Re: Ebay problem You guys have got to read this "TheAnswer"

I *really* would like to know what Revell might have to say about this. Perhaps you should forward your correspondence (and the threads from r.m.s) to Revell?

-Lasse

Hi,Ho Guys

Been following this thread. Gos to show you " There is Death of Common Sense"

Be careful they will come after us if they find out you build said models. An image is considered a violation.

greg

Used to be the aircraft companies would go out of their way to get a model of the latest product on the market to help hype the Tax Payers who were picking up the bill for the real ones. I can remember an article on a B-1 RC model that North American spent considerable effort getting the fuselage line drawings declassified so the model could happen. The plane was in trouble in congress bat the time and they were having the flying model sent to RC meets around the country. I can remember some guys at Grumman also working with model manfacturers, to help get the product line publicity.

Val Kraut

Wait a minute. Isn't this crap supposed to be posted APRIL FIRST!!!????

so just who the hell is a licensee of a plastic Sikorsky helo?

Craig

boy am I tired. just spent the day going thru all my instructions and inking out all the brand names. Wheeee!!!! I feel so much safer now that Sikorsky is is on their crusade against people who build little plastic models...

guess we need to work on some generic terms for ebay sales now:

funny shaped flying thing with an egg beater on top = helocopter

Craig

how about adding "not Sikorsky" to all non Sikorsky ebay auction descriptions. That would give them quite a few things to go thru....

well then that was a brilliant thing for Sikorsky to say......

Craig

Maybe Revell should charge Sikorsky a promotion and advertising fee. After all, they are improving product visibility with all these illegal models. I guess we can look forward to kit price increases to pay for the lawyers.

Ron

What about the recent issue of the 1/48 Ch-53 by Revell? I bought the kit at

how about adding "not Sikorsky" to all non Sikorsky ebay auction descriptions. That would give them quite a few things to go thru.... >>

Isn't Sikorsky actually owned by Boeing?..everything else seems to be these days...it was at one time, wasn't it?..

Revell's S-55 has been around since the '50s so they've ignored the 'problem' at least that long.

Bill Banaszak

read of late.

ROTFLMAO!!! Those representatives have been feeding at the Sikorsky trough. Do you seriously believe our gripes would wean them from the money??

Bill Banaszak

I read that right after WWII when Lionel wanted to bring out a new tank car for their toy train lines that oil companies were bidding against each other to get their logo on the car. I think I've outlived my culture! :(

Bill Banaszak, MFE

late.

Not all of them get to sit on the Armed Forces Committee.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

Coming in late on the thread and not reading it all...............

My take is that if they haven't been protecting their trademark for that long it's highly unlikely any court will uphold their argument.

If you're lax about protecting your trademark don't expect the courts to back you up. That's pretty much the way trademarks work.

You got me intrigued so I decided to email this trademark attorney. Here's what I said to him.

======= Dear Matt, Recently you took action on behalf of Sikorsky to have several eBay auctions removed because of alleged, and so far unproven, trademark violations. This issue came to light with recent postings to the rec.models.scale newsgroup which is frequented by a global community of scale modellers.

If the statements attributed to you are factual, which I have no doubt they are, it would appear that Sikorsky and it's Trademark Counsel are in need of some basic common sense. If you believe you're trademark is being violated through the sale of scale models tackle the manufacturer and not the end consumer. Do some research and verify if any prior license agreements existed with the manufacturer of the day. Remember, not all agreements need to be in form you expect today and that licensed manufacturers may be acquired by others.

Making veiled threats and taking action against end consumers is not in Sikorsky's best interest. At best you'll waste lots of time and effort with punitive attacks on innocent consumers while the manufacturer of the alleged trademark violation continues to flood the market. In essence, you make no headway but to waste money on frivolous and ineffective protectionism.

It's quoted that Sikorksy hasn't been able to get any response from Revell (one of the alleged trademark violators). Perhaps this is because you really haven't tried. As a multi-national manufacturer of complex aircraft it seems unlikely you couldn't engage Revell or, at it's simplist, show up on thier corporate doorstep. I have been able to contact Revell, and receive replies several times, no legal involvement required! Why can't you?

Should Sikorsky continue with petty attacks on end consumers you will achieve nothing more than drawing negative attention to your organisation. This would probably create greater economic loss than what you purport is lost annually to infringements. You're value to Sikorksy would be much higher if you resolved any issues with unlicensed manufacturer first rather than persecuting end consumers.

As for scale modellers, we're not all children slapping bits of plastic together in haphazard fashion. Many modellers are mature adults involved in industries reflective of their modelling preferences. Alienate scale modellers from Sikorsky related products and you'll invariably alienate part of your customer base, potentially to your competitors benefit. Is that what you really want to achieve? Your actions suggest it is.

Feel free to visit the rec.models.scale newsgroup to discuss this matter with a global group of modellers. If you don't know how to do that, I'm sure your IT department can assist you.

The Raven

PS. I'm no legal expert but I believe a trademark is only valid as long as the owner protects it. In Sikorsky's case, I understand model manufacturers have been producing related product for decades. This would suggest, based on your statement that no licenses existed, that Sikorsky has not been protecting it's trademark.

Interesting letter but nowhere did you bring up the issue of the kits being of U.S. Military aircraft and that in it self makes all those kits public domain which null in voids any claim to trademark infringement! That's the whole gist of this matter! A great letter none the less.

Scott A. Bregi

Model Building is FUN!.........model building is fun.......model building is ?$#!!*?##!%$?&%$##!!

manufacturers

Equally important from the from the standpoint of building an argument against all this nonsense, I believe, is the original notion of "lost revenue" cited by the attorney as the reason they're leaning on eBay.

If I recall the original message correctly, the corporate attorney said they estimate they're losing $500,000 US each year due to the sale of non-licensed models. I'd dearly love to find out how they came up with that figure. (Having been involved myself in very similar exercises when I was a manager at a large international telecommunications company, I have a pretty good idea of which orifice the number came from, but I'd like to hear their version.)

Doing a little quick math, they said they expected $0.10-$0.25 US licensing fees for a kit retailing for $10, for instance. Let's round up for calculation purposes, assume $20 kits on average, which means the licensing fee would be 50 cents. Divide that into $500,000 per year and that comes out to a whopping... 1 million kits sold per year. Hmmm.

Now, as I understand it, helicopter kits are a pretty small portion of the overall category of aircraft models, and of course not all helicopter models are of Sikorsky types. I don't know how many model kits are sold total each year, or how many of those are aircraft kits, or how many of those are helicopters, or how many of those are Sikorsky types, but I'd imagine it's not anywhere near a million per year.

Is it me, or do the numbers not add up?

I don't doubt they're losing half a mil in revenue annually. I do doubt that they're losing any money, let alone half a mil, because of anybody selling anything on eBay.

DLF