still pinpoint Doug's use of the brand name as infringing on the rights of yet another party.

msl

Here on ART, he has only designed some amplifiers and discussed circuits and what not. Sometimes he talks about having a custom transformer wound, but I don't recall him ever calling them Peerless transformers. I may be wrong, but I don't think they are patterned after another model either, otherwise there probably would be no need for a custom wind.

here is doug's original post...

*****************************************************************
Posted by Thrint [ 152.163.100.65 ] on September 10, 2005 at 14:07:56:

Hey-Hey!!!,
I and a few others are getting a group buy of custom Peerless S265. E-Linear taps at 20, 30, and 40%. Just to lay out the specs, in case there is some question: 10k a-a, 40Watt, 2, 4, 8, and 16R secondary conections.

I am in for a pair, and the list is growing. I will post details of pricing, but figure on ~$140 each.
cheers,
Douglas
Pentode@netscape.com
*********************************************************************

notice he refers to the products that he is offering to sell as "custom Peerless S-265".... but they are, of course, not made by Peerless at all. Both the brand name and model designation are each trademarks of ours. Each uniquely describes a product that only we can make and offer as a Peerless S-265.

thanks,

msl

• http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=ddtce4.6.3