Law Suit

I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht club. LAW OFFICES OF SELDON & SCILLIERI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT March 21, 2007 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND CERTIFIED EMAIL Anthony Santos Cal Yacht Club 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 Long Beach, CA 90803 Dear Mr. Santos, We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, powerboating and rowing accomplishments. LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. ƒu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. Page 2 Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all such material has been destroyed. If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Seldon RAS/k Enclosure

My initial response is, "Bite me!" Perhaps a discussion to the effect that there was no intent to 'infringe' and that a cursory glance at the content of the site easily demonstrates that CAL yachts are the subject, not their hoity toity yacht club. This should remove the 'damages' concern. Then make an offer to put a 'prominent disclaimer' on the site's home page. You might mention that if they were so concerned they should have claimed the site name long before now. Then again we could all firebomb their site webmaster with bunches of, "Shame on you!" emails. ~Jon Conyers Cal 27 MkIII Summer Love Now in the water! >From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> >Reply-To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:51:32 -0000 > >I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I >received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether >we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to >Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht >club. > >LAW OFFICES OF >SELDON & SCILLIERI >INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT >March 21, 2007 >BY FEDERAL EXPRESS >AND CERTIFIED EMAIL >Anthony Santos >Cal Yacht Club >6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 >Long Beach, CA 90803 >Dear Mr. Santos, >We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its >parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California >(hereinafter, ��LAACO��).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ��CYC��) >is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide >variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as >tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal >privileges to CYC��s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, >and is well known throughout the world for its members�� sailing, >powerboating and rowing accomplishments. > >LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service >mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark >Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter >for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable >pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ��1065. United States trademark law prohibits >anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well >as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is >confusingly similar to ��California Yacht Club�� in connection with >good or services that are so related to CYC��s services as to be >likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, >sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, >the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this >case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ��California Yacht >Club�� as an exclusive designator of CYC��s goods and services. > >It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that >you are calling ��Cal Yacht Club�� (hereinafter, the ��trade name��) and >have reserved ��calyc�� as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing >trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes >infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as >dilution of our client��s service mark, unfair competition, and false >designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. �u 1125(a). Given CYC��s fame, as >well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full >knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering >your conduct one of ��intentional infringement��. > > >Page 2 >Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation >for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not >limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. >You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service >mark ��California Yacht Club�� to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC >have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting >the ��California Yacht Club�� name and reputation. We trust >that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving >this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing >to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: >(1) cease all use of the trade name ��Cal Yacht Club�� and domain >name ��calyc��, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain >name that is confusingly similar to ��California Yacht Club��; and >(2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, >and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all >such material has been destroyed. > >If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you >advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing >demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC >will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not >done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will >presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful >activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. > >Sincerely yours, >Robert A. Seldon >RAS/k >Enclosure > Live Search Maps � find all the local information you need, right when you need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01

Anthony; First off, the California Yacht Club really doesn't have a claim to all contractions of the word "California". In fact, it doesn't even have a claim to that name--there's a state by that name, I seem to recall. However, meaning no disrespect, but your site is not persuasive. It has all the hallmarks of a domain name squat. If you have other business collateral that shows the Cal Yacht Club is a real organization, such as articles of incorporation or at least a Doing Business As (DBA), you might be able to contest. You certainly can't argue on the grounds of noncompetition, since your stated goal is to form a club that is an alternative to exactly the type of club that the CYC is. But as it stands, if all you have is that website, I suspect the cyc will win unless you can bring considerable legal jujitsu to bear. Your goal of providing a "paper" or "virtual" yacht club for cal owners is pretty cool, though. Maybe a different name? How about the "Cal Owners Yacht Club", "Costa Mesa Yacht Club" Or "Lapworth Yacht Club"? Good luck, bw From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 6:51 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht club. LAW OFFICES OF SELDON & SCILLIERI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT March 21, 2007 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND CERTIFIED EMAIL Anthony Santos Cal Yacht Club 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 Long Beach, CA 90803 Dear Mr. Santos, We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, powerboating and rowing accomplishments. LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. fu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. Page 2 Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all such material has been destroyed. If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Seldon RAS/k Enclosure Yahoo! Groups Links

I dn think the California Yacht club is owned by its members my old employer said its foreign owned ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Walden To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit Anthony; First off, the California Yacht Club really doesn't have a claim to all contractions of the word "California". In fact, it doesn't even have a claim to that name--there's a state by that name, I seem to recall. However, meaning no disrespect, but your site is not persuasive. It has all the hallmarks of a domain name squat. If you have other business collateral that shows the Cal Yacht Club is a real organization, such as articles of incorporation or at least a Doing Business As (DBA), you might be able to contest. You certainly can't argue on the grounds of noncompetition, since your stated goal is to form a club that is an alternative to exactly the type of club that the CYC is. But as it stands, if all you have is that website, I suspect the cyc will win unless you can bring considerable legal jujitsu to bear. Your goal of providing a "paper" or "virtual" yacht club for cal owners is pretty cool, though. Maybe a different name? How about the "Cal Owners Yacht Club", "Costa Mesa Yacht Club" Or "Lapworth Yacht Club"? Good luck, bw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 6:51 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht club. LAW OFFICES OF SELDON & SCILLIERI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT March 21, 2007 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND CERTIFIED EMAIL Anthony Santos Cal Yacht Club 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 Long Beach, CA 90803 Dear Mr. Santos, We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, powerboating and rowing accomplishments. LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. fu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. Page 2 Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all such material has been destroyed. If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Seldon RAS/k Enclosure Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm going to do some research on the issue and I have sent an email response to the attorney so I will let you know the response, which I assume will come tomorrow morning. --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Paulson" <dpaulson@...> wrote: > > I dn think the California Yacht club is owned by its members my old employer said its foreign owned > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob Walden > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:45 PM > Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit > > > Anthony; > > First off, the California Yacht Club really doesn't have a claim to all > contractions of the word "California". In fact, it doesn't even have a claim > to that name--there's a state by that name, I seem to recall. > > However, meaning no disrespect, but your site is not persuasive. It has all > the hallmarks of a domain name squat. If you have other business collateral > that shows the Cal Yacht Club is a real organization, such as articles of > incorporation or at least a Doing Business As (DBA), you might be able to > contest. You certainly can't argue on the grounds of noncompetition, since > your stated goal is to form a club that is an alternative to exactly the > type of club that the CYC is. But as it stands, if all you have is that > website, I suspect the cyc will win unless you can bring considerable legal > jujitsu to bear. > > Your goal of providing a "paper" or "virtual" yacht club for cal owners is > pretty cool, though. Maybe a different name? How about the "Cal Owners Yacht > Club", "Costa Mesa Yacht Club" Or "Lapworth Yacht Club"? > > Good luck, > > bw > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anthony" <anthonysantos@...> > To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 6:51 PM > Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit > > I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I > received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether > we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to > Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht > club. > > LAW OFFICES OF > SELDON & SCILLIERI > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT > March 21, 2007 > BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > AND CERTIFIED EMAIL > Anthony Santos > Cal Yacht Club > 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 > Long Beach, CA 90803 > Dear Mr. Santos, > We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its > parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California > (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) > is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide > variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as > tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal > privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, > and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, > powerboating and rowing accomplishments. > > LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service > mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark > Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter > for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable > pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits > anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well > as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is > confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with > good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be > likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, > sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, > the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this > case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht > Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. > > It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that > you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and > have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing > trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes > infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as > dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false > designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. fu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as > well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full > knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering > your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. > > Page 2 > Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation > for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not > limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. > You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service > mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC > have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting > the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust > that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving > this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing > to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: > (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain > name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain > name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and > (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, > and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all > such material has been destroyed. > > If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you > advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing > demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC > will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not > done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will > presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful > activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. > > Sincerely yours, > Robert A. Seldon > RAS/k > Enclosure > > Yahoo! Groups Links >

