Class Politics All about to kick off....

The ILCA/ISAF were not a part of the contracts between Kirby and the builders and probably don't have access to those documents. I would imagine there was a separate legal agreement covering the conditions for the ILCA/ISAF to supply plaques to builders.

Then we can only hope they have complied with those conditions (given BK notifying them of builder contract terminations). If they complied with their obligations then they should be in the clear. But, that BK has included them in the legal case suggests that they may easily not have complied (obviously though we have and I suspect will not see their defence).

I suspect that the court action is a means to clear LP out of the frame so BK can appoint a new builder without arguments about who is "the real builder" and which boat is a "Laser" (even if known under a different name). Any new builder may have reservations about starting to build when LP are still "playing the game" and presumably maintaining they are the legal builder (as I suspect starting to build Lasers is a fair amount of work). The Complaint document suggests that the moulds, plugs, etc. are owned by BK; or at least near the end of the document he is asking the Court for their "return" (page 21). Which suggests that they would be passed to a new builder and that would certainly stop LP from continuing to build and would ensure we don't have the "two classes" I was hypothesising about earlier.

I think the "Torch" thing might be indirectly confirming where this is heading. I would assume the Class Rules for a "Torch" would state that Lasers built before xxxx (or sail numbers prior to xxxxxxx) are considered class legal Torches (giving the new class an immediate massive number of boats/fleets/events/etc.). That is assuming the relevant authorities accept it all (if they have any say). And maybe the Torch will have an improved sail (from day one) ?

Ian
 
Bruce Kirby's Mk 1 International 14 design was also called "Torch." Here's a photo of him sailing it:
K1-Torch.jpg

Credit: http://cbifda.blogspot.com/2012/02/picture-of-bruce-kirby-sailing-his-mk-1.html
 
LaserPerformance Statement in connection with the complaint by Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc.
3/13/2013

Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. have filed a legal complaint against LaserPerformance entities, the International Sailing Federation Limited (“ISAF”) and International Laser Class Association (“ILCA”). A number of false accusations and claims have been made in the document.

LaserPerformance vehemently deny the allegations made by Mr. Kirby and maintain that these legal proceedings are vexatious in nature at best. LaserPerformance will take all necessary action to contest and defend these ill-conceived and meritless claims.

LaserPerformance is the trademark owner of the Laser name and Starburst mark in all its territories. Mr. Kirby’s complaint does not dispute LaserPerformance’s ownership and use rights in connection thereto.
 
LaserPerformance Statement in connection with the complaint by Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc.
3/13/2013

Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. have filed a legal complaint against LaserPerformance entities, the International Sailing Federation Limited (“ISAF”) and International Laser Class Association (“ILCA”). A number of false accusations and claims have been made in the document.

LaserPerformance vehemently deny the allegations made by Mr. Kirby and maintain that these legal proceedings are vexatious in nature at best. LaserPerformance will take all necessary action to contest and defend these ill-conceived and meritless claims.

LaserPerformance is the trademark owner of the Laser name and Starburst mark in all its territories. Mr. Kirby’s complaint does not dispute LaserPerformance’s ownership and use rights in connection thereto.

Do you care to explain publicly why you chose to no longer pay royalties to Bruce Kirby?
 
Information posted recently on the ILCA website:


Update on the Ongoing Dispute Between Bruce Kirby, Inc. and LaserPerformance
On March 4, 2013, Bruce Kirby, Inc., filed a complaint in the U.S. Federal Court system, District of Connecticut, with respect to the ongoing dispute between Bruce Kirby, Inc. and LasperPerformance – a dispute that is now entering its fourth year. The complaint is a matter of public record and those who are interested can find more information at this link (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/connecticut-district-court/441418/bruce-kirby-inc-et-al-v-laserperformance-europe-limited-et-al/summary/).
In addition to naming LaserPerformance, the complaint also names both the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and the International Laser Class Association (ILCA.) Both have been included in the complaint because ISAF plaque sales to LaserPerformance were continued even after Kirby, Inc. informed the ILCA and the ISAF of its termination of agreements with LaserPerformance. The decision to continue ISAF plaque sales (and continue to report them to Kirby, Inc.), taken only after consultation with ILCA's legal advisor and close discussion with ISAF, is seen to be in the best interest of the sailors as it maintains the flow of boats and equipment until such time as a resolution to the dispute is reached.
It has always been ILCA's opinion that the dispute between Kirby, Inc., and LaserPerformance is between those two parties and should be resolved between them without the need for involvement of either the ILCA or the ISAF. As has always been the case, the ILCA remains ready to fully abide by the outcome of the resolution. Further, the ILCA is optimistic that the filing of this complaint will finally bring resolution to this long standing issue.
Until there is an outcome in this dispute, the ILCA will continue to work to carry out its mission – in particular, assuring the success of the world championships scheduled for 2013 and beyond.

The ILCA will continue to update as the situation evolves.
 
The case sounds pretty cut and dried. Given Rastegar's performance with McLaren Baby Carriages, he'll just fold up LP and create some other new company and transfer all of LP's assets to that new company to avoid paying damages.

My guess is that Zim is going to eat LP's U.S. lunch in the long run, like they have been doing with the 420.
1. Zim signs a builders agreement to make the Torch.
2. LP is forced by the court to turn the Laser molds over to Kirby and to cease building Lasers.
3. Kirby in turn has LP ship the molds down the street to Zim.
4. Torches start coming off the Zim assembly line and parts become readily available.

Any bets on RS doing the same in Europe?
 
Just an FYI: A few posts back I ranted a bit about calling all lawyers by nasty names.

I believe the fact I can go to a lawyer and describe a complaint and the fact that lawyer can represent my if he finds my complaint to be worthy of pursuit to be a fundamental building block of the freedoms I enjoy.

