the80sgamer

Interesting...things like this is a violation of Ebay rules.

Who wants to bet the local radio stations give away tickets to this? I think the attendance is going to be so low they start begging people on the street to come check it out!

Funny how the layout changed. Maybe they got a smaller space? If the "sold out" spots are false I expect this to be cancelled. If they are not, I expect the entire fiasco to be a huge flop!

I will never support this iteration of Coleco! If someone else revives the name after Cardildo loses it then I'll rethink that. I'd rather go direct to the homebrewers for things I like.

Looking at their "team" I'm guessing most of them were somehow involved with his stupid music videos.

And currently over at that new Coleco....

Hey look! It's the expo! They couldn't even get the name spelled correctly!

I would agree. Keep the humor in good taste so as not to stir any trouble.

Start a new thread for the humor. I'm sure it'll get seen by all!

This thread didn't ruin their reputation, they did. This thread exposed them for what they are!

The 2003 date is in the new filing for the color logo. The amendment also applies to the new filing not the original for the name. Plus, I don't think they can prove use, by them as early as 2003. Just saying. Grabbing photos off the net should not be taken as proof and they certainly didn't have any products.

Doesn't their own trademark filing for the word "colecovision" work against them in that they filed for it in 2003, extended it several times and then were granted it in 2008 based on Ben Hecks photo stating first use in December 2005? Saying the color logo was used in 2003 when none of their other claims ever used a date that early? I just hate the idea that they can cheat, lie and steal to get the trademark assigned to them and then proceed to destroy it the way they are. I'd contribute to a GoFundMe if anyone is willing to fight this.

Also, as for the color logo, this will open to be contested some time after review and I'm sure it could be shown that it was clearly in use by others prior to their claim of 2003 to get them rejected.

Ok, someone with more valid claims to the ColecoVision name and logo need to pursue contesting the trademark filing and the new amendment. Under the amendment filing it states the following text: DECLARATION: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that, if the applicant submitted the application or allegation of use (AOU) unsigned, all statements in the application or AOU and this submission based on the signatory's own knowledge are true, and all statements in the application or AOU and this submission made on information and belief are believed to be true. It looks like this sham of a company is stating dates of use from their first year of filing which is clearly provable that they did not have a product using the name. That is definitely a false statement. And the now known fact they obtained registration through fraudulent means should be able to get the registration cancelled. Whomever has been using the name and logo since before 2003 should look into they process to request cancellation. Even if all the homebrewers need to form a consortium and file together.

Exactly which "platforms" do they have that they encourage development for? They don't own any!

Somehow I must have butthurt that turd as I can no longer respond to posts on his sorry facebook page. And deleted all my posts! Poor baby can't handle the truth so he deletes it.

Based on some of the posts on their FB page I'm thinking there are some that are clueless to how the community has been treated.

I have wondered if Coleco Holdings could even hold claim to "Colecovision" due to the fact that so many homebrew products were using the name prior to them co-opting it. It would be very interesting to know what a court would say about the matter.

Very interesting indeed.

Looks like Cardildo is on a bender replying to posts on his lousy trademark facebook page.

I stumbled across this retro gaming convention called the Classic Game Fest in Austin Texas. I didn't know this existed. I'm pretty sure this has to be way better than whatever Cardildo put together. Here is a link to their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ClassicGameFest/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf The website is here: http://classicgamefest.com/

Actually, they were stupid enough to link to an episode someone put on youtube and Hallmark must have complained to youtube about the content posted there. This complaint would not have been against you know who but against whomever posted it to youtube.

No they won't. They really don't have the resources otherwise they wouldn't look for homebrewers to do all the work for free and then give them a cut of the profits after any sales. Why do that when any homebrewer can make the games anyway and keep all the profits?

Just like the patent trolls.

Well if that isn't a clear example of shady business practices I don't know what is!