Amiga Celeron 2.4GHz WTH?

[JoePillow]

Amiga Inc owns both Amiga trademarks...
Word: AMIGA
Owner/s: Amiga, Inc.,
a Washington Corporation
24403 256th Avenue SE
PO Box 887
Ravensdale, WA 98051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Class: 9 Computers and computer peripherals, and parts, accessories, components and fittings therefor; computer programs and software

According to Washington state records this company is "Inactive" and without a business license since 2004, so it would appear that they have little if anything to "protect" any more:

> AMIGA, INC.
> UBI Number: 601 983 734
> Category: Regular Corporation
> Profit/Nonprofit: Profit
> Active/Inactive: Inactive
> License Expiration: Date 09/30/2004

The current Amiga, Inc. is a totally unrelated company, incorporated in Delaware. Of course this constant changing names and going back to the same name but with a different company is deceptive if you ask me, but I am sure many Amiga users will disagree.

If this trademark was worth something to them, one has to wonder why they were not able to transfer it. Maybe in Australia you have to prove what you say? Maybe somebody would have had a difficult time trying to convince law and order that the retroactive deal from 2003 was for real.

Not everyone is like the US Patent and Trademark Office who will accept a change where two different legal entities with confusingly identical names are involved as if it were as simple as an address that needs to be updated (rather than two different companies):

> CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS AND STATE OF
> INCORPORATION FOR THE RECEIVING PARTY ON CHANGE OF NAME
> DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 003211 FRAME 0156.
> ASSIGNOR(S) HEREBY CONFIRMS THE CHANGE OF NAME.

The fact that amiga.com was already registered
should have been enough

Registered? To whom? amiga.com does not belong to Amiga, Inc. (at least not to the current Amiga, Inc.) Apparently it was not transferred to Itec, LLC (if anything ever was), which is why KMOS could not purchase it. As anybody doing their homework could easily verify, amiga.com is registered in the name of a company that is inactive and without a business license, i.e. IMHO the Australian company is worth more respect than that:

> WHOIS Record For
> amiga.com  
>
> Registrant:
> Amiga, Inc.
> P.O. Box 887
> Ravensdale, Washington 98051
> United States

Just my two cents. It only took about five minutes to look up these simple factoids.

[JoePillow]

Nitro wrote:
@ JoePillow

If all it took was for a company to be inactive, there would be flocks of companys selling Amiga brand computers.  There would be OS4 hardware here and now, but it doesn`t work like that.  This is about computer and the brand name.
From the Amiga Inc. site: The Amiga brand name is recognized worldwide...

Well, this is the point I was trying to make. Companies named "Amiga, Inc." are already flocking. :-) If each US state can have one company with a given name, there soon may be 50 "Amiga, Inc." companies, and if one hands out a press kit the other will feel it has a right to have it removed from eBay, and nobody in the community will even think for a second that these are different entities, and that company B maybe has no right over what company A handed out.

As I indicated, official records show that the web site and the trademark mentioned in this thread in relation to the Australian company are owned by the former Amiga, Inc. of Washington, not by Amiga, Inc. of Delaware. These are two separate companies. Redrumloa sold on eBay something that the Washington company had handed out. But it was another company, based in Delaware, who complained to eBay. Why do we keep treating them as one, if ownership of domains and trademarks is not in the hands of only one? Why do we always accept that they can keep confusing us with this game of identical names but different companies? This game is not honest, IMHO.