I think you should give up the use of “Cal Yacht Club” and the domain name “calyc” or get yourself an IP attorney forthwith. Harleigh Ewell Cal 31 From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:52 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht club. LAW OFFICES OF SELDON & SCILLIERI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT March 21, 2007 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND CERTIFIED EMAIL Anthony Santos Cal Yacht Club 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 Long Beach, CA 90803 Dear Mr. Santos, We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, powerboating and rowing accomplishments. LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. ƒu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. Page 2 Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all such material has been destroyed. If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Seldon RAS/k Enclosure

Maybe Cal Sailboat Club. Kris Paulson <dp… [at] socal.rr.com> wrote: I dn think the California Yacht club is owned by its members my old employer said its foreign owned ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Walden To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit Anthony; First off, the California Yacht Club really doesn't have a claim to all contractions of the word "California". In fact, it doesn't even have a claim to that name--there's a state by that name, I seem to recall. However, meaning no disrespect, but your site is not persuasive. It has all the hallmarks of a domain name squat. If you have other business collateral that shows the Cal Yacht Club is a real organization, such as articles of incorporation or at least a Doing Business As (DBA), you might be able to contest. You certainly can't argue on the grounds of noncompetition, since your stated goal is to form a club that is an alternative to exactly the type of club that the CYC is. But as it stands, if all you have is that website, I suspect the cyc will win unless you can bring considerable legal jujitsu to bear. Your goal of providing a "paper" or "virtual" yacht club for cal owners is pretty cool, though. Maybe a different name? How about the "Cal Owners Yacht Club", "Costa Mesa Yacht Club" Or "Lapworth Yacht Club"? Good luck, bw From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 6:51 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht club. LAW OFFICES OF SELDON & SCILLIERI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT March 21, 2007 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND CERTIFIED EMAIL Anthony Santos Cal Yacht Club 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 Long Beach, CA 90803 Dear Mr. Santos, We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, powerboating and rowing accomplishments. LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. fu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. Page 2 Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all such material has been destroyed. If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Seldon RAS/k Enclosure Yahoo! Groups Links

I revisited your page. Nothing on the home page even mentions Cal Boats. In fact, the only mention of Cal Boats is on the "members" page. You have a photo of a nice marina, but not a single photo of a Cal Boat, unless a Cal Boat is among those in the marina shot. Looks like you are infringing on their tradename big time. The home page describes Cal Yacht Club as a "yacht club" and it sounds like you are hoping one day to enjoy all the amenities of a real yacht club, assuming you get people to pay your membership fee. You cannot win this one, in my opinion. Plus, if the demand letter is right about the loser paying attorney's fees, forget about it. The firm is probably charging over $350.00 per hour. Have you ever seen an attorney's meter running? Do yourself a big favor and do not go there. In most states, the loser on a contract/civil law suit pays the winner's attorney's fees and other legal costs. It boils down to their forever use and registration of the name, versus your publication of a web site last year using their name. Is it also likely to cause confusion. You bet. Your selection of a traditional looking yacht club in the photo, and the complete lack of any explanation on the home page about Cal Boats could confuse many people. Even without the confusion issue, you are ripping off their registered name. They've used it for a long time. This is a no-brainer. Plus, I read last week that whoever controls URL registrations is cracking down big time on this sort of case. --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@...> wrote: > > I think you should give up the use of "Cal Yacht Club" and the domain names > "calyc" or get yourself an IP attorney forthwith. > > > > Harleigh Ewell > > Cal 31 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf > Of Anthony > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:52 PM > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit > > > > I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I > received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether > we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to > Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht > club. > > LAW OFFICES OF > SELDON & SCILLIERI > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT > March 21, 2007 > BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > AND CERTIFIED EMAIL > Anthony Santos > Cal Yacht Club > 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 > Long Beach, CA 90803 > Dear Mr. Santos, > We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its > parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California > (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) > is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide > variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as > tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal > privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, > and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, > powerboating and rowing accomplishments. > > LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service > mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark > Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter > for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable > pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits > anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well > as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is > confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with > good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be > likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, > sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, > the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this > case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht > Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. > > It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that > you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and > have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing > trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes > infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as > dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false > designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. ƒu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as > well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full > knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering > your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. > > Page 2 > Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation > for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not > limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. > You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service > mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC > have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting > the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust > that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving > this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing > to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: > (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain > name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain > name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and > (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, > and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all > such material has been destroyed. > > If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you > advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing > demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC > will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not > done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will > presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful > activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. > > Sincerely yours, > Robert A. Seldon > RAS/k > Enclosure >

Thanks for your replies. When I set up the site, it was for Cal owners. I know it may not mention on the first page, but it does under members. Also, I actually do not have any members that I have signed up, have not taken any money or dues and am not using their name, their colors, or their trademark. That being said, the easy way out is to cave. I may need to have a disclaimer, limit it clearly to Cal owners, but again, the response hasnt been good so its not like it was going anywhere. I just thought it would be cool to have a site for Cal owners. --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Stirling" <bruce@...> wrote: > > I revisited your page. Nothing on the home page even mentions Cal > Boats. In fact, the only mention of Cal Boats is on the "members" > page. You have a photo of a nice marina, but not a single photo of a > Cal Boat, unless a Cal Boat is among those in the marina shot. > > Looks like you are infringing on their tradename big time. The home > page describes Cal Yacht Club as a "yacht club" and it sounds like you > are hoping one day to enjoy all the amenities of a real yacht club, > assuming you get people to pay your membership fee. > > You cannot win this one, in my opinion. Plus, if the demand letter is > right about the loser paying attorney's fees, forget about it. The > firm is probably charging over $350.00 per hour. Have you ever seen > an attorney's meter running? Do yourself a big favor and do not go > there. In most states, the loser on a contract/civil law suit pays > the winner's attorney's fees and other legal costs. > > It boils down to their forever use and registration of the name, > versus your publication of a web site last year using their name. Is > it also likely to cause confusion. You bet. Your selection of a > traditional looking yacht club in the photo, and the complete lack of > any explanation on the home page about Cal Boats could confuse many > people. Even without the confusion issue, you are ripping off their > registered name. They've used it for a long time. This is a > no-brainer. Plus, I read last week that whoever controls URL > registrations is cracking down big time on this sort of case. > > > > > --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@> wrote: > > > > I think you should give up the use of "Cal Yacht Club" and the > > domain names > > "calyc" or get yourself an IP attorney forthwith. > > > > > > > > Harleigh Ewell > > > > Cal 31 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf > > Of Anthony > > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:52 PM > > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit > > > > > > > > I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I > > received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether > > we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to > > Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht > > > > > > > > > club. > > > > LAW OFFICES OF > > SELDON & SCILLIERI > > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT > > March 21, 2007 > > BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > > AND CERTIFIED EMAIL > > Anthony Santos > > Cal Yacht Club > > 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 > > Long Beach, CA 90803 > > Dear Mr. Santos, > > We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its > > parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California > > (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, > ¡§CYC¡¨) > > is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide > > variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as > > tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal > > privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, > > and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, > > powerboating and rowing accomplishments. > > > > LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service > > mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark > > Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter > > for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable > > pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits > > anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well > > as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is > > confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with > > good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be > > likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, > > sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, > > the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this > > case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht > > Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. > > > > It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that > > you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) > and > > have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing > > trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes > > infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as > > dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false > > designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. ƒu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as > > well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full > > knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering > > your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. > > > > Page 2 > > Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation > > for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not > > limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. > > You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service > > mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC > > have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting > > the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust > > that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving > > this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing > > to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: > > (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain > > name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain > > name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and > > (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, > > and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all > > such material has been destroyed. > > > > If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you > > advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing > > demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC > > will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not > > done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will > > presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful > > activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > Robert A. Seldon > > RAS/k > > Enclosure > > >

