Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
06-10-2002, 08:34 PM
#26
My Feedback: (24)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Daytona Beach
Posts: 6,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Hmmmm....
Think I'll hit the paint booth and redo the Kangaroo in your precious Ferrari scheme!
Think before you speak proluck, most on this board are intelligent enough to know when someone is blowing wind....
Todd
Think I'll hit the paint booth and redo the Kangaroo in your precious Ferrari scheme!
Think before you speak proluck, most on this board are intelligent enough to know when someone is blowing wind....
Todd
06-10-2002, 08:56 PM
#27
My Feedback: (2)
Ferrari scheme
I think i get this after rereading the post a couple of times, but just a wild guess
The picture of the hotspot belongs to proluck, he got tam to make it RTF and paint it in the Ferrari scheme, as he has some exclusive agreement between his company and Ferrari, and to use the Ferrari hotspot in some promotion event or jet meets.
And he does not want anyone taking the limelight away from his Ferrari scheme because he his investing a few bucks into the project and supposed to be a "one of a kind" Ferrari scheme hotspot
Right or wrong ?
Interesting note......
8. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
a. GENERAL
Anyone who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, exercises any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, as granted and limited by the Copyright Act, is an infringer of copyright. [1] Thus, any activity that falls within the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringement and the infringer is liable, unless it is authorized by the copyright owner or is excused by a defense (such as fair use) or an exemption.[2] For purposes of this discussion of infringement, the lack of such authorization, defense or exemption is generally presumed.
Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer; "innocent" infringement is infringement nonetheless.[3] Moreover, although the exclusive rights refer to such rights with respect to "copies" (plural) of the work,[4] there is no question that under the Act the making of even a single unauthorized copy may constitute an infringement .[5]
Courts generally use the term "copying" as shorthand for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (not just the reproduction right). Courts usually require a copyright owner to prove ownership of the copyrighted work and "copying" by the defendant to prevail in an infringement action.
Since there is seldom direct evidence of copying (witnesses who actually saw the defendant copy the work, for instance), a copyright owner may prove copying through circumstantial evidence establishing that the defendant had access to the original work and that the two works are substantially similar. Other indications of copying, such as the existence of common errors, have also been accepted as evidence of infringement.[6]
The copying of the copyrighted work must be copying of protected expression and not just ideas;[7] likewise, the similarity between the two works must be similarity of protected elements (the expression), not unprotected elements (the facts, ideas, etc.). The portion taken must also be more thande minimis.
The similarity between the two works need not be literal (i.e., phrases, sentences or paragraphs need not be copied verbatim); substantial similarity may be found even if none of the words or brush strokes or musical notes are identical.[8] Various tests have been developed to determine whether there has been sufficient non-literal copying to constitute substantial similarity between a copyrighted work and an allegedly infringing work.[9] Judge Learned Hand articulated the well-known "abstractions test," where the expression and the idea are, in essence, treated as ends of a continuum, with infringement found if the allegedly infringing work crosses the line delineating the two.[10] Such a line, as Judge Hand recognized, is not fixed in stone; indeed, as he put it, its location must "inevitably bead hoc ...."[11] The "pattern" test has also been suggested, where infringement is found if the "pattern" of the work is taken (in a play, for instance, the "sequence of events, and the development of the interplay of characters").[12]
The "subtractive" test -- which dissects the copyrighted work, disregards the noncopyrightable elements, and compares only the copyrightable elements of the copyrighted work to the allegedly infringing work -- has been the traditional method for determining substantial similarity.[13] Following the 1970 Ninth Circuit decision in Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.,[14] the "totality" test became popular for determining substantial similarity. The totality test compares works using a "total concept and feel" standard to determine whether they are substantially similar. Although chiefly used by the Ninth Circuit in the 1970s and 1980s,[15] the test was used by other circuits as well.[16]
The Ninth Circuit further defined an "extrinsic/intrinsic" test in proof of substantial similarity inSid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.[17] The intrinsic portion of the test measures whether an observer "would find the total concept and feel of the works" to be substantially similar.[18] The extrinsic portion of the test, meanwhile, is an objective analysis of similarity based on "specific criteria that can be listed and analyzed."[19] Thus, this test requires substantial similarity "not only of the general ideas but of the expressions of those ideas as well."[20]
The picture of the hotspot belongs to proluck, he got tam to make it RTF and paint it in the Ferrari scheme, as he has some exclusive agreement between his company and Ferrari, and to use the Ferrari hotspot in some promotion event or jet meets.
