RED is a registered trademark

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Why do I see the following companies on google search with RED in there company name??

www.redonerental.net
redcameranetwork.com
www.4kredrentals.com
www.redeyerental.com

I am quite sure Red is aware of them as noted elsewhere. They may have predated the Red camera company, or they may have a license agreement, or they may already have been a case that adjudicated them. A judge may have decided that they are in different markets and thus do not compete. There might simply be a "gentleman's agreement."

Let me share an unrelated example: Supermarkets.

I grew up with a chain of grocery stored called Giant. It was founded in 1936 in Washington DC.

When I moved to Pennsylvania, to play ice hockey, I was happy to see Giant was there as well ... or so I thought. It was a different chain, established in 1923- but its original name was Carlisle Meat Market. They started using the name Giant in ... you guessed it 1936 in Lewistown PA.

Naturally there was a trademark dispute. In this case the dispute wasn't addressed until they were both expanding into neighboring areas- nearly 60 years later.

In order to settle the dispute, the Central PA Giant was permitted to keep using the trade name Giant in Central PA, and agreed to change their trade dress and business name to "Giant Eagle" in areas where the DC Giant operated.

Giant Food of DC, a smaller chain, was allowed to keep its name in the DC metro area and surrounds.

Eventually the whole thing became moot because the PA Giant's parent company, Netherlands based Ahold, bought the DC Metro area Giant in 1998. (Oddly enough Ahold uses different trade names and trade dress for these two Giant markets even now more than a decade after acquiring the DC based chain.)

So, my point is that there are all sorts of complicated arrangements, including specific market and operating area limitations for example, that can be imposed or agreed to. For the most part litigants can not discuss them. You have to dig out what you can from the public record usually- or otherwise be "in the know."

I am not a lawyer, and I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express either. I have photographed an actor portraying a lawyer, and I once was engaged to a lawyer- which of course means I am entirely unqualified to practice law, and the above isn't legal advice, or even a bad mockery thereof.

 

[andrewhake]

Here's a tip. Don't use another companies name in your company name. I don't think there is any instance where this is a good idea that in any way respects the original company you are referencing, even if you have their approval.

If you can't market your product/services without using their name. . .

 

[Tom Jordan]

Well here we are agian!! REDCAMCENTRAL DBA Intelligent Interiors. What's that all about?? Not sure if they have a gentlemen's agreement granted buy a court of law like Alexander quotes but they are using the name RED in there company name and there forum looks a lot like REDuser. Just a concerned Rental house that is merrily confused with all this. I'm sure it wouldn't go over to well if they used Apple's name or even Arri.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Well here we are agian!! REDCAMCENTRAL DBA Intelligent Interiors. What's that all about?? Not sure if they have a gentlemen's agreement granted buy a court of law like Alexander quotes but they are using the name RED in there company name and there forum looks a lot like REDuser. Just a concerned Rental house that is merrily confused with all this. I'm sure it wouldn't go over to well if they used Apple's name or even Arri.

Not sure where you are going with this? - you have red in your name. Red set themselves up for it by using an EXTREMELY generic term - it's one of the three primary colors after all !!!

Trademarking is complicated to begin with but generally the more generic the term the more specific and limited you are in being able to protect a particular use. But also a lot of gray area and as a result you leave judges a lot of room to be discretionary/arbitrary, thus the money has a significant advantage.

As for use of a term in a corporate or LLC name, there are thousands of companies with the same name in different states since the secretary of state will only check for duplicates in that state.

Below is just the first page from the florida division of corporations search on RED - there are hundreds with Red in the name - as you can see there is a RED 1 corporation - originally filed in 1991. And there's dozens with RED Apple in the name.

