Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: You Can Own "General Cinema"

This is topic You Can Own "General Cinema" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006295

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-09-2010, 10:23 AM:

According to this ad in the November 9, 2010 NEW YORK TIMES, you can bid on the General Cinema Trademark. Lots of other old name brands of various types are also available.

Trademark Auction Website

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-09-2010, 10:28 AM:

Wow, you can own the Trademark on Annie Hall? Take that Mr Allen!

Between the spammers and porn industry, the bidding on many of those trademarks should be a ball [evil]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-09-2010, 01:31 PM:

So if one were to buy this trademark, they could presumably build, open, and operate theaters under the General Cinemas name?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-09-2010, 03:26 PM:

I would be weary of what you are actually buying. The Logo? The words, or just the words in that font? What about the copyright, which is separate from the trademark.

According to the US Trademark Office, It appears that squatters grabbed the trademark back in 2004 when AMC released it. Checking the TARR status, their time limit for filing a statement of use expired back in 2008, but I don't know how that effects the trademark which still appears to be valid.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2010, 04:29 PM:

While it might be cool to buy the rights to an old, dead brand name I would be pretty worried about what else might come along for the ride, such as the dead company's debt and list of creditors!
[Eek!]

Given the fact the United States is pretty much the most sue-happy nation on the planet (we do have, by far, the most attorneys) the mere act of buying up one of those dead brand names may get you tagged with frivolous yet costly anyway lawsuits.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-09-2010, 05:10 PM:

Nah...buy it and then sue everyone that is using YOUR brand on YouTube with their videos!

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-10-2010, 06:15 PM:

I guess this is how a chinese company called Sparkomatic is now known as Altec Lansing.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-10-2010, 06:31 PM:

I don't know, I never thought much of General Cinema as a particularly catchy company name; it didn't imply anything superior or spectacular. It seems to convey "ordinary" or "common" or "unimpressive."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2010, 07:31 PM:

Sounds like "Generic Cinema".

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-10-2010, 09:23 PM:

There. . that't the ONE I want! Louis

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-11-2010, 12:56 PM:

Buying a dead trademark can be an iffy proposition.

If you let a trademark you own lapse, somebody can grab it. But they don't really hold it unless the original holder doesn't use the brand for three years, and that fact can be proven in court. Even then, the last holder can take steps to stop you.

An example...Hardee's acquired the Burger Chef chain back in the 1980's. A few years ago, a company that specializes in reviving dead brands snatched up the Burger Chef trademark and filed a suit against Hardee's to release all claims to it. Hardee's responded by immediately reviving the Big Shef brand on a sandwich (that isn't even remotely close to an actual Big Shef), complete with Burger Chef logo on the posters, in Indianapolis and St Louis, claiming they 'still used the brand' in their marketing. And they won.

Then you have the ones who do it quietly. Waffle House was co-founded by a longtime employee of a chain called Toddle House, which existed in one form or another into the 1980's. A few years ago, Waffle House trademarked the Toddle House brand and all of its historical logos and changed the name of their omelets on their menu to "Toddle House Omelets" to keep their hold on the trademark.

So basically, if nobody challenges you, you really can revive a dead business any way you want to. But the potential for a challenge is there.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-11-2010, 01:22 PM:

Usually, dead trademarks are dead for a reason.

If the Trademark was an effective tool, then it would still be in use by the original owner.
And, yes, General Cinema seems to be screaming out mediocrity...like General Foods, General Motors, general state of affairs &tc.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-11-2010, 02:10 PM:

I had been under the impression that AMC bought the rights to the General Cinema name (not sure of the details) at the time of the acquisition, but perhaps they sold it or lost it due to non-use.

For a while, the Pan Am trademark (from the airline) has been owned by a railroad company. That is sort of amusing, considering that Pan Am (the airline) represented international passenger travel, not regional freight.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-11-2010, 02:12 PM:

The LA Dodgers have recently sued the Brooklyn NY burger restaurant Brooklyn Burger for trademark violation that they are trying to claim is still valid from when they were the Brooklyn Dodgers. They claim that the font is too close to their old Brooklyn font. I doubt they will win, but it will cost the burger place lots of money to fight them in court.

