Packard Forum Index » General

The Cafe Press items (Shirts, Mugs, Hats ,etc) that have the PackardInfo.com logo on them are now officially licensed "Packard Script" products. Nothing changes as far as the "at-cost" pricing, but now the items just have the official blessing from PAC since they own the Packard Script trademark.

This was required to protect their trademark, and the agreement for licensing was done for just a one time nominal fee to allow the website to use the Script, and also to protect their copyright interests.

So I guess that means we are now legit!

Quote:

Another step forward by Packardinfo.com, congratulations Kev.

I'm confused.

I'd read long ago that Roy Gullickson purchased the Packard trademark rights from Packard Bayliff Coach of Lima, Ohio (who customized Cadillacs, plus Buick later on, with a Packard styling cues during the 1970s and 1980s) for his own attempted revival of the Packard? Motor Car Company. Did he sell those rights to PAC?

Meanwhile, I thought PAC's approval for use of the Packard trademark was merely a "courtesy license", but now it sounds like they're charging you a fee. Levying a fee like this when P'Info isn't selling anything here for profit comes across as very greedy. While it might be perfectly legal, that doesn't make it ethical. It makes me wonder if all Packard vendors (including Kanters) are paying this license fee.

I suppose PAC is just taking a cue from the Big Three, who started this scheme back in the 1980s when they couldn't profitably tap into a market segment, but realized that they could simply "tax" those who do (else, they sic'd the FBI on them). However, I will give the Big Three credit in that they give their licensees access to things like engineering drawings and tooling.

The situation in this case is a shame, really, because I think many people look to sites like this to get away from stale old clubs. I dropped my "subscription" to PAC years ago.

Brian,

There are two things at play here. One is the right to use the script on the website, which is a permission issue that was granted when the website first was started, the second the selling of items (either for profit or non-profit) in which the Packard Script logo is contained.

PAC owns the trademark to Packard Script itself (also the Packard Crest), but not the one for the ?Packard Motor Car Corporation?. The trademark laws say that a trademark holder has to police their own trademark, and if they allow someone to use it without their explicit permission, they are at risk of setting up a legal case against themselves when trying to enforce it later. We have to do the same thing here at the software company I work for. As far as the licensing fee goes, to grant a license and have it binding there has to be some kind of value associated with that, so hence the nominal fee. The folks at PAC were not looking to rake me over the coals; they are just protecting their legal interests. Let's just say if I skipped a morning Starbucks coffee once, then it would cover the licensing free I had to pay.

Basically from my understanding PAC registered the Packard Script to protect it from a vendor that was trying to register it for themselves. If that vendor had be granted the Trademark, then all of the clubs (PAC, PI, etc) would have had to pay licensing fees to that vendor, or they would not have been allowed to use the Script.

So I don't believe that PACs actions here are nefarious in any way. It a sense they are really acting as the custodians of the trademarks, and as such they have to police it.

I deal with these issues at work and Kev has it right.
There is one product my employer makes whose name we are forbidden to use as a noun, for fear of setting a precedent for others to appropriate.
A touch of the legal world in our little lives.

I agree with Kev on this issue. My first reaction when I saw PAC had trademarked the name was negative, but I think they are husbanding the name so that individuals cannot blackmail other legitimate uses. A small fee is required as proof if a legal challenge was mounted.

Some of us are old enough to remember when "scotch" brand tape meant that it was manufactured by 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing). What happened there is that 3M lost the rights to the exclusive use of the trade mark "Scotch" because they were lax in enforcement against infringers. The same loss of rights can occur with patent protection if you allow others to infringe long enough without attempting to protect your rights.

The only reason that PAC purchased the Packard trademark script was to protect their own butts. Instead of a vendor controlling the use of the Packard trademark, they control it, not much difference to me.

Even if the charge for the use of the trade mark was of very little cost, the money went to support a club that has a leadership that has been less than honest on a few occasions, and have tried to silence persons that have taken issue with PAC on certain matters. Which I might add that Brian and I have been on the receiving end of on more than one occasion.

If the money going to this club was actually used to promote this hobby that might be something different. As far as I am concerned PAC does nothing to promote the love or understanding of Packard.


John F. Shireman

I'm no lawyer, but understand and appreciate the concept of property rights. In fact, I've only ever donated scans, here, of original printed matter that is not copyright protected. Now, I could tell you a good story about property rights involving the Avanti after it rose from the ashes of bankruptcy in 1985, but I don't wanna drift too far off topic.

While I can't tell you the exact year, I seem to recall that, following his purchase of the Packard trademarks, Gullickson sent out letters asserting his property rights, but months that followed, I overheard plenty of bitching about that at some Packard events - from club members as well as vendors. Though it seems to me that Gullickson was looking to re-establish Packard production mainly to sell the operation at a tidy profit, if he legitimately purchased bona fide trademark rights from Bayliff and was complying with the law, then he was fully entitled to protect them. Now, I don't know how (or if) that fits in with anyone trying to blackmail individuals for use of those trademarks, but the reaction in hobby circles then seems kind of contrary to the standard now.

I've also read that when PAC was established in 1953, PMCC gave them their full blessing to use those trademarks to help promote the club (though I have no idea if any money was involved). Yet, after Packard's Detroit operations ceased in 1956, property rights would have carried on through S-P and later SASCO, which was ultimately absorbed by Worthington Corporation and still exists today as a leasing company (now a wholly-woned sibsidiary of the State Bank of Long Island). Even if the original trademark rights lapsed, I would think PAC's longstanding use would somehow be grandfathered - but again, I'm no lawyer.

If PAC is only trying to protect the Packard trademarks from abuse, I can live with that. However, in addition to some less-than-truthful articles that have been published in recent year, I've seen more than a few examples of a follow-the-money attitude in that club over the years, while getting very little bank for my own buck. As such, I find it hard to put much trust in that organization.

All things considered, I'll trust that you, BigKev, are getting the best advice on property rights from people in his field, but will remain vigilant.

We're all entitled to express our own opinions, and I will not be sucked into a continuing diatribe about the benefits and occasional flaws of PAC membership. But my own experiences based on 45 years of membership couldn't possibly be more diametrically opposed to those expressed by another correspondent. Like most organizations, what you get out from it is proportional to what you put in; hence nothing in, not much out. Great events both on the regional and national levels have yielded great camaraderie and many life-long friendships. With an occasional hiccup here and there, the ?Packard Coromorant? publication has deserved the many accolades it has received over the years. Is the club perfect? No, much like ourselves it has its warts. But to imply that it has done nothing to promote Packards and hobby in general is simply incredulous.