The POA "Trademark" Case

Home Forums Diamondhead Legal Forum POA Lawsuits The POA "Trademark" Case

This topic contains 8 replies, has 433 voices, and was last updated by  Editor 12 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1842

    Editor
    Moderator

    Soliciting the opinions of the Diamondhead POA’s claims to the word “Diamondhead” and the graphic.

    #1841

    tbare
    Member

    Do you have a document authorizing the use of the logo and name? If not, by what right do you use it?? I can’t sell a sofr drink called “Pepsi”

    #1843

    tdredbone
    Member

    I’m wondering what the difference is between this site using diamondhead’s logo and likeness and the Business and Professional Association doing the same thing? If I understand correctly, the association is a public non-profit that is not a directly affiliated with the country club or property owners. The decision seems selective in it’s application.

    #1846

    FortunateOne
    Member

    I don’t believe that anyone could be stupid enough to file a suit over a commonly used name. Ever heard of public domain? Diamondhead is a name of a community with its own zip code and highway signs. To attempt to restrict its use would be ludicrous and pure folly. The logo has been in the public domain for nearly twenty years, plastered over the entire area and in use by dozens of businesses in the area. The “pepsi” analogy is pure bunk. Pepsico is a for profit corporation and I have never heard of Pepsi, Mississippi. Seems like someone doesn’t like this site and wants to silence us.

    #1852

    springrs
    Member

    This lawsuit is definitely a knee-jerk reaction to get back at BJP for it’s lawsuit. There is no harm caused to the POA by a company using this. We expect better from our Board members.

    #1854

    Anonymous

    Thank you for your post and objectivity, but I must correct the misconception perpetrated by the board members who instigated this fraud against the membership and our company. The original lawsuit was filed by the POA board against the Bay Jourdan Publishing Company in 1997 despite a clear mandate in the contract that all disputes were to be resolved by arbitration. This was after we had turned a 13 year perennial loser, the Diamondhead newsletter, into a profitable venture. Bay Jourdan Publishing Company had to file suit against the individual members of the board and the Sun Herald for tortuous interference with our contract and for denying our right to arbitrate the matter.

    The resulting court actions in this matter have cost the membership hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees. My husband and I have fought for years to get this case out of Mississippi court into a fair venue (see http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/newsroom/display_release030805b.html ) where our side of the story can be heard.

    #1855

    wayne king
    Participant

    The only winners in any lawsuit are the lawyers, appears there are a lot of them feeding in the diamondhead arenas. Only the legal profession can generate its own employment, need a job? Go sue something or someone. Right? wrong? who cares, as long as someone pays and victory can be declared. If the Diamondhead “logo” is a registered Trademark then Bay Publishing should relinquish its use. If Diamondhead corp did not take all the steps to establish legitimate claim to the exclusive use of the logo then abandon this folly being conducted at property owner expense.

    #1860

    Editor
    Moderator

    It is not quite that simple. Other questions must now be addressed.

    Did the POA have a right to register the volcano graphic as its trademark?

    If so, is the POA selectively enforcing its “trademark” by suing only BJP?

    Who actually created the graphic and were they compensated for their work?

    When was the graphic registered?

    Is the graphic in the public domain?

    Also, the POA is suing BJP claiming it owns the right to the word “Diamondhead”. One can only wonder if they intend to impose a use tax on those who speak the word and will they attempt to collect in Hawaii.

    These questions will be answered at the membership’s expense. The facts will show the true motives of the individuals who embarked on this folly.

    #1861

    wayne king
    Participant

    Whose interest’s are the litigants concerned with? It certianly is not the paying members. Give it up, we can’t afford ego, which came first, chicken or the egg concepts that in reality hold no interests for us except cost for which we receive no value. Make up a new publishing logo, have a contest to create interest, but get on down the road or re-name the POA, “The New Diamondhead Property Owners” would work for me, make a new logo, might break the jinks thats persisted for too long but again, move on, get involved in something positive for this community.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.