[medium jim]

From outside the bubble, I feel this is a much a do about nothing thing.  DAC (Cherry) is making Class D amps, whereas Bob Carver is making old school Iron.  Two completely different crowds and demographics, not to mention price points.   

Each will live based on their individual merits and maybe the new guy, DAC, will benefit from it all in the end as many will search "Cherry Amplification" or "Cherry Amp" and the Class D amp will get that exposure. 

However, maybe Gibson Guitar should complain as the companion Bob Carver Tube Amp is called the "Black Beauty", which any guitarist would associate with the Gibson Les Paul Custom....

Jim

[Devil Doc]

Black Beauty? I thought it was a bowling ball.

Doc

[Goosepond]

And I thought it was a horse! 

Gene

[bside123]

Black Beauty? I thought it was a bowling ball.

Doc

I've owned and played a Gibson Les Paul Black Beauty, and they are as heavy as a horse.

[werd]

Guess I had the same thought Bob did, just saw it as a color description.  I'm on the road until Sunday night and will make the appropriate change in our website.  Honestly, this was my mistake.  I don't think anyone was out to disparage either of you, didn't really think the word "cherry" described either of your products beyond the casework.  Sorry for the confusion.

Audio publications are allowed to make mistakes every once in awhile.   

Best post so far on this topic.

[doug s.]

"...Yes, I know it's a tube amp, but to have the Cherry name associated with <potentially disparaging remark removed> is just <potentially disparaging remark removed>...."

"Yes, I know it's a tube amp, but to have the Cherry name associated with <potentially overwhelmingly positive remark removed> is just <potentially overwhelmingly positive remark removed>."

there, i fixed it for ya!   

if any confusion exists between these products, (which i find hard to imagine), i cannot see how it could possibly affect the digital amplification company in a negative way...

ymmv,

doug s.

[chrisby]

"no such thing as bad publicity" / "unintended consequences" - two sides of the same coin?


look at all the ink you've given to Bob's products

and seriously, who would after the most cursory look confuse your two company's products?

[dangerbird]

I see it as a color description,,more than anything else.

[Letitroll98]

You pour your heart and soul into your company, develop technology over many years of exhausting work, and build a brand from scratch to market your products..... 

.....And you don't bother to Trademark the name of the company's product?  I don't mean to be harsh personally to you in any way, but unfortunately the judgement of your lack of foresight here is harsh by nature.  I'd have to go along with the other's opinions here in that it prolly hasn't caused major financial harm so far, which would be fortunate. 

However I'd have to point out another potential error, you've notified the larger company, the one with significantly more resources, that there may be a Trademark issue between you when previous to that email they viewed it as a description of color.  You haven't heard from their President because he's busy having his attorneys apply for that Trademark before you do, or at the very least weigh in with their opinions on what action to take before replying to you.  I cannot fathom why you wouldn't be following the same course of action as I write this, other than it's the weekend.  It may indeed be just a color description to them, but for you it's your livelihood.

Please be assured that these harsh judgments are made in your best interest in an effort to have you protect your product name, and not any attack on your character.  I don't own any of your products, but you're part of the AC family and I would be deeply concerned if I were you.  As it costs virtually nothing to act now, today, to make efforts at protecting your interests, I urge you to do so.  All the best. 

[Wayner]

Actually, the English language has separated the two very nicely. In the case of DAC's Cherry amplifier, it's used as a noun.

In the case of Carver's amp, the Cherry 180, it's used as an adverb.

There is no case.

Wayner

[Bill Baker]

There are in fact a few different trademarks for "Cherry". It's not just the word but also the type of font, shape and any special artifacts that make it unique. There is also a trademark on "Cherry" that also has the cherry fruits as part of the word.

As other have mentioned, I do not think this would be a negative thing especially when you consider how many people will be googling "cherry amp". You may come out of this much better than you would expect. As LetitroII98 mentioned, I think you are now giving Bob Carver more publicity with this thread.

As far as knowing Bob Carver personally, I just met and spoke to him personally for the first time when we showed together at Axpona. I don't have any say on how he identifies his products.

I have obviously heard both yours and Carver's amps and they are both exceptional pieces. I don't think there will be any confussion between the two companies.

You have a fine product Tom that stands on it's own merits. I would not worry about any negative effect coming from this.

[Devil Doc]

I'm resisting the urge to be pedantic.

Doc

[macrojack]

I'm not - it's an adjective, Wayner.

[chrisby]

I'm resisting the urge to be pedantic.

Doc

you should understand the harm in keeping it bottled up


wayne,  did you mean adjective?

well, maybe if listening to the amp made you feel all rosy and warm, it would be cheery and cherry at the same time 



dammit Wayne, you beat me to it,

[SlushPuppy]

Actually, the English language has separated the two very nicely. In the case of DAC's Cherry amplifier, it's used as a noun.