Anthony wrote: > > I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I > received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether > we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to > Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht > club. > Copyright and trademark law is a fairly specialized area, now generally included in the term "intellectual property," and you probably ought to consult an attorney who has experience in this area. There's a body of law addressing how similar things can or can't be, and lots of other details. I note that the letter refers to a "parent company." No genuine yacht club I know has a "parent company," so this is some sort of commercial enterprise. There's a tendency among corporate types to engage in " strike suits," which are lawsuits designed to frighten, intimidate, and overwhelm. They are often used by large corporations against individuals who have the temerity to criticize them, or against small units of government seeking to regulate them (as, for example, by applying zoning laws). My own opinion is that this is wrong. If you have the financial means to oppose, them, or can find a sailing lawyer with some experience in this kind of work, then by all means do so. Chris Campbell

Bruce may have a point ... so we fix our page to make it clear that we are only an INTERNET YACHT CLUB, and that we are only about CAL BOATS, having nothing to do with the state of California. It is my recollection that while the first Cal-40's were being built, the "California Yacht Club" only existed on paper, and it's current-and-only location was just a pile of dirt in a marina that was not yet occupied by any boats. Fin Beven Cal-40 #24 Radiant San Pedro, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Stirling<mailto:br… [at] stirlinglaw.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:32 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit I revisited your page. Nothing on the home page even mentions Cal Boats. In fact, the only mention of Cal Boats is on the "members" page. You have a photo of a nice marina, but not a single photo of a Cal Boat, unless a Cal Boat is among those in the marina shot. Looks like you are infringing on their tradename big time. The home page describes Cal Yacht Club as a "yacht club" and it sounds like you are hoping one day to enjoy all the amenities of a real yacht club, assuming you get people to pay your membership fee. You cannot win this one, in my opinion. Plus, if the demand letter is right about the loser paying attorney's fees, forget about it. The firm is probably charging over $350.00 per hour. Have you ever seen an attorney's meter running? Do yourself a big favor and do not go there. In most states, the loser on a contract/civil law suit pays the winner's attorney's fees and other legal costs. It boils down to their forever use and registration of the name, versus your publication of a web site last year using their name. Is it also likely to cause confusion. You bet. Your selection of a traditional looking yacht club in the photo, and the complete lack of any explanation on the home page about Cal Boats could confuse many people. Even without the confusion issue, you are ripping off their registered name. They've used it for a long time. This is a no-brainer. Plus, I read last week that whoever controls URL registrations is cracking down big time on this sort of case. --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com>, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@...> wrote: > > I think you should give up the use of "Cal Yacht Club" and the domain names > "calyc" or get yourself an IP attorney forthwith. > > > > Harleigh Ewell > > Cal 31 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf > Of Anthony > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:52 PM > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [Cal_Boats] Law Suit > > > > I wanted to some information with fellow Cal owners. He is a letter I > received recently. Please let me know what you guys think and whether > we should protect our rights as Cal owners. My site was dedicated to > Cal boat owners and nothing to do with California or California yacht > club. > > LAW OFFICES OF > SELDON & SCILLIERI > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT > March 21, 2007 > BY FEDERAL EXPRESS > AND CERTIFIED EMAIL > Anthony Santos > Cal Yacht Club > 6475 E. Pacific Coast Hwy., #381 > Long Beach, CA 90803 > Dear Mr. Santos, > We represent the California Yacht Club of Marina del Rey CA and its > parent company, LAACO Ltd. of Los Angeles, California > (hereinafter, ¡§LAACO¡¨).The California Yacht Club (hereinafter, ¡§CYC¡¨) > is an internationally recognized yacht club that provides a wide > variety of programs, events and facilities to its members, as well as > tomembers of certain other yacht clubs that provide reciprocal > privileges to CYC¡¦s members.CYC has been operating for over 85 years, > and is well known throughout the world for its members¡¦ sailing, > powerboating and rowing accomplishments. > > LAACO is the owner of all right, title and interest in the service > mark CALIFORNIA YACHT CLUB. LAACO is also the owner of U.S. Trademark > Registration 1,661,996 (a copy of which is attached to this letter > for your convenience). That registration has become incontestable > pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ¡±1065. United States trademark law prohibits > anyone other than LAACO and CYC from using its service mark, as well > as any other service mark, trade name or domain name that is > confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ in connection with > good or services that are so related to CYC¡¦s services as to be > likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source, > sponsorship or affiliation of the good and/or services. In addition, > the law prohibits the dilution of a famous mark; that is, in this > case, use which dilutes the distinctiveness of ¡§California Yacht > Club¡¨ as an exclusive designator of CYC¡¦s goods and services. > > It has come to our attention that you are promoting an entity that > you are calling ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ (hereinafter, the ¡§trade name¡¨) and > have reserved ¡§calyc¡¨ as a domain name. Your use of the foregoing > trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes > infringement of our clients valuable service mark rights, as well as > dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false > designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. fu 1125(a). Given CYC¡¦s fame, as > well as your nearby location in Long Beach, you undoubtedly had full > knowledge of CYC when you chose to use the infringing name, rendering > your conduct one of ¡§intentional infringement¡¨. > > Page 2 > Under applicable law, LAACO and CYC are entitled to full compensation > for all damage caused by your unlawful activity, including but not > limited to the reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys fees. > You may not have appreciated the importance of the name and service > mark ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ to LAACO and CYC. Both LAACO and CYC > have exerted substantial time and expense in promoting and protecting > the ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨ name and reputation. We trust > that you can appreciate our concern. In the interest of resolving > this matter quickly and amicably, LAACO and CYC are willing > to consider the matter closed if you and Cal Yacht Club immediately: > (1) cease all use of the trade name ¡§Cal Yacht Club¡¨ and domain > name ¡§calyc¡¨, and refrain from using any other trade name or domain > name that is confusingly similar to ¡§California Yacht Club¡¨; and > (2) destroy all promotional material which remains in your inventory, > and provide me with a statement under penalty of perjury that all > such material has been destroyed. > > If, by the close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), you > advise me in writing that you have fully complied with the foregoing > demands, and provide the statement set forth above, LAACO and CYC > will consider the matter settled. If, on the other hand, you have not > done so by close of business on Wednesday (March 28, 2007), we will > presume that you intend to continue your infringing and unlawful > activities, and we will have no choice but to take appropriate action. > > Sincerely yours, > Robert A. Seldon > RAS/k > Enclosure > Yahoo! Groups Links

Fin Beven wrote: > > Bruce may have a point ... so we fix our page to make it clear that we > are only an INTERNET YACHT CLUB, and that we are only about CAL BOATS, > having nothing to do with the state of California. > > It is my recollection that while the first Cal-40's were being built, > the "California Yacht Club" only existed on paper, and it's > current-and-only location was just a pile of dirt in a marina that was > not yet occupied by any boats. Fin: My very scant acquaintance with this field suggests that it doesn't necessarily matter who first used the name, but rather, it's a question of who registered it first. First-use may be relevant to issues like whether one name is similar enough to another to create genuine confusion in the mind of the public. But again, I know so little that I should just shut up. Chris Campbell >