LA/Brooklyn Dodgers

quote: gothamist.com
Though they left Brooklyn just before the 1958 season, the L.A. Dodgers (a name that now makes as much sense as the L.A. Lakers or the Utah Jazz) just can't let the people of Brooklyn be. Brooklyn Burger's logo features the iconic "Brooklyn" lettering used by the team when they were still on the east coast, and now the Dodgers are suing owner Alan Buxbaum, accusing him of trying to convince customers that the burgers were made by the baseball club. The baseball club in L.A. Let it go guys, you're not from Brooklyn anymore.

Buxbaum's logo was approved for trademark back in April, but last week the Dodgers filed an official complaint with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Buxbaum's lawyer, Robert Maldonado, thinks the complaint is absurd. "People who see [Buxbaum's logo] in Brooklyn aren't going to think the Brooklyn Dodgers are selling hamburgers," he said. "It's crazy for the Los Angeles Dodgers to claim exclusive rights to the word 'Brooklyn' when they left Brooklyn 50 years ago." That word belongs to Marty Markowitz now!

Landi's Pork Store in Flatlands has been using the font since they opened in 1958, and when asked if they would change their logo, owner John Landi Jr. said in comically Brooklyn form, "Oh, fuck them! What do they have to do with Brooklyn? They left Brooklyn years ago. We don't let nobody push us around. Change our logo? Oh, fuhgeddaboudit. Tell them to come down here, we'll straighten it all out." Oy vey! Gabagool! Een Draght Mackt Maght! Etc.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 11-11-2010, 03:41 PM:

My father recently opened a new taxi company in Peabody, Ma. Before 2000/2001 there was a company in the same city known as North Shore Taxi. Back in 2001 they started a new corporation and put all their assets into this new Community Taxi corporation (to get lower insurance rates) They never used the North Shore name again and allowed the original corporation to be involuntarily dissolved by the secretary of state for not filing tax returns or annual reports for 7 years.

When my father started his company he registered a new corporation with the name North Shore Taxi and began operating under that name. Because they stopped using the name and let the corporation be dissolved there was nothing the owner of the "old" North Shore Taxi could do.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-11-2010, 03:48 PM:

Speaking of logo suits, and suggesting corporations are more sue-happy than real people, Walgreens sues Wegman's over the use of "W" (maybe the ex-pres needs a piece of this action):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110602486.html

quote:
Walgreens sues Wegmans in logo dispute

The Associated Press
Saturday, November 6, 2010; 1:46 PM
ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Drugstore chain Walgreens is suing the Wegmans supermarket chain, claiming the New York-based grocery's logo is too similar to its own.

The trademark infringement lawsuit was filed Oct. 27 at a federal court in Virginia.

Both companies use a similar script in their logos. Deerfield, Ill.-based Walgreen Co. says in the court complaint that consumers could be misled into thinking the companies are connected.

Walgreens says its "flying W" deserves trademark protection because it has been in use since 1951.

But Rochester-based Wegmans said the scripted "W" it adopted in 2008 is actually a copy of logos used by the supermarket in the 1930s.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-12-2010, 10:20 AM:

And yet they're not suing the Washington Nationals?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-12-2010, 12:42 PM:

After looking at the logos...the case should be thrown out.

WRT the Nationals...at least there you have an athletic club, not a food store...there is no chance of confusing the two companies. Now Wilsons curly W and the Nationals would be a closer confusion.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-12-2010, 03:06 PM:

Remember when the World Wildlife Fund sued Vince McMahon and made them stop using WWF? That one was funny to me because they had wrestled under the WWF name for so many years and were extrememly popular while nobody knew (probably still don't know) what the World Wildlife Fund even is.