Certainly lawyers are well paid. They must spend years and years educating themselves, and pass an exam to prove they have readied themselves to represent other human beings in courts of law.

I may or may not give a rats pattotoe who wins this particular case. I care very much that each side has the right to use the American Legal system to help resolve the dispute.

I believe , for the most part, lawyers are the good guys. In fact I believe lawyers are the good guys when the represent ANYBODY, and ECPECIALLY when lawyers represent the most disliked and pathetic.

if our system is to work, everyone must be entitled to representation.

And...as degreed professionals, I have no problem with lawyers making more than the average person who has less invested in his career.

Yes, the lawyers will probablky make a lot of money while assembling arguments and presenting their arguments to judges and juries.

In fact, the deeper pocketed contestants may win this battle simply by outspending the other side.
.
but


Without the lawyers, the bullys would simply win all the time.
 
About my concerns with respect to allowing counterfeit boats to sail in a regatta I host.

If I allow those boats later decided to be counterfeit to race, I may be sued and lose every penny I have managed to save in my entire life.

If I decide a boat is counterfeit and it is later found to be legal by the courts, I may be sued for the loss of a weekend of pleasure, or even for defamation by the owner of the non- counterfeit craft.

Currently I am simply "CONCERNED" about how to treat any hulls which I believe Kirby and his lawyers would sucessfully and legally label as counterfeit.

My current plan is to make note of any suspected counterfeit boats and if it eventually becomes necessary to do so, re-score the event according to whatever the courts decide is proper.

Summary: I Don't know what EXACTLY is the right thing to do. I believe intellectual and contractual rights matter. I know one of our past champions wouldn't much like it if somebody started selling the recordings of this group without paying the band.
 
I guess this will all hinge on whether ILCA and the ISAF were aware that the builder agreement had been terminated. If they had no official notification from either party then why should they stop supplying plaques?

Were they required to ascertain that a valid builder agreement was in place prior to issuing of plaques?

Were they required to ascertain that all royalties were paid up to date before issuing plaques?

It is not down to ILCA and the ISAF to police the agreements between the builder and the rights holder (IMO), they may have clauses in their own agreements with the rights holder but I feel this is unlikely.

I do maintain that this is more about BKI wanting to regain control of the Laser TM in NA and Europe. Once he has done this then a new builder can be appointed and the class can move on.

I don;t think either side has covered themselves in glory here. This dispute has been rumbling on for over 2 years with the builder agreements only being terminated in July 2012 (some 18 months after royalties stopped getting paid).

Were I the judge I would be asking why there was this delay by the rights holder in terminating these agreements?

I would also want to see all applicable agreements which relate to issuing of plaques to decide if ILCA/ISAF acted inappropriately in continuing to issue them.

Sure there is going to be a financial implication here even if it is only that ILCA/ISAF have to spend a lot of cash on lawyers.....
 
In fact, the deeper pocketed contestants may win this battle simply by outspending the other side.
.
but

Without the lawyers, the bullys would simply win all the time.

The problem is, certainly in the UK, that lawyers tend to be the bullies and force people who cannot afford a lawyer to agree to things which simply are not fair especially in civil cases where the standard of proof required is much lower than in a criminal case.

That is a discussion for another day though.....

I do agree that in some cases lawyers are necessary but they are in it to win it as that is how their reputations are built and how they become successful.
 
Information posted recently on the ILCA website:


Update on the Ongoing Dispute Between Bruce Kirby, Inc. and LaserPerformance
...
The decision to continue ISAF plaque sales (and continue to report them to Kirby, Inc.), taken only after consultation with ILCA's legal advisor and close discussion with ISAF, is seen to be in the best interest of the sailors as it maintains the flow of boats and equipment until such time as a resolution to the dispute is reached.
...

If I go into my local supermarket and "act in the best interests of (some) customers" (i.e. remove goods without paying 'cos it is in my interests) I cannot expect the courts to support my actions after the Police are called. Same with my bank where, acting in my best interests might not coincide with the banks interests and their legal and contractual rights. etc., etc. The ILCA may like to act in the best interests of sailors but there are overriding legal and contractual issues. There are loads of things the ILCA could do "in the best interests of sailors" that would be illegal and so they don't do them. I would have hoped for a somewhat stronger defensive statement from the ILCA/ISAF.

Ian
 
I seem to remember, way back, that the ILCA said they didn't actually know what was in the agreement between BKI and LP, and weren't entitled to know, because they weren't party to it.

So the senario could be. BK tells the ILCA not to issue plaques, because LP have breached the agreement between themselves. LP says 'no we haven't, because we don't think the agreement applies anymore". ILCA has no idea what the 'agreement' is, so how can they know who is right? They cannot just accept BKI's word for it, this is business, not a 'nice guy' contest.

I agree with Jeffers - I don't think either side have covered themselves in glory. How did BKI let it get like this?

1. Why are ILCA the ones issuing the plaques, which effectively say the boats built by LP meet the requirements of the agreement between BKI and LP, when they have no idea what that agreement actually is.
2. How did the Laser trademark get separated from the construction manual in the first place.
3. Why did BKI sell to the Aussie outfit, only to then buy it back. That defintely seems like an admission by BKI that their managment of the 'agreements' isn't that great.

I really dont know what LP's end game is. I cannot believe that cutting BKI out of the equation will really make such a vast difference to the viability of building/supplying Lasers. LP's complex web of international companies seems to me to make it almost certain that there is never going to be any profits. Just maintaining that tangled web must cost a small fortune in professional fees.

I can also understand why the ILCA has said very little in public on the subject. As frustrating as that is for their members. Anything they do say in public is very likely to be used against them, so sadly, they are better off saying nothing.
