Coleco strong-arming homebrew publishers and fan sites

[ValkerieSilk]

TPR is Topic Starter Winner!

[Omega-TI]

I wonder if the venue had to be paid for upfront? If hardly anyone shows up, someone might be hit for a monetary loss instead of making a profit off of the Coleco/Colecovision community. I know it's still a ways away, and they *may* yet get some more signups, but truthfully, I'd not want to be associated with it.

[Albert]

In isolation it seemed a very very dumb/unexplainable move, in hindsight he really thought TPR produced something for OpCode and they both said there was one instance in which that was portrayed to be the case wrt the SGM to Chris himself, of all the bad things Chris did I think this one it's not entirely on him. Obviously he acted as he acted because of money he believes are involved albeit it's unclear what he wanted to get once it was made abundantly clear the fanpage was just that (not an outlet to sell infringing material).

You seem to be stating your opinions as fact. Have you been speaking directly with Chris Cardillo? Did he tell you these things personally? No? Then please stop pretending that you know exactly what he's thinking.

 

I don't know why FB decided to disable the whole fanpage, and I don't know if it that has been restored now, I surely hope so.

I am not even sure the DMCA (given it applies to copyrights) has anything to do with TM meaning violating a TM is different than violating a Copyright, given Coleco does not own any copyrights on any of those games I don't think Chris can even file for a DMCA takedown in light of that, not sure why FB trust he does own the copyrights to any of them.

First, Robb clearly stated in the first post of this thread, "I have had to disable our page in fear of Coleco unfairly flagging more of our images at the risk of having our Facebook account permanently disabled.". Robb put the ColecoVision Fan page back up after he had time to go through the posts and remove additional posts that featured the "ColecoVision" logo, although this is something he should not have had to do at all.

 

Second, as Robb clarified in this more recent post, "Yes, I said "DMCA" when really they were trademark infringement claims.". So, this doesn't actually involve the DMCA, but that's just a smokescreen. It doesn't matter that Chris didn't file a DMCA takedown, but he DID use Facebook's mechanisms for falsely reporting the "ColecoVision Fan" page for trademark infringement, resulting in the removal of multiple posts from that page. Also, Facebook does not care if you own the copyrights or trademarks for content you are reporting. It is not their duty to verify that your claims are accurate. As Facebook's "Trademark Complaint" email states, "If you believe that this content should not have been removed from Facebook, you can contact the complaining party to resolve your issue.". This is exactly what Robb did, writing both Mark of River West Brands and Chris Cardillo, but Coleco continues to stubbornly refuse to rescind their infringement claims.

 

..Al

[TPR]

^ And this my friends is why I'm "Gay for AtariAge!" lol Thanks for the support Albert. It's important that the community sticks together. The in-fighting only helps validate Cardillo's points, and we know they are all bogus.

[Flojomojo]

It is pride month, after all.

 

Not to mention both the Colecovision and Atari rainbow logos are about as gay as can be. ?????????

[TPR]

It is pride month, after all.

 

One of the reasons why we were in NYC!

 

 

I admit that I'm also gay for pride month Playbills!

[HkryCrkStudio]

I finally got around to watching all of CUPodcast's last piece regarding the "Coleco Holdings"/Ben Heck situation, and oh my... this is very damning for RWB. I'm almost speechless. I can only really repeat the words of Pat when he finally said "maybe someone should look into this".

 

Perhaps this should be moved to the "ColecoVision Homebrews & IP Rights Discussion" thread, but to me this is a huge smoking gun, as I don't/can't believe - and this is strictly my own opinion as I'm not a lawyer - that RWB can legally claim the ColecoVision trademark as theirs based on false pretense. If legally challenged on this, RWB's claim wouldn't hold up at all. I'm not sure what the implications would be for the homebrewers if this were the case - I would guess they would be able to use the ColecoVision logo without recourse against them.