R E D INC 255097 INACT
RED, INC. 318085 INACT
R.E.D., INC. J14720 INACT
R.E.D. INC. P02000016914 INACT
RED & CO., INC. P06000100239 INACT
RED & CO., INC. P10000070188 ACT
RED, LLC L05000028984 ACT
RED CORPORATION, LLC W11000027851 ACT
RED T07000000839 ACT
RED 1, INC. S91011 INACT
RED 13, LLC L11000078040 ACT
RED 1 SERVICES, INC P10000006026 ACT
RED22 ENTERTAINMENT LLC L09000064130 INACT/UA
RED 23, INC. P07000110877 INACT
RED 29 CORP P07000023010 NAME HS
RED 2 BLACK CONSULTING, INC. P09000092064 INACT/UA
RED 2 BLACK FINANCIAL, LLC L09000078230 ACT
RED2BLACK MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING, LLC L06000071111 ACT
RED2BLACK SOLUTIONS LLC L10000130019 ACT
RED2 SOLUTIONS, LLC L11000045053 ACT
RED 3 MEDIA, INC. P10000018180 ACT
RED 4, LTD. A02254 INACT
RED4CUPCAKES LLC L11000029303 ACT

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Not sure if they have a gentlemen's agreement granted buy a court of law like Alexander quotes

I can see you did not understand what I wrote.

Those are two different things.

A court order has the binding force of law. That would be a "judgment", "finding of law" or "finding of fact." This is almost always a matter of "civil" i.e. non criminal court. (It can rise to the level of criminal if one party ignores the courts prior judgement ... I think the criminal charge would be "contempt of court.")

A "gentlemen's agreement" is a non-binding verbal contract, adhered to mostly as a result of each parties integrity or honor. As the name implies its just an agreement, usually reached amicably, between two parties.

(At the time of the phrases origin, gentlemen was accurate, but now a gentlemen's agreement could just as well include women. The phrase is anachronistic, though I know of no suitably modern "politically correct" replacement.)

I urgently remind you that I am not a lawyer, nor have I even played one on TV. You'd be an idiot to take this as legal advice. Consult your own attorney.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Filing for, or having ownership of a business name registration has nothing to do with a trademark. The thing with trademarks is they are tricky to protect, especially when such a common word is used as the mark. RED has a registered trademark (registered with the USPTO and some other international administrative bodies). Their primary trademark is for "RED" and applies to film, video, imaging, etc.. technology. There are existing trademarks for the word "RED" that apply to other products and industries as well... To retain a trademark, one has to do their best to protect it. That means you have to act like a bully at times and go after people who may be infringing. Same with patents, that's why we see a lot of the big guys like Apple, Samsung, etc.. sue each other over patent infringements, only to settle out with other business deals and such down the road. Sometimes the disputes are real and get heated, but most of the time, it's simply companies working to protect their brands or ideas, due to how the surrounding laws work.

The REDCAMCENTRAL.COM site has been around for a long time and is operated by a prominent reduser member. I'm not sure what the purpose of the forum is, 99% of all the posts and info there is just regurgitated info from here on reduser, posted by the site's owner. I can't believe that RED is OK, with the site or the name, so yeah, I'm surprised it hasn't been pulled down.

With RED's trademark for "RED", they can keep other camera or imaging tech companies from creating products called "RED" this or that. They can also stop another company from calling itself "RED", if that company happens to provide products or services within the industries or markets protected by RED's trademark. But "RED" being a descriptive term will make it exceptionally difficult to pursue an infringement on compound names or descriptive titles. For example, RED could go after a company calling itself "RED", "RED MEDIA", "RED CINEMA", "RED FILMS", etc.. But they would have a hard time going after a company named "RED LETTER MEDIA", "RED PANDA PICTURES" or "RED GRIFFITH PHOTOGRAPHY". In the case of that last example, which is a real company, not only is it a compound descriptor, but "RED GRIFFITH" happens to be the name of the owner. And using a person's legal name for a business name tends to supersede any registered trademark, provided the person who's name is in question has a functional role in a business related to that product or service (or had when the company, product or service was started) and that business, product or service was in place before the competing trademark was filed.

In some of those examples above, there may be some infringements, but some may not be. For example, "RED 3 MEDIA, INC" could be OK... And they could probably get their own trademark on "RED 3".

This is a big reason why so many businesses will change spelling for products for trademarking them. ...Some of them eventually get accepted into common lingo, like "DONUT". And now, many people don't know that's not the proper way to spell doughnut and it has become hard to protect it... It's also hard to protect against certain things like REDRENTALS.COM. They exist (it's Indie Rentals, actually) and they rent RED cameras and related gear. So I suppose they (RED) have to ask themselves if it's worth the hassle and fight, getting them to stop using it? Or is it better to just let Indie Rentals do it, help promote their brand, make something mutually beneficial out of it.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

I think someone asked the pertinent question a long time ago: "would you have 'Red' in your company name if the RED camera didn't exist?"

