Some items of note from today’s paper.
- A big shakeup at the Boston Police Department. BPD Chief Davis replaced the heads of homicide and of police investigations. Here’s the most interesting line in the article to me (maybe old news to those who follow BPD closely):
The changes effectively end a long-running feud between the investigative and patrol branches that some observers say virtually crippled the department under former Commissioner Kathleen M. O’Toole. Joyce, who as head of the investigative branch also oversaw the youth-violence and drug units, often clashed with Superintendent Robert P. Dunford, who as commander of the Bureau of Field Services oversaw regular patrol operations. Davis promoted Dunford yesterday to superintendent in chief, overseeing both branches.
OK, glad to hear we’ve gotten that long-running feud resolved.
- A casino at Suffolk Downs? So far, the response from East Bostonians has apparently been cautious but generally positive. And, interestingly, negotiations with Middleborough, which had bogged down, seem to have gotten a shot in the arm — “back on track,” says the tribe’s spokesman. Funny what another potential site will do!
- Earth-shattering settlement on the Big Dig potentially imminent. Unnamed sources are talking about a large-ish (up to a billion bucks, maybe) payout, in exchange for releases for civil and criminal liability, apparently no matter what happens in the future.
State and federal officials are demanding that Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff pay as much as $1 billion to settle claims for shoddy work on the Big Dig, in exchange for a guarantee that the consortium will not face criminal charges in last year’s tunnel collapse that killed Milena Del Valle, according to four sources with knowledge of the negotiations.
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, which was paid more than $2 billion to manage the design and construction of the Big Dig, would also be released from civil liability from the state and federal governments, the sources said yesterday.
The settlement would relieve Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff of responsibility for any defects that become apparent after the agreement is signed, as well as those previously discovered on the $15 billion highway-and-tunnel project, such as the ceiling collapse and the leaks that continue to plague the Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. Tunnel, the sources said.
A good deal? Hmmm….
- “Super Duck Tours” should go away. They’re cheating, and the judge got it right by barring them from using that name.
A good deal?
<
p>
…such a settlement would cut off private suits against Bechtel et al. It might make them more difficult to pursue, since the state wouldn’t be able to help.
<
p>
Regarding “Super Duck Tours” should go away., it’s probable that “Super Duck Tours” is a trademark infringement.
I wondered about the claim in the article that
<
p>
So, I asked google. Check out the search results:
<
p>
1. Boston Duck Tours
2. The Official London Ducktours
3. Singapore’s Newest Theme Tour Attraction
4. Ride the Ducks of Seattle
5. Ride The Ducks of Philadelphia
6. Ride The Ducks of Baltimore
7. Washington DC Land and Sea Tours
8. Miami Duck Tours Fun Family Entertainment Attraction
9. Austin Duck Adventures
<
p>
Now, if they’re all owned by the same company as Boston Duck Tours, then it would seem that Boston Duck Tours has a point. If, however, they are owned by different companies, than it would seem that Super Duck is right — duck tour is a generic term. If duck tour is a generic term, then isn’t Super Duck Tours completely within bounds to use that name? After all, Coca-Cola doesn’t get to stop Pepsi Cola from using “cola” because of potential consumer confusion…
<
p>
Thoughts?
I don’t know whether the Boston based company that does “Duck Tours” has a federal trademark registration for the name, but there is a concept of regional and state level trademark-like protection.
<
p>
Your example of Pepsi-cola and Coca-cola is an interesting example of what trademark lawyers might call sitting on your rights, and thereby losing them. It’s a legal doctrine known as latches. Presuming that Coca-cola could have claimed a trademark right in the suffix “cola” alone, it might have been able to stop Pepsi from using the term. Apparently it didn’t, and, as a result, lost the right to the exclusive use of the term. There are a number of examples of this phenomenon, including Xerox copy, Kleenex tissue, and many others.
<
p>
Whether or not the proprietors of the Boston Duck Boats company have a trademark right, it is apparent that they were not going to sit on what they saw as their rights and eventually lose them. The court agreed with them.
I know there was a case where Coke sent workers into diners to order “a Coke”. In some cases they were served a Pepsi. They sued on that basis claiming brand confusion. The judge (if I remember my Bathroom Reader correctly), accepted the argument that customers should be informed that there is a different type of cola being served, but did not penalize the diners or Pepsi because the brand was so generally used. On the other hand, in restaurants where you order “a coke” today, they will respond “we have Pepsi”, so…
…Coca-Cola was able to preserve its trademark rights in “Coke” using the very strategies that you mentioned. Not in “Cola.” That’s now generic.