And he does not want anyone taking the limelight away from his Ferrari scheme because he his investing a few bucks into the project and supposed to be a "one of a kind" Ferrari scheme hotspot
Right or wrong ?
Interesting note......
8. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
a. GENERAL
Anyone who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, exercises any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, as granted and limited by the Copyright Act, is an infringer of copyright. [1] Thus, any activity that falls within the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringement and the infringer is liable, unless it is authorized by the copyright owner or is excused by a defense (such as fair use) or an exemption.[2] For purposes of this discussion of infringement, the lack of such authorization, defense or exemption is generally presumed.
Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer; "innocent" infringement is infringement nonetheless.[3] Moreover, although the exclusive rights refer to such rights with respect to "copies" (plural) of the work,[4] there is no question that under the Act the making of even a single unauthorized copy may constitute an infringement .[5]
Courts generally use the term "copying" as shorthand for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (not just the reproduction right). Courts usually require a copyright owner to prove ownership of the copyrighted work and "copying" by the defendant to prevail in an infringement action.
Since there is seldom direct evidence of copying (witnesses who actually saw the defendant copy the work, for instance), a copyright owner may prove copying through circumstantial evidence establishing that the defendant had access to the original work and that the two works are substantially similar. Other indications of copying, such as the existence of common errors, have also been accepted as evidence of infringement.[6]
The copying of the copyrighted work must be copying of protected expression and not just ideas;[7] likewise, the similarity between the two works must be similarity of protected elements (the expression), not unprotected elements (the facts, ideas, etc.). The portion taken must also be more thande minimis.
The similarity between the two works need not be literal (i.e., phrases, sentences or paragraphs need not be copied verbatim); substantial similarity may be found even if none of the words or brush strokes or musical notes are identical.[8] Various tests have been developed to determine whether there has been sufficient non-literal copying to constitute substantial similarity between a copyrighted work and an allegedly infringing work.[9] Judge Learned Hand articulated the well-known "abstractions test," where the expression and the idea are, in essence, treated as ends of a continuum, with infringement found if the allegedly infringing work crosses the line delineating the two.[10] Such a line, as Judge Hand recognized, is not fixed in stone; indeed, as he put it, its location must "inevitably bead hoc ...."[11] The "pattern" test has also been suggested, where infringement is found if the "pattern" of the work is taken (in a play, for instance, the "sequence of events, and the development of the interplay of characters").[12]
The "subtractive" test -- which dissects the copyrighted work, disregards the noncopyrightable elements, and compares only the copyrightable elements of the copyrighted work to the allegedly infringing work -- has been the traditional method for determining substantial similarity.[13] Following the 1970 Ninth Circuit decision in Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.,[14] the "totality" test became popular for determining substantial similarity. The totality test compares works using a "total concept and feel" standard to determine whether they are substantially similar. Although chiefly used by the Ninth Circuit in the 1970s and 1980s,[15] the test was used by other circuits as well.[16]
The Ninth Circuit further defined an "extrinsic/intrinsic" test in proof of substantial similarity inSid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.[17] The intrinsic portion of the test measures whether an observer "would find the total concept and feel of the works" to be substantially similar.[18] The extrinsic portion of the test, meanwhile, is an objective analysis of similarity based on "specific criteria that can be listed and analyzed."[19] Thus, this test requires substantial similarity "not only of the general ideas but of the expressions of those ideas as well."[20]
06-10-2002, 08:57 PM
#28
Paint job
Is this guy for real??? All I have to say is
...%$$## Please!!! Get a life!!! Did the guy who did the Geoff Gordon bandit get sued??
I guess I need to be waiting for the U.S. Navy JAG office to drive up in my driveway and haul me off in leg irons for the 3 F-18's that Doug, Roger & me are flying...I agree that If this guy is for real, This should be between him & Tam.. Not on a global public fourm!!! Al Gore should have his ass kicked for inventing the internet!!! 
You guys need to lighten up!!!
Dan
...%$$## Please!!! Get a life!!! Did the guy who did the Geoff Gordon bandit get sued??
I guess I need to be waiting for the U.S. Navy JAG office to drive up in my driveway and haul me off in leg irons for the 3 F-18's that Doug, Roger & me are flying...I agree that If this guy is for real, This should be between him & Tam.. Not on a global public fourm!!! Al Gore should have his ass kicked for inventing the internet!!! You guys need to lighten up!!!