 

Obviously, I support TPR, the homebrewers and the rest of the CV community on this one. Not only for Coleco Holdings' recent inexplicable actions against TPR, but also for the company's actions back in 2008 when they fraudulently manipulated Ben Heck into giving them the photo of his CV portable project and logo vector file for the purposes of claiming trademark rights. I just... can't wrap my head around that.

[Swami]

I can listen to these for free with Apple Music, but the samples are plenty. Kindly put, "not my thing."

 

Cheat Codes by J. Fontaine

https://itun.es/us/XKEnhb

 

He's got a track called "Haters Say," which could be our theme song if it didn't remind me of the singular smell of expressing a cat's anal glands.

Or maybe this (except for the words in the bridge about embracing and such, LOL):

 

 

Every cake you bake, CC.

[enoofu]

Just wondering if anyone in Coleco has experience managing someone else IP outside a few songs that are really managed by iTunes and selling bootleg Hasbro's dolls

 

Seems to be the main issue some of the Homebrew people had with paying to get the Coleco stamp

Edited June 11, 2017 by enoofu

[DuggerVideoGames]

I finally got around to watching all of CUPodcast's last piece regarding the "Coleco Holdings"/Ben Heck situation, and oh my... this is very damning for RWB. I'm almost speechless. I can only really repeat the words of Pat when he finally said "maybe someone should look into this".

 

Perhaps this should be moved to the "ColecoVision Homebrews & IP Rights Discussion" thread, but to me this is a huge smoking gun, as I don't/can't believe - and this is strictly my own opinion as I'm not a lawyer - that RWB can legally claim the ColecoVision trademark as theirs based on false pretense. If legally challenged on this, RWB's claim wouldn't hold up at all. I'm not sure what the implications would be for the homebrewers if this were the case - I would guess they would be able to use the ColecoVision logo without recourse against them.

 

Obviously, I support TPR, the homebrewers and the rest of the CV community on this one. Not only for Coleco Holdings' recent inexplicable actions against TPR, but also for the company's actions back in 2008 when they fraudulently manipulated Ben Heck into giving them the photo of his CV portable project and logo vector file for the purposes of claiming trademark rights. I just... can't wrap my head around that.

Exactly what I was saying in my YouTube comment, and exactly what a lot of us are currently thinking! I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but in my eyes: it doesn't matter what rights - if any - Ben gives away in the contract, because as far as I'm concerned, the contract was drawn up under false pretenses. I think everything bearing the Coleco/Colecovision brand/name/logo should be forfeited and up for claims again (with Cardillo and anybody associated with him or RWB being disqualified from claiming for it). That would be perfect justice. The simple fact of the matter is that their so-called "trademark" wasn't approved until THREE YEARS AFTER BEN POSTED A PIC OF HIS PORTABLE! They never filed 2005 as their first commercial use until THREE YEARS LATER IN 2008, USING BEN'S PIC!

 

How it looks: they fleeced Ben and used him to get the TM.

 

How it probably is: they fleeced Ben and used him to get the TM.

 

Simply put: they are trolls incapable of doing anything themselves. They look for the slightest opening to use their unethical and deceptive means for their own gains.

[+eebuckeye]

I would really like Chris to discuss the use of Ben's work for the trademark here. Would be interesting to hear his view but I doubt it will happen.

[DuggerVideoGames]

Another thing to keep in mind is that deception/controversy/aggression is not a one-time thing with RWB and Coleco Holdings; there appears to be a history and a pattern of it. Damning, indeed.

[enoofu]

I would really like Chris to discuss the use of Ben's work for the trademark here. Would be interesting to hear his view but I doubt it will happen.

Chris only joined RWB Coleco within the last 2 years, it was Mark Thomann who did that

Edited June 11, 2017 by enoofu

[Swami]

I would really like Chris to discuss the use of Ben's work for the trademark here. Would be interesting to hear his view but I doubt it will happen.

