RE: TVR's new owner: PH Meets

[Lowtimer]

elisek said:

sorry but you don-t read the acts of the last 6 yrs!

you are blind! very blind!
Opposition is valid till the last act from the court.....it is better you read the right act.
Soon will be change to registered.
I understand here there are not expert lawyers but talking about something that you don.t know 100% is like to waiste just time like many many people i see here.

JUST read! you have been fk by NS 1 time, this time is by italians.
Next time will be by stain?!

i left lot of thinking. Just read the right paper if you are able unless go ahead screaming what you want.... reality is quite different.

PS: again i'm not involved!

For someone who isn't involved you seem very excited about it.
Perhaps rather empty posturing, you could provide a link to the official trademark registry which provides evidence for your claims?

[andyps]

elisek said:

sorry but you don-t read the acts of the last 6 yrs!

i left lot of thinking. Just read the right paper if you are able unless go ahead screaming what you want.... reality is quite different.

PS: again i'm not involved!

Help us out a little, which acts and which papers?

[BountyHunter]

elisek said:

sorry but you don-t read the acts of the last 6 yrs!

you are blind! very blind!
Opposition is valid till the last act from the court.....it is better you read the right act.
Soon will be change to registered.
I understand here there are not expert lawyers but talking about something that you don.t know 100% is like to waiste just time like many many people i see here.

JUST read! you have been fk by NS 1 time, this time is by italians.
Next time will be by stain?!

i left lot of thinking. Just read the right paper if you are able unless go ahead screaming what you want.... reality is quite different.

PS: again i'm not involved!

i dont think you understand the situation here.

TVR is a company registered in the UK and is therefore subject to UK (and therefore EU) laws
the TVR trademark and logo etc should have come as part and parcel of the deal Mr Edgar has made with NS - even if somehow the logo hasnt come, he still owns the brand name TVR and no one else can use it.

lets also be brutally honest here, we arent talking about a logo such as a prancing horse or a raging bull - its simply the 3 letters that spell out the company name
No one else could use the name

[JonRB]

BountyHunter said:

i dont think you understand the situation here.

TVR is a company registered in the UK and is therefore subject to UK (and therefore EU) laws
the TVR trademark and logo etc should have come as part and parcel of the deal Mr Edgar has made with NS - even if somehow the logo hasnt come, he still owns the brand name TVR and no one else can use it.

lets also be brutally honest here, we arent talking about a logo such as a prancing horse or a raging bull - its simply the 3 letters that spell out the company name
No one else could use the name

Indeed.

I'd also refer you, elisek, to the UK law of "Passing Off".

Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 25th June 00:09

[soad]

TroubledSoul said:

Come again?!

I think he's drunk.

[GavinPearson]

cramorra said:

GavinPearson said:

I think if you drove a current Mustang V6 or V8 you would be more than happy with the performance and fuel economy balance for each car. Put those powertrains in a TVR body and you have the reliability people require with the uniqueness of the styling.

I have NO doubt I d be happy with it - but I could buy a Mustang (or a Corvette for that matter)- and so could others - so why pay something extra for this - an european engine might be perceived similarely- hence I have a soft spot for the Speed 6 and the AJP 8, but do understand it's too expensive to develop something independently - but I would prefer an European Engine at least

GavinPearson said:

The issue is that nobody knows what the current owners of TVR have purchased, what they can do or can't, etc.

I understood they bought ALL the rights so (possibly wrongly) assumed they can do all - I know somebody else said they did not buy the LOGO.... so we really need to wait for an official press release

GavinPearson said:

If they can make the old models I would make a Sagaris prototype using purchased powertrain components from Ford Power Products and go through the type approval process, including crashing cars - and engineering to perform well in those tests.

If they can make the old models they have already UK type approval so they could market them whit either POWER or RG units whilst they develop something else to show people something is happening, get a few bob in and have some presence on the road - it would also help to recruit dealers...

GavinPearson said:

TVR is about a value oriented combination of exterior styling and performance, not so much about interior comfort or feature content. If they remember that then they should do OK.

