New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Class Associations powers
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Class Associations powers

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
G.R.F. View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 10 Aug 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Quote G.R.F. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Class Associations powers
    Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 3:38pm
I was once threatened with legal action for using the Class trademark as the
title of the Class magazine I was running at the time which is how sensitive
yanks tend to be about that sort of thing.

My thoughts on classes have already been aired and I think unless both
parties, builder and class who's interests tend to be diametrically opposed
in reality if the builder has any sense of commercial future, work
sympathetically to each other, the class is destined to a mediochre future at
best.
Back to Top
Mikey 14778 View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 05 Feb 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 298
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mikey 14778 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:51pm
Sure, you can't call yourself or your product 'Laser', as the company of that name have trademarked it. But that
doesn't stop you referring to a Laser(TM) in normal use if you want to refer to it, or to use the word 'laser' in
any other context. And it is the item name rather than the class association name that is restricted by trademark
in this case.

But this is missing the point. The point was that you can legally subvert the manufacturer's intentions for the
product, and you can set up a CA without their say so.

I have no plans to do this - I don't have enough time or madness for that kind of stuff. But it's good to know that
it is technically possible to revive classes which are being held back by the money-making ambitions of their
builder, regardless of what the incumbent CA might think.
Back to Top
chrisg View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 07
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 893
Post Options Post Options   Quote chrisg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:48pm

Could laser not have opened themselves up to being done under the trade descriptions act for that little nugget above. Laser and performance arent really 2 words that sit well together are they?

Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:33pm
Originally posted by Mikey 14778

Presumably Rooster managed to do almost exactly this with the 8.1. It's got a CA (I assume) and it's not been shafted by Laser plc (yet).

They are very careful about how they use the L word on the CA website at least...

The Rooster 8.1 is compatible with Laser® but is not an original Laser® Product. It’s a Rooster Sailing™ Product!

Laser® is a registered trademark of Performance Sailcraft Europe Ltd, Performance Sailcraft Australia Ltd, Performance Sailcraft Japan Ltd and Vanguard Sailboats inc. Rooster Sailing Ltd is fully independent of the Performance Sailcraft Europe Ltd, Performance Sailcraft Australia Ltd, Performance Sailcraft Japan Ltd and Vanguard Sailboats inc.


And so yes, Laser have trademarked that word...



Edited by JimC
Back to Top
Mikey 14778 View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 05 Feb 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 298
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mikey 14778 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:18pm
Is the name really an issue. I can't believe that Laser have copyrighted that particular word.

You've got to avoid the charge of 'passing off', ie attempting to trade on somebody else's company name. But
I'll bet that "Fireball Class Association" or "RS300 Class Association" are not companies and thus not legal
entities anyway. In any case, you would want to differentiate your new outfit from the original to avoid
confusion.

Presumably Rooster managed to do almost exactly this with the 8.1. It's got a CA (I assume) and it's not
been shafted by Laser plc (yet).
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by rs405

then there is the problem of actually getting people to join it over the already established 'offical' one.

Most classes struggle to find enough volunteers to run one class association let alone two!

Originally posted by Mikey 14778

But what is to stop a group of people saying "We have set up a CA for the RS Whizzbang, in spite of the fact that there already is one. We will be working according to our rules which don't include any references to the builder".

RYA affiliation is one issue, especially if you want to go to Sailboat or whatever. But its not a subject I've ever had to find out about, so I'm pretty much speaking from a position of ignorance [voices off - no change there then!]

Edited by JimC
Back to Top
rs405 View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king
Avatar

Joined: 03 Apr 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
Post Options Post Options   Quote rs405 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 1:24pm

I was thinking of the Laser Development Class Association.

Rule 1) An origional Laser hull shall be used.

Rule 2) See rule 1)

That would be a lot of fun!

 

On a more serious note I suspect what stops you from starting your own class association is probably the trade mark/ copyright of the design and its name. Then there is the problem of actually getting people to join it over the already established 'offical' one.

420, 470, 405, laser 4000
Back to Top
Mikey 14778 View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 05 Feb 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 298
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mikey 14778 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:57pm
Sticking with RS as they have floated to the top of this discussion, clearly they wrote the rules which say
that the decisions of the CA can be vetoed by themselves.

But what is to stop a group of people saying "We have set up a CA for the RS Whizzbang, in spite of the fact
that there already is one. We will be working according to our rules which don't include any references to the
builder".

Could they then call themselves (say) the 'Real Whizzbang CA', recruit members and set up an open circuit ?

I suppose the question is, to what extent *must* you have the boatbuilder's and/or designer's agreement when
setting up a CA. My suspicion is that, although desirable, you don't need it at all.
Back to Top
Slippery Jim View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 09
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 586
Post Options Post Options   Quote Slippery Jim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:23pm

Originally posted by JimC

I don't see your differential between one design and development Class association at all. Its surely all about who owns the rights... The only real difference is between classes where the manufacturer owns the rights (typically the designer is an employee or was contacted to the manufacturer) and classes where ownership is with the Class association, usually coupled with the Designer(s).

IMO the issue gets a bit more complicated when we're talking about development classes. There, a group of individuals have the rights to the different designs. Builders then pay a license fee to the respective designer. Anyone may theoretically design a boat within the class but the decision to allow the boat design in the class rests with the class association. This is the case with the national 12 owners association, which has drawn up a series of class rules about the design per se and other things.  These rules are subject to periodic review and changes voted in, usually at the AGM. Usually, any rule change proposal is looked at before hand by a (sub)committee which gives an opinion as to whether the change would be in the best interests of the class or not. I hope I've got that right, shoot me down in flames if not). Sounds very burocratic and indeed it is, but saying that if it's doing with dedication and patience it can bear fruit and the class has, as a result stood the test of time,.(70 years plus) and of course, developed.

Cheers

Jim

 (sorry about a somewhat emotional plug for a class to which I used to belong  )

Pass the skiff, man!
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3048
Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 09 at 12:10pm

With reference back to the RS100 thread where the Blaze transition from Topper was mentioned.

There were a few issues when Topper dropped the boat and the Class decided to appoint a new builder. As it was one of the then committee members set up a company to act as the builder with Rondar building the hulls.

There were some who were sceptical and wanted to take another route but on the whole (and now some 3 years down the line) the class is thriving compared to the Topper days. The class and the builder work very close together to ensure the class moves forwards but does not obsolete the older boats meaning you can get a boat capable of winning the nationals (in the right hands) for around £1000 (this is about as low as the price for a Blaze goes).

I think other classes in a similar position could learn a lot from the Blaze, despite the initial sceptics everything is working fine. The guy who set up Cirrus to build the boat is still very hands on with the class and works well with the CA Committee.

My only advice to classes where there is a problem is to vote them current committee out and appoint a new one....

Just my 2p as always....

Paul

Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy