 |
|
|
|||||
Dallas is prepared to spend big to protect its logo. In fact, the Dallas City Council voted last week to spend up to $200,000 as part of a federal lawsuit to cancel the trademark of Triple D Gear, a Dallas apparel company that the city argues uses a logo so similar to its own that it causes confusion. One sign of a good civic mark, whether it’s a logo or a flag, is whether it becomes a symbol of popular expression. People get tattoos of the Chicago flag, for example, but not the flag of Illinois (hence the state’s efforts to redesign it). The Dallas logo, then, has done its job. Maybe too well. The city’s logo, which has been in use since 1972, features concentric D shapes made from three stripes with a stylized tree in the center. It’s a great logominimalist and contemporary, even at more than 50 years old. The city considered scrapping the logo in 2015, but ultimately decided against it. From left: the Triple D Gear logo; the city of Dallas logo According to the city, Dallas registered its logo as a trademark in 1972 in the state of Texas. It wasn’t until 2020 that the city filed for federal trademark protection. By that time, Triple D Gear had already registered its own logo with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Its logothree concentric Ds with a star in the middlehad been trademarked since 2014 for use on apparel and athletic gear. It later filed for another trademark in 2020 for a logo showing just the concentric Ds. When Triple D Gear founder Turo Sanchez appeared on Good Morning Texas in 2018, he said, Basically, we took the city of Dallas logo and we just put a star in it and tilted it. When the show’s host joked that they’d get sued by the city, Sanchez’s co-owner noted that the companys logo was trademarked. It’s a David and Goliath story here, Sanchez tells Fast Company about the legal fight. It’s the big man going against the small business and trying to overpower, especially when the small businesses have been doing everything by the book. He says a trial date is scheduled for May 5. The city of Dallas, which tells Fast Company it does not comment on pending litigation, filed a complaint over the apparel company’s logo in 2021. The USPTO denied Dallas’s petition in 2023, according to the Dallas Morning News, which first reported the legal battle, and the city then filed suit. At issue in the denied petition is whether the city has the right to use the logo on clothing, which Triple D Gear specifically included in its trademark application. The USPTO said the city had not provided enough evidence to prove that it had established use of its logo for apparel. In a brief filed last week, the city of Dallas argued that the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board committed clear legal error in requiring it to show evidence that it specifically used its logo on shirts, noting that its use of the logo on other goods and services, including uniforms for employees, should be enough to prove its case. Perhaps the best example of an often-imitated and beloved city logo is the I NY mark, designed by Milton Glaser. New York has taken great pains to protect the mark, with the New York State Department of Economic Development sending out countless cease-and-desist letters to knockoff versions and requiring prior approval and a license agreement to use it. Dallas has a license agreement with Southern Methodist University (SMU), which has its own concentric D logo that includes its mustang mascot; Triple D Gear filed suit against SMU in 2023. Dallas has such an iconic logo that it’s inspired imitators. Whether or not it has the trademark to it, though, remains to be seen. A federal court could decide.
