Gortex Grade Slide

[LtCol White]

Oh I agree with you. I'm not saying anyone doesnt have a right to be upset if they have rec'd lesser service. because of the exclusivity, Vanguard should be doing everything they can to fix whatever probs exist out there.
Personally, I have had nothing but good service from them.

You're correct, the membership had no control over the agreement. This is seldom the case when a corp makes agreements so it isnt unique to CAP. Normal in the Corp world.

But as I said, those who are unhappy with the exclusivity should express that to NHQ. Of course, it is a moot point due to legal/contractual obligations.

AAFES isnt perfect either. But, there are other sources out there for many items they carry.

[davedove]

Oh I agree with you. I'm not saying anyone doesnt have a right to be upset if they have rec'd lesser service. because of the exclusivity, Vanguard should be doing everything they can to fix whatever probs exist out there.
Personally, I have had nothing but good service from them.

Unfortunately, exclusivity tends to cause worse service, not better.  In a normal competitive environment, if the customers don't like your service they go elsewhere.  In an exclusive environment, if the customers don't like your service, to bad, they still have to come to you for more.

[Hawk200]

Personally, I have had nothing but good service from them.

The service I received was slow. A week for them to process my payment, and three more days to ship it. I don't care for that level.

You're correct, the membership had no control over the agreement. This is seldom the case when a corp makes agreements so it isnt unique to CAP. Normal in the Corp world.

Normal in the corporate world, but a little different for the military. And with the reuirement of CAP to wear a uniform, I don't think it's wrong to include us.

As for the agreement by National, there are some people that think that "exclusivity" may be illegal, or at least highly unethical. Suppression of free enterprise, a forced monopoly requiring CAP members to pay higher costs, lack of competition in a free market. Just a few of the opinions that I've heard.

I'm just waiting for a rich member to lawyer up, and bring a lawsuit. It wouldn't surpise me if they won. And if it went class action, the effects on CAP could be debilitating.

But as I said, those who are unhappy with the exclusivity should express that to NHQ. Of course, it is a moot point due to legal/contractual obligations.

AAFES isnt perfect either. But, there are other sources out there for many items they carry.

Absolutely right on both counts. At least you can find insignia from other sources. I've done that when I was both active duty and Guard. AAFES quite often couldn't meet my timeline, so I got it someplace else. Neither you or I have that option when it comes to CAP.

[LtCol White]

Exactly. But it was NHQ that created that environment, not Vanguard. You can't blame any business for wanting to be the exclusive supplier.

[LtCol White]

Well exclusive suppliers isnt illegal. When I worked in International Logistics for Coca-Cola, it was common practice that the company had exclusive suppliers for trade marked items. At Coke, anything using the logo or depicting the company name was a trademark. Even the shape of the 6 ounce bottle is trademarked. These are very common practices in the Corp world. CAP is a Corp and is free by law to have exclusive suppliers of any item that it has a trademark on. A uniform item with CAP or CIVIL AIR PATROL would fall under the same auspice. Likewise, any patch or device designed to be worn on CAP uniforms or any other item sold.

Like it or not, it is legal for them to do this.

[Hawk200]

Unfortunately, exclusivity tends to cause worse service, not better.  In a normal competitive environment, if the customers don't like your service they go elsewhere.  In an exclusive environment, if the customers don't like your service, to bad, they still have to come to you for more.

Unfortunately, that was Ma Bell's problem. Telephone service was deregulated partially because of poor service in a monopoly environment. I kinda wonder if that deregulation was less FCC, and more Federal Trade Commision. I don't honestly know, I know less about FTC to reach a reasonable conclusion.

If you have a monopoly, and all your customers are satisfied, you're probably going to be alright. If they aren't, someone will break up your monopoly. In the cases of telephone companies, technology allowed different options.

[Hawk200]

Well exclusive suppliers isnt illegal. When I worked in International Logistics for Coca-Cola, it was common practice that the company had exclusive suppliers for trade marked items. At Coke, anything using the logo or depicting the company name was a trademark. Even the shape of the 6 ounce bottle is trademarked. These are very common practices in the Corp world. CAP is a Corp and is free by law to have exclusive suppliers of any item that it has a trademark on. A uniform item with CAP or CIVIL AIR PATROL would fall under the same auspice. Likewise, any patch or device designed to be worn on CAP uniforms or any other item sold.

Like it or not, it is legal for them to do this.

Even your own statement disputes your response. The key word is suppliers, not supplier.

And an exclusive bottle design is not the same as a Civil Air Patrol nametape. You don't suppress free enterise with a trademark on a bottle design. If you had an exclusive trademark on any  six ounce bottle that would be a completely different story. Doesn't compare.

Besides, anyone can make that trademarked six ounce bottle design. But the only people that you would be able to sell it to would be Coca Cola. It would be illegal to make sale to anyone else on a trademarked property. It's not a matter of who can produce it, it's a matter of who can use it.

For CAP to say that only members can use it their nametapes is one thing. To say that they can't be sold by anyone else is a different equation altogether.

[SarDragon]

A little info on the "trademark" issue.

CAP doesn't have a trademark, per se, on its items. What it does have is this:

TITLE 36 > Subtitle II > Part B > CHAPTER 403 > Sec. 40306.
Sec. 40306. - Exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name ''Civil Air Patrol'' and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

[Hawk200]

A little info on the "trademark" issue.

CAP doesn't have a trademark, per se, on its items. What it does have is this:

TITLE 36 > Subtitle II > Part B > CHAPTER 403 > Sec. 40306.
Sec. 40306. - Exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name ''Civil Air Patrol'' and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

Very interesting information. Legal wise, does that mean only use of CAP insignia by its members? Or does it include manufacture?

