+- Woodnet Forums (https://forums.woodnet.net)
+-- Thread: Rough Cut lawsuit (/showthread.php?tid=7339234)
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Gary G™ - 05-01-2018
The law and the facts are only part of the story.
It’s a consumer product.
Public opinion matters.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - AHill - 05-03-2018
(05-01-2018, 12:52 PM)OldGuyDrummer Wrote: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kiqrl8.2.8 live
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kiqrl8.2.12 live
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kiqrl8.2.10 live
Trademarks for: Rough Cut and Rough Cut Woodworking with Tommy Mac
But they all belong to WBGH Educational Foundation with Tommy Mac consent.
A lot of “Rough Cut” trademarks:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4806%3Akiqrl8.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=rough+cut&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
I don’t see a trademark listing for:
“Rough Cut with Fine Woodworking”
He may have a case. Most of the TM ran 6 years and began in 2011 = ends 2017, new show started in 2018 with no officially listed trademark........
Cheers.
The first trademark is expired. The second and third are still active, and they cite "Rough Cut Woodworking with Tommy Mac". The way I read them, Tommy Mac consented to the use of his name in the title of the show, not necessarily to the use of "Rough Cut Woodworking". I don't know what's in it for him. What damages is he seeking? How has he been damaged? I'm no lawyer, and I know that trademarks and copyright law is complicated. My opinion is he may have an ethical case, but not a legal case.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Handplanesandmore - 05-04-2018
(05-03-2018, 06:48 PM)AHill Wrote: ated. My opinion is he may have an ethical case, but not a legal case.
Not bad from a publicity point of view. Even though he no longer is the host, his name is floating around whenever the new show is talked about because of the lawsuit. And if the case does go to the court and he wins, the show will be forced to get a new name, and everybody will talk about it/him more. The downside, however, if he loses and the other side goes after him for court costs, there may be a financial implication to him. It cuts both ways.
Simon
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - fixtureman - 05-04-2018
Just change the name to Ruff Kut
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Admiral - 05-04-2018
(05-04-2018, 01:12 PM)Handplanesandmore Wrote: Not bad from a publicity point of view. Even though he no longer is the host, his name is floating around whenever the new show is talked about because of the lawsuit. And if the case does go to the court and he wins, the show will be forced to get a new name, and everybody will talk about it/him more. The downside, however, if he loses and the other side goes after him for court costs, there may be a financial implication to him. It cuts both ways.
Simon
No real downside other than his own counsel fees, and if he was smart, he got the lawyer to take the case on a contingency for either a percentage of the recovery or an award of counsel fees for a Lanham Act violation (and if he got that type of deal, that means the lawyer thinks he as a pretty good case). "Costs" awarded to the prevailing party are minimal. An award of the defendant's counsel fees can add up, but in federal court (google "Rule 11") the prevailing party has to show that your lawsuit was basically frivolous, which it is clearly not.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Admiral - 05-04-2018
(05-03-2018, 06:48 PM)AHill Wrote: I don't know what's in it for him. What damages is he seeking? How has he been damaged?
The way this works is that he has to get an expert opinion on damages; i.e., that he has a public persona, gravitas, that this has value, and that the value has been misappropriated by and through the trademark infringement, and the infringer has profited from the infringement. Not a real easy thing to prove; but since there must have been some discussions prior to the institution of the lawsuit, and PBS is still continuing to use the trademark, they risk a "wilfull infringement" which means that they knew of the claim of infringement and continued to infringe; this opens them up to monetary damages as opposed to just an injunction against using the mark, I'd have to look it up in the federal statutes, the trademark statute is called the Lanham Act, and the damages are really the profits reaped from the infringement. But if you win, you do get attorney's fees. So I think this is more of a matter of principle for Tommy, as last I noticed PBS was a non-profit org; but then again, they have sponsors who pay them, so who knows how much that might be. My opinion is that this is not a slam dunk, but its not a joke and PBS should not treat it like it is - they have some exposure here.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Tony Z - 05-05-2018
PBS may want to put the suit to bed, regardless of who is right or wrong. Why? I watched an episode with the new host, and the show will evolve into a real winner. It is a combo of powered and handtool woodworking and the new host is excellent in explaining each step, as well as thoroughly showing how it is done.
My only complaint: I would like more complex projects. The show I saw was for a side table, which would be perfect for an advancing beginner. Maybe future shows will have more involved projects, but it is definitely worthy of a watch.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Gary G™ - 05-05-2018
Non-profits make a ton of money. It’s kind of a misnomer.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - TheCabinetmaker - 05-05-2018
Go to; http://www.finewoodworking.com/rough-cut To see the first three episodes.
RE: Rough Cut lawsuit - Richard D. - 05-05-2018
If not for Tommy Mac's lawsuit, I may never have heard of the new TV show that "infringes" on his name.