Anyone know what happened to FOMOCO.com?

electricgreen said:

Don't fool yourself into thinking it's about protecting what's "rightfully theirs"-I don't hear anything about protecting the T-5 name. Someone got thier panties in a bunch over getting screwed with the GT-40 name and on top of it, they are working with that ole snake again. Protecting is one thing-killing off everything in your path is entirely different. You think they have a right? I'll bet you won't be so worried about that when you can't find aftermarket parts (therefore ANY parts) for your classic because vendors either got driven out or gave up in disgust. And I'd bet what you can find will be at a premium. Ford has a "right" to do this, but they had a right to kill off the Mustang too-and replace it with the Probe. Remember what saved it? People, mainly the mustang community, because they wrote in, called in-did what ever nessesarry and saved it. Now this is a giant FU to those same people from Ford-think of the revenue they made because they kept the mustang-I don't see new probes selling over sticker. Wait, that's because they killed it off due to low sales. Why shouldn't we be pissed? After the loyalty that most enthusiests show Ford, should we not expect the same from them? If they refuse to support the aftermarket by making the parts we need, the least they can do is work with the vendors that do!

Click to expand...

Here are some interesting facts about trademarks and what is required to keep them, and how they can be lost.

6. Can trademark rights be lost?

The rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity. A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. The basic idea is that trademark law only protects marks that are being used, and parties are not entitled to warehouse potentially useful marks. So, for example, a recent case held that the Los Angeles Dodgers had abandoned rights to the Brooklyn Dodgers trademarkMajor League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd., 817 F. Supp. 1103 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

Trademark rights can also be lost through improper licensing or assignment. Where the use of a trademark is licensed (for example, to a franchisee) without adequate quality control or supervision by the trademark owner, that trademark will be canceled. Similarly, where the rights to a trademark are assigned to another party in gross, without the corresponding sale of any assets, the trademark will be canceled. The rationale for these rules is that, under these situations, the trademark no longer serves its purpose of identifying the goods of a particular provider. Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959).

Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protectionKellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938). A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer. So, for example, the term "thermos" has become a generic term and is no longer entitled to trademark protection. Although it once denoted a specific manufacturer, the term now stands for the general type of product. Similarly, both "aspirin" and "cellophane" have been held to be generic. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F.505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). In deciding whether a term is generic, courts will often look to dictionary definitions, the use of the term in newspapers and magazines, and any evidence of attempts by the trademark owner to police its mark.

Entire topic located at following link:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6


www.ultrastang.com

Here are some interesting facts about trademarks and what is required to keep them, and how they can be lost.

6. Can trademark rights be lost?

The rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity. A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. The basic idea is that trademark law only protects marks that are being used, and parties are not entitled to warehouse potentially useful marks. So, for example, a recent case held that the Los Angeles Dodgers had abandoned rights to the Brooklyn Dodgers trademarkMajor League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd., 817 F. Supp. 1103 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

Trademark rights can also be lost through improper licensing or assignment. Where the use of a trademark is licensed (for example, to a franchisee) without adequate quality control or supervision by the trademark owner, that trademark will be canceled. Similarly, where the rights to a trademark are assigned to another party in gross, without the corresponding sale of any assets, the trademark will be canceled. The rationale for these rules is that, under these situations, the trademark no longer serves its purpose of identifying the goods of a particular provider. Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959).

Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protectionKellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938). A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer. So, for example, the term "thermos" has become a generic term and is no longer entitled to trademark protection. Although it once denoted a specific manufacturer, the term now stands for the general type of product. Similarly, both "aspirin" and "cellophane" have been held to be generic. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F.505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). In deciding whether a term is generic, courts will often look to dictionary definitions, the use of the term in newspapers and magazines, and any evidence of attempts by the trademark owner to police its mark.

Entire topic located at following link:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6


www.ultrastang.com

Sorry about the double post!

OK, the fomoco.com is a clear infringement, but wrt the real hobby suppliers (who will ultimately pass their added expenses on to us) I don't buy the "protecting it's trademark" stance . If a car manufacturer big or small were to introduce a new car, performance or otherwise, and try to call it a "Mustang", Ford would have a case. But all of the vendors who support Ford's Mustang aren't infringing on Ford's sales, as Ford stopped making these parts for sale to the public, and has had a legitimate licensing program to protect quality.

I sent Ford an email letting them know that I had intended to buy a new F150, but I would be buying a Dodge if they didn't change their course. Of course I didn't really expect a reply, and none was forthcoming . Yesteday I bought a 4 door Toyota Tacoma pick-up. First "foreign" vehicle I've ever bought. The engine was made in Alabama, and the truck was assembled in California .

I hope my '69 Mach isn't the last Ford I own. My 3 kids are too big for another Mustang to be practical right now, but in 3 years, I'll be looking to buy new again, and by then my oldest son will be driving the other two around. I'd love a new GT 'stang! Sure hope Ford changes course!

electricgreen said:

...If they refuse to support the aftermarket by making the parts we need, the least they can do is work with the vendors that do!

Click to expand...

I twice filled out and submitted the proper application for Ford's reproduction parts license program. By doing so, I was showing a willingness to pay them a 10% royalty on my sales for the right to take advantage of their "Ford" trademark. What a joke! They didn't even reply. I visited their booth at SEMA 6 months later and the manager of the program claimed that he had been too busy to get to my application. This is how Ford supports the legitimate classic car restoration parts aftermarket!