What he would have to respond to is that this was a one-off, not-for-production mod & it did not require a license. Yet providing this unneeded license was used as intent to use. Why use a subterfuge unless he had to do this because no one else was willing to obtain their license for a console for Coleco until the flashback? I know "fruit of the poisonous tree" is something else entirely, but it is a good analogy. They would not have been approved for trademark use for video games and consoles without this bogus licensing deal and none of what they have been doing the last four years would be possible.

[SignGuy81]

For the guy that keeps posting the podcasts here it would be great if you could post them over and over on any type of social media coleco holdings has that way everyone sees them, such as twitter, facebook, whatnot. Probably get deleted soon but maybe others would repost.

[DuggerVideoGames]

For the guy that keeps posting the podcasts here it would be great if you could post them over and over on any type of social media coleco holdings has that way everyone sees them, such as twitter, facebook, whatnot. Probably get deleted soon but maybe others would repost.

I don't have Twitter, but I and several others did post the podcast links on FB recently. I've stayed away from their FB since then because I don't want to give them the satisfaction of having more engagement on their page.

[Flojomojo]

This seems like a good place to spread the word:

 

CUPodcast has such a stronger message, farther reach, and larger audience, it hardly seems like it needs to happen. But seeing those ~20 likes on the "official" (ha) Coleco Facebook page makes me sad. Are they the same simps that backed RetroVGS and the RETRO Magazine Patreon?

[Pipercub]

What he would have to respond to is that this was a one-off, not-for-production mod & it did not require a license. Yet providing this unneeded license was used as intent to use. Why use a subterfuge unless he had to do this because no one else was willing to obtain their license for a console for Coleco until the flashback? I know "fruit of the poisonous tree" is something else entirely, but it is a good analogy. They would not have been approved for trademark use for video games and consoles without this bogus licensing deal and none of what they have been doing the last four years would be possible.

 

I think it goes further than that even, his portable as I recall, was a cut down modified Colecovision. Let's say I take one of my cars and cut the top off and install a convertible top, change the wheels, and put on a wide body kit. I do not need to go back to Subaru, Ferrari, Chevy, or Lotus and get permission for my car to exist or wear the company badge. The car is customized but still is what it is.

[Swami]

 

I think it goes further than that even, his portable as I recall, was a cut down modified Colecovision. Let's say I take one of my cars and cut the top off and install a convertible top, change the wheels, and put on a wide body kit. I do not need to go back to Subaru, Ferrari, Chevy, or Lotus and get permission for my car to exist or wear the company badge. The car is customized but still is what it is.

That is true and, futhermore, if I wanted to mod an old deSoto models like this and sell them. I would not need a license no matter how many I sold.

[Flojomojo]

I think it's worth noting how little Coleco has actually done here, how little thought and effort they've actually expended. Marking the CVfan Facebook group as infringing on their rights is just a few clicks on this page.

I believe this method of engagement is best described as cowardly. Even Facebook discourages it:

 

Facebook can’t adjudicate disputes between third parties, and so we wouldn’t be in a position to act on trademark reports that require an in-depth trademark analysis or a real-world dispute outside of Facebook. In these situations, rather than contacting Facebook, you may want to reach out directly to the party that you believe is infringing your rights, or seek any resolution in court or by other judicial means. If you’re sure you want to report content on Facebook that you believe infringes your trademark, you can do so by completing this form.

 

In other words, when Coleco clicked "I think this infringes on my trademark," and Facebook basically said, "Are you sure? This could go badly for you, you might want to use a lawyer instead ..." they went ahead with it anyway. It would be ...interesting... to see if they had any other tricks in their bag. If I were gambling with other people's money, I'd guess this is all they've got.

 

I also see that Facebook offers the "defendant" the right to appeal:

For any content that was removed based on U.S. trademark rights, we will include instructions for how to appeal if the affected user believes the content should not have been removed.

If I were Robb, I would take them up on it. It's obvious he can make the case. A defeat here would make it more difficult for Coleco to pull this kind of move again, at least on Facebook. Just in case the social media backlash hasn't been enough of a clue to Coleco.