I occasionally shoot fire scenes, and have done since before RED existed; I can't see there would be a problem with 'Code Red Productions', for example, in that specific area.

Mike

 

[Tom Jordan]

Filing for, or having ownership of a business name registration has nothing to do with a trademark. The thing with trademarks is they are tricky to protect, especially when such a common word is used as the mark. RED has a registered trademark (registered with the USPTO and some other international administrative bodies). Their primary trademark is for "RED" and applies to film, video, imaging, etc.. technology. There are existing trademarks for the word "RED" that apply to other products and industries as well... To retain a trademark, one has to do their best to protect it. That means you have to act like a bully at times and go after people who may be infringing. Same with patents, that's why we see a lot of the big guys like Apple, Samsung, etc.. sue each other over patent infringements, only to settle out with other business deals and such down the road. Sometimes the disputes are real and get heated, but most of the time, it's simply companies working to protect their brands or ideas, due to how the surrounding laws work.

The REDCAMCENTRAL.COM site has been around for a long time and is operated by a prominent reduser member. I'm not sure what the purpose of the forum is, 99% of all the posts and info there is just regurgitated info from here on reduser, posted by the site's owner. I can't believe that RED is OK, with the site or the name, so yeah, I'm surprised it hasn't been pulled down.

With RED's trademark for "RED", they can keep other camera or imaging tech companies from creating products called "RED" this or that. They can also stop another company from calling itself "RED", if that company happens to provide products or services within the industries or markets protected by RED's trademark. But "RED" being a descriptive term will make it exceptionally difficult to pursue an infringement on compound names or descriptive titles. For example, RED could go after a company calling itself "RED", "RED MEDIA", "RED CINEMA", "RED FILMS", etc.. But they would have a hard time going after a company named "RED LETTER MEDIA", "RED PANDA PICTURES" or "RED GRIFFITH PHOTOGRAPHY". In the case of that last example, which is a real company, not only is it a compound descriptor, but "RED GRIFFITH" happens to be the name of the owner. And using a person's legal name for a business name tends to supersede any registered trademark, provided the person who's name is in question has a functional role in a business related to that product or service (or had when the company, product or service was started) and that business, product or service was in place before the competing trademark was filed.

In some of those examples above, there may be some infringements, but some may not be. For example, "RED 3 MEDIA, INC" could be OK... And they could probably get their own trademark on "RED 3".

This is a big reason why so many businesses will change spelling for products for trademarking them. ...Some of them eventually get accepted into common lingo, like "DONUT". And now, many people don't know that's not the proper way to spell doughnut and it has become hard to protect it... It's also hard to protect against certain things like REDRENTALS.COM. They exist (it's Indie Rentals, actually) and they rent RED cameras and related gear. So I suppose they (RED) have to ask themselves if it's worth the hassle and fight, getting them to stop using it? Or is it better to just let Indie Rentals do it, help promote their brand, make something mutually beneficial out of it.

Jeff,
Thank you for the clarification. As Jim posted sometime ago "Please don't use "RED" in your name. I respect him and his wishes as well as his product.

 

[Tom Jordan]

Not sure where you are going with this? - you have red in your name. Red set themselves up for it by using an EXTREMELY generic term - it's one of the three primary colors after all !!!

Trademarking is complicated to begin with but generally the more generic the term the more specific and limited you are in being able to protect a particular use. But also a lot of gray area and as a result you leave judges a lot of room to be discretionary/arbitrary, thus the money has a significant advantage.

As for use of a term in a corporate or LLC name, there are thousands of companies with the same name in different states since the secretary of state will only check for duplicates in that state.

Below is just the first page from the florida division of corporations search on RED - there are hundreds with Red in the name - as you can see there is a RED 1 corporation - originally filed in 1991. And there's dozens with RED Apple in the name.

