The Hock Shop hit with lawsuit?

[SarDragon]

A quick review, from 2007:

First of all, this is not, and never has been, a copyright issue. Copyrights cover such things a printed material, music, and software, among others. If anything, it is a trademark or service mark issue. As stated in a post above, and in at least one other thread, CAP's legal rights derive from Title 36 of the U.S. Code:

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.
*****

CAP (the corporation) holds only two trademarks - CAPMART, and WHERE IMAGINATION TAKES FLIGHT. I have found no patents listed. Copyright information is too diverse and numerous for online cataloging.

[ZigZag911]

Tom got away with what he did for YEARS, while others were forced to stop selling.  Does it matter if CAP bling or names are protected property?......NO.  The Corporation says "members, our ONLY supplier of uniform items from this point forward is Vanguard".  TOM did not abide by the rules, and as a member should be copied on his termination papers. 

He made money off of all of us for many years.  I seriously doubt he is in any financial hardship.  However, he may be sitting on CAP items that he can no longer sell and he will write those losses up on his taxes. 

Do I feel bad for the guy?  Not one bit. 

Is it wrong that Vanguard is CAP's sole supplier?  You bet it is!

Can I or anyone else change the rules?  No, but we can forward our displeasure of Vanguard being sole supplier.  We should have done that when it first came to pass.  Now IT IS TOO LATE.

PERIOD

No one was required to patronize The Hock Shop...frankly, To provided a much needed service at a time when the "CAP Bookstore" (later CAPMART) was renowned for it's inability to fill orders correctly and deliver them in a timely manner.

Interestingly no one interfered with The Hock Shop's operations during the 15-20 years of the National leadership fumbling around to find an answer to insignia supply.

When CAP entered into the exclusive contract with Vanguard, common decency demanded that we negotiate an exception for Tom, in recognition of the many years he closed the gap which National could not...but, of course, that was not even considered, CAP has become so 'corporate'.

Terminate the man over a civilian business dispute? Sorry, but that strikes me as cold, callous, vindictive, and, incidentally, an inappropriate response to the situation.

[Major Carrales]

Wait a minute...Tom has been termianted as a CAP officer?  It was my understanding that he has been in CAP since the 1950s.

[Spike]

No one was required to patronize The Hock Shop...frankly, To provided a much needed service at a time when the "CAP Bookstore" (later CAPMART) was renowned for it's inability to fill orders correctly and deliver them in a timely manner.

Interestingly no one interfered with The Hock Shop's operations during the 15-20 years of the National leadership fumbling around to find an answer to insignia supply.

When CAP entered into the exclusive contract with Vanguard, common decency demanded that we negotiate an exception for Tom, in recognition of the many years he closed the gap which National could not...but, of course, that was not even considered, CAP has become so 'corporate'.

Terminate the man over a civilian business dispute? Sorry, but that strikes me as cold, callous, vindictive, and, incidentally, an inappropriate response to the situation.

The bookstore, CAPMART and supply depot all got my orders to me quick and correct.  When National went to an exclusive supplier why should exceptions be made for Tom?  Your argument is based on personal feelings, not fact or truth. 

Tom is a CAP Member, but he violated CAP's multiple S&D letters as a private citizen.  He is lucky that he was not cashiered from CAP years ago. 

I think exclusivity for Vanguard is not right.  However, where was everyone when it was being developed years ago?  Why are we all getting worked up over something that (in fact) we all knew was coming.  Tom gambled and the law (unfortunately) is not on his side. 

He made money for years, he took the chance of not following the S&D letters and has lost.

Should CAP Corporate sue him?  Yes.  Should CAP get money from him....NO!!!!!!!!!!!  The lawsuite is a way to enforce the Corporations stance.  I seriously doubt it will go very far.  If it ever got to court, there is no way for Tom to win.  He will not let it go that far (at least a person who lives on truth and fact, would not)

I am not being harsh, cold-hearted or vindictive or inappropriate in any way.  I am using fact and truth that we all know of.  For years we knew Tom would be the target of NHQ, this is just the "when" of the equation.

He can still sell his stuff as long as it does not violate the rules that were granted by our Federal Government to CAP Corporate.  If you have issues with that go talk to you Congressperson, Wing Commander or write a letter to General Courter.

[Stonewall]

2000 Bookstore Catalog.  Now that's how it should be...

[FARRIER]

2000 Bookstore Catalog.  Now that's how it should be...

Bring back the smurf suit.

[ZigZag911]

"C & D" letters -- it's Cease & Desist

Still disagree with you, Spike, but I said my piece.

[Spike]

"C & D" letters -- it's Cease & Desist

Still disagree with you, Spike, but I said my piece.

Thank you.  I forget how to spell sometimes when I get so worked up over something that has nothing to do with me or impacts my life in any bit what so ever. 