[The Evener]

Looks like River West LLC posted an application for the rainbow mark of ColecoVision on 2 June 2017. It is awaiting assignment for review

 

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87473121&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

 

They also filed a Voluntary Amendment on 8 June 2017

 

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87473121&docId=PRA20170608170139#docIndex=1&page=1

 

Its a bit confusing since there is a statement of first use anywhere date / in commerce date of 2003 and 10/01/2013

 

If I have my facts straight 2003 was the date cited for the first use of the ColecoVision mark in their first that was granted in 2008 and where they used Bens portable as proof of use. 2003 was also the year they filed for the mark (December 2003) which was in the system until 2008 until they produced Bens handheld.

 

I think 2013 is around the time the Flashback came out or was close (note - with the original 2008 filing they updated the file to include a photo of a Flashback circa 2014).

 

For the most recent pending application of the mark they also include a photo of the ColecoVision flashback alongside the Intellivision from a WalMart store.

 

I am not entirely clear why they are applying again although it appears related to trying to get a claim on the rainbow mark -- the 2008 registration refers only to a standard word mark.

Did Coleco Industries Inc ever use the rainbow mark where the C and the V were lower case where the words are aligned horizontally and not vertically? I have only seen the rainbow mark with capitalized C and V.

Edited June 11, 2017 by The Evener

[+eebuckeye]

Would it surprise anyone if good 'ol Fred is making a new 'Colecovision' system for Chris? They would both get so much enjoyment from that.

 

Getting this trademark to use on a new system would actually make sense.

[SignGuy81]

Looks like River West LLC posted an application for the rainbow mark of ColecoVision on 2 June 2017. It is awaiting assignment for review

 

Did Coleco Industries Inc ever use the rainbow mark where the C and the V were lower case where the words are aligned horizontally and not vertically? I have only seen the rainbow mark with capitalized C and V.

 

[dj_convoy]

 

It is this intentional deceit which greatly irks me. They talk about confusing consumers - well talk about the pot calling the kettle black !!!!!

This is what absolutely drove me nuts with the Chameleon.

[+Tarzilla]

Looks like River West LLC posted an application for the rainbow mark of ColecoVision on 2 June 2017. It is awaiting assignment for review

 

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87473121&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

 

They also filed a Voluntary Amendment on 8 June 2017

 

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87473121&docId=PRA20170608170139#docIndex=1&page=1

 

Its a bit confusing since there is a statement of first use anywhere date / in commerce date of 2003 and 10/01/2013

 

If I have my facts straight 2003 was the date cited for the first use of the ColecoVision mark in their first that was granted in 2008 and where they used Bens portable as proof of use. 2003 was also the year they filed for the mark (December 2003) which was in the system until 2008 until they produced Bens handheld.

 

I think 2013 is around the time the Flashback came out or was close (note - with the original 2008 filing they updated the file to include a photo of a Flashback circa 2014).

 

For the most recent pending application of the mark they also include a photo of the ColecoVision flashback alongside the Intellivision from a WalMart store.

 

I am not entirely clear why they are applying again although it appears related to trying to get a claim on the rainbow mark -- the 2008 registration refers only to a standard word mark.

 

Did Coleco Industries Inc ever use the rainbow mark where the C and the V were lower case where the words are aligned horizontally and not vertically? I have only seen the rainbow mark with capitalized C and V.

I wonder what mechanism the USTO has to challenge a filing like that?

http://info.legalzoom.com/contest-trademark-filing-22517.html

 

 

Cancellation

If the trademark registration that you want to contest has already issued, you can file a cancellation proceeding within five years from the date of registration. There are several grounds for filing a cancellation proceeding. Any person who believes that the registration will damage him may file a petition to cancel the registration. The trademark registration at issue can also be cancelled if the mark becomes a generic name, if the mark is functional, if its owner has abandoned the mark or if the owner obtained the registration through fraudulent means.