I still have the emails straight from John @ TRU tech saying they're a counterfit. I also have a legit story from Abyss International (you should see their FACEBOOK PAGE btw) about the fall out between TRU and Abyss. BTW John did some trash talk ABYSS and the counterfit / TUBE-2 saying it was basically junk compared the to c7.2t. However comparing pictures between those models it showed most of the same components, but the ABYSS model had some higher end components. Did it make a difference in SQ? I don't know.
hey,
I have a esx amp that was designed by the same guy that designs... or up for sale is a esoteric d7 thats now owned by Diamond...exile..ppi..KIA..Audi...opps my bad. list goes on and on. I know he only used TRU's name as a reference to say hey it along the same lines or if you heard of this then you might like.....so why bust his chops like you guys are TRU police??? did ya get a check for it? You would be mad to!
Has everyone forgot that TRU is a snake in the grass or do we have to many TRU nosers/noobs in here? this shit is OLD ASS NEWS~like ECA old..TRU is probly #1 on the dis-honest,aint nothin TRU about them list.(ok they designed a couple things since then woopty-do) nothing wrong with bringing it up again, its the OP's choice to say whatever he feels. and I guess everyone elses choice to point out the huge conspiracy in his listing.
TRU had this guys listing yanked cause they wanted to be a dick,period! cause they are guilty guilty guilty! almost anyone & everyone in the know, knows it...
Just for that fact Id never buy a TRU-copy amp anyways. steal someones design take credit for it, deny any todo's, then get people that dont know the truth to defend TRU..yeaa right!
^^^ Drama aside! The name is a registered trade mark. It cannot be used in that manner without permission from the owner. Remember what monster cable was doing a few years back??
^^^ Drama aside! The name is a registered trade mark. It cannot be used in that manner without permission from the owner. Remember what monster cable was doing a few years back??
This is what I was asking earlier. I really don't think this is true. Otherwise, every single ebay seller that mentions the brand of the item they're selling would be violating trademark.
This is what I was asking earlier. I really don't think this is true. Otherwise, every single ebay seller that mentions the brand of the item they're selling would be violating trademark.
Trademark infringement would generally have to involve acts or representations that would cause the a consumer to confuse the infringing party's product with the trademarked product. I don't believe that the statement given here rises to that level.
A speaker is only as good as the room you put it in.
I don't think that's trademark infringement. That's misrepresentation. My understanding is that trademark infringement is using a trademarked phrase or logo in advertising or in a product. I'm pretty certain that selling used items and listing them does not violate IP law. I'm also pretty sure that you can say things like "The Aiwa brand is owned by Sony" in your ad for an Aiwa boombox, because it's a statement of fact. If what he said about Tru in his ad is not true, then that would fall under misrepresentation or libel, not IP.
Trademark infringement would generally have to involve acts or representations that would cause the a consumer to confuse the infringing party's product with the trademarked product. I don't believe that the statement given here rises to that level.
NPDang, you are correct sir. But, in addition to what you have stated, a party's rights to a trademark is violated when the mark is used for a third party's benefit. In the circumstance described by the OP, if I were representing TRU I would argue that the TRU name was being used to facilitate the sale of the other amplifier. The statement might be true (no pun intended) but why else mention the designer's affiliation with TRU? Because the reference to TRU, which is still in business and makes a high quality product, will garner interest in the product being sold.
But, the trademark violation issue is separate from the claims going back and forth about whether TRU has some shady business history or actually called eBay about the OP's ad. I am an active eBay user and once had an ad cancelled because I referenced in my listing a company other than the manufacturer of the product I was selling. My recollection is that this is an eBay policy put in place to protect eBay from possible liability for facilitating activities that might infringe the rights of third parties. They already have enough headaches to worry about regarding sales of counterfeit merchandise. etc. for which people seek to hold them responsible. And, since eBay presumably approves every ad that is published, the risks are great for eBay, and they want to minimize, if not eliminate, such risks. Now, if TRU is actually monitoring every eBay ad that is published for references to TRU, and complained to eBay, more power to them. But, I really doubt that TRU would expend the time necessary to do so.
Also, I would caution anyone on this forum about publishing rumors and other information about TRU or any other business that they have not learned FIRST HAND. These kinds of statements do harm to a company, and if you do that enough you will end up receiving a summons and complaint.
Spkrs. - Phass (DTM25C- Tweeter, FD 0590 -Midrange, MD 0875- Midbass); Amps - Phass (RE 4.25 and RE 50). Subwoofer: Custom AudioTechnology FlexUnit 12" powered by TRU B2200S (Op Amp + Cap Upgrades). Head Unit: Eclipse 55090. Processor: Audison Bit One.1; Cables: Phass SC1 Spkr. cable and Si1 Interconnect.
Buzzman, if what you say is true, then why don't the mods delete ads here that refer to "Zed" amplifiers? It's like I see one of those every week, and they're usually referring to ESX, Alphasonik, or someone else.
Buzzman, if what you say is true, then why don't the mods delete ads here that refer to "Zed" amplifiers? It's like I see one of those every week, and they're usually referring to ESX, Alphasonik, or someone else.
Mark, probably because the owner of DIYMA has not considered this issue and asked the mods to delete such ads. On the other hand, big companies like eBay have an entire staff of IP lawyers who review developments in the law and set policy to reduce risk of lawsuits and liability. In addition, it could well be the case that Zed either isn't aware of this or doesn't care. The trademark owner is responsible for policing and protecting its marks.
