Chris,
GOV does not brand if that is an issue with your buyers.
Brands don’t last anyway.
I think this is misinformation, Oakstable. ISR/OLDNA offers a Certificate of Birth as the lowest offering. No brand and not elibible for any mare books if a filly.
[QUOTE=Oakstable;2764277]
Chris,
GOV does not brand if that is an issue with your buyers.
Brands don’t last anyway.[/QUOTE]
No. GOV does not brand. But ISR/OLD does.
[QUOTE=Fairview Horse Center;2764056]
I don’t think something like this needs to take more than about 24 hours to solve. Anyone out of town is probably staying at night in a room with a phone line. A laptop can be purchased in less than 24 hours. If you are running a registry, you need to respond quickly, period.
I am only running a small farm, and I answer calls and emails on my vacation, as well as from the hotel at Devon. Even if new office staff does not know ANY answers, it is easy to teach someone to dial a phone, or hit reply in an email saying, “We well get back to you in 2 days, or next week.” [/QUOTE]
Blackberries are great, also, for people on the go.
[QUOTE=talloaks;2764316]
I think this is misinformation, Oakstable. ISR/OLDNA offers a Certificate of Birth as the lowest offering. No brand and not elibible for any mare books if a filly.[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand your point, Talloaks.
I said going into the ISR book means the horse got a certificate of pedigree.
This has nothing to do with Mare Book or Main Mare Book.
A C of P is what you claim is the pedigree, or in the case of the Dutch, you verify with DNA testing that the horse is by a certain activated stallion.
“The German brand is simply O with a crown. They’re already differnet brands. O, crown, NA for North America, and O, with a crown, for the German bred or GOV horses. This seems so simple to me…”
Except that the ISR took the Oldenburg Verband to court trying to prevent them from using just their own O & crown…and they won. The ONLY reason the Oldenburg Verband CAN NOT use their own O & crown brand here in the U.S. is because of the ISR’s lawsuit against them.
Everywhere in the world the O & crown means the Oldenburg Verband…except for the U.S. Regardless of what went on initially, there is a huge sense of foul play surrounding what the ISR did.
For how many years do bad feelings have to fester? It seems to me it is time to give it up and move on constructively for the betterment of breeders all over - with whichever registry fits you. There is no one-size-fits-all. Bad feelings and grudges are popping up all over this thread. (Yet I keep reading it, poor stupid me.)
[QUOTE=tri;2764521]
… Regardless of what went on initially, there is a huge sense of foul play surrounding what the ISR did.[/QUOTE]
This characterization of the dispute has swirled round for years. It is false and obscures what actually happened. We all know where it comes from (from whom it comes), and, absent any other facts, many people believe it. We believed it too until we took the time to read court documents. Rather than rely upon self-serving gossip … read the actual July 2000 Court FINAL ORDER and decide for yourself what actually happened. The court decision conveys the entire history of the dispute and the facts, not gossip. Any impartial observer reading the courts final decision will quickly see that the plaintiff Oldenburg Registry North America (a.k.a. ISR Old/ NA) acted honorably throughout the litigation. I’d be hard pressed to characterize the defendant’s conduct so positively. Essentially, the GOV tried to pull the rug out from under Old NA after a decade of branding and inspecting here in the USA. In response Old NA said, “NO, we’re holding you [GOV] to the agreement you signed.” At that point in time Dr. Ramsauer was the Breeding Director for Old NA. The dispute wasn’t about how horses were being entered in the registry, because the Breeding Director entering the horses in the registry was Dr. Ramseur, and through out the dispute the GOV stuck with Dr. Ramsauer… even started two new registries here in the USA with Dr. Ramsauer (which the Court ordered stopped). This dispute was essentially a petty little pissing contest fought in our market place. The defendant GOV deservedly lost because of the facts and the applicable law, not because of some legal slight of hand. The defendant owes American breeders an apology for creating this mess in our market place and for fueling bad feelings between American Oldenburg Breeders for the past ten years. This controversy does not serve American breeders, it undermines the value of what we are breeding and drives people to the imports.
[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;2763952]
So I guess the answer is no?[/QUOTE]
Bingo!
ISR has made it clear to the Verband that it intends to pursue additional legal action if Kuehl ever works for the Verband in the U.S.
[QUOTE=DownYonder;2764901]
Bingo!
ISR has made it clear to the Verband that it intends to pursue additional legal action if Kuehl ever works for the Verband in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
We think very highly of Dr. Kuehl and wish him the very best for has future, whatever it may be… but of course there was a no compete clause in his contract. It is normal for businesses to have such clauses and entirely routine for professionals to be held to the terms of the contracts they sign.
Oakstable, check out this link from the ISR/OLDNA website and it is clear about the Certificate of Pedigree:
With all of the legalities aside, what it comes down to is honor and integrity. Many breeders (mare owners and stallion owners alike) still refuse to do business with the Old NA/ISR because they “stole” the Oldenburg brand.
