EAA suing the SOS Brothers beer tent...

Just to help my fellow POA members form a more complete image of what this thread is about...

305_503316442.jpg
 
EdFred said:
Winnebago County seized the property adjacent to OSH (property owned by the SOS brothers) and then handed over to EAA so they could expand shop. $800,000 settlement afterwards.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I looked it up. Got an Avweb article. It said it was about Airport improvements but then they turned around and gave it to EAA. I’d bet that was the plan all along and everyone knew it but they had to play the game.
 
Gerhardt said:
I was gonna bite my tongue, too, but what the hell. The first court that allowed this crap to happen turned this into a country that it was never meant to be. It's nothing short of theft. I get that there will be times when it's necessary for utility lines, roads, etc. But to steal, then turn it over to private enterprise is 100% theft.

We experienced it here several years ago when casinos were legalized in the state and they got MOST of the property owners to sell. The smart ones held out for more $....and the property was seized and given to the casino. I fail to see how it's legal for an investor to hold out for an attractive price, but not for a homeowner. If they wanted to hold out for $10M that should have been their right.

So if we're picking sides, I'm with the SOS brothers.
Click to expand...

I doubt if they stole it. They would have got market value for it. Yeah, yeah, who decides that and there is the speculation of future market value thang. It wasn’t a road or bridge or whatever like most eminent domains. Unless of course they really did plan on a new runway or sumpin. And then that didn’t work out so they said, now what. Well gee, maybe EAA can do something with it. Yeah, right. Methinks it was about getting me and you to come to the fine community of Oshkosh once a year and leave some of our money there.
 
SCCutler said:
What I wanna know is...

...HOW THE HELL HAVE I MISSED THIS PLACE?
Click to expand...


Spike, have you ever seen this GIANT yellow balloon hovering way up in the sky at Oshkosh?
Next time just walk towards it and you will find what you seek...


IMG_0673.jpg
 
Brad Z said:
To me, it sounds like some pretty boilerplate "cease and desist" strongly worded legal letter stuff. It's pretty common for trademark holders to demonstrate that they are vigorously defending their trademark. I doubt that a seven day beer garden is really causing confusion, but showing a history of consistent vigilance for defending the trademark helps in later trademark disputes. That way when Sun n Fun changes their name to SunVenture, they'll be in a better position to defend their trademark and fend off accusations that the trademark has been genericized, thus loosing intellectual property rights.
Click to expand...
It's not a "cease and desist." It's the filing of a federal lawsuit which as amicable as the EAA claims means that the SOS brothers are going to be caught up in litigating it no matter how they want it to turn out. This is not a n "amicable response."
 
We were coming back down US 41 one night and my wife goes "Look there's the harvest moon." I say, "That's not the moon, it's the beer tent."
 
flyingron said:
We were coming back down US 41 one night and my wife goes "Look there's the harvest moon." I say, "That's not the moon, it's the beer tent."
Click to expand...

Back when I camped in GAC, we saw that balloon for several years before I realized it was a balloon and not the moon. "How in the heck can the moon be in full and in the same place night after night, year after year?" Hmm...

Truly a great establishment. One of my all-time moments was sitting down at a random table after the airshow with a group from France at their first Oshkosh. They were blown away by the whole Oshkosh experience, and while we were sitting there a C-5 entered the pattern, circled several times and landed. One of the women said "Ooh, the C-5, my favorite airplane." <Who says that anyway?> I related that I was standing at the end of the runway on June 30, 1968 when the first one made its first flight. I remember it well, given that I was almost 4 at the time. Anyway, she paid for my next beer and we talked C-5 for much of the evening.
 
I've attached the complaint.
 

Attachments

  • eaasos.pdf
    235.2 KB · Views: 16
But they are in Wisconsin. There's she's at least a 9, thin, and sporting a six-pack. :D



Wayne
 
It's funny when guy's rate girls and then you meet their girlfriends and you realize all the "she's at best a 3" talk is just machismo.. most guys would be thrilled dating a woman like her. Incidentally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. someone's Mooney is someone else's Bonanza is someone else's C190
 
EdFred said:
by that logic are 2 15 year olds better than a 30 year old?
Click to expand...

...it worked for Epstein.

And some buddies.

Then, not so much.

Then he (ahem) killed himself.
 
SCCutler said:
...it worked for Epstein.

And some buddies.

Then, not so much.

Then he (ahem) killed himself.
Click to expand...

I had a whole Epstein joke typed out and then didn't post it for fear of getting a warning lol
 
PPC1052 said:
I am not an expert in this area of law, but I understand that if they don't take steps to protect their trademark by initiating litigation against a known infringer, they risk losing the trademark.
Click to expand...
Having dealt with intellectual property law and trademarks (even the word “archive”. Don’t get me started. ) this is correct. Assuming EAA sent a letter and were told to “pound salt” they either do this or give up the trademark. It makes no difference if the trademark owner thinks it’s silly, it’s grounds for the next infringement.
 
jsstevens said:
Having dealt with intellectual property law and trademarks (even the word “archive”. Don’t get me started. ) this is correct. Assuming EAA sent a letter and were told to “pound salt” they either do this or give up the trademark. It makes no difference if the trademark owner thinks it’s silly, it’s grounds for the next infringement.
Click to expand...


True, but it could also be resolved by EAA giving written permission. Then the trademark isn’t abandoned and EAA still controls it.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but it could also be resolved by EAA giving written permission. Then the trademark isn’t abandoned and EAA still controls it.
Click to expand...
Yes. It could. But I wanted to dispel the notion that it’s all about the trademark holder being mean.
 
jsstevens said:
Yes. It could. But I wanted to dispel the notion that it’s all about the trademark holder being mean.
Click to expand...


A lawsuit is the mean approach toward resolution. If the trademark holder were nice he would give permission or charge a small fee.

These two parties have been at war for a long time. I doubt either wants to be nice right now.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but it could also be resolved by EAA giving written permission. Then the trademark isn’t abandoned and EAA still controls it.
Click to expand...

You think that a unsolicited license agreement should be the next step after a 'pound sand' response ?
 
weilke said:
You think that a unsolicited license agreement should be the next step after a 'pound sand' response ?
Click to expand...


No. I expect war. I was making the point that there’s more than one way to maintain trademark rights.
 
Half Fast said:
No. I expect war. I was making the point that there’s more than one way to maintain trademark rights.
Click to expand...

And it requires reasonable people on both sides.
Thats a bit like the neighborhood lawsuits where everyone is perplexed why someone 'would sue about that' when they are not privy to the long lead-up before anyone went to the courthouse.
 
This thread has proven that man needs beer. I'm heading out to the kegerator. Anyone coming with me?
 
I've heard of Airventure (and Oshkosh) for years. This is the first time I've heard of "beerventure". I understand the need to protect a trademark, but both sides need to chill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top