I haven't done one of these cases in over 20 years. However, ass/u/me-ing the California Yacht Club registered their name sometime prior to the web site publish date, the inquiry doesn't usually get much beyond that, apart from the occasional debate about confusion, which can even be a separate tort (civil action). When registering the tradename or trademark, the government inquires what the "first date of use" was. In case of a conflicting claim, the earlier use, assu/u/me-ing it can be proved, should prevail. I am sure there are exceptions. There always are, but if the California Yacht Club has used the name exclusively for 85 years and have prosecuted violations of the name previously, I would bet on them without hesitation. First use, plus registration is a pretty good claim. A successful prosecution for violations in the past is iceing on the cake. --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> wrote: > > Fin Beven wrote: > > > > Bruce may have a point ... so we fix our page to make it clear that we > > are only an INTERNET YACHT CLUB, and that we are only about CAL BOATS, > > having nothing to do with the state of California. > > > > It is my recollection that while the first Cal-40's were being built, > > the "California Yacht Club" only existed on paper, and it's > > current-and-only location was just a pile of dirt in a marina that was > > not yet occupied by any boats. > > > > > > > > > Fin: > > My very scant acquaintance with this field suggests that it doesn't > necessarily matter who first used the name, but rather, it's a question > of who registered it first. First-use may be relevant to issues like > whether one name is similar enough to another to create genuine > confusion in the mind of the public. But again, I know so little that I > should just shut up. > > Chris Campbell > > >

All of this revolves around the name "Cal Yacht Club", but I'd submit that the calyc.com website isn't really trying to create a "yacht club" per se. The description of the organization makes it clear that it's an alternative to typical yacht clubs, so why not reflect that in the name? Get the word "yacht" out of there, and maybe "club" too. Call it the Cal Boats Club, Cal Sailing Club, Cal Cruising Club, Cal Owners Club, etc. And instead of "Club", consider "Association", "Fleet", "Group", "Alliance", "League", "Society", "Flotilla", "Squadron", etc (ain't thesaruses grand?) CYC has no claim on the name "California" or "Cal". It's the combination of "Cal", "Yacht", & "Club" that is problematic. If you get rid of at least 1 of "yacht" and/or "club", you're fine. And btw, there seems to be some confusion. I saw some posts about a threat to the members of the Cal internet club. Anthony's venture has no members. This has nothing to do with the cal_boats group on yahoogroups.com (yet). just my .02, bw From: "Bruce Stirling" <br… [at] stirlinglaw.com> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:14 AM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit >I haven't done one of these cases in over 20 years. However, > ass/u/me-ing the California Yacht Club registered their name sometime > prior to the web site publish date, the inquiry doesn't usually get > much beyond that, apart from the occasional debate about confusion, > which can even be a separate tort (civil action). > > When registering the tradename or trademark, the government inquires > what the "first date of use" was. In case of a conflicting claim, the > earlier use, assu/u/me-ing it can be proved, should prevail. I am > sure there are exceptions. There always are, but if the California > Yacht Club has used the name exclusively for 85 years and have > prosecuted violations of the name previously, I would bet on them > without hesitation. > > First use, plus registration is a pretty good claim. A successful > prosecution for violations in the past is iceing on the cake. > > > --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> wrote: >> >> Fin Beven wrote: >> > >> > Bruce may have a point ... so we fix our page to make it clear > that we >> > are only an INTERNET YACHT CLUB, and that we are only about CAL > BOATS, >> > having nothing to do with the state of California. >> > >> > It is my recollection that while the first Cal-40's were being built, >> > the "California Yacht Club" only existed on paper, and it's >> > current-and-only location was just a pile of dirt in a marina that > was >> > not yet occupied by any boats. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Fin: >> >> My very scant acquaintance with this field suggests that it doesn't >> necessarily matter who first used the name, but rather, it's a question >> of who registered it first. First-use may be relevant to issues like >> whether one name is similar enough to another to create genuine >> confusion in the mind of the public. But again, I know so little > that I >> should just shut up. >> >> Chris Campbell >> > >> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >

OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, Sailing, and Sail magazines. It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial letter might have offered an easy solution. The attorney could have asked the Cal Yacht Club to add a disclaimer to their web-site, something like: "The Cal Yacht Club is only an INTERNET entity that exists solely for the benefit of owners and admirers of "Cal" yachts, those built by Jensen Marine and its successors. The "Cal Yacht Club" relates in no way to the "California Yacht Club" of Marina del Rey, California". I hate to give in to something like this. I also do not know how Mr. Santos became the "fall guy" for all of us. We could just change our name to the Cal Boat Club, and be done with it. Fin. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Stirling<mailto:br… [at] stirlinglaw.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:14 AM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit I haven't done one of these cases in over 20 years. However, ass/u/me-ing the California Yacht Club registered their name sometime prior to the web site publish date, the inquiry doesn't usually get much beyond that, apart from the occasional debate about confusion, which can even be a separate tort (civil action). When registering the tradename or trademark, the government inquires what the "first date of use" was. In case of a conflicting claim, the earlier use, assu/u/me-ing it can be proved, should prevail. I am sure there are exceptions. There always are, but if the California Yacht Club has used the name exclusively for 85 years and have prosecuted violations of the name previously, I would bet on them without hesitation. First use, plus registration is a pretty good claim. A successful prosecution for violations in the past is iceing on the cake. --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com>, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> wrote: > > Fin Beven wrote: > > > > Bruce may have a point ... so we fix our page to make it clear that we > > are only an INTERNET YACHT CLUB, and that we are only about CAL BOATS, > > having nothing to do with the state of California. > > > > It is my recollection that while the first Cal-40's were being built, > > the "California Yacht Club" only existed on paper, and it's > > current-and-only location was just a pile of dirt in a marina that was > > not yet occupied by any boats. > > > > > > > > > Fin: > > My very scant acquaintance with this field suggests that it doesn't > necessarily matter who first used the name, but rather, it's a question > of who registered it first. First-use may be relevant to issues like > whether one name is similar enough to another to create genuine > confusion in the mind of the public. But again, I know so little that I > should just shut up. > > Chris Campbell > > > Yahoo! Groups Links

Here is a their claim "Your use of the foregoing trade name and domain name for yacht club services constitutes infringement of our client's valuable service mark rights, as well as dilution of our client¡¦s service mark, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. ƒu 1125(a)" I have not looked up the Civil Code they are referring to but here is the Federal Dilution Trademark Law, in summary, Effectve date The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which protects famous marks from uses that dilute their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition, became effective on January 16, 1996. Summary & Guidelines The new law sets forth guidelines to determine which marks are distinctive and famous and lists the following, non-exclusive factors: (1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (2) the duration and extent of use of the mark; (3) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity; (4) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (5) the channels of trade; (6) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the mark's owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (7) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (8) whether the owner of the mark has a valid federal registration. Notwithstanding this last factor, both registered and unregistered marks may be protected under this law. Definitiion of Dilutiuon The new act defines the term "dilution" as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception." Courts have previously found that dilution can occur as a result of either "blurring" or "tarnishment". "Blurring" typically refers to the "whittling away" of distinctiveness caused by the unauthorized use of a mark on dissimilar products; while "tarnishment" involves an unauthorized use of a mark which links it to products that are of poor quality or which is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context that is likely to reflect adversely upon the owner's product. The legislative history suggests that both of these concepts are encompassed within the new law. In addition, the legislative history cites, as examples of the uses which would fall within the new law, the mark DUPONT for shoes, BUICK for aspirin and KODAK for pianos. Remedy - Injunctive Relief Ordinarily, only injunctive relief is available under the new law. However, if the defendant willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark, the owner of that mark may also be entitled to other remedies available under the United States Trademark Act, including defendant's profits, damages, attorneys' fees, and destruction of the infringing goods. The availability of monetary relief is a striking departure from state dilution laws, which have typically provided only for injunctive relief. Interestingly, the new law also provides that the ownership of a valid federal registration is a complete bar to the assertion of a dilution claim under state law, thereby effectively pre-empting state dilution laws. First Amendment Concerns In response to legitimate First Amendment concerns, the new law expressly exempts certain uses of a famous mark, in particular: (1) "fair use" of a mark in the context of comparative commercial advertising or promotion; (2) non-commercial uses, such as parody, satire and editorial commentary; and (3) all forms of news reporting and news commentary. Conclusions Although approximately 25 states have already enacted laws that prohibit trademark dilution, this new federal law is intended to provide uniform and nationwide protection for famous marks. Thus, the new law renders academic the unsettled question of whether a state dilution claim can support injunctive relief against use in another state in which there is no dilution statute. Nevertheless, what constitutes a "famous" mark is likely to generate controversy in the courts and in the Trademark Office and may well slow the trademark clearance and registration process, as parties seek to settle what constitutes a "famous" mark. In addition, courts have traditionally dismissed state dilution claims unless there is also a finding of infringement or unfair competition based upon a likelihood of confusion. It remains to be seen how courts and the Trademark Office will interpret this new federal law, which has potentially far- reaching applications. Sorry for the long post, but I've doing some research on the issue. I have not received a response from the attorney who sent the letter and as soon as I do, I'll let you know the response. I will make some changes to the site today or tonight to see if it makes a difference.

