Here is the long and the short of it.

First, the transformer design in question is not patented nor is it covered by trademark or copyright. To that end someone may obtain said transformer, take it apart to discover its design, and produce transformers using the same design.

While this is just plain sleazy and unethical (and I would hope no one of good conscience would ever patronize someone engaging in such a thing) it is not illegal.

However when someone making such a transformer uses the Peerless name in conjunction with selling said transformer it's a whole other ballgame. And I'll use Douglas' own words to illustrate this critical point.

First, this transformer is not a Peerless.

That is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.

And PRECISELY why using the Peerless name in conjunction with selling the other transformer not only violates the rights of whomever owns the Peerless trademark, but several consumer protection laws as well.

This extends to saying it is "based on" a Peerless transformer as it unfairly takes advantage of someone else's good name for the purpose of selling your own product.

That would require a Peerless/Altec blueprint.

That is absolutely, positively, 100% INcorrect.

Even if the transformer was made using a Peerless blueprint it would NOT be a Peerless transformer. What makes a Peerless transformer a Peerless transformer is its being MADE BY PEERLEES, or by whomever owns the trademark rights to the Peerless name, or by whomever that entity grants license to produce transformers using the Peerless name.

Otherwise, it's just some other transformer. A Heyboer transformer. Or an E-Linear transformer. Or a PakProtector transformer. Or whatever the fuck name you want to stick on it OTHER than Peerless.

se

The text you have in quotes... woud you provide the message number and forum where it is stated as such?

Raher, here is the text I find in 3 posts on the Group buid forum;

:::E-Linear modified Peerless S265:::

please reference post numbers 1763, 1764, and 1765.

It is not and cannot be a modified S265 since we are the only ones who can legitimately build Peerless transformers.

Now... go back and read the text about "passing off" and about
"missappropiation"... both of which define illicit and deceptive business practices.

msl

:::...you don`t have a claim to "Peerless" name, and DST has prior use...:::

you should not play lawyer... when your so ill equipped to do so. OTOH I do have a trademark attorney... who has evaluated all of our trademark claims and assures me that we are on solid legal ground.

For your information... prior use of the Peerless namesake as a producer of electronic transformers goes back to 1934. And the test is "first use" of...

and further, rather than you playing lawyer... why don't you read post number 1450 in the dungeon and read the following once again...

****************************************************************

Posted by colinhester [ 65.27.130.154 ] on September 15, 2005 at 21:05:17:

In Reply to: Re: in additon to other concerns..... posted by MQracing on September 15, 2005 at 20:46:18:

I think the issue of the "Peerless" ownership has been resolved to both Wayne's and my satisfaction. It's clear you have ownership, and this board will respect your TM rights......Colin

* http://audioroundtable.com/Dungeon/messages/1450.html

******************************************************************

at least when Colin was the mod over on Group Build there was some objectivity and no HIDDEN AGENDA. You on the other hand have only been interested in seeing how you can harm our legitimate business interests and provide cover for Dougie.

No wonder your forum is moribund. Your putting too much effort in how to dress up sleazy, deceptive business practices and too little effort into promoting a healthy audio envirnment.

Also... again... the issue of registration of trademarks is not even close to being a determinative test... as federal registration of trademarks is not a requirement for the existence of a trademark.

Again... try to read and comprehend the descriptions of what constitute's "passing off" and "misappropiation". And why these are condemned as deceptive business practices.

msl

But that's ok... by excercising your power indiscreetly and gloating about you banning me from grope build... only makes me moreso aware that you've decimated your readership by 20 percent and that your moderated forum is in it's death throes...

you've done a great job over there Damir since taking over the reins from Colin.

msl

"You are not good enough for "Group Build", sorry..."

though just three days ago Damer posted the following
on his grope build fourm;

:::Now, that`s a good info, thanks! Must find a time to read it more carefully...:-):::

So who is the dungeon fool who has fallen into an apparent psychosis?

Hope you find your meds.