Dan
06-10-2002, 09:04 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Proluck has a point and is correct in saying the FERRARI trademark enjoys protection beyond the car classification but in America where I'm sure you guys are from so does COCA COLA, BUDWISER, and prettymuch every NBA, NFL, NHL team and how bout that old favorite for all those CAP owners BREITLING which has exactly the same form of brand protection !!! and the list goes on... hahahahaha yeah I wanna sue them all hahahaha
Now for my opinion. Proluck, I agree with the GET REAL statement made earlier, what you are doing is negitive for our hobby which we should be all doing for the love of it, Theres been hundreds of planes done in all brand livery, if you have such a problem with a few MODEL planes, not produced in bulk and only for a few fans then get out of the hobby. Your words against TAM i feel are incedible, this man is an artist. It is ablolute rubbish to say that the model he made is anything illegal, its an artwork. Thats against the spirit that RC hobby as a whole runs on and I think its a discusting stance to take.
Now for my opinion. Proluck, I agree with the GET REAL statement made earlier, what you are doing is negitive for our hobby which we should be all doing for the love of it, Theres been hundreds of planes done in all brand livery, if you have such a problem with a few MODEL planes, not produced in bulk and only for a few fans then get out of the hobby. Your words against TAM i feel are incedible, this man is an artist. It is ablolute rubbish to say that the model he made is anything illegal, its an artwork. Thats against the spirit that RC hobby as a whole runs on and I think its a discusting stance to take.
06-10-2002, 09:07 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to fly. Did you get the OK to use your Pic for your name?
I think if you make a copy of a Ferrari Car.
Then your in Deep dodo.
There are tons of Helli's scale that copy MD ,Coke So on so forth.
I have even seen a Helli painted like a Ferrari.
I do not think he would here from Ferrari.
They might think it was nice and thank him for his tribute to the great name of a great company. But I do not think they would Sew him, or her the money in cort fee's would not be worth it. I would think they would look silly too.
IMO
Then your in Deep dodo.
There are tons of Helli's scale that copy MD ,Coke So on so forth.
I have even seen a Helli painted like a Ferrari.
I do not think he would here from Ferrari.
They might think it was nice and thank him for his tribute to the great name of a great company. But I do not think they would Sew him, or her the money in cort fee's would not be worth it. I would think they would look silly too.
IMO
I think we need to fly. Did you get the OK to use your Pic for your name?
06-10-2002, 09:24 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Just curious. Why would you do such a thing? Why would FERRARI even care about sponsoring your model plane, it has the most respected and well known brand in the WORLD. Ferrari the company does not itself have advertising!!! the Ferrari F1 teams success is its advertising. While your talking about Ferrari Unfortunately, due to an exclusive licensing deal between Ferrari and Mattel, which will not expire until 2004-2005, only Mattel are allowed make models using the prancing horse logo!!! THIS IS FUNNY STUFF!!
06-10-2002, 09:32 PM
#35
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
It seems to me that Tam is going to have people beating down his door to order the Ferrari paint scheme now, and those that don't are gonna paint it themselves....seems pretty counterproductive. It seems a bit ludicrous to me, but whatever.
Bob
Bob
06-10-2002, 10:10 PM
#36
My Feedback: (24)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fond du Lac,
WI
Posts: 2,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Porno & No threats allowed--my granddaughter is watching
Maybe Proluck (what is that supposed to mean---like the rest of us are Conluck or ProUnluck) has a gripe, but then, rather than picking up his attached-to-ear cell phone and memory-dialing Tam, as I would expect from any entrepeneur with several hundred K in a new venture---actually I would expect his lawyer to call, cuz this sounds really serious---he posts his gripe on RCU--using threats and inferences---a totally unveiled attempt to besmirch Tam's reputation--HEY MR. P-LUCK, IF YOU PUT TAM OUT BUSINESS, WHERE I GET MY NEXT PIPE--NOW THAT SERIOUS BUD!! I NOT KIDDING!!
And the Avatar of the balding wise guy who just found out his wife is fooling around on him and he is really hurt---C'mon--Is this for real, or is this one of those guys living in a trailer out in the California desert posting again?
IMO, of all the things Tam and his airbrusher have done, this job is one of the low points. Base Red and Base Yellow with a couple of Ferrari Buy-em-at-the Races stickers, or since Jerry Caudle is involved, maybe some fancy transfer graphics or paint masks. The best features are the checkerboards. The yellow rectangle on the nose, not following any contour line, geeez why didn't you stick it on the canopy?? I mean, c'mon guys......this is the kind of junk I produce. You have all seen my Krylon Base Green and Base Yellow HotSpot with Green Bay Packer stickers I bought at the gas station. O.K. threaten Tam, but just make him promise he will never get talked into another Krylon and sticker job again--even if it is PPG Ferrari Red---hmmm.....I actually do like that color---naa! Just wouldn't work with the Packer's logo.