I see from your profile you do not (or have ever) owned a TVR - and still like the brand - so I think it is extremely valuable what you say because this might bring the new owner new customers. I broadly agree with the firsty part of your statement but I think it should be past tense-
TVR WAS about a value oriented combination of exterior styling and performance - and I think this was unsustainable as a business model- obviously accelerated by quality issues. I think to a degree this was because of the absence of interior comfort or feature content- although not strictly true as cars ealy took on electric windows, PAS, Aircon and so forth (even warm seats could be had...)-
So unfortuneately I have to change your final comment - -If they remember that then they might go under again...

You need to remember that when you have a car approved, it's to meet the legislation of the day, or proposed legislation until that legislation runs out. Any approval that TVR had has run out. You can make parts, but not new cars to be registered as new.

When it comes to buying the engine, TVR are limited to whoever can sell them a product that will be Euro 6 compliant, or bring their old engines into compliance. The latter will require a great deal of investment and it would be far easier to just buy a powertrain that is best value for the combination of power, economy & reliability than to take on the task themselves.

The best thing to do is get the spares business running, introduce a legislative compliant version of the Sagaris that is less quirky and more reliable, then develop a new model that offers performance with value. The demographic they should be aiming at is the buyer of a secondhand 911 or other comparable car.

[WolfyJones]

GavinPearson said:

The best thing to do is get the spares business running, introduce a legislative compliant version of the Sagaris that is more reliable.

I take it from that statement you have never owned a Sagaris.

[900T-R]

I'd respectfully submit that (prospective) purchasers of a secondhand 911 tend to be a quite different demographic from TVR owners/prospects in the UK, and a totally different one on Mainland Europe (apart from it being a rather wide demographic to aim at for a small-scale operation to start with).

The two might have converged for a while in the early/mid 1990s - but that's where TVR started to become a victim of its own success, arguably.

A man far wiser than me (with a very good track record of selling 'quirky' cars, too) once said that marketing is as much defining whom your brand is not aiming at, as anything else...

[Blown2CV]

elisek said:

Lowtimer said:

Fortunately Italian law is irrelevant in the rest of the world. Anyway, I've just checked the status of the various European trademarks. The two which are claimed by the bloke who is trying his luck with "TVR Italia" are indeed "opposed" and will be going nowhere. The ones registered by TVR the UK based car company are actually registered to them.

Edited by Lowtimer on Monday 24th June 21:33

sorry but you don-t read the acts of the last 6 yrs!

you are blind! very blind!
Opposition is valid till the last act from the court.....it is better you read the right act.
Soon will be change to registered.
I understand here there are not expert lawyers but talking about something that you don.t know 100% is like to waiste just time like many many people i see here.

JUST read! you have been fk by NS 1 time, this time is by italians.
Next time will be by stain?!

i left lot of thinking. Just read the right paper if you are able unless go ahead screaming what you want.... reality is quite different.

PS: again i'm not involved!

i've been reading your posts with confusion. It would appear you are ranting, without much explanation, about an italian company which you say actually now owns TVR trademarks. If this were true then a) good luck to them, it's a british brand and b) this would only apply in italy, where I am reasonably sure other performance brands are far more well known, and TVR doesn't have much of a footprint. I'm not quite sure what your point is, and if I am (along with everyone else) misunderstanding you then please feel free to explain. This is not a language thing, you just haven't made clear what you are going on about.

[Jayzee]

I think he is trying to smugly say that Mr. Edgar has been stitched up. That's how I read it, anyway.

Personally, I would suggest that Mr. Edgar and any backers would have gone through the deal with a fine tooth comb, and any such nonsense would have been picked up in the due-diligence process.

What the Italian company has the rights to, I feel, is nothing more than the use of three letters - maybe a particular font too, but not in the context he feels they have a right to... i.e building cars using the TVR name!

[Blown2CV]

Jayzee said:

I think he is trying to smugly say that Mr. Edgar has been stitched up. That's how I read it, anyway.

Personally, I would suggest that Mr. Edgar and any backers would have gone through the deal with a fine tooth comb, and any such nonsense would have been picked up in the due-diligence process.

What the Italian company has the rights to, I feel, is nothing more than the use of three letters - maybe a particular font too, but not in the context he feels they have a right to... i.e building cars using the TVR name!

you can buy the rights to whatever doesn't conform to the rights demarcated by another's ownership rights... They can have the three letters TVR in comic sans font to brand a pizzeria if they want. I can't imagine there will be any upset to the plans from some off rights-trolls based in italy.

