number6

Mr. Beefy can rest easy now. Another request for extension for "Intellivision Amico" TM was sent to uspto. The request should be approved in a few days. This would give IE another 6 months before having to file for yet another delay or show proof to uspto they actually have a product using this TM "in commerce". #6

This week's edition of the public service announcement/reminder for IE's TM attorney: Your statement of use or extension to show use in commerce for "Intellivision Amico" is coming due soon. You might wish to avoid uspto filing yet more abandonment notices on this principal TM which would require you taking more of your time and money filing for TM revival yet again. #6

Overall tech layoff list for 2023-2024 (posted 2 days ago) No better time to enter the world of video game and console production. #6

If it is nonsense you seek, give a go listening to main stream media discuss how well the worldwide economy is performing. (evil grin) #6

Indeed. And as of the last filing of that suspended LLC they still have 5 manager(s)/member(s). Their addresses could use an update. #6

Whether it makes a difference or not, technically he was the "sole" manager when Intellivision Entertainment LLC was formed. #6

Could we just agree to say "little money" instead of "no money". They continue to pay uspto, legal bills, and obviously other payments that are not public information. Ergo I don't think they are technically broke. #6

To date this is indeed what BBG is showing. To date no attempt to show use has been made by IE. We'll know when such documents are recorded. Another variable is, of course, Amur Equipment Finance and how that develops over time. Docs clearly state they were confused about a great deal and indicated to the court they would update said court when they had more info. We'll only know about "discovery" if a lawsuit proceeds. The safe bet atm is still to bury any dirty laundry through settlement. heh. #6

Exactly where I was going to next. Short but decent summary of the Delaware move with dates We know about the "why Delaware" from the honest reply I received: Blue Sky Rangers Whereas one thinks tax and asset protection are 2 obvious things connected with incorporating in Delaware, I did not know where the assets actually were at this point. If you open the link in my post on prior page, please open "Assignment 4 of 4" you'll see the transfer to BBG from Delaware. No big deal, but it shows that Delaware held at least that one asset. Given the above (moving things to Delaware), I further do not comprehend why any asset would still be in the California LLC (assignment 3 of 4 from prior post that you already commented on). Beyond the legal question (suspended), why would they not protect this asset by moving it as well to Delaware? Again, I must be missing something obvious here. Any thoughts? #6

I'd say the longer list simply serves as examples and the more important statement remains: My search for exceptions also turned up nothing. There is more I will add later today. #6

Source pull down "Assignment Abstract Of Title Information" and click to open "Assignment 3 of 4" please Below are the key entries for my question: Conveyance: ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST Assignor Name: INTELLIVISION ENTERTAINMENT, LLC Execution Date: Mar. 20, 2023 Legal Entity Type: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY State or Country Where Organized: CALIFORNIA Assignee Name: BBG ENTERTAINMENT GMBH OK. So March 20, 2023 Intellivision Entertainment LLC "assigns" Astrosmash to BBG Entertainment. Check. More than a year earlier Intellivision Entertainment LLC was declared "suspended". And they still are. Check. The law says: "If your business is suspended You cannot: Legally do business Sell, transfer, or exchange real property" (etc.) Source I'm obviously missing something here. How was the deal "legal" given the facts above? or was Astrosmash not considered "real property"? #6

As you know I pretty much stick to their paperwork (legal filings etc.) I think you know which of your 2 categories most of -that- fits into. #6

Apologies to the rest of you. I need to finish the story. @mr_me and @Cebus Capucinis You both obviously appreciate history and accuracy on this, so here we go... Reference our discussion: This page eons ago mr_me: correct that assignment occurred but not made public (at the time) Cebus: correct on "is a bit strange" (but) The former and recent assignments of the Astrosmash trademark If the link goes to only front page, just pull down "Assignment Abstract Of Title Information" Please note the difference in assignment date vs the date actually "recorded" re:Blue Sky Rangers You can read the clickable link for the doc itself, but you'll note it is 90%? redacted. That's not a problem since we're only interested in the date. I hope mr_me understands now why this caught my attention eons ago. It was about a warning sent without a response being recorded. Added note: my link from the old discussion "Example for Astrosmash" no longer goes to the warning. It now goes to BBG's submitted proof of "use in commerce" Added note: Original link from internet archive: TRADEMARK REGISTRATION MAINTENANCE DOCUMENT UNDER SECTION 8 MUST BE FILED BEFORE DEADLINE OR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED #6

Source: at approximately 34 minute mark Interesting discussion between NSG and Gaterooze. Obvious confusion about Astrosmash in particular. One or more of the following might explain some of this. (1)There are multiple trademarks for Astrosmash in different classes of goods. (2)There is unresolved issue on the first one in classes "Class 9 – Electrical and scientific apparatus" and "Class 41 – Education and entertainment". Doc title "REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTION" (3)There is unresolved issue of the second one in "Class 28 – Toys and sporting goods" Doc title "Petition to Director". Short version, the subject is about waiving a trademark rule. hmm...how to answer in layman terms... Categories have always been broad and basically not brought up to modern definitions based on changes in tech, etc. Example: People will try to get around an issue by arguing their device really does fit in a category that has no modern definition. If you read just the explanation for the 2nd filing I mentioned hopefully it fits basically with what I mentioned above. Petition to director Please feel free to offer further detail and correct my opinion if you know more or flat out disagree. #6