Category:
E-Commerce
Peavey Industries LP, Canadas largest farm and ranch retailer, has announced the shuttering of all its locations across the country following its filing for creditor protection under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), granted by the Court of Kings Bench Alberta. The closures will impact 90 Peavey Mart stores and six MainStreet Hardware locations, with liquidation sales starting immediately, marking the end of nearly six decades of operations for the Alberta-based company, which has long been a key player in Canadas rural and suburban retail landscape. ‘A profoundly difficult decision’ The news comes as Canada’s retail industry faces unprecedented challenges, including low consumer confidence, inflation, rising costs, supply disruptions, and a tough regulatory environmentfactors that have significantly impacted businesses like Peavey. This was a profoundly difficult decision, but one that allows us to explore the best possible alternatives for the future of the Company, said Doug Anderson, president and CEO of Peavey Industries LP, in a statement. For nearly six decades, our customers’ loyalty, employees’ dedication, and the resilience of the communities we serve have been the cornerstone of our business. We remain focused on working with our partners and stakeholders to preserve the Peavey brand and the value it represents. Gordon Brothers is managing closing sales and liquidation. The investment and restructuring firm has recently managed affairs for bankrupt American retailer Big Lots and recently made a bid for embattled fabrics chain Joann. Store closing sales will offer discounts of up to 30% off the original ticketed prices on agricultural supplies, farm and ranch supplies, workwear, lawn and garden essentials, hardware, and homesteading merchandise, according to Gordon Brothers. A loss to rural communities The closing of the trusted chain will be particularly felt in rural areas. In the city of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, city councillor Laura Morrissette told CBC its local Peavey Mart was seen as an asset for bringing business the core area. Before being elected as councillor for the city of approximately 11,000 people, Morrissette even worked for the retailer. “[We] had a mantra at Peavey Mart,” she said to CBC. “‘If you can’t find it at Peavey Mart, you probably didn’t need it anyway.'”
Category:
E-Commerce
Lawyers representing victims of a deadly Hawaii wildfire reached a last-minute deal averting a trial that was scheduled to begin Wednesday over how to split a $4 billion settlement.The agreement means victims and survivors will not have to testify, reliving in court details of the massive inferno in Lahaina that killed more than 100 people, destroyed thousands of properties and caused an estimated $5.5 billion worth of damage.Before the trial was scheduled to begin Wednesday morning, lawyers met in private with Judge Peter Cahill, who later announced that a deal had been reached. Lawyers, who reached the deal late Tuesday, are expected to file court documents detailing the agreement in a week.Some victims had been ready to take the witness stand, while others submitted pre-recorded testimony, describing pain made all the more fresh by the recent destruction in Los Angeles.“Some folks I’m sure will be disappointed, because in their minds this was their time to share their story,” Jacob Lowenthal, one of the attorneys representing individual plaintiffs, said Wednesday. “Other folks are going to be relieved because they don’t have to go in and testify.”One of the individual plaintiffs is Kevin Baclig, whose wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were among the 102 people known to have died.Baclig said in a declaration that if called to testify he would describe how for three agonizing days he searched for themfrom hotel to hotel, shelter to shelter. “I clung to the fragile hope that maybe they had made it off the island, that they were safe,” he said.A month and a half went by and the grim reality set in. He went to the Philippines to gather DNA samples from his wife’s close relatives there. The samples matched remains found in the fire. He eventually carried urns holding their remains back to the Philippines.“The loss has left me in profound, unrelenting pain,” he said. “There are no words to describe the emptiness I feel or the weight I carry every day.”Hawaii Gov. Josh Green announced the $4 billion settlementagreed by the state, power utility Hawaiian Electric, large landowners and othersabout a year after the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century devastated Lahaina in 2023. At the time, he touted the speed of the deal to “avoid protracted and painful lawsuits.”The trial was supposed to determine a percentage split between two groups of plaintiffs, including some who filed individual lawsuits after losing their family members, homes or businesses, and other victims covered by class-action lawsuits, including tourists who canceled trips to Maui because of the blaze.Only a nominal portion of the settlement should go to tourists whose trips were delayed or canceled, Lowenthal said previously.“The categories of losses that the class is claiming are just grossly insignificant compared to our losses,” he said.Attorneys for the class have not responded to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment on the averted trial.In their trial brief, they challenged the idea that everyone who has a claim worth suing over had already done so. Many people held off hiring attorneys, the brief said, because of the fire’s disruption to life, “distrust in heavy attorney advertising, and a desire to see how the process plays out first.”Separately, the state Supreme Court is considering whether insurers can sue the defendants for reimbursement for the $2 billion-plus they have paid out in fire claims, or whether their share must come from the $4 billion settlement. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for Feb. 6.“That is the last big piece that needs to be decided before the global settlement can move forward,” Lowenthal said. Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||