Comparison Yanmar lawsuit.

[284 International]

I have read and thought about this situation for awhile. I really don't understand the basis for some these lawsuits, and cannot figure out how they have proceeded through the judicial system.

Most places I have seen, like Fredericks and Best Used Tractors (Who sell Fredricks units) are up front in stating their tractors are used. The lawsuits focus on trademark infringement, which as I understand it requires the use of another's trademark in a way that causes confusion. Trademark infringement | LII / Legal Information Institute

Selling used Chevrolet, Lexus, or Fiat cars does not cause trademark infringement. A used boat dealer marketing Bayliner, Eliminator and SeaRay vessels is not in danger of being sued for confusion over affiliation with the holders of the trademark.

False business practices like claiming affiliation with Yanmar when none exists have not been alleged in the synopses of court dockets I have read, so I don't understand how any infringement can even occur: these retailers are selling YANMAR products! Yanmar manufactured and sold them.

They were imported here, and sold as Yanmar tractors. There is no infringement of trademark I can determine, because there no dilution of the trademark. There is no confusion over who built the tractors: Yanmar did.

I understand Yanmar does not want their products for overseas markets sold here, but I find the grounds for this lawsuit baseless. I hope it is dismissed with prejudice; it would be nice to see the Kubota lawsuit overturned, too. It won't happen, but I feel these events are a miscarriage of justice, irrespective of the fact that I would like the importation of used tractors to resume/continue for personal reasons.

I hate reading discouraging things like this. If the lawsuits succeed, many people who are employed in a fully legal occupation will be put out of work for no good purpose.

 

[houstonscott]

+1, great review of issue.
I actually think it hearts Yanmar and Kubota to do this stuff. The mystic and pedigree of both Yanmar and Kubota are fueled by the old models surviving in the future and being restored, collected and admired by tractor aficionado's.

HS

I have read and thought about this situation for awhile. I really don't understand the basis for some these lawsuits, and cannot figure out how they have proceeded through the judicial system.

Most places I have seen, like Fredericks and Best Used Tractors (Who sell Fredricks units) are up front in stating their tractors are used. The lawsuits focus on trademark infringement, which as I understand it requires the use of another's trademark in a way that causes confusion. Trademark infringement | LII / Legal Information Institute

Selling used Chevrolet, Lexus, or Fiat cars does not cause trademark infringement. A used boat dealer marketing Bayliner, Eliminator and SeaRay vessels is not in danger of being sued for confusion over affiliation with the holders of the trademark.

False business practices like claiming affiliation with Yanmar when none exists have not been alleged in the synopses of court dockets I have read, so I don't understand how any infringement can even occur: these retailers are selling YANMAR products! Yanmar manufactured and sold them.

They were imported here, and sold as Yanmar tractors. There is no infringement of trademark I can determine, because there no dilution of the trademark. There is no confusion over who built the tractors: Yanmar did.

I understand Yanmar does not want their products for overseas markets sold here, but I find the grounds for this lawsuit baseless. I hope it is dismissed with prejudice; it would be nice to see the Kubota lawsuit overturned, too. It won't happen, but I feel these events are a miscarriage of justice, irrespective of the fact that I would like the importation of used tractors to resume/continue for personal reasons.

I hate reading discouraging things like this. If the lawsuits succeed, many people who are employed in a fully legal occupation will be put out of work for no good purpose.

 

[houstonscott]

+1, great review of issue.
I actually think it hearts Yanmar and Kubota to do this stuff. The mystic and pedigree of both Yanmar and Kubota are fueled by the old models surviving in the future and being restored, collected and admired by tractor aficionado's.

HS

I have read and thought about this situation for awhile. I really don't understand the basis for some these lawsuits, and cannot figure out how they have proceeded through the judicial system.

Most places I have seen, like Fredericks and Best Used Tractors (Who sell Fredricks units) are up front in stating their tractors are used. The lawsuits focus on trademark infringement, which as I understand it requires the use of another's trademark in a way that causes confusion. Trademark infringement | LII / Legal Information Institute

Selling used Chevrolet, Lexus, or Fiat cars does not cause trademark infringement. A used boat dealer marketing Bayliner, Eliminator and SeaRay vessels is not in danger of being sued for confusion over affiliation with the holders of the trademark.