@MrBeefy who must be dying to know that jungle hunt tm is still legally on track I was wrong. I had said: 5th and final extension to IE was granted but uspto seemingly couldn't be bothered to read the attorney's notes under "miscellaneous". Long story short, they just kept the wrong attorney info in their records, whereas current attorney had clearly stated paperwork had already been on file of the change. #6

@MrBeefy On topic given your video, google says: #6

@anyone who wishes to comment If I need to explain in detail "why this question", I can do that. However, absolutely everyone who has followed this won't require an explanation. With everything known connected with the name, is it wise from any perspective to keep fighting so hard to keep this name (amico) attached to the history? Not to be funny, but it's like someone fighting to hold onto the name "ENRON" thinking -that- name recognition will be a plus. Just curious, #6

@MrBeefy Quick summary. If you want the docs to read please refer to my last posting. Bump 'N' Jump trademark - extension request filed on time and granted/processed. Jungle Hunt trademark - extension request filed on time but response delayed. Despite their current tm attorney filing for change of representative, the record is still incorrect and shows IE's former tm attorney's info. It's logical that the delay in granting extension here is due to uspto also waiting on correcting their records. I realize this comes as a shock, but even uspto makes the occasional error. heh. One note (mine) applying to -both- of these trademarks. This is the 5th and final 6 month extension, during which time IE must now show "use in commerce" as they have reached the uspto extension limit. However, although the filing would become dead if not used, they can refile for the same marks and start all over again. If so you will see 2 different serial numbers for identical marks at that time. This is exactly what happened to the trademark which was topic for this very thread. Also, forgive me if I already mentioned this one. No additional ruling to date after failing to file extension on the graphic "Amico" tm. Revival notice filed. The entire tm fiasco has cost thousands upon thousands not to mention the legal time/costs. Current status remains that the new IE still has no registered trademarks. #6

Another public service announcement/reminder for IE's TM attorney: Your statement of use or -final- extension to show use in commerce for Jungle Hunt and Bump 'N' Run trademark filings is coming due soon. You might wish to avoid uspto filing yet more abandonment notices on these TMs which would require you taking more of your time and money filing for TM revival yet again. #6

@MrBeefy Late TM update from December 2023: Once again IE failed to file statement of use or extension request for "Intellivision Together Again". The petition and the complete document record showing the last revival request for abandoned TM: see March 17, 2023 entry Once again the attorney incorporated the tiring statement: Apparently IE is consistent at 1 thing...late filings of legal paperwork. #6

If you want the entire history of legal wrangling I'd be here for years explaining each move. Let's keep it simple. What I stated is true. Read the comments for additional details This is the followup. Again more details in the comments. You should see many names mentioned and the parts they played. Beyond that, I've known all these folks in some capacity for decades. Further info including a phone convo with Eugene Van Os I agree with Albert. We're in danger of going way off topic here. There is a dedicated forum on AtariAge for Commodore antics. Feel free to ask further questions there in lieu of using this forum. Ditto for Amiga. #6

I thought I already answered this. Amiga IP is not for sale. And it's owned by Amiga Corporation, not Cloanto. #6

The iconic trademark is licensed by Eugene Van Os. (Commodore Corp) It is currently licensed to MyRetroComputer Ltd., the company which acquired most of what Commodore USA owned. #6

They won nothing. btw-be careful when reading PR fluff. When I informed everyone of what actually transpired even the attorney openly commented on our forum: This didn't happen, as the 1st case (the one you linked to) has been appealed. After resolution on that one, then they'll move on to the case the attorney referred to. #6

Interesting parallel from another company discussed here (who also became involved with IE over trademark issues) Amiga had long standing owners at both Amigaworld.net and Amiga.org. Both sold their websites to an entity believed to be of a similar corporate nature. Result? The websites did not change much despite similar concerns being raised. And as both the Atari rep and Albert have mentioned, the point in the change of the AtariAge website was also in strengthening IP. Concerning this strengthening of IP regarding the above Amiga example: Please note the logo obtained shown in all the diagrams The facts: Amiga.org owns neither the checkmark, the "A", nor the checkered ball (boingball) shown. Yet they can picture them as if they do, because the "combined" logo (Commodore approved) predates the arguments and lawsuits over the 3 pieces used "individually". The point: Until you know the details on everything acquired during the Atari/AtariAge acquisition and how items can be used, you'll really just be guessing about the full scope of the motivation. Nothing sinister. Just sayin'... #6