[Jayzee]

Blown2CV said:

you can buy the rights to whatever doesn't conform to the rights demarcated by another's ownership rights... They can have the three letters TVR in comic sans font to brand a pizzeria if they want. I can't imagine there will be any upset to the plans from some off rights-trolls based in italy.

Agreed.

[JonRB]

Blown2CV said:

you can buy the rights to whatever doesn't conform to the rights demarcated by another's ownership rights... They can have the three letters TVR in comic sans font to brand a pizzeria if they want. I can't imagine there will be any upset to the plans from some off rights-trolls based in italy.

Indeed.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the law of "Passing Off" says that if you are making a product in a completely different business sector to cars, you might be able to get away with using "TVR" so long as it can't cause confusion for customers. In fact I think there is a glazing company or somesuch trading as TVR, and there are many companies with TVR in their name. However, if you were to start building cars and slapping the TVR logo on it, you are Passing Off pure and simple. Doesn't matter if you have somehow acquired the rights to that logo; you're still Passing Off by putting it on a car. The only thing you could do, *if* you have the rights to that logo, is to prevent the real TVR from using it.

[uk66fastback]

Just read the interview but not the thread. He's said about as much as a politician. Won't even tell PH what TVR he owned... Bag o' ste.

[Blown2CV]

uk66fastback said:

Just read the interview but not the thread. He's said about as much as a politician. Won't even tell PH what TVR he owned... Bag o' ste.

we've been round this a few times now, and you would know this if you had read the thread. It's not that he doesn't know, its that he purposefully doesn't want to give away too much too early. I am not sure why people think this is suspect or shows ignorance. You wouldn't want to blurt all the plans regardless of what business venture it was, but with TVR and all the history and baggage that goes with it (aswell as the idiots who base their opinion of a mate of a mate of a mate who had a TVR "but it broke down", or even worse, on preconceptions based on nothing), it's absolutely wise. Stomping in and saying "it's ste" because he kept a lot back in the interview just demonstrates a complete lack of even basic business knowledge, but highlighting that you havent bothered to read the thread before forming an opinion just indicates that it's founded on nothing.

[elisek]

Lowtimer said:

For someone who isn't involved you seem very excited about it.
Perhaps rather empty posturing, you could provide a link to the official trademark registry which provides evidence for your claims?

sorry you are wrong.
i read so many st here that i thought to give you some clues to find the solution...just find and read. everything is public. but i think that here people prefer fantasize instead read the papers.

[elisek]

BountyHunter said:

i dont think you understand the situation here.

TVR is a company registered in the UK and is therefore subject to UK (and therefore EU) laws
the TVR trademark and logo etc should have come as part and parcel of the deal Mr Edgar has made with NS - even if somehow the logo hasnt come, he still owns the brand name TVR and no one else can use it.

lets also be brutally honest here, we arent talking about a logo such as a prancing horse or a raging bull - its simply the 3 letters that spell out the company name
No one else could use the name

YOU DON'T KNOW THE RULES!
YOU ACT YOUR PERSONAL RULES!

[JonRB]

elisek said:

sorry you are wrong.
i read so many st here that i thought to give you some clues to find the solution...just find and read. everything is public. but i think that here people prefer fantasize instead read the papers.

elisek said:

YOU DON'T KNOW THE RULES!
YOU ACT YOUR PERSONAL RULES!

You clearly know nothing about UK and EU law. Please go away and troll somewhere else.

[elisek]

soad said:

I think he's drunk.

You are drunk, heavy drunk blind and deaf
but it is not my problem luckily

[DonkeyApple]

Blown2CV said:

we've been round this a few times now, and you would know this if you had read the thread. It's not that he doesn't know, its that he purposefully doesn't want to give away too much too early. I am not sure why people think this is suspect or shows ignorance. You wouldn't want to blurt all the plans regardless of what business venture it was, but with TVR and all the history and baggage that goes with it (aswell as the idiots who base their opinion of a mate of a mate of a mate who had a TVR "but it broke down", or even worse, on preconceptions based on nothing), it's absolutely wise. Stomping in and saying "it's ste" because he kept a lot back in the interview just demonstrates a complete lack of even basic business knowledge, but highlighting that you havent bothered to read the thread before forming an opinion just indicates that it's founded on nothing.

He should have published all plans for the next decade and given everyone who's heard of TVR a million quid each. It's only fair.