Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / IN THE PICTURE

IN THE PICTURE


Forbes reports on a dispute surrounding the AGFA PHOTO trade mark. Agfa Photo is now insolvent, and is selling its plants. However, those interested in buying the plants will only purchase if they also obtain rights to the trade mark. However, the AGFA PHOTO trade mark is in the hands of a private investor, Hartmut Emans, following a deal designed to secure jobs at Agfa Photo. Emans is reportedly asking for somewhere between 10 and 20 million euros for the trade mark. Agfa-Gevaert, the previous parent company of Agfa Photo has expressed its displeasure, saying that the point of giving Emans the mark was to secure jobs at the plants. If the sale of the plants falls through, those jobs will be endangered.

The IPKat says that this goes to show the sticky sort of problems that can arise where trade marks are sold independently of the goodwill in the business that has used them.
IN THE PICTURE IN THE PICTURE Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, October 02, 2005 Rating: 5

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousThursday, 6 October 2005 at 08:57:00 GMT+1

    Similarities exist to the Rover situation. BMW own the Rover trade mark but not the derelict motor factory. If enough money is raised the factory can make cars but it depends on BWM whether they can call them Rovers.

    AGFA is an acronym unassociated with photography. The firm became part of the mighty IG Farben. Post war (1945) the Agfa plant in Wolfen, DDR, manufactured photographic materials using the trade mark ORWO as use of AGFA was forbidden.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousWednesday, 19 October 2005 at 08:54:00 GMT+1

    Yes Agfa TM was registered in 1897 - the company Actien-Gesellschaft für Anilin-Fabrikation had as one of its founders the son of the composer Mendelssohn.

    It came into I G Farben because in 1925 Bayer Leverkusen took it over and Bayer was an IG Farben member - it was after all a Cartel just like the British Dyers' Association (BDA) in Bradford.

    When Bayer decided to focus on dumping low margin businesses it exited dyestuffs, chemicals, and agricultural chemicals - so the Agfa-Gevaert business was left to focus on electronic imaging.

    Agfa is a TM than Helmut Emans is trying to hawk around, it should have been licensed as Rolls-Royce did with its car logo and not sold. It is a great brand but always an also-ran against Kodak and Fuji.

    Come to think of it why didn't HP merge with KOdak instead of CompaQ - it would have built on printer margins instead of PC non-margins. Should have employed me instead of Fiorino !

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMonday, 31 October 2005 at 00:23:00 GMT

    Learn how to quickly create an RSS feeds with our RSS feeder, for high link popularity and ultimately better search engine rankings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMonday, 28 August 2006 at 05:04:00 GMT+1

    Im looking for a Ladyboy and some Free Ladyboy Pics do you know where I can get video and mpegs or mpg movie clips free, or free pics and free ladyboy gallery.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.