rjohn76

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rjohn76

  • Rank
    DCP Rookie
  1. Unfortunately, I have seen several different versions of that statement today ("die mad boomers") across Facebook, Reddit and other platforms. I understand the sentiment behind it, but it's doing absolutely nothing to bridge the gap between the different viewpoints/generations. In fact, it's actually turned a couple people off today that had approached the situation with an open mind. In an activity that is often reliant on donations, it seems odd to target the "boomers" that control roughly 70% of the disposable income in the United States.
  2. The greater emphasis on member safety & security has definitely played a role in how volunteers are utilized. Some corps have struggled internally with how to balance those key areas with the need/desire/openness of having people drop in & help for a couple hours or even a couple days. In many cases, it's not practical for grandma & grandpa that live near a random show on tour to go through the necessary screening to be able to help with one or two meals before the corps moves on to the next stop. At the same time, not putting them through that screening leaves the corps at risk on multiple levels. It's easier in many cases to just politely decline their help. Doing so is not nefarious by any means. It's exactly what many people in the activity have been asking for.
  3. If they engaged in any type of "commerce" in the state of Massachusetts, then it could potentially be an issue. That includes performing in a show/concert, participating in a parade, or any other business function which could be considered a conflict with what the original 27th Lancers declared on their trademark registration. Even selling souvenirs/merchandise through an online store to a customer in Massachusetts could potentially be considered "commerce" based on many of the new tax laws that require out-of-state merchants to collect & pay sales tax as if they had a brick & mortar presence in each state. Given that thought process, a court order would likely stop them from using the name in within Massachusetts. If the new organization opted not to appear in that state, and simply chose not to sell merchandise to customers in that state, they could probably skirt local trademark registration. Would it be worth it though?
  4. To add to this, state trademark registration only protects your trademark in the state where you register it. If a group wanted to incorporate a drum corps (or similar type organization) in Massachusetts using the "27th Lancers" name, they most likely would not be able to do it. There are two trademark registrations in Massachusetts that would in theory prevent them from doing so; "27TH LANCERS DRUM AND BUGLE CORPS" and "27TH LANCERS DRUM AND BUGLE CORPS INC.". I'm guessing that's what may have happened with the alumni corps. However, if a group wanted to register the organization and trademark in any other state, they most likely would be able to do so without much difficulty. They could potentially even register the trademark with the USPTO as there wouldn't be any competing marks on file at the time of their application. The Bonfiglio's could oppose the registration and claim ownership of the trademark based on first use, but that route isn't always a guaranteed win. One other factor to consider would be "abandonment". Non-use of a trademark for three consecutive years is considered abandonment unless proven otherwise. If the drum & bugle corps aspect of the 27th Lancers has not been active in the past couple years... there could be an argument that any right to the trademark (whether registered or not) has been abandoned based upon non-use.