"Seest and dasist".  Why won't the world just spell words by how they sound.

[Eclipse]

People who feed their families via revenue from intellectual property and creative works, and/or those who obey the law regarding copyrights and trademarks, tend to have a less "gray" area regarding infringement and piracy than those who believe title 17 is there simply to keep 16 from hitting 18.

It doesn't matter who created the indices and insignia, or who owns them. Someone does, and just because the alleged infringer may have a semi-benevolent relationship with CAP, doesn't change the infraction or the potential harm to both the customer and the brand.

There's also the issue of goose and gander, and the fact that there are other businesses that have also received C&D's and complied, and some of those did offer to license insignia and were refused. CAP was literally setting up the Hock as a competitive monopoly by allowing it to ignore C&D's and continue operations while other companies knocked it off.

Further, its not out of the realm of possibility that CAP, Inc. might actually lose a case were it ever go to court, or the NB might simply decide its not worth the hassle, expense, and bad feelings, which then potentially opens the field back up for anyone who wants to stamp a propeller on a patch and call it CAP.

[ZigZag911]

What CAP is doing is certainly within the law.

This does not mean it is fair, just, equitable or right.

There is a lamentable trend today (not just in CAP) to brush away the past as though it were meaningless, to regard those who have served needs previously as presently expendable.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

[High Speed Low Drag]

I love the Hock!  (As previously stated in another thread), I have had almost always good quality products from the Hock and great customer service.  I ordered from Vanguard a month ago and still haven't got that order in. tick tock tick tock.  Glad it wasn't something I needed quickly.

I feel I can weigh in, having a U.S. patent in my name and several copyrighted works.  I was faced with a situation where one of my fellow officers took my copyrighted work, put it on a copier, and began selling them to other officers.  I was extremely upset because he was literally taking money from me.  The quality was inferior and it still had my logo on it.  I issued him a C & D on it, he ignored me, so I filed a formal complaint.  That got him to stop.  However, I still saw (and see) fellow officers using photocopies of my stuff.

I can understand the theoretical argument.  I always thought that the CAP stuff was public domain and not subject to copyright (much like the words "Air Force" "Navy", etc) which is why Tom was selling it.  However, the question comes to my mind about how copyright-protected is CAP stuff and if the sole-vendor contract will stand up in a court of law.  And, as someone mentioned before, Tom filled the gap when things went south for CAPMART.  There should be a certain amount of leniency. 
Wise man once said "The law and justice are two entirely different things."

Good Luck Tom, my best wishes are with you.

[necigrad]

Sorry, I don't buy the "ooops". CAP while a corporation, is basically a corporation dependent on appropriated funds and is closely integrated model wise after the Air Force.  The military branches are not beating down vendors for putting "ARMY" , "AIR FORCE", on stuff.

I'm reasonably certain that any insignia belonging to the US Government is public domain.  You don't need permission or to pay fees to use the Thunderbirds logo or to use the phrase "It's not a job, it's an adventure".  CAP is a private corporation; the intellectual property of that organization is protected.

I'm not saying that I like only one supplier (and I'm not gonna take sides on VG vs. Hock) but it's a legit claim.

[tdepp]

The Civil Air Patrol, as a corporation, can own and protect its intellectual property.  And the trademarks don't have to be registered to be protectable under federal or most state trademark law.  Use in commerce provides common law rights.  If not federally registered, however, the marks can't use the R-in-a-circle but can use TM or SM for trademark or service mark.

Trademark owners have a duty to "police" their marks so they do not fall into the public domain.  They also have the right to license (or not license) their marks to others.  This is no different than the University of Kansas licensing "Kansas" for sweatshirts, jerseys, etc.  It is a term in common use but it also denotes quality, source, etc., the hallmarks of a trademark.

In fact, the CAP is the registered trademark owner on at least two marks, but probably on the ones we're all thinking:  From the US Patent and Trademark Office (here's the link, but I'm not sure it will work http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Aitb82q.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=civil+air+patrol&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query):

   
   Serial Number    Reg. Number    Word Mark    Check Status    Live/Dead
1    78300723    2987217    CAPMART    TARR    LIVE
2    76069569    2544252    WHERE IMAGINATION TAKES FLIGHT    TARR    LIVE

Federal agencies such as the USAF can also own trademarks.  The USAF has registered quite a number.  Again, I'm not sure this link will work: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Aitb82q.4.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=united+states+air+force&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

FYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

[Spike]

Sorry, I don't buy the "ooops". CAP while a corporation, is basically a corporation dependent on appropriated funds and is closely integrated model wise after the Air Force.  The military branches are not beating down vendors for putting "ARMY" , "AIR FORCE", on stuff.