R E D INC 255097 INACT
RED, INC. 318085 INACT
R.E.D., INC. J14720 INACT
R.E.D. INC. P02000016914 INACT
RED & CO., INC. P06000100239 INACT
RED & CO., INC. P10000070188 ACT
RED, LLC L05000028984 ACT
RED CORPORATION, LLC W11000027851 ACT
RED T07000000839 ACT
RED 1, INC. S91011 INACT
RED 13, LLC L11000078040 ACT
RED 1 SERVICES, INC P10000006026 ACT
RED22 ENTERTAINMENT LLC L09000064130 INACT/UA
RED 23, INC. P07000110877 INACT
RED 29 CORP P07000023010 NAME HS
RED 2 BLACK CONSULTING, INC. P09000092064 INACT/UA
RED 2 BLACK FINANCIAL, LLC L09000078230 ACT
RED2BLACK MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING, LLC L06000071111 ACT
RED2BLACK SOLUTIONS LLC L10000130019 ACT
RED2 SOLUTIONS, LLC L11000045053 ACT
RED 3 MEDIA, INC. P10000018180 ACT
RED 4, LTD. A02254 INACT
RED4CUPCAKES LLC L11000029303 ACT

Michael, Where do you see RED in my name?? Digital 4K Planet Cameras..I don't see it?

 

[Tom Jordan]

Here's a tip. Don't use another companies name in your company name. I don't think there is any instance where this is a good idea that in any way respects the original company you are referencing, even if you have their approval.

If you can't market your product/services without using their name. . .

I concur.

 

[Tom Jordan]

I think someone asked the pertinent question a long time ago: "would you have 'Red' in your company name if the RED camera didn't exist?"

I occasionally shoot fire scenes, and have done since before RED existed; I can't see there would be a problem with 'Code Red Productions', for example, in that specific area.

Mike

Mike,
If you own a RED and rent that product out..Say no more. I do think that's a cool name if your a fireman.

 

[Tom Jordan]

I can see you did not understand what I wrote.

Those are two different things.

A court order has the binding force of law. That would be a "judgment", "finding of law" or "finding of fact." This is almost always a matter of "civil" i.e. non criminal court. (It can rise to the level of criminal if one party ignores the courts prior judgement ... I think the criminal charge would be "contempt of court.")

A "gentlemen's agreement" is a non-binding verbal contract, adhered to mostly as a result of each parties integrity or honor. As the name implies its just an agreement, usually reached amicably, between two parties.

(At the time of the phrases origin, gentlemen was accurate, but now a gentlemen's agreement could just as well include women. The phrase is anachronistic, though I know of no suitably modern "politically correct" replacement.)

I urgently remind you that I am not a lawyer, nor have I even played one on TV. You'd be an idiot to take this as legal advice. Consult your own attorney.

Alexander,
I did misunderstand. I appreciate your intelligent level when it does come to this type of advise. You should have been a lawyer. I would have hired you for all my legal affairs. Thanks!

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Mike,
If you own a RED and rent that product out..Say no more. I do think that's a cool name if your a fireman.

Oh hell no, I drag the Nikon to fire scenes, not the RED! That was my point: 'Code Red' passes the "would you have 'Red' in your company name if the RED camera didn't exist?" test!

That may change with EPIC; that's small and light enough to be manageable.

Mike

 

[Michael Hastings]

Michael, Where do you see RED in my name?? Digital 4K Planet Cameras..I don't see it?

I thought redconnector.com was one of yours.

 

[Tom Jordan]

I thought redconnector.com was one of yours.

Michael, I guess you have never heard of redconnector.com before. It's a very helpful site to be connected with.

 

[Tom Jordan]

"The REDCAMCENTRAL.COM site has been around for a long time and is operated by a prominent reduser member. I'm not sure what the purpose of the forum is, 99% of all the posts and info there is just regurgitated info from here on reduser, posted by the site's owner. I can't believe that RED is OK, with the site or the name, so yeah, I'm surprised it hasn't been pulled down."


Jeff,
I am also surprised that REDCAMCENTRAL has not been pulled down. How is Mr. Green allowed to use this name as a rental company which supplies equipment that is manufactured by RED? Unless someone underneath Jim gave the okay?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Quite possibly they just ignored any cease & desist letters, as they believe they have the right to use the name. Red can take them to court if they wish, however the outcome is not guaranteed.