Spkrs. - Phass (DTM25C- Tweeter, FD 0590 -Midrange, MD 0875- Midbass); Amps - Phass (RE 4.25 and RE 50). Subwoofer: Custom AudioTechnology FlexUnit 12" powered by TRU B2200S (Op Amp + Cap Upgrades). Head Unit: Eclipse 55090. Processor: Audison Bit One.1; Cables: Phass SC1 Spkr. cable and Si1 Interconnect.
what if the situation were reversed? let say i've a tru amp for sale that was made by abyss and imported by tru that was badged under the tru name. (the eca crow knows the rest of the story) can i make reference to say "tru/abyss amp for sale"?
in this scenario, tru can't say i'm violating their trademark since the amp i'm selling is badged and claimed it was made by them, can they?
i think in the example i've mentioned, the complaint would need to come from abyss as i'm now referencing their trademark for selling a tru product, am i right or wrong?
what if the situation were reversed? let say i've a tru amp for sale that was made by abyss and imported by tru that was badged under the tru name. (the eca crow knows the rest of the story) can i make reference to say "tru/abyss amp for sale"?
in this scenario, tru can't say i'm violating their trademark since the amp i'm selling is badged and claimed it was made by them, can they?
i think in the example i've mentioned, the complaint would need to come from abyss as i'm now referencing their trademark for selling a tru product, am i right or wrong?
The scenario you lay out really isn't the "reverse" of the situation described by the OP. In your situation Abyss would not have any viable grounds to object to your using their name in your ad because, as you say, they built the amp that bears the TRU brand. I would argue that they are therefore indelibly tied to the product being sold. In the situation described by the OP, he stated in his ad "Designed and built by the same designer of many of the Tru amplifiers, such as the copper and hammer series." Here he could have simply used the designer's name. Instead, he links the designer to TRU and TRU's name is now associated with a product that may or may not be equal to its quality standards, notwithstanding the designer's prior history with TRU. That's where the road separates. Suppose after the designer's relationship ended with TRU he had a stroke and his mental acuity diminished, and it was during this stage that he designed these new amps? Get the picture?
Spkrs. - Phass (DTM25C- Tweeter, FD 0590 -Midrange, MD 0875- Midbass); Amps - Phass (RE 4.25 and RE 50). Subwoofer: Custom AudioTechnology FlexUnit 12" powered by TRU B2200S (Op Amp + Cap Upgrades). Head Unit: Eclipse 55090. Processor: Audison Bit One.1; Cables: Phass SC1 Spkr. cable and Si1 Interconnect.
Same thing in essence, call it whatever you like. Abyss had a contract with the Korean build house, Tru had a contract with Abyss. Client, subcontractor, whatever.
a sub contractor would be this build house that was separate to Abyss...
Whether they employed a separate factory or owned the factory I don't know and doesn't really change anything. They were Abyss designs that were made for both Tru and Abyss.
Many companies don't own factories. Nike sub contracts all their work etc.
a sub contractor would be this build house that was separate to Abyss...
Whether they employed a separate factory or owned the factory I don't know and doesn't really change anything. They were Abyss designs that were made for both Tru and Abyss.
Many companies don't own factories. Nike sub contracts all their work etc.
And again.... Whatever.... A simple error on how I refer to one company is nothing in comparison to the wealth of misinformation in this thread lol
This is silly and yet another example of the misunderstanding surrounding things made FOR brands BY third-party factories.
An identical heat sink and similar board layout doesn't make two amps the same any more than the same basket makes two woofers the same.
What if you invented something and sold it to two separate parties and the agreements with both parties made no mention of exclusivity? Let's also say that one brand spent 20 million dollars on advertising, a huge customer support staff, rigorous reliability testing to weed out failures and no-questions-asked replacement of any defective parts. Let's also say that the other brand spent nothing and simply offered the product for sale with no warranty. These are some of the things that contribute to brand value. Because of this, the first company is able to sell the product for $500 and the second company can only manage to sell it for $400.
Are the two products the same? Are the purchases the same? As a consumer selling used gear or as a reseller, is it ethical to sell the second by suggesting that they are?
Andy, he never suggested they were the same product. He said it was made by a guy who made another product, trying to appeal to the crowd that thinks that amp designers are like artists. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, advertisers do this all the time with the "Brought to you by the makers of XYZ." That doesn't mean "This product is the same as XYZ."
Buzzman, I'm still not convinced that this is a breach of IP. Do you have any links or anything I could read? My sense is that eBay is treating it as a counterfeit case, just because they're ultra sensitive about counterfeiting these days.
This is silly and yet another example of the misunderstanding surrounding things made FOR brands BY third-party factories.
An identical heat sink and similar board layout doesn't make two amps the same any more than the same basket makes two woofers the same.
What if you invented something and sold it to two separate parties and the agreements with both parties made no mention of exclusivity? Let's also say that one brand spent 20 million dollars on advertising, a huge customer support staff, rigorous reliability testing to weed out failures and no-questions-asked replacement of any defective parts. Let's also say that the other brand spent nothing and simply offered the product for sale with no warranty. These are some of the things that contribute to brand value. Because of this, the first company is able to sell the product for $500 and the second company can only manage to sell it for $400.
Are the two products the same? Are the purchases the same? As a consumer selling used gear or as a reseller, is it ethical to sell the second by suggesting that they are?
It is not the same as a build house making lots of companies amps. Say Arc, Vibe and whoever else getting the same (or similar amps made), because they are buying a generic designed amp from the factory, and not through the other company like in this case.
It was Abyss' owners design and Tru was ordering the amplifiers through Abyss, not through this build house.
Quality matching also isn't an issue here. Abyss was a quality brand in Asia, it had full support/warranty etc. The same as Tru in America. They were just in different countries.
And to answer a previous question, yes it was Tru that got it taken down: "Your item was removed because of a request we received from TRU Velocity Group, Inc (TRU Technology), a member of our Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO), asking us to remove the item for:"
Re: Tru Technology - The Truth
Team Inappropriate
Linear Mode