If this Ferrari logo stuff really gets you amped PL, I will introduce you to my buddy and jet flyer, Brian French who owns and drives a couple of F1 Ferraris. He will give you all the autographed photos and Horsey stick-em-ons you want. Then......Just grab a couple of cans of Krylon and have at it---->>and when you are done, you can sit back, grab that Bud Lite, and languish in the feeling of a job well-done---no need to threaten anyone---just remember, Krylon ain't fuel-proof, so don't spill any beer on it.
Tom
And the Avatar of the balding wise guy who just found out his wife is fooling around on him and he is really hurt---C'mon--Is this for real, or is this one of those guys living in a trailer out in the California desert posting again?
IMO, of all the things Tam and his airbrusher have done, this job is one of the low points. Base Red and Base Yellow with a couple of Ferrari Buy-em-at-the Races stickers, or since Jerry Caudle is involved, maybe some fancy transfer graphics or paint masks. The best features are the checkerboards. The yellow rectangle on the nose, not following any contour line, geeez why didn't you stick it on the canopy?? I mean, c'mon guys......this is the kind of junk I produce. You have all seen my Krylon Base Green and Base Yellow HotSpot with Green Bay Packer stickers I bought at the gas station. O.K. threaten Tam, but just make him promise he will never get talked into another Krylon and sticker job again--even if it is PPG Ferrari Red---hmmm.....I actually do like that color---naa! Just wouldn't work with the Packer's logo.
If this Ferrari logo stuff really gets you amped PL, I will introduce you to my buddy and jet flyer, Brian French who owns and drives a couple of F1 Ferraris. He will give you all the autographed photos and Horsey stick-em-ons you want. Then......Just grab a couple of cans of Krylon and have at it---->>and when you are done, you can sit back, grab that Bud Lite, and languish in the feeling of a job well-done---no need to threaten anyone---just remember, Krylon ain't fuel-proof, so don't spill any beer on it.
Tom
06-10-2002, 10:28 PM
#37
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: chicago, IL
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
this is single handed the most entertaining thread i've had the privledge of reading on this bbs!
sure, other had better content, but i'm truly enjoying this!
BTW: i havn't seen pictures of this said jet, i'd really like to. somebady care to post them? please?
sure, other had better content, but i'm truly enjoying this!
BTW: i havn't seen pictures of this said jet, i'd really like to. somebady care to post them? please?
06-10-2002, 10:48 PM
#38
Go Figure...
I think I have broke the code on this whole mess... Proluck is pissed that he went to all the trouble to get the ok to do this paint scheme, had decals made,and paid a professional builder/painter to do it for him. Tam simply posted the picture of the airplane ( along with many others!!!) before Proluck got the airplane.. I essence, Tam stold his thunder.. Give me a break!!! This sounds like grade school bull $%^!!! Get over it.. It looks like a beautiful airplane, you should proud to own it and fly it!!!You should be calling them and saying it's ok to put a Hotspot decal on one of their cars!!!
TTFN
Danno
TTFN
Danno
06-10-2002, 10:51 PM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MT Vernon,
WA
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Personally, I think the bald guy in the photo looks like James Gandolfini.
You know, from The Sopranos
Aye Tony! Aye right 'ere!
interesting thread tho...mighty entertaining, thanks.
You know, from The Sopranos
Aye Tony! Aye right 'ere!
interesting thread tho...mighty entertaining, thanks.
06-10-2002, 11:23 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Haha, well sorry for the repost guys but I thought we should see the culprit again. Notice the FERRARI Red all over with the nice FERRARI logo on the front, oh and it has FERRARI written on the sides as-well, this deserves to be copied, by all sport jet owners, actually I think it will look good on any RC model so lets go.
"Ferrari Red paint", $5 color matched at local paint shop
Ferrari Stickers - set of five assorted 5 pounds so $15 us at
http://www.ferrariownersclub.co.uk/s...ub_regalia.asp
If you cant beat him, join him!!!
oh and by the way he does look like Tony Soprano!!
"Ferrari Red paint", $5 color matched at local paint shop
Ferrari Stickers - set of five assorted 5 pounds so $15 us at
http://www.ferrariownersclub.co.uk/s...ub_regalia.asp
If you cant beat him, join him!!!
oh and by the way he does look like Tony Soprano!!