Here is the code he is referring to. It seems to me that the basis for the suit would be the name only, as that is what is trademarked. I am not using their flag, so it must be the name. This is what the courts look for to see if there is infringement. (A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Here is the law on cyber piracy Cyberpiracy prevention. (1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person-- (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that-- (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code. (B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to-- (I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; (III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name; (V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; (VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and (IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43 [subsec. (c)(1) of this section]. (ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. (C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. (D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee. (E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration. (2) (A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if-- (i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c); and (ii) the court finds that the owner-- (I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or (II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by-- A quick summary of the code tells me that to find bad faith, they have to show intent. Obviously, my intent was not to infringe on their mark. Nothing precludes someone from starting another yacht club, even in the same city. We'll have to wait and see if I get a response from the attorney.

Fin Beven wrote: > > OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, Sailing, and > Sail magazines. > > It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial > letter might have offered an easy solution. I'm a lawyer and have observed that large corporate clients (not the kind of clients I represent) tend to discourage reasonable behavior. They want to terrify and intimidate and overwhelm. Lawyers who represent real people tend to encourage compromise, settlement, and going forward in a way that preserves the possibility of future cordial relations. The clients don't always accept that posture or behave as advised, but the better lawyers encourage it. The "parent company" of this "club" has one interest, $$$, and has no incentive whatsoever to behave in a civil manner. It's worth remembering that the reason the constitution (federal, and most states) preserves the right of jury trial, habeus corpus, and a number of other individual rights is that the people had prior experience with a remote, powerful ruler. Now the large corporations often have revenues exceeding those of many small countries and commensurate power to engage in litigation. We still need recourse to jury trials as a protection against unreasonable power. Chris Campbell

I just spoke with the attorney who represents CYC. He was pretty understanding and polite and wants an easy resoloution. But, their only choice is to change the name. They believe it is to close and misleading because, in his words, CYC's members refer to their own club as "Cal Yacht Club". So, my question is, whose fault is that? --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> wrote: > > Fin Beven wrote: > > > > OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, Sailing, and > > Sail magazines. > > > > It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial > > letter might have offered an easy solution. > > > > > > > I'm a lawyer and have observed that large corporate clients (not the > kind of clients I represent) tend to discourage reasonable behavior. > They want to terrify and intimidate and overwhelm. Lawyers who > represent real people tend to encourage compromise, settlement, and > going forward in a way that preserves the possibility of future cordial > relations. The clients don't always accept that posture or behave as > advised, but the better lawyers encourage it. The "parent company" of > this "club" has one interest, $$$, and has no incentive whatsoever to > behave in a civil manner. > > It's worth remembering that the reason the constitution (federal, and > most states) preserves the right of jury trial, habeus corpus, and a > number of other individual rights is that the people had prior > experience with a remote, powerful ruler. Now the large corporations > often have revenues exceeding those of many small countries and > commensurate power to engage in litigation. We still need recourse to > jury trials as a protection against unreasonable power. > > Chris Campbell >

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Fin Beven" <finbeven@...> wrote: > > OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, Sailing, and Sail magazines. > > It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial letter might have offered an easy solution. The attorney could have asked the Cal Yacht Club to add a disclaimer to their web-site, something like: > > "The Cal Yacht Club is only an INTERNET entity that exists solely for the benefit of owners and admirers of "Cal" yachts, those built by Jensen Marine and its successors. The "Cal Yacht Club" relates in no way to the "California Yacht Club" of Marina del Rey, California". I've been posting messages on this thread that never showed up and I finally realized I was logged in as my daughter who is not a group member. I would suggest changing the name to Cal Owners Yacht Club or something like that. I suspect the web site confusion is the issue. Fin pointed out that California Yacht Club is a bit presumptuous in naming itselfr to represent all of us in the state. It is a name that I believe was once associated with LA Yacht CLub in the early 20th century, then the name became dormant until revived by the Marina Del Rey club. I also believe that is, or was, owned by the same company that owns LA Athletic CLub and Riviera Country Club. When I was an LAAC member in the 60s, we were able to use both of those facilities in a limited way. Sort of social memberships. > > I hate to give in to something like this. I also do not know how Mr. Santos became the "fall guy" for all of us. I'm not sure about what he was doing as he had no members yet. MIke Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96

I'm not typically one to side with businesses (heck, I audit them for living) but I think your best (most economical) route is to rename the organization enough to give the California Yacht Club people comfort that you're not trying to do something fishy. My question is this... When did you register the name, and when did they? If you were there first, they can't say much. I'm all for what you want to provide the Cal Sailboating community. Sometimes it's just easier to roll with the punches than to make a stand. I guess it's kind of a "pick your battles" thing....... Cheers, Scott >From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> >Reply-To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:48:29 -0000 > >I just spoke with the attorney who represents CYC. He was pretty >understanding and polite and wants an easy resoloution. But, their >only choice is to change the name. They believe it is to close and >misleading because, in his words, CYC's members refer to their own >club as "Cal Yacht Club". So, my question is, whose fault is that? > >--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> >wrote: > > > > Fin Beven wrote: > > > > > > OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, >Sailing, and > > > Sail magazines. > > > > > > It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial > > > letter might have offered an easy solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a lawyer and have observed that large corporate clients (not >the > > kind of clients I represent) tend to discourage reasonable >behavior. > > They want to terrify and intimidate and overwhelm. Lawyers who > > represent real people tend to encourage compromise, settlement, and > > going forward in a way that preserves the possibility of future >cordial > > relations. The clients don't always accept that posture or behave >as > > advised, but the better lawyers encourage it. The "parent company" >of > > this "club" has one interest, $$$, and has no incentive whatsoever >to > > behave in a civil manner. > > > > It's worth remembering that the reason the constitution (federal, >and > > most states) preserves the right of jury trial, habeus corpus, and >a > > number of other individual rights is that the people had prior > > experience with a remote, powerful ruler. Now the large >corporations > > often have revenues exceeding those of many small countries and > > commensurate power to engage in litigation. We still need recourse >to > > jury trials as a protection against unreasonable power. > > > > Chris Campbell > > > > Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinemarch07

They registered in 1987 as a DBA to Los Angeles Athletic Club. I bought my Cal 27 last year and came up with the idea but did not have much of a response. You are correct, its easier to change the name and that is the way I'm leaning. I dont have many members but if I did, I would have something to fight for. I will do a little more research to see if there is a loop hole I can jump through. Thanks for the help.

