Re: Alarm/security related domains for sale

[Frank Kurz <tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/06/2012 4:06 PM, mleuck wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:44:14 AM UTC-5, Frank Kurz wrote:
>> On 24/05/2012 1:38 PM, mleuck wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:15:05 AM UTC-5, Frank Kurz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, as I recall Jim was rather "unprofessional" in his dealings with
>>>> the court.  You definitely don't tell a Federal Court Judge that she has
>>>> "no jurisdiction" or thumb your nose at her when your IN court.  I think
>>>> he had a good case but some of the things he wrote telegraphed his total
>>>> Granted, Brinks really didn't have a leg to stand to begin with.
>>>> They DON'T (and
>>>> never have) manufactured their own panels.  Every user and installer
>>>> manual I saw had the Honeywell logo on it!
>>>
>>> They may not have manufactured the equipment but they likely have the rights to it.
>>
>> They have the rights to the Brinks Logo, but to sue Jim because he's
>> selling "their" re-badged programmer should not have turned out the way
>> it did.  Jim's defense submittals mentioned this, but his point was lost
>> when he told the judge to "shove it".
>>
>> Frank
>
> But none of us know what the agreement was between Brinks and Arrowhead (I assume it was them since they originally made the programmer.
>
> Would I have a legal right to sell and install something branded with your companies name on it? Even without any agreement I doubt it.

I do it all the time.  All the stuff I sell is "branded" and no one has
an issue (DSC, Ademco, Simplex, Edwards, etc.).  I think part of Brink's
argument was that they actually "owned" the equipment and "rented" it to
end-users.  There is a valid argument that if an end-user cancels his
monitoring agreement, and Brinks doesn't come out to remove the
equipment, it could be considered "abandoned".

--
Fire Protection Technicians Network
www.firetechs.net