[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Alarm/security related domains for sale



"mleuck" <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1d8152e6-72a6-404d-ba95-41a825d14e94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 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 (I assume it was them since they originally made the programmer.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".

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

About the only fact is Brinks won and Rojas lost

Brinks who??????? I know who Rojas is....... :-)




alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home