In the case of Carver's amp, the Cherry 180, it's used as an adverb.

There is no case.

Wayner

Actually, you're wrong.

I think this entire thread is ridiculous and I don't give a $hit either way, but if you click on this link: http://www.bobcarver.com/pdf/VTA180M_Manual_v2.12.pdf it will take you to the VTA 180 manual. The top of the document says "CHERRY 180 Watt Vacuum Tube Amplifier". The first line states: "This manual provides general, ongoing use and safety information of the Cherry 180 (VTA180M) Mono
Block Amplifier." According to that the two are the same - not based on color. The website itself states: "The Cherry 180 Mono Block Amplifier is the little brother of the Black Beauty 305 and provides the same sonic performance at a more affordable price point." One of the last lines in the VTA 180 document says: "Color: Cherry Red with Champagne Trim (may be ordered in black)". Spin that any way you want, but as stated in the manual, the two are the same.

I always thought "Cherry" was a stupid name for an amp anyway. Now would be a good time to change it.


And to the dumb-ass that wrote this for Carver: "The Cherry 180 Mono Block Amplifier is the little brother of the Black Beauty 305 and provides the same sonic performance at a more affordable price point." - Why the "f" would I buy the more expensive model if the performance is the same


Slush

[munosmario]

.....And you don't bother to Trademark the name of the company's product?  I don't mean to be harsh personally to you in any way, but unfortunately the judgement of your lack of foresight here is harsh by nature.  I'd have to go along with the other's opinions here in that it prolly hasn't caused major financial harm so far, which would be fortunate. 

However I'd have to point out another potential error, you've notified the larger company, the one with significantly more resources, that there may be a Trademark issue between you when previous to that email they viewed it as a description of color.  You haven't heard from their President because he's busy having his attorneys apply for that Trademark before you do, or at the very least weigh in with their opinions on what action to take before replying to you.  I cannot fathom why you wouldn't be following the same course of action as I write this, other than it's the weekend.  It may indeed be just a color description to them, but for you it's your livelihood.

Please be assured that these harsh judgments are made in your best interest in an effort to have you protect your product name, and not any attack on your character.  I don't own any of your products, but you're part of the AC family and I would be deeply concerned if I were you.  As it costs virtually nothing to act now, today, to make efforts at protecting your interests, I urge you to do so.  All the best.

This is quoted from the link below. Perhaps it gives a better(educated?) perspective--from a US legal vintage point--regarding Tommy's relative standing in this situation:

Prior User vs. Federal Registrant: Whose Mark Is It, Anyway?

By Keith A. Barritt
It is commonly assumed that once a federal trademark registration is obtained it confers the exclusive right to use the mark on particular goods or services and can readily prevent use by any other party. Indeed, the Trademark Act appears to say precisely that. However, trademark law is not quite so easy, and in fact having a trademark registration - even a valid and "incontestable" one - does not guarantee the exclusive right to use the mark in all circumstances.

Unlike many countries, the United States confers trademark rights by use of the mark. At the outset, trademark "registration" is little more than a formal acknowledgement of rights already in existence. This contrasts sharply with patents, which actually grant substantive rights the patentee otherwise would never have.

There are many benefits to federally registering a trademark, one of the most important being that it empowers the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to police the mark by rejecting subsequent applications to register marks that conflict with the registered mark. Registration also affords the mark certain evidentiary presumptions of validity, confers constructive use of the mark as of the application's filing date, and creates nationwide constructive notice of registration (thereby preventing subsequent "innocent" adoption of the registered mark). Ownership of a registration, however, does not by itself answer the question of who has the right to use the mark.

Who is a Prior User?
Under common law, trademark rights within a certain territory are based on priority of use of a mark within that territory. Sometimes a federal registrant is not the first user of a mark in a territory, and that an unregistered prior user may have superior rights, at least in that territory. Determining the rights of the parties in such situations requires a careful evaluation of often complex facts and always complex law.

[Unquote]

http://www.fr.com/Prior-User-vs-Federal-Registrant--Whose-Mark-Is-It-Anyway1/

munosmario

[Devil Doc]

you should understand the harm in keeping it bottled up


wayne,  did you mean adjective?

well, maybe if listening to the amp made you feel all rosy and warm, it would be cheery and cherry at the same time 



dammit Wayne, you beat me to it,

Ok, I'll take your advice. Shift key broken?

Doc

[macrojack]

If I was the Cherry amp guy, I'd be more worried about Bruno Putzeys than Bob Carver.

[poseidonsvoice]

If I was the Cherry amp guy, I'd be more worried about Bruno Putzeys than Bob Carver.

+1. 

 

Anand.

[Tyson]

Cherry - bad name for an amp, great name for a stripper.