Jump to content
IGNORED

Coleco strong-arming homebrew publishers and fan sites


TPR

Recommended Posts

So, its about using the logo in a way that may make people think it is Coleco endorsed without paying them a fee.

It's about using the minimum required. If you are writing a book about Coleco you would expect it to include images from Coleco. If you are making a battery cover even if you clearly say Coleco Holdings does not endorse this product you still have no right to use the stylised coleco logo.

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how the DMCA takedown would be effective, as "Coleco" has a trademark on "battery operated unit for playing electronic games."

 

It takes a special kind of jackass to act against someone making a battery door cover on Thingverse though.

That link doesn't work; the TESS system won't let users link to search queries or pages. I think it's to cut down traffic on their database. Here's Coleco Entertainment Corp.'s actual trademark listing:

 

 

Word Mark COLECO

Goods and Services IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Hand-held unit for playing electronic games; Battery operated action toys and electric action toys. FIRST USE: 20101201. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20101201

Standard Characters Claimed

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK

Serial Number 85659370

Filing Date June 22, 2012

Current Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition December 18, 2012

Registration Number 4297747

Registration Date March 5, 2013

Owner (REGISTRANT) Coleco Entertainment Corp. CORPORATION DELAWARE 195 RT 9 South Manalapan NEW JERSEY 07726

 

(LAST LISTED OWNER) COLECO HOLDINGS LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE 300 NORTH LASALLE SUITE 4925 CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60654

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED

Attorney of Record Christopher Ditico

Prior Registrations 3045078;3081651;3490101;AND OTHERS

Type of Mark TRADEMARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Should be fair use; I doubt anyone can profit off a free U.S. government information service.

Edited by pacman000
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about using the minimum required. If you are writing a book about Coleco you would expect it to include images from Coleco. If you are making a battery cover even if you clearly say Coleco Holdings does not endorse this product you still have no right to use the stylised coleco logo.

Never got captured by the Wayback Machine, so unlikely we will know what was in the pics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know either way ... but yeah, maybe the special kind of jackass used the complaint box because it said COLECO in the description. That seems par for the course with these jokers. I wouldn't want to do business with them, not as a customer and certainly not as a partner.

 

Look, we all know that the people who run Coleco ARE special kinds of jackasses (a compliment compared to the words I would personally use) and making erroneous trademark/copyright/DMCA complaints perfectly fits their personality so none of this surprises me. It's just how much someone wants to fight it. It also makes perfect sense that New Wave Toys are actually the people behind the Kickstarter, manufacturing and distribution because I don't think the people who run Coleco would have the first clue about how to do any of those three things. They know how to squat on trademarks and sell them to people willing to do the actual work developing something and that's about it.

 

And that battery cover issue is a perfect example that shows they aren't through screwing with people and how they did NOT support the community!

 

I will never support anything that they do. They are not good people and not a good "company." (for lack of a better word because they really are not a "company.")

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone was making instant coffee jokes in the status reports so I wanted to mention Brim ... who is owned by Dormitus (formerly River West Brands)

 

I couldn't remember that stupid name, so I tried to go to River West Brands page for a memory jog ...

 

ding dong, they're dead ... for not paying their hosting bill. Classy!

 

post-2410-0-55471600-1526072910_thumb.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone was making instant coffee jokes in the status reports so I wanted to mention Brim™ ... who is owned by Dormitus (formerly River West Brands)

 

I couldn't remember that stupid name, so I tried to go to River West Brands page for a memory jog ...

 

ding dong, they're dead ... for not paying their hosting bill. Classy!

 

Hey I wonder if we can pick up that name and squat on it for a little while! :grin:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

River West is a good name, but domain companies usually lock recently expired domains to prevent squatters from snapping up good domains quickly. Hey, even legit companies make mistakes; it's a good idea to give them a chance to take their name back before auctioning it to a keyword-stuffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River West is a good name, but domain companies usually lock recently expired domains to prevent squatters from snapping up good domains quickly. Hey, even legit companies make mistakes; it's a good idea to give them a chance to take their name back before auctioning it to a keyword-stuffer.

 

I wasn't actually being serious. Hence the :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strategy of using kickstarter to demonstrate retailer interest is worth pursuing. However, I just do not believe it that it will generate enough attention from the big department stores like Walmart and Target. The product has a boutique price at $69. Walmart and Target sell the Basic Fun mini-arcades for a fraction of the price. I could see some interest from Gamestop, Newbury Comics and perhaps Best Buy, they sell gaming-related boutique collectibles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blargh.

 

https://kotaku.com/5990702/why-you-havent-seen-any-new-macross-in-the-west-for-nearly-15-years

 

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-09-14/harmony-gold-macross-mospeada-southern-cross-licenses-still-expire-in-2021/.121372

 

My detached amusement over the clueless brand holder, bumbling around things they don't understand, has lurched back into active disgust.

 

Can't say I'm surprised ... "Coleco Expo" had a similar new-money vibe, a slapdash effort to jam together disparate things without much understanding about why people like old games.

 

Sigh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who came up with the Rainbow Brite idea, but it doesn't sound like my kind of thing at all, plus the small screen, and then there is the dreaded Cardillo, but PacManPlus is a super-genius with video games and a generous fellow, so I know the game will be great. Maybe, I "won't" buy a stolen one off a street corner and send PMP a donation, just to play the game, or, more likely, "won't" try it out and return it, if it is ever released, + donation.

BTW, Im just kidding. Only the store owners get hurt in those scenarios. More likely buy second hand + PMP donation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this in the mini arcade thread but basically that robotech license is super cheap to acquire which is why they went in that direction. Namco and other big name companies would want more for the license or maybe profit participation. It's amazing that start up companies are able to license namco arcade properties and make cool mini arcades but the pioneer of the tabletop arcades has to resort to Robotech and a gba rom.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing that start up companies are able to license namco arcade properties and make cool mini arcades but the pioneer of the tabletop arcades has to resort to Robotech and a gba rom.

 

This is my thought exactly! The fact that these exist:

jqqv_tiny_arcade.jpgTTA5652-Galaxian-Tiny-Arcade-01-224x332.jpg

 

And this exists:

33d62571-357b-4e3b-b3ca-42a5bee555db_1.7c7a656914e24f5a345eef52da4d3797.jpeg

 

That's 4 of the 5 original Coleco Tabletop games right there! And these companies were able to secure those licenses and Coleco wasn't? That just show you how cheap and pathetic Coleco really are.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coleco is trying to ride a wave of the success of similar items, but what is suprsing to to me is that I remember the handhelds being more popular ...like the Pac Man one that looks like a miniturized third of the atari 2600 version maze. At least that's what everyone had at Junior High. Hard to say what was left behnd in everyones bedroom, it's what you see that you crave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this in the mini arcade thread but basically that robotech license is super cheap to acquire which is why they went in that direction. Namco and other big name companies would want more for the license or maybe profit participation. It's amazing that start up companies are able to license namco arcade properties and make cool mini arcades but the pioneer of the tabletop arcades has to resort to Robotech and a gba rom.

the pioneer of the tabletop arcades

"coleco" = the holding company that owns the trademark formerly held by the design and manufacturing company that made the mini arcades

 

The real Coleco is long dead, make no mistake

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...