Newsgroup: it.comp.retrocomputing
Titolo: A volte ritornano...  (Commodore vince una causa)

Law360, Washington (December 17, 2013, 9:00 PM ET) -- A New York federal 
judge on Monday awarded $1 million in damages to C=Holdings BV, owner of 
the iconic Commodore computer brand, ruling Asiarim Corp. had falsely 
claimed ownership of the Commodore trademarks and produced 
Commodore-branded products without a valid license.
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan ruled that C=, formerly known as 
Commodore International BV, was the owner of the Commodore trademarks, 
having been in possession of the marks when it was spun off from Asiarim 
in November 2011. He said Asiarim’s claims that it still owned the 
trademarks “[bordered] on the preposterous.”
 
“The court concludes that, threatened with the loss of its most valuable 
asset, Asiarim and its principals concocted increasingly outrageous 
schemes to falsely assert ownership over the trademarks,” Judge Sullivan 
said.
 
There is ample evidence to support C=’s claims both about the legitimacy 
of its spinoff from Asiarim and that it owns the trademarks, the judge 
ruled. The share transfer that made C= an independent entity had already 
been confirmed legitimate in a Dutch bankruptcy case involving another 
Asiarim subsidiary, as well as through other ownership evidence, 
according to the order.
 
In addition, while Asiarim claimed it had transferred the Commodore 
marks to another subsidiary just before C=’s spinoff, it lacked evidence 
to show this purported transfer, Judge Sullivan said. He described the 
company’s account of the alleged transfer as a “convoluted and 
ham-fisted effort to concoct post-facto evidence of the purported transfer.”
 
The testimony of company witnesses at a May trial was “implausible” and 
the company refused to produce two key witnesses that were purportedly 
signatories to the transfer, according to the judge. It also lacked 
contemporaneous documentation suggesting its board had discussed or 
authorized such a transfer, with email discussions between the company’s 
board members at the time in fact acknowledging that C= had obtained the 
trademarks and discussing licensing the trademarks, the order said.
 
Judge Sullivan ruled that C= was the legitimate owner of the trademarks 
and that Asiarim had wrongly continued to use the trademarks after its 
relationship with C= ended. He awarded $1 million plus as-yet 
unspecified attorneys' fees to C=, saying the award struck the right 
balance between the proven lost revenues of $22,000 — the loss of 
royalties from a third-party licensing agreement Asiarim had struck for 
the trademarks — and the need to deter future infringement.
 
Counsel for the parties didn’t immediately respond to requests for 
comment late Tuesday.
 
C= sued Asiarim in February 2012, alleging it had continued make use of 
the Commodore trademarks despite holding no ownership or licensing 
agreement. Asiarim had taken hold of the trademarks several years after 
the 1994 collapse of Commodore International Ltd., the creator of iconic 
1980s gaming computers such as the Commodore 64 and Amiga, after which 
the company’s intellectual property was divided and sold.
 
It held the trademarks through Commodore International BV, which 
eventually became C=, licensing them to another of its units, Commodore 
Licensing BV, but lost the trademarks when C= was spun off from the 
company when it failed to repay a loan, with C= coming under the 
ownership of Asiarim's creditors, the suit claimed.
 
Shortly thereafter, Commodore Licensing entered bankruptcy, with the 
court-appointed bankruptcy trustee terminating the licensing deal, but 
Asiarim continued to make use of the trademarks, selling several 
Commodore-branded computers on its website, as well as entering or 
attempting to enter into at least two third-party licensing agreements 
for the marks, according to the suit.
 
C= is represented by Martin F. Gusy and Matthew J. Weldon of Cozen O'Connor.
 
Asiarim is represented by Fredric H. Aaron.
 
The case is C=Holdings BV v. Asiarim Corp., case number 1:12-cv-00928, 
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
 
[also in English, because of comp.os.cbm x-post]
 
Qualcuno può recuperare il "docket" (ossia gli atti legali, che in molte 
corti americane sono scaricabili in rete), oltre che la sentenza ? 
potrebbe dare molte luci sulle vicende del marchio commodore....
 
Someone can find the docket and court ruling of that case, because can 
shed many lights on the history of the handling of the Commodore brand ?
 
Saluti/Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
 




Some more details at 
http://www.crisona.com/iplaw/cases/12-cv-928.pdf
 
 


Thanks ! interesting. A document superior to the expectation as fact & 
finding recording (here in Italy, the court rulings (esp. the 
"motivazioni" (court reasonings) has perhaps the highest standards, I'm 
accustomed to hundreds of pages of rulings & reasoning)
 
I'm somewhat amused of the assertion (p.20) that the value of the C= 
brand is $10m "if properly exploited". Everyone here know well what is a 
proper exploit of said brand ;) and I'm confident that the margin of 
profit of reissuing the 64, 128, 16, +4, VIC and PET is rather slim 
(esp. in the latter case, because, well, of the case...)
 
 
Anyway, the translation from (and filtering out of) US legalese will 
thake some time..
