#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am not sure how Estes came to own the trademark for 'Sizzler" over Mattel - it may have been one of these deals where Mattel let it expire and Estes picked it up. Matt |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
This is a great topic. Again, Mr. Jeep makes an interesting point.
As an admitted noob to the forums, after a few months of harmless lurking, the one thing I didn't seem to find was any mention of the second Ranger. Six rockets survived from my last experience with rocketry (mid-80s or so) to my BAR-hood. One of them was this Ranger, completed in the catalog blue and yellow. D-powered, I always liked this one, and found it noteworthy that more hasn't been said about it.
__________________
Just completed: Estes Cherokee-E, Estes Multi-Roc. Current project: Painting the roll pattern on my new Ventris build, gifted me by the estimable Dr. Houchin. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
As for Sizzler, a lot of companies use same names. They usually write up an agreement that each will not make anything like the others product.
One of the most famous was Apple Computers vs Apple Records. They originally agreed not to step into each others territory until the computer company made iPods that infringed on the music world. __________________________________________________ __ |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A name is protected only in its market category. If I named a car Sizzler, or a hamburger or some gym shoes, I ordinarily don't need to worry about a conflict with someone using that name on a rocket. It's only when I try to use the name within the same product category. Presumably, rockets fall into the toy category with Hot Wheels cars so Estes owns it and Mattel can't use it. But folks don't write agreements to share these things unless somebody starts challenging someone else's use. Doug .
__________________
YORF member #11 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|