False business practices like claiming affiliation with Yanmar when none exists have not been alleged in the synopses of court dockets I have read, so I don't understand how any infringement can even occur: these retailers are selling YANMAR products! Yanmar manufactured and sold them.

They were imported here, and sold as Yanmar tractors. There is no infringement of trademark I can determine, because there no dilution of the trademark. There is no confusion over who built the tractors: Yanmar did.

I understand Yanmar does not want their products for overseas markets sold here, but I find the grounds for this lawsuit baseless. I hope it is dismissed with prejudice; it would be nice to see the Kubota lawsuit overturned, too. It won't happen, but I feel these events are a miscarriage of justice, irrespective of the fact that I would like the importation of used tractors to resume/continue for personal reasons.

I hate reading discouraging things like this. If the lawsuits succeed, many people who are employed in a fully legal occupation will be put out of work for no good purpose.

 

[Car Doc]

Who ever has the most money to spend wins period. That is the way our judicial system is now. The days are long gone when you could get justice simply because you were right.

 

[Soundguy]

Who ever has the most money to spend wins period. That is the way our judicial system is now. The days are long gone when you could get justice simply because you were right.

yep.

if the other side doesn't have the money for a lengthy defense.. or not enough $$ to press the issue.. they loose by default.

 

[284 International]

It still surprises and saddens me that such is the case though. These are not jury trials, where the performing ability of counsel has more effect. Judges should presumably know better, and be less vulnerable to false or deceptive argument. I wish a judge would hand down a straightforward ruling:"NO."

I certainly don't support defense or protection for fraudulent business activities. Selling 30 year old, junk machines with nice paint and shiny tires as new should be punished. Selling used equipment as such is not infringing anyone's trademark, and I fervently hope all targets of this spurious lawsuit are able to successfully fight it and be awarded a judgment with damages. Yanmar has the opportunity to perhaps even capitalize on a dispersed dealer network, clearly experienced with importing, marketing, and selling their product.

Instead, they are filing heaps of lawsuits that are unjust, unfounded, mean spirited, and dumb. I hope they lose in spectacular fashion.

 

[houstonscott]

My recommendation to Yanmar if they read this stuff is this; Notify all so called gray market model Yanmar owners and notify them Yanmar is now officially selling new Yanmar's in the USA. Then offer for a discount price to upgrade any unit to current US safety standards or confirm safety standards are currently install and functional, those tractor would then be eligible for service at the new authorized dealer. Those tractors that participate and past an inspection at owners expense could, could be traded for a new Yanmar within two years as if they had sold in USA originally by Yanmar.

HS

 

[clemsonfor]

i dont want to pay to put a pto gaurd on my tractor just for the "chance" to trade in it on a high priced new tractor that will cost me 20 grand? There is a reason i bought a quality used tractor made by yanmar that was reliable and simple.

 

[Soundguy]

that'd be like new holland saying people who own fords with overseas sn sets must turn em in..

 

[Villengineer]

There is a small, but legally important difference when comparing the grey market tractors to used cars: you can not legally register or plate a car made for a foreign market that does not meet the same requirements as a car made for the US market in the same model year. As far as I know, similar laws do not exist for tractors. For instance, the older Countach's for the US market had big ugly front bumpers. The Euro model for the same years did not. If you bring a Euro model into the US, you have to have that bumper or similar on the car when inspected for registration. You can take it off afterwards, everybody does b/c it's ugly as sin, but you are legally absolving Lambo of the "protection" it afforded. ie you won't successfully sue for inadequate safety in a frontal collision. This is true for modified US cars, also. Same with the safety equipment found on US model tractors of the same vintage. If you remove the PTO shield and then get your hand ripped off, you can sue, but you'll either settle out of court for a "small sum" or you'll most likely lose the case. Since they don't have similar laws to help protect them, Kubota and Yanmar are simply setting precedence in the legal system for a reason they are not responsible for the grey tractors. The lawyers have probably told them that trademark law is the quickest/cheapest/easiest way to limit their exposure. Remember, every case, win or lose, costs them money. I highly doubt has much to do with future new tractor sales, because the cost of the suit will probably surpass "lost sales". I also doubt that they are bringing the suit to try and affect the used market. Again, for the OEM, I doubt the money is there. If this were brought by a dealers' association, then I would think that was the case. The US is a litigius society, I am sure this primarily about liability, any other profit is just fringe benefit.