The Evener Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 To quote Spock - fascinating RiverWest submitted a registration for the ColecoVision rainbow mark in the traditional vertical arrangement in 2006. This is the drawing specimen they submitted http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78827173&docId=DRW20060306084157#docIndex=25&page=1 The application was ultimately denied in 2008 and officially abandoned in 2009. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78827173&docId=OOA20080926090058#docIndex=2&page=1 The US Trademark Office determined that the mark on the drawing - which looks like a scan of an original Coleco Industries Inc vertical mark - did not match the mark of the specimen - which was Bens handheld unit with the words arranged horizontally. The Office also noted the different colour scheme used in both as well. So as a result the registration was rejected and ultimately abandoned since RiverWest was unable to submit proof of the vertical rainbow mark used in commerce. So yes despite what RiverWest has represented this is far from settled. Their most recent application would appear to be their way to get a lock on the horizontal rainbow mark - based on a specimen that uses the ColecoVision Flashback which I believe was licensed by AtGames since Riverwest held the registration for the word mark ColecoVision based on a specimen of commerce featuring Bens handheld. Nice. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evener Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) Good point but the drawing specimen submitted with the application is basically in the style that I first saw on Bens unit and appears to be the basis for the ColecoVision Flashback mark - except the color scheme in the submission in the one that is found with the Flashback. Im just curious if Coleco used the version that Ben used on his handheld. I think I have only ever seen the rainbow horizontal mark where the C and the V are capitalized like so -- Edited June 11, 2017 by The Evener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the80sgamer Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 I wonder what mechanism the USTO has to challenge a filing like that? http://info.legalzoom.com/contest-trademark-filing-22517.html CancellationIf 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. 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. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 New Super Mario Bros U has a level inspired by this painting called Painted Swampland or Soda Jungle-4. It's one of my top 5 favorite levels in a Mario game. Yes. That entire submap was like a Van Gogh painting... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) Only way is challenge really anything is by a lawyer going though USPTO public challenge Really at this date you could only really argue it was done either though serious fraud or that Coleco really isn't doing commerce with the marks currently Only reason they would want to push it back is that they could possible sue Newcoleco and others with a earlier date Edited June 11, 2017 by enoofu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the80sgamer Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 ^ wump dere it is Whoomp! There it is... Yours Truly, Grammar Police. Tag Team wus da shizzle back in da day... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the80sgamer Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Only way is challenge really anything is by a lawyer going though USPTO public challenge Really at this date you could only really argue it was done either though serious fraud or that Coleco really isn't doing commerce with the marks currently Only reason they would want to push it back is that they could possible sue Newcoleco and others with a earlier date 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. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) Doesn't their own trademark filing for the word "colecovision" work against them in that they filed for it in 2003 That why its a amendment to the filing, as they don't believe the original filling was totally accurate then were granted it in 2008 based on Ben Hecks photo Technically it was before 2008, just that they have to show proof that they were in commerce with the mark, usually around 3 years after filling Also some people could argue that a one off isn't interstate commerce Edited June 11, 2017 by enoofu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the80sgamer Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 That why its a amendment to the filing, as they don't believe the original filling was totally accurate Technically it was 2003, just that they have to show proof that they were in commence with the mark, usually around 3 years after filling 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdownita Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Who owns the copyright to the CV BIOS? Is it necessary for back compat or games work without it? Important for the 2 CV backcompat consoles announced recently unless they expect legal owners of the original CV to "help themselves" with a BIOS on the SD card. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opcode Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 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. Looks to me that is a brand new registration. I think I know why and that is good news. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Tarzilla Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Who owns the copyright to the CV BIOS? Is it necessary for back compat or games work without it? Important for the 2 CV backcompat console announced recently unless they expect legal owners of the original CV to "help themselves" with a BIOS on the SD card. Not RWB, they own nothing except what they paid the USTO for, that does not include any technical or software IP. It is now questionable if they own what they claim given their adventure with the Ben Heck one off device. The more this goes on, the more Coleco and ColecoVision should be deemed Public Domain. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 You are supposed to enjoy your vacation and stay away from the thread. QFT, now get off AtariAge and enjoy what's left before CPU gives you a thread ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdownita Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 If their TM claims end up being void would AtGames be in a position to ask back for royalty and whatnot they had to pay for the CV Flashback which obviously they should't have? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Have you heard his awful music?I wasn't aware that video of him shoveling counterfeit was meant to be a musical self portrait, but I believe he's showing his true colors there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Seen a few posts from some of their main members and it sounds like the community at large is blacklisting him, have no idea if the site did. Funny how much floor space hasn't sold for their expo https://www.eventbrite.com/e/coleco-rgce-2017-dealer-spaces-add-ons-tickets-29525486525 If you were a vendor and aware of a potential community boycott, would you buy overpriced booth space there? I wouldn't. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Caught up with the daily backlog. If RWB is again trying to claim the color logo, with a 2003 date, and this gets rejected by the USTO, is it possible they might catch wind of the BS, since all the commerce dates and filings, the mismatch with the Vertical and Horizontal logos, everything gets pulled back up and bites them in the ass? Interesting to note they file a new app on the Rainbow logo, on June 2nd, after it was made plainly clear in this very thread they had no claims on the mark? In essense, they listened to the community feedback and are trying to retroactively cover their asses. No coincidence 2003 coincides with Opcode's first homebrew release. The USTO is getting an enima, and RWB and their false claims to Coleco are getting flushed down the toilet. And unrelated, but it is telling that Coleco only sold 4 booths at their expo. That venue is going to be a ghost town, the few people who show up will be sorely disappointed, and Chris Cardillo will be left flipping a very large bill. Good riddens. Perhaps if he lose all this money (and the more he loses, the better off we are as a community), he will abandon the stinking trademark, since you know, retro/hoebrew is a labor of love, not a golden cow to be milked for all it's worth. And last I checked, you don't milk bulls for their "lemonade"... :facepalm: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 I wasn't aware that video of him shoveling counterfeit was meant to be a musical self portrait, but I believe he's showing his true colors there. Chris did a hip hop album of him basically talking about being a master baiter, so I would stay clear of his songs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Chris did a hip hop album of him basically talking about being a master baiter, so I would stay clear of his songs The only thing Chris is a master at "baiting" is himself. He will be stuck in his own web before long, and hopefully goes broke paying for his expo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+frankodragon Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Cardillo's music video (if you can stomach even for 2 seconds.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValkerieSilk Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Oh my God ... Vomiting... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schizophretard Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 At the moment, they've only sold four spaces (in gray): colexpo.jpg I would think at least one of those has been reserved for themselves. All four are probably Girl Scouts there to get a badge. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schizophretard Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 ^ 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. I doubt there is anything we could do to help validate Cardildo's points. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schizophretard Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 ....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. Kevin Horton used the name minus the rainbow in 1996 for his game Kevtris that I believe may be the first homebrew. In game is says,"Coleco Vision Reverse-Engineering Society"(CVRS)on the title screen but there also seems to be another release with the rainbow version upside down. One says that it is an internet release so maybe there was one that was sold($20 plus $3 shipping) and one for downloading for emulators. So, maybe his use of Coleco Vision for commercial purposes or generic uses like in Coleco Vision Reverse-Engineering Society after Coleco Industries, Inc. went under but before "Coleco" came on the scene could somehow challenge their trademark? It would also be cool if another thing he has done helped put an end to another "Coleco is Back!" project. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
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.