Lets put it this way. Let’s say that the American QH had a brand and you bred American QHs. Imagine that your brick driveway displayed that symbol and that symbol was on the side of your home and displayed on the outside and inside walls of your stable and on your horses’ stalls. How would you feel if the Germans “stole” the American Quarterhorse name and brand claimed it as their own? You will only feel their true “pain” and frustration if go to Gemany and meet them in person and see that it is a part of their heritage.
The only reason the ISR won the lawsuit is because they patented the name and brand here first. Don’t let Cartier cloud the issues. Some say it’s just business, however, for those that KNOW the true facts, what is all boils down to is ethics and how far are you willing go for the all mighty dollar.
[QUOTE=Oakstable;2764088]
I did a Q&A article with Holly for the Riding magazine in California. She was on tour and trying to get back to me from various time zones in locales with no internet connection. It’s nuts. I hope she doesn’t have a stroke or a heart attack with the hours she puts in.
The Verband needs to hire someone to handle the nuts and bolts of registering and not get by on the cheap. The person does not need to be conversant in bloodlines.[/QUOTE]
Just a small suggestion from someone who also has a nutty schedule and travels to odd places – Verizon has a nationwide wireless internet service that works almost everywhere – you can get it built in on a new laptop or get a Verizon card to insert into older computers. I have it and it even worked in Greece this year. It also works on my farm, which is saying a lot because we are in the sticks and you can’t get DSL or anything like that where I am. It is great because you can literally be anywhere – on a train, in a cafe, etc – and have wireless internet.
And I agree that they need to hire an additional person, or train the ones they have in the office.
[QUOTE=DownYonder;2764901]
Bingo!
ISR has made it clear to the Verband that it intends to pursue additional legal action if Kuehl ever works for the Verband in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
This is not legal advice but IME non-compete clauses that purport to operate indefinitely tend to be disfavored by judges. In other words, a one year or two year non-compete clause is one thing, but a “forever” non-compete clause is far less likely to be enforceable. Also, I believe that in some states, non-compete clauses are void and thus not enforceable at all (I think that is so in California, for example, but someone would have to verify that). So, this gentleman should look into his options.
It was looked into but unfortunately it was upheld by the court. From what ISE said earlier, it sounds like that the clause is not indefinite.
[QUOTE=graystonefarm;2764991]
The only reason the ISR won the lawsuit is because they patented the name and brand here first.[/QUOTE]
I need to pull the court’s opinion but this is what I don’t get about this case. Under trademark law, the one who has use first in time prevails over a subsequent user, even if the subsequent (i.e., later in time) user actually registered the mark (trademark) first. It seems to me that as the first in time user, the German Verband should have been able to get an injunction on the Old NA’s use of the mark based on consumer confusion. I will look at the opinion, which I have not seen yet, but based on what I do know about the case I find it surprising that Old NA won regarding use of the mark.
I also think it is stinky (a legal term of art, btw) that both registries cannot brand using the crown in the US.
1 Like
[QUOTE=graystonefarm;2764991]
The only reason the ISR won the lawsuit is because they patented the name and brand here first. Don’t let Cartier cloud the issues. Some say it’s just business, however, for those that KNOW the true facts, what is all boils down to is ethics and how far are you willing go for the all mighty dollar.[/QUOTE]
Regarding all this noncompete stuff including the fight over the use of the mark, I question whether being so proprietary was a good business decision in this case. It seems like it created a lot of ill feelings between the registries’ members and I don’t see how either one is doing better because of it.
Yes indeed. I had to sign a very broad one to get severance pay when my previous employer closed their US operation. The non compete time frame was longer than the severance pay time frame and the prohibited activities covered almost anything I was qualified for. They retained other business interests in the US and the clause was to protect the ‘sister’ companies.
The only state the agreement is valid in is IL. Not valid in NY, VA or CA.
Probably valid in the parent company’s home country but who cares.
Employer was given a choice, pay me for the extended time frame or reduce the non compete time frame to match the severance pay period.
Your mileage will vary depending on the contract.
Yankeelawyer, I agree 100%. It has harmed both registries and caused so much confusion. It’s very unfortunate for American breeders. I have friends on both “sides” of the fence. As I said above, it doesn’t truly “hit” you in the stomach until you go to Oldenburg and see it for yourself.
[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;2765022]
Regarding all this noncompete stuff including the fight over the use of the mark, I question whether being so proprietary was a good business decision in this case. It seems like it created a lot of ill feelings between the registries’ members and I don’t see how either one is doing better because of it.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with you, Yankeelawyer.
We can’t get any reliable news on what has happened to all the equine operations in SoCal, but we rehash this OLD matter.
The fact the the former breeding director of the ISR was going to be a judge for the GOV this past year shows how ridiculous this spitting match is.