The CYC doesn't have to suspect anything "fishy" to bring this action. By US IP law, you are *required* to aggressively defend your copyrights, brands and trademarks, or risk losing them in the future. If you're lenient, say, and "look the other way" and allow a not-for-profit to infringe on your marks, then that can be used against you if you have to do a real defence against a serious infringement in the future. I don't know anything about the CYC, but so far it does not look like they're doing anything wrong here, at least in my humble opinion. bw From: "Scott Sauvageot" <rx… [at] hotmail.com> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:34 PM Subject: RE: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit > I'm not typically one to side with businesses (heck, I audit them for > living) but I think your best (most economical) route is to rename the > organization enough to give the California Yacht Club people comfort that > you're not trying to do something fishy. > > My question is this... When did you register the name, and when did they? > If you were there first, they can't say much. > > I'm all for what you want to provide the Cal Sailboating community. > Sometimes it's just easier to roll with the punches than to make a stand. > I > guess it's kind of a "pick your battles" thing....... > > Cheers, > Scott > > > >>From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> >>Reply-To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >>To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >>Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit >>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:48:29 -0000 >> >>I just spoke with the attorney who represents CYC. He was pretty >>understanding and polite and wants an easy resoloution. But, their >>only choice is to change the name. They believe it is to close and >>misleading because, in his words, CYC's members refer to their own >>club as "Cal Yacht Club". So, my question is, whose fault is that? >> >>--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> >>wrote: >> > >> > Fin Beven wrote: >> > > >> > > OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, >>Sailing, and >> > > Sail magazines. >> > > >> > > It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial >> > > letter might have offered an easy solution. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > I'm a lawyer and have observed that large corporate clients (not >>the >> > kind of clients I represent) tend to discourage reasonable >>behavior. >> > They want to terrify and intimidate and overwhelm. Lawyers who >> > represent real people tend to encourage compromise, settlement, and >> > going forward in a way that preserves the possibility of future >>cordial >> > relations. The clients don't always accept that posture or behave >>as >> > advised, but the better lawyers encourage it. The "parent company" >>of >> > this "club" has one interest, $$$, and has no incentive whatsoever >>to >> > behave in a civil manner. >> > >> > It's worth remembering that the reason the constitution (federal, >>and >> > most states) preserves the right of jury trial, habeus corpus, and >>a >> > number of other individual rights is that the people had prior >> > experience with a remote, powerful ruler. Now the large >>corporations >> > often have revenues exceeding those of many small countries and >> > commensurate power to engage in litigation. We still need recourse >>to >> > jury trials as a protection against unreasonable power. >> > >> > Chris Campbell >> > >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. > http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinemarch07 > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >

I haven't seen your web site. Could you send me the URL? I'd be interested in becoming part of a Cal community. IF it's only web based, I assume it's open to both left and right coasters? Cheers, Scott Sauvageot Cal 25 31651 Indefatigable Annapolis, MD >From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> >Reply-To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:47:46 -0000 > >They registered in 1987 as a DBA to Los Angeles Athletic Club. I bought >my Cal 27 last year and came up with the idea but did not have much of >a response. > >You are correct, its easier to change the name and that is the way I'm >leaning. I dont have many members but if I did, I would have something >to fight for. I will do a little more research to see if there is a >loop hole I can jump through. > >Thanks for the help. > Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinemarch07

I to talked with a lawyer friend of mine. He said just change the name and fade away. Thier lawyer will fade as well. Just the luck of the draw. They drew first. In this overly latigious society we live in it is easy to get the hackles up. Sorry if I offended anybody earlier. I still think that scene in Caddy Shack is a classic. Dave Cal 25 Morro Bay, Ca.

Thanks Dave. That has been the consensus of most out there so it appears that will be the plan. I am looking at www.caljensenyc.com for Cal Jensen Yacht Club. I sent a response to the attorney to see if we can compromise. If I agree to change, then I want them to allow reciprocal privledges at their club. I doubt it will fly but everything is about compromise.

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Dave Tice" <david-tice@...> wrote: > > I to talked with a lawyer friend of mine. He said just change the name > and fade away. Thier lawyer will fade as well. Just the luck of the > draw. They drew first. In this overly latigious society we live in it > is easy to get the hackles up. Sorry if I offended anybody earlier. I > still think that scene in Caddy Shack is a classic. > Dave > Cal 25 > Morro Bay, Ca. > My advice as well. I don't do any intellectual property cases, but I do 100% litigation and the guy with the best case in the world spends a lot of money on lawyers and expenses and walks away 3 years later feeling unsatisfied. If your case is weaker, you can switch to a stronger word for "unsatisfied." For further information, re-read "The Old Man and the Sea." Mike Kennedy Jr. Conquest Cal 40 #96

By being so arrogant to use the word California in their name, they invite infringement. Should there be no other companies with the word California in the name? I suppose Cal Boats was infringing??? I guess California (the state) itself should change its name, after all, they wouldn't want to infringe on the yacht clubs rights. It's all a bunch of bunk. This whole thing is concocted by crooked lawyers to line their own pockets. After all, it's only a yacht club, who gives a rats ass. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Walden To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit The CYC doesn't have to suspect anything "fishy" to bring this action. By US IP law, you are *required* to aggressively defend your copyrights, brands and trademarks, or risk losing them in the future. If you're lenient, say, and "look the other way" and allow a not-for-profit to infringe on your marks, then that can be used against you if you have to do a real defence against a serious infringement in the future. I don't know anything about the CYC, but so far it does not look like they're doing anything wrong here, at least in my humble opinion. bw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Sauvageot" <rx… [at] hotmail.com> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:34 PM Subject: RE: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit > I'm not typically one to side with businesses (heck, I audit them for > living) but I think your best (most economical) route is to rename the > organization enough to give the California Yacht Club people comfort that > you're not trying to do something fishy. > > My question is this... When did you register the name, and when did they? > If you were there first, they can't say much. > > I'm all for what you want to provide the Cal Sailboating community. > Sometimes it's just easier to roll with the punches than to make a stand. > I > guess it's kind of a "pick your battles" thing....... > > Cheers, > Scott > > > >>From: "Anthony" <an… [at] workcomparena.com> >>Reply-To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >>To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >>Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: Law Suit >>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:48:29 -0000 >> >>I just spoke with the attorney who represents CYC. He was pretty >>understanding and polite and wants an easy resoloution. But, their >>only choice is to change the name. They believe it is to close and >>misleading because, in his words, CYC's members refer to their own >>club as "Cal Yacht Club". So, my question is, whose fault is that? >> >>--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> >>wrote: >> > >> > Fin Beven wrote: >> > > >> > > OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, >>Sailing, and >> > > Sail magazines. >> > > >> > > It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial >> > > letter might have offered an easy solution. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > I'm a lawyer and have observed that large corporate clients (not >>the >> > kind of clients I represent) tend to discourage reasonable >>behavior. >> > They want to terrify and intimidate and overwhelm. Lawyers who >> > represent real people tend to encourage compromise, settlement, and >> > going forward in a way that preserves the possibility of future >>cordial >> > relations. The clients don't always accept that posture or behave >>as >> > advised, but the better lawyers encourage it. The "parent company" >>of >> > this "club" has one interest, $$$, and has no incentive whatsoever >>to >> > behave in a civil manner. >> > >> > It's worth remembering that the reason the constitution (federal, >>and >> > most states) preserves the right of jury trial, habeus corpus, and >>a >> > number of other individual rights is that the people had prior >> > experience with a remote, powerful ruler. Now the large >>corporations >> > often have revenues exceeding those of many small countries and >> > commensurate power to engage in litigation. We still need recourse >>to >> > jury trials as a protection against unreasonable power. >> > >> > Chris Campbell >> > >> >> > > __________________________________________________________ > Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. > http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinemarch07 > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >

