Re: Alarm/security related domains for sale

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:16:34 AM UTC-5, Frank Kurz wrote:
> 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 wit=
h
> >>>> 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 t=
hink
> >>>> he had a good case but some of the things he wrote telegraphed his t=
otal
> >>>> 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 wa=
y
> >> it did.  Jim's defense submittals mentioned this, but his point was lo=
st
> >> 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 (I assume it was them since they originally made the programmer.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 y=
our companies name on it? Even without any agreement I doubt it.
>=20
> I do it all the time.  All the stuff I sell is "branded" and no one has=
=20
> an issue (DSC, Ademco, Simplex, Edwards, etc.).  I think part of Brink's=
=20
> argument was that they actually "owned" the equipment and "rented" it to=
=20
> end-users.  There is a valid argument that if an end-user cancels his=20
> monitoring agreement, and Brinks doesn't come out to remove the=20
> equipment, it could be considered "abandoned".

Since I assume none of us are lawyers we can't be sure what the law is rega=
rding an old panel however Brinks is the only one I've ever seen with print=
ing on the box stating they own the equipment. Like that made any differenc=
e since I've ripped them out many times.

About the only fact is Brinks won and Rojas lost