<
p>
Xerox (Xerox Corp) and Kleenex (Kimberly Clark Corp) may–just may–have been able to regain their trademark rights in Xerox (“a copy made on a Xerox brand copier” instead of “a Xerox”) and Kleenex, but it’s not entirely clear that they have been successful.
the point isn’t “Coke” or “Coca” … the point is “cola.”
<
p>
Cola is simply a noun. It’s a generic product — loosely speaking, sugar/syrup based brown carbonated beverage.
<
p>
The question is, is “Duck Tour” more like Coca or more like Cola or what?
<
p>
Based on the google search, it appears that “duck tour” is widely used by many different companies to refer to a very specific thing: using an amphibious vehicle [often but not always the WWII era ones] to travel around a city giving a tour. If that’s the case, then that makes “duck tour” like cola and not like Coca — and it makes the Boston Duck Tours claim impotent.
<
p>
Lots of cities have duck tours, lots of them use a yellow rubber duckie as part or all of their logo, and lots of them are painted yellow. “Super Duck Tours” may very well be guilty of shady business practices like trying to present themselves as the other guys instead of saying something like “we’re a better duck tour at a better price”, but unless somebody can show me that “duck tour” is more like Coca than like Cola I don’t see the beef with the “Super Duck Tour” name.
Additional information re duck boats: the name actually comes from the WWII designation “DUKW” for this type of amphibious vehicle. See wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
I have no opinion as to what this means for the possibility of a trademark violation, just thought it was interesting.
The vehicles being used are known as “duck boats”. They have been known as that for a long time. I would argue that you can’t trademark the term “duck boat tour” in relation to a tour given on a duck boat, just like you can’t trademark the phrase “double-decker bus tour” in relation to a tour given on a double-decker bus.
<
p>
The use of Super Duck Tours causes commercial confusion (the basis behind trademark infringement), but only because Boston Duck Tours was using a generic phrase, such as “Boston Haircuts” or “Boston Bus Rides”.
<
p>
I think the judgement was completely wrong on those grounds.
Massachusetts will become no better – and probably worse – by opening this pandoras box. We’re talking at least three casinos in Massachusetts: Middleborough, Revere and Martha’s Vineyard. We’ll probably see some in places like Springfield, New Bedford and Worcester too.
<
p>
Oh, by the way, there’s already one in Lynn anyway – but who knows if it could survive competitors in Massachusetts who won’t have to worry about giving customers sea sickness, especially given a potential Suffolks Down rival.
<
p>
I know cities and towns want to create large projects that will add revenue to their city or town, but the answer isn’t casinos. That will only add to the costs of the state, while killing local businesses (just ask Atlanta) and providing peanuts for revenue compared to other, similarly large projects. Sure, Massachusetts needs a vision, but casinos as a savior to our budget crisis is more like tunnel vision.
I agree with Rye on this one, the libertarian in me wants to support casino gambling since I do not oppose a litany of other vices that people profit off of, I do not oppose the lottery either so what is the difference here? Casinos will in fact cause more financial harm than good to a community so from a libertarian perspective its bad for the local economy, and from my inner bleeding heart perspective Casinos exploit the poor and we should not be taxing the poor to pay for social services.
<
p>
Just look at the town in CT Fowoods is in the Globe did a sory awhile back
<
p>
1)Local businesses closed
<
p>
The Casino brought in its own restraunts, bars, etc. and none of the local businesses benefitted from this, in fact a lot of local restraunts closed because they could not compete with the fare in the casino
<
p>
2)Crime increased
<
p>
Casinos bring a certain group of people to them, and while Casinos are not always run by the mob these days, criminals still hang around them and hang around in the towns surrounding them
<
p>
3)Locals were not employed
<
p>
More often than not labor was brought in from service companies to povide the labor for these casinos and locals were not employed. Usually these service companies employed either illegal or barely legal immigrants that would work for a lot cheaper than local citizens
<
p>
4)Revenue decreased
<
p>
As the actual town lost businesses, lost jobs, and crime increased a lot of people actually moved out depriving the area of property tax revenue
<
p>
All in all a bad idea, albeit inevitable due to clauses in trival soveriengity laws that will allow tribes to build casinos even if the state says no, and the state will get little money due to the duty free status of the reservations,