Can I say "F" them? Marsh... late, but here Anthony wrote: >I just spoke with the attorney who represents CYC. He was pretty >understanding and polite and wants an easy resoloution. But, their >only choice is to change the name. They believe it is to close and >misleading because, in his words, CYC's members refer to their own >club as "Cal Yacht Club". So, my question is, whose fault is that? > >--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Chris Campbell <clcampbell@...> >wrote: > > >>Fin Beven wrote: >> >> >>>OK, I've sent this all along to Scuttlebutt, Latitude 38, >>> >>> >Sailing, and > > >>>Sail magazines. >>> >>>It's a shame. The attorney "went to guns" when a simple, cordial >>>letter might have offered an easy solution. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>I'm a lawyer and have observed that large corporate clients (not >> >> >the > > >>kind of clients I represent) tend to discourage reasonable >> >> >behavior. > > >>They want to terrify and intimidate and overwhelm. Lawyers who >>represent real people tend to encourage compromise, settlement, and >>going forward in a way that preserves the possibility of future >> >> >cordial > > >>relations. The clients don't always accept that posture or behave >> >> >as > > >>advised, but the better lawyers encourage it. The "parent company" >> >> >of > > >>this "club" has one interest, $$$, and has no incentive whatsoever >> >> >to > > >>behave in a civil manner. >> >>It's worth remembering that the reason the constitution (federal, >> >> >and > > >>most states) preserves the right of jury trial, habeus corpus, and >> >> >a > > >>number of other individual rights is that the people had prior >>experience with a remote, powerful ruler. Now the large >> >> >corporations > > >>often have revenues exceeding those of many small countries and >>commensurate power to engage in litigation. We still need recourse >> >> >to > > >>jury trials as a protection against unreasonable power. >> >>Chris Campbell >> >> >> > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

The mysterious SoCal race deaths takes a new turn. A survivor family is suing the captain's survivor family. This is another reason I love single-handed sailing. Check out the link below. Doug, Cal 29, San Francisco Bay http://www.dailybreeze.com/crimeandcourts/ci_21838644/families-san-diego\ -yacht-race-accident-appear-headed <http://www.dailybreeze.com/crimeandcourts/ci_21838644/families-san-dieg\ o-yacht-race-accident-appear-headed>

On 10/24/2012 11:44 PM, DouglasJ wrote: > > > The mysterious SoCal race deaths takes a new turn. A survivor family > is suing the captain's survivor family. This is another reason I love > single-handed sailing. > I sail single-handed 95% of the time, just because I like going sailing and do it a lot. But it's important for all of us to realize that when we take others along, we do have responsibilities for their safety and well-being. (Why did my text just change??). It's one of those things that we ought to think about often--but often don't until something like this reminds us. Our obligations are legal but also moral. When we do training for new crew members on our local schooner, I discuss the old tradition of crew griping about the captain. I remind them that our captains take on a huge responsibility when they set sail with a large boat and a mostly older, amateur crew. They're responsible for getting the boat and its crew safely home again. It's easy to second guess when you don't have that responsibility. Chris Campbell

I completely agree with Chris that the Skipper has a great responsibility but there still needs to be a way to defend against our hyper-litigious nature. I have other folks on my boat from time to time but I hate to think I am putting my family's financial stability at risk to do it. I am curious to know what those of you who race with larger crews, and especially those who race offshore, do to protect yourself. Negligence is a tricky concept when you get into court. If you have total responsibility anything your do that is not the best thing that could have been done may, to a degree, be considered negligent. How do you protect yourself against that? BTW - I am not trying to find a defense for clear and conspicuous negligence. I am talking about those situations where there was good preparation, planning, and outfitting but the excrement hit the fan and the outcome was bad. Everyone participated with full knowledge of the risks but now you have a surviving family who want all your assets to assuage their grief. Last time I went skiing I actually read the "agreement" I make with the ski area when I buy a lift ticket. It talks all about how I understand that skiing is in inherently dangerous sport and that I can't blame the operator if I get injured in the participation of that sport. Has anyone ever considered executing the same weasely agreement with crew? Regards, Wayne From: Chris Campbell <cc… [at] lsnm.org> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] LAW SUIT On 10/24/2012 11:44 PM, DouglasJ wrote: The mysterious SoCal race deaths takes a new turn. A survivor family is suing the captain's survivor family. This is another reason I love single-handed sailing. I sail single-handed 95% of the time, just because I like going sailing and do it a lot. But it's important for all of us to realize that when we take others along, we do have responsibilities for their safety and well-being. (Why did my text just change??). It's one of those things that we ought to think about often--but often don't until something like this reminds us. Our obligations are legal but also moral. When we do training for new crew members on our local schooner, I discuss the old tradition of crew griping about the captain. I remind them that our captains take on a huge responsibility when they set sail with a large boat and a mostly older, amateur crew. They're responsible for getting the boat and its crew safely home again. It's easy to second guess when you don't have that responsibility. Chris Campbell

It may sound silly but a friend on mine for this exact reason has everyone who came on board, including me sign a release that was basically a "force majour" statement releasing him and his estate from all liabilities and obligations. He was a contract manager so it was a pretty good document. You came on board willingly and at you own risk and gave up your rights and that of you family should you not come home in one piece. When I asked him why...his response was interesting. While I am the captain of this vessel, and am responsible for everyone and everything on board, the legal system is so twisted that someone could sue me if they decide to do something foolish, say break their ankle while horsing around on a non assigned task. People are silly that way and no longer respect the sea and it power. Hmm I though good answer. /ch

If you read the article it says that the legal process is aimed at collecting on the insurance that was on the boat. It is not aimed at one family suing the other except to the degree that it is required to collect the insurance. Personally, the process is still distasteful just not as bad as it might seem. Allen On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Chris Campbell <cc… [at] lsnm.org> wrote: > ** > > > On 10/24/2012 11:44 PM, DouglasJ wrote: > > The mysterious SoCal race deaths takes a new turn. A survivor family is > suing the captain's survivor family. This is another reason I love > single-handed sailing. > > > I sail single-handed 95% of the time, just because I like going sailing > and do it a lot. But it's important for all of us to realize that when we > take others along, we do have responsibilities for their safety and > well-being. (Why did my text just change??). It's one of those things > that we ought to think about often--but often don't until something like > this reminds us. Our obligations are legal but also moral. When we do > training for new crew members on our local schooner, I discuss the old > tradition of crew griping about the captain. I remind them that our > captains take on a huge responsibility when they set sail with a large boat > and a mostly older, amateur crew. They're responsible for getting the boat > and its crew safely home again. It's easy to second guess when you don't > have that responsibility. > > Chris Campbell > > >

On 10/25/2012 10:21 AM, chris123 wrote: > > > It may sound silly but a friend on mine for this exact reason has > everyone who came on board, including me sign a release that was > basically a "force majour" statement releasing him and his estate from > all liabilities and obligations. He was a contract manager so it was a > pretty good document. You came on board willingly and at you own risk > and gave up your rights and that of you family should you not come > home in one piece. When I asked him why...his response was interesting. > > While I am the captain of this vessel, and am responsible for everyone > and everything on board, the legal system is so twisted that someone > could sue me if they decide to do something foolish, say break their > ankle while horsing around on a non assigned task. People are silly > that way and no longer respect the sea and it power. Hmm I though good > answer. Of course, anybody with the filing fee in their pocket can sue you for anything; the question is whether their claim is valid or not. Many jurisdictions will scrutinize waivers like that very carefully and disregard them if they attempt to limit the liability of a person who acts negligently, especially if it's a person who's in a better position than the signer to know and understand the risks involved. It would make me a bit nervous to sail with somebody who transmitted his awareness of risk into a waiver form, as opposed to somebody whose understanding of the risks led him to keep good PFDs, throwable devices, fire extinguishers, and a properly maintained boat. Chris Campbell

I don't think its weaselly at all. Its all how its played. Trust and integrity is the most important aspect between skipper and crew. That does not always extend to family members who are clueless about the sport or those elements of the legal community who seek to appease such intentions to gain margin. Lefts face it, sailing is one of the most splendid past times and professions depending on how far you take it. Nothing should distract from that. In that context an agreement between parties can be served and more importantly negotiated with a high level of dignity and respect for the sport. Same said for skiing. You don't see downhill racers families going after the US or CDN skiing federation cause some lad or gal flew off the course at 120 mph into the crash barriers and is paralysed for life. Why cause its accepted as part of the sport and there are agreements in place. In some circles, and the America's Cup is a perfect example, sailing is seen as the sport and endeavour of the rich and famous. Sad, as anyone can get a boat in this market and have the time of their life and be better person for it. Love your boat, respect your crew, cover your ass....the new mantra as times change. Alternatively go solo....now there's a challenge. /ch