"The REDCAMCENTRAL.COM site has been around for a long time and is operated by a prominent reduser member. I'm not sure what the purpose of the forum is, 99% of all the posts and info there is just regurgitated info from here on reduser, posted by the site's owner. I can't believe that RED is OK, with the site or the name, so yeah, I'm surprised it hasn't been pulled down."


Jeff,
I am also surprised that REDCAMCENTRAL has not been pulled down. How is Mr. Green allowed to use this name as a rental company which supplies equipment that is manufactured by RED? Unless someone underneath Jim gave the okay?

 

[Keith Walters]

The usual problem with this sort of thing is that companies are very wary of private individuals giving the impression that they somehow are the company’s representative, and thus have the authority to speak on behalf of the company.

Arri would be perfectly happy for Fred’s Kamera Rentals of Crackpot Falls Missouri to buy Arri cameras and rent them out, and they’ll probably even cough up some free Arri posters and other promotional material.

What they won’t allow is for Fred to rename his company something like “Crackpot Falls Arri Rentals” because that may give the impression that they are authorized Arri agents, with an implied authority to speak on Arri’s behalf.
Apart from that, there would be a general perception that a company called “Arri Rentals” (or suchlike) would enjoy the backup of the Arri company generally, making them a better bet to rent equipment from and so on. This will generally not be the case with an organization that essentially consists of a private individual or individuals who have simply purchased some Arri Equipment and hope to rent it out.

The other problem is the ”loose Cannon” element: People who make inflammatory remarks or carry out other undesirable activities in the mistaken belief that that it will somehow be to the benefit of their “cause of choice”.

For Example the current philosophy of the Red company could be approximately summed up as:

“Look, film is great, there’s still an enormous amount respect for film out there, and we understand that. But, if for whatever reason - budget, logistics, timeframe constraints, or simple personal preference – film isn’t your option, why leave your precious source footage forever fossilized in 1920 x 1080 pixels (or even 1920 x 820 if you’re doing 2.35:1)?

OK, maybe it’ll never appear as anything more than 1920 x 1080, but we can't help noticing a lot of 60s and 70s TV shows are currently scrubbing up really well on HD, and nobody ever thought they would ever be shown on anything but 525 line NTSC either.

Why not use one of our cameras? Our cameras will give you AT LEAST four times the pixel count of most of our competitors’ offerings, AND you get 35mm type depth of field, AND you can use standard Cine lenses, AND even our most expensive models are still pretty cheap compared to the competition. All that, AND the future-proofing of 5K capture.”

So far, so reasonable.

However, if your read through the posts on the Reduser forum, (and other places), over and over again, you keep getting people proudly trumpeting RED’s status as the “Film-Slayer”, the “Panavision Slaughterer”, the “Arri Assassinator” (OK I made that one up :smile5

That’s NOT the opinion of the company, and it does nothing to enhance the product’s reputation, quite the reverse. There's no "Celluloid Ceiling" that RED cameras are going somehow smash through, although a frightening number of people seem to imagine there is....

The bottom line is, if you allow people to self-appoint themselves as chosen disciples of any particular movement (whether it’s political, religious or technological) you’re forever going to risk being embarrassed by their ill-advised attempts at striking a blow “for the cause”.

These things ALWAYS come back to bite the company on the arse, never the idiots responsible….

So for most companies, it's simply a case of "Don't Go There"...

 

[Emanuel A.]

(...)

So for most companies, it's simply a case of "Don't Go There"...

Keith, apart the rest that can be considered acceptable... why on that one? 'cause you said?

If to read you on cinematography.com was always (OK, or almost most part of the time... LOL ) a funny experience to share since the early beginning your oldest avatar days ;-) here, it is simply a must !

You should post more often over these boards

E

 

[Stephen Williams]

Keith,

If to read you on cinematography.com was always (OK, or almost most part of the time... LOL ) a funny experience to share since the early beginning your oldest avatar days ;-) here, it is simply a must !

You should post more often over these boards

E

Well all of the posts Keith has made in the last few years seem to make sense, perhaps his account was hacked? IIRC even Jim's was here.