[Smokey]

Lord Monar,

You must be from Rio Linda boy....lemme 'splain it....it was humor.

Typical of military, govt, etc.     Approve it in a manner it becomes a mute issue.   It would be like approving the use of a uniform bathing suit (Speedos  ) in October. 

You should know.....,  for example I was at Nellis a few years ago in March to do a magazine article on the Thunderbirds.  Temp was 80+. The HEAT was still on in the Thunderbird hanger.....they said it could not be turned off as the base had a set date for the turnover to A/C from heat.  Typical SNAFU.

[lordmonar]

Not when you consider that the base is all on the same heating system.  You can't just turn it off for one building.  So the T-bird hanger may have been hot...but the dorms would have been freezing.

Is it SNAFU...sure....but it's not because there is no reasoning behind it.

[SarDragon]

A little info on the "trademark" issue.

CAP doesn't have a trademark, per se, on its items. What it does have is this:

TITLE 36 > Subtitle II > Part B > CHAPTER 403 > Sec. 40306.
Sec. 40306. - Exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name ''Civil Air Patrol'' and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

Very interesting information. Legal wise, does that mean only use of CAP insignia by its members? Or does it include manufacture?

Note the first line - "use the name". If it sez CAP or Civil Air Patrol, it better be licensed by NHQ. And why would you want to manufacture something if you couldn't sell it to at least make back your expenses?

[Slim]

I can understand the corporation taking measures to protect it's name and intellectual property.  What I don't understand is why this is such a problem all of the sudden?

I used Spur Cleaners (1800nametape.com) for my name and branch tapes since about 1986, exclusively.  They produced a good product with a fast turn-around, even back then.  And mind you, that was strictly mail-order business at the time.  With the introduction of the Internet and on-line ordering, it only got better.  I could order up a set of name and branch tapes on Monday, and have them by Friday.

Last summer, I ordered a nameplate for the new corporate service uniform from them on a Monday.  They had to call me on Tuesday because I transposed two numbers on my credit card.  Got that straigtened out, and still had my nameplate on Thursday.  Sorry, but Vangard just can't beat that kind of turn-around, even if I would have paid for expedited shipping (which I didn't with Spur-never needed to). 

I also had to order a set of blue AF major epaulet slides from Vangard since MCSS was out of them, and had no idea when they'd be in stock.  So, I went through their regular website (not civilairpatrolstore.com).  I ordered them for $9.80, plus standard shipping, and still spent less than $13 for them.  So, why then are they charging a flat $7 shipping fee through the CAP site?  Could it be because they have us by the short ones?

Sorry, but I refuse to use Vangard unless absolutely necessary.  I'll buy from the Hock, MCSS, police uniform stores, even a surplus joint before I'll give up my money to them for CAP stuff.  As for name and branch tapes, I still have a few new ones (I always order more than I need), once those are gone, I'll be reusing them until NHQ and Vangard either lighten up with these C & D orders, or give us some kind of alternative.

Another serious question.  Aren't CAP distinctive ribbons also covered under this?  I mean, the Unit Citation is fairly common, but what about the Commander's Commendation?  What I'm leading up to is this.  Why isn't NHQ/Vangard raising hell with the folks at Ultra-thin Ribbons?

[mikeylikey]

I agree!  Vanguard is ripping us off.  Why are their products in the MCSS cheaper than if we ordered them from them on line?  Even not counting taxes, it's still cheaper in store than on line!  Now like the poster said above me, the price for the same uniform bling is more expensive on the cap specific site than on their "military" site. 
Unfair business practices!  Call the better business bureau!

[Hawk200]

.... And why would you want to manufacture something if you couldn't sell it to at least make back your expenses?

That's the part where "free market" and "fair competition" comes in. And the fact that it costs more on the CAP side than the military side shows "gouging".

A lot of people are disputing whether or not it's "legal" for Vanguard to be a sole source. So, I'm gonna drop that angle from here, it could be argued all day without any kind of resolution.

What I will throw out there is this: Is it fair to require someone to spend 3 dollars on a nametag, when the same product of equal or better quality used to be available for 75 cents apiece? How many people thing that is ethical?

I think that anyone that does think it is equitable has a seriously skewed sense of priorities, or has more money than brains.

[Pylon]

I agree!  Vanguard is ripping us off.  Why are their products in the MCSS cheaper than if we ordered them from them on line?  Even not counting taxes, it's still cheaper in store than on line!  Now like the poster said above me, the price for the same uniform bling is more expensive on the cap specific site than on their "military" site. 
Unfair business practices!  Call the better business bureau!

I dunno:

CivilAirPatrolStore.com
USAF 2d Lt epaulets   - Product ID: 8400205  - Price: $5.00

VanguardMil.com
USAF 2d Lt epaulets   - Item: 8400205  - Price: $7.30



CivilAirPatrolStore.com
Christian Chaplain Badge - Product ID: CAP0749F  - $5.20

VanguardMil.com
Christian Chaplain Badge - Item: 2151100 - $7.20



CivilAirPatrolStore.com
Blue Cotton Web Belt, Mirror Finish Buckle & Tip, 44"  - Product ID: CAP0991A  -  $5.35

VanguardMil.com
Blue Cotton Web Belt, Mirror Finish Buckle & Tip, 44" - Item: 2500500 - $10.00



CivilAirPatrolStore.com
U.S. letters collar insignia, mirror finish  - Product ID: CAP0820B - $3.00

VanguardMil.com
U.S. letters collar insignia, mirror finish - Item: 3640610  -  $6.00


I don't see where they're terribly ripping off CAP members versus the general public, at least in that one regard.