"Love your boat, respect your crew, cover your ass..." Chris, it is poetry. Meanwhile, hurricane is a comin'. Wonder who I can sue for that. I have a lady friend and sailing compatriot(ess) who works for FEMA. Maybe... Cheers Charlie From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chris123 Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:25 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: [External] Re: [Cal_Boats] LAW SUIT I don't think its weaselly at all. Its all how its played. Trust and integrity is the most important aspect between skipper and crew. That does not always extend to family members who are clueless about the sport or those elements of the legal community who seek to appease such intentions to gain margin. Lefts face it, sailing is one of the most splendid past times and professions depending on how far you take it. Nothing should distract from that. In that context an agreement between parties can be served and more importantly negotiated with a high level of dignity and respect for the sport. Same said for skiing. You don't see downhill racers families going after the US or CDN skiing federation cause some lad or gal flew off the course at 120 mph into the crash barriers and is paralysed for life. Why cause its accepted as part of the sport and there are agreements in place. In some circles, and the America's Cup is a perfect example, sailing is seen as the sport and endeavour of the rich and famous. Sad, as anyone can get a boat in this market and have the time of their life and be better person for it. Love your boat, respect your crew, cover your ass....the new mantra as times change. Alternatively go solo....now there's a challenge. /ch

The two are not mutually Chris C. One assumes the other. I have a good friend who was a tall ship captain for many years (30). Sailed from Auz to England and back on a seasonal basis. They had 4 permanent crew and 20-30 paid volunteers. The first week is spend on nothing but safety drills, yet everyone signs a release. Its just one more aspect that needs to be considered as http://www.sailtraininginternational.org/ could not exist if it were not indemnified from risk. Much of the preservation of these old schooners is on a voluntary donation basis and funding sources are tied to individuals rather then governments who lack interest. Hence the insurance requirement is rather high and to some degree dictates the terms. You make a good point however. Incompetence cannot be covered by a "force majour" statement that you sign. So there is an out if you can demonstrate that the skipper or crew was negligent. This is rare however but I feel the same way you do. A piece of paper does not replace seamanship and the inherent responsibilities assigned too and accepted by every Captn of every vessel. Its my pet peeve therefore and am very reluctant to refer to boat owners as Captn. I prefer skipper. Captn is something you earn. Case in point. One of the highlights of my young sailing adventures was in Cape May were I befriended the "old boys" who were working the marina: Collectively, 74, 84, 92, and 60 something. Spend two weeks working on the A-4 to rebuild her in port. Had coffee with these lads every morning at 0600. The day I left, the senior in the group, the most seasoned of the bunch, addressed me as captn after we planned the course to exit the harbour safely to NYC. I was never more proud...such an honour. The next day I was back, engine was foobared and while to this day I think I could have made NYC, I made the safe decision and returned to Cape May and ran the boat up the Delaware to a non descript marina. He just smiled..."good call Captn"....we were on a first name basis all week. But when it came to operating the vessel....this dignity was bestowed and one that I remain grateful fore. A year later he passed away. While I did not deserve that title, it sure made me aware of the obligations and responsibilities I had for and with that vessel. Hence the call to turn around and bring her into port. Best regards /ch

Heck its Sat night, miss my boat so reading my favourite blog and watching youtube vids..:) see: www.thesimplesailor.com and associated vids on youtube. Its the kind of sailing I enjoy and aspire too. It will take a long time to build up that level of skill however. Hence it fascinates me. LOL....she wont be your friend anymore Charlie if you do....what bothers me is that the arguments presented in this case are presented by the surviving members of the families. To me that does not consider the wishes nor aspirations of the captain and crew of that particular vessel and demonstrates a high degree of selfishness. Heck that's me however. Others will have a different opinion. As you know, Ive lost friends at sea and it would really grieve and pain me if someone in the affected families would start something like this, even if wrong decisions were made and a post accident assessment indicates that there probably were. You just learn to accept that people make choices and yes they affect you. Suck it up and move on. Take the time you need to grieve but making a show of it just reflects poorly on your character. Vindictiveness is nothing more then a selfish way to deal with loss and reflects poorly on the memories of those lost at sea. They should be remembered, but not in court room. Who really wins and what do you win? Money?....what did that ever solve? /ch On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Husar, Charlie [USA] (ASE) < hu… [at] bah.com> wrote: > > > “Love your boat, respect your crew, cover your ass...”**** > > ** ** > > Chris, it is poetry.**** > > >

In my book there are no levels of nastiness Allen. Its either nasty or its benevolent. No shades of grey here. Why do people feel a need to put stuff on Facebook? 92 percent of the US population and some 70 percent of the Canadian population have accounts and wash their laundry on Facebook. Ummm when was the last time someone wrote me a letter? Hand written. Those are really prized commodities in my book. Perhaps I'm showing my age...not that I dislike IT, heck I used to work in the sector and still play with it but to me it demonstrates a lack of (a) personalization and more importantly (b) an ability to communicate effectively. If these two parties sat down over dinner with a couple of bottles of wine, lots of tears and at the end of the night, big hugs and a resolution to the problem. Don't understand why folks feel "the system needs to take care of their problems" Ultimately since its an insurance issue the system does come into play, but what is wrong with presenting a unified front that all parties have agreed to prior to dealing with the "process" Face to face discussion usually works best even if a mediator is present or required. And please not Dr. Phil. That don't hunt..:) I did read the article and its sad that has it has to come to this. /ch

On 10/25/2012 10:19 AM, Wayne Gillikin wrote: > > > Last time I went skiing I actually read the "agreement" I make with > the ski area when I buy a lift ticket. It talks all about how I > understand that skiing is in inherently dangerous sport and that I > can't blame the operator if I get injured in the participation of that > sport. Has anyone ever considered executing the same weasely > agreement with crew? If anybody wants to try this, you must consult with a lawyer who practices personal injury or business law in your state and is familiar with such disclaimers. They have been treated in various ways by different states. Unless your disclaimer is drafted in accordance with the law of your state and is effective to accomplish its purpose, you're deluding yourself. It's an illusion of protection. Chris Campbell

On 10/26/2012 2:43 AM, chris123 wrote: > > Ummm when was the last time someone wrote me a letter? Hand written. > Those are really prized commodities in my book. Perhaps I'm showing my > age...not that I dislike IT, heck I used to work in the sector and > still play with it but to me it demonstrates a lack of (a) > personalization and more importantly (b) an ability to communicate > effectively. OK, I hand-write letters of condolence. The rest are all typed. Some are printed and mailed; many are e-mailed. I find that the computer produces documents that people can actually read, as compared with my hand-scrawls. Also, because I'm an inept typist, the typing process goes along at a good speed for my brain. My typed stuff is better thought out. Also, it's easy to revise. I can sound smarter than I am. The main purpose of a hand written letter today is just to show that you value someone's friendship enough to take the time to do it. That's why you do it for condolences. But for communication, typed documents are far superior. We just had a 90th birthday party for my mom. We somehow convinced her brother to come up from Alabama for the event. He holds to the "computers are evil" view of old farts everywhere. As a result, he misses out on the brief news updates and e-mailed photos that the rest of the family get to see. As a result of examples like his, I've learned to be more open to innovations and change. My own policy is to respond slowly to technological change--let others be the early adopters--but not an absolutist in opposition. The only form of technology that stays out of my house is the TV, which has no purpose. I'd rather be doing something than watching somebody else do it. Chris Campbell