06-10-2002, 11:31 PM
#42
Banned
My Feedback: (-2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
That is Tony Soprano,actually its the cover from the video collection.I wonder if there is an issue with using a celebrities image without their permission.
06-10-2002, 11:48 PM
#44
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Riverside,
CA
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the $#%@?
I saw that Tam did a very nice Bald Eagle paint job on a hot spot. Last I herd the eagles club, a U.S.A.F. F15 Strike eagle, the U.S. Treasury, the Boy scouts and the hair club for men is going to sue his pants off! 
06-11-2002, 12:13 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lago Vista, TX
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Well partner. the satisfaction, glory, or respect that you were expecting to get when you show up to the next jet event, has just been blown out of the water because of the big foot that you just stuck in your mouth. If this is some kind of legit business deal, you needed to confront Tam privately so that you do not get every A#@ hole like myself in this country and the rest of the world taking a free poke at you. Have you ever heard the phrase about burning your bridges----(I think you just burned one with Tam, I would not expect any more hot spots from the west coast.)--It looks like you are going to need to learn how to build them yourself, then you can keep everything TOP SECRET.
Doug Arnold
F18 rep
turbine rep
fiberglass rep
epoxy rep
ca glue rep
surburban rep.
moose trailer driving demo team
federal interstate highway test squadron.
servo and wire lead rep.
official jetA tester.
banana plug coordinator.
Bobby Zieger oficall paper air plane test pilot.
Bob Villa wannabe
Robart hot air retract inflater
the keeper of the workbench.
Dremel tool expert extraordinar.
---and the official one and only JACK DANIELS TASTE TESTER.
P.S. if requested can perform all of the above at once---NEKID--
Doug Arnold
F18 rep
turbine rep
fiberglass rep
epoxy rep
ca glue rep
surburban rep.
moose trailer driving demo team
federal interstate highway test squadron.
servo and wire lead rep.
official jetA tester.
banana plug coordinator.
Bobby Zieger oficall paper air plane test pilot.
Bob Villa wannabe
Robart hot air retract inflater
the keeper of the workbench.
Dremel tool expert extraordinar.
---and the official one and only JACK DANIELS TASTE TESTER.
P.S. if requested can perform all of the above at once---NEKID--
06-11-2002, 12:16 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not want to see anybody crash.
Even people I do not like.
Not saying I do not like anybody here.
I do not even own a Jet.
I just like to own one soon.
I think I might get the Lambergini one though,...
:greedy: :surprised :spinnyeye
Not saying I do not like anybody here.
I do not even own a Jet.
I just like to own one soon.
I think I might get the Lambergini one though,...
:greedy: :surprised :spinnyeye
06-11-2002, 12:21 AM
#49
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
A friend of mine was building and selling Ferrari kit cars and Ferrari tried to stop him, well they didn't succeed.
I like the Ferrari hots, looks good. and Ferrari or anyone else for that matter can't do a dam thing about it.
I like the Ferrari hots, looks good. and Ferrari or anyone else for that matter can't do a dam thing about it.
06-11-2002, 12:21 AM
#50
Banned
Ferrari Trademark !!!!! IMPORTANT!!!!!
Well...I've owned a Ferrari so not sure if that makes me biased...I've also been in all kinds of trademark matters in my years in business...I'm not a Patent/Trademark lawyer but both of you should have good one ( I can recommend a few) and this way you know if this claim is real or just smoke.
Questions that arise are whether anybody would confuse a Tam airbrushed jet with a Ferrari? Also if for some reason the trademark was proven to be infringed upon you then need to prove what damage it caused. It would be difficult to have a judge or jury determine any significant damages by a Ferrari logo being painted upon a model jet. How much did Ferrari lose by this happening? How much cold hard cash did they lose as a result of this? How many consumers in the marketplace were confused? Tough case in my opinion but again I always consult with experts so know when I can laugh at my opponent or think twice about getting a strategy.
A picture of my baby before I sold it last year
Questions that arise are whether anybody would confuse a Tam airbrushed jet with a Ferrari? Also if for some reason the trademark was proven to be infringed upon you then need to prove what damage it caused. It would be difficult to have a judge or jury determine any significant damages by a Ferrari logo being painted upon a model jet. How much did Ferrari lose by this happening? How much cold hard cash did they lose as a result of this? How many consumers in the marketplace were confused? Tough case in my opinion but again I always consult with experts so know when I can laugh at my opponent or think twice about getting a strategy.
A picture of my baby before I sold it last year