I'm reasonably certain that any insignia belonging to the US Government is public domain.  You don't need permission or to pay fees to use the Thunderbirds logo or to use the phrase "It's not a job, it's an adventure". 

No it is not.  You actually do need permission.  When JC Penny started selling "Army Branded" merchandise it had to go through the Government for approval to use the words "United States Army" and the logos/ unit patches.  I am not sure if they are still selling these items, but they were popular before the Holidays last year. 

[lordmonar]

FYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

Oh well there you go....you actually have training and creditials in this subject....that makes your opinion completely vull and void! 

[necigrad]

Federal agencies such as the USAF can also own trademarks

FYI: My Master of Laws (the degree after a Juris Doctorate) is in intellectual property from the University of Houston Law Center and I practice in this area of law.  I hope this helps clarify the discussion a bit.

I stand corrected.  My BS in Internet Lawyering (I made the diploma in MS Word) is being destroyed as we speak!

[ltcmark]

The DOD does protect it's logo's and trademarks.  I found this on the following website:  http://www.defense.gov/trademarks/index.html

Use of DoD Seals and Trademarks 

Department of Defense and Military Seals are protected by law from unauthorized use. These seals may NOT be used for non-official purposes.

However, the Military Services typically approve the use of their Service emblem or coat of arms on a case-by-case basis as a substitute. There is no such substitute for the Department of Defense Seal.

------------------

The website then gives all the contact info for each service.

I was on the receiving end of a trademark infringement once.  It gets real expensive, real fast.  What I learned was a valuable lesson - If you don't pay, you don't play.

[Pylon]

All legality (or illegality) aside, what really is a bummer (besides losing the great customer service and rapport I was used to getting from Tom and his staff) is that this also jacks up the cost of membership for our cadets.

When cadets in our squadron joined (to make it easier, less confusing, and to expedite the process of getting new recruits into a complete uniform to finish their Curry), we collected a flat $50 fee for all of their uniform miscellany.  With that $50, we were able to buy: 2 sets of nametapes, blue nametag, tie or tie tab, tie tack (for males), flight cap device, CAP cutouts, BDU belt, BDU hat, enforcers, reverse flag patch, a 1-ribbon holder and Curry ribbon, and the squadron would toss in a squadron patch.   With that, their Free Cadet Uniform (FCU) funded through the AF, and with the set of BDUs our squadron issues to each cadet, that $50 got them a complete set of blues and BDUs.   We were able to get that from The Hock for under $50 a cadet. 

Want to know what the exact same items cost at Vanguard?  $73.80.  Add a $20 premium per new cadet, payable to Vanguard.  And for that extra $20, I get less.   I don't have someone strive to get our items shipped out the very same business day (like Tom always strove to do when I ordered in the AM).     And whether it's the squadron ordering it up front for the cadet, or the cadet or his or her parents ordering their new belts and insignia online, that $20 premium over the Hock prices still applies.  Per new cadet.  And we haven't even started adding grade chevrons and all the extra doodads... that's just about the bare basics (with very few, but typical optional items) for one set of BDUs and blues.  Most every new cadet is going to need to order most if not all of those items sooner or later.

NHQ would be well within their rights to jack up membership rates for new cadets by $20, and put that money directly into regional training centers, too.   Yes, legally they could do it.  But would most of us tolerate that?   Probably wouldn't be as well received, would it?

And I can't help but think that, as Ned aptly pointed out, if we didn't constantly create so many unique-to-CAP badges that require dies and set-up charges, but likely only a handful of people will ever order,that the cost of our items in general would come way down.  And that blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the National Board, who in the past 10 years has created a prolific volume of uniform insignia and changes (and changes back, and no wait, just kidding, changes back again).

Again, I understand the legality of what CAPNHQ is doing.  I understand they went through some sort of process and were within their rights to declare Vanguard sole distributor of CAP shenanigans.  But that still means the membership at the squadron level is paying for it.  Not just you and me who might be able to afford the premium cost for average items.  But that cadets from rural areas who scrape a few bucks a week together to save up so they can afford to go on the next squadron bivouac or attend encampment (particularly the 95% of cadets that aren't using the NOC or Hawk Mountain or wherever National decides to use the royalty monies) are the ones truly paying for this.   Those cadets have been my cadets, and for their sake and for the sake of every other young cadet who doesn't have unlimited resources but wants to become a dynamic, future aerospace leader anyways, I'm pretty pissed.

[Eclipse]

With the exception of the insignia, why would you buy any of that from Vanguard? 

Its all available elsewhere, cheaper.  An informed consumer is our best member.

[lordmonar]

Pylon...I hear your story....but if we are going to pull the "it costs too much"......take a look at the next encampment packing list and your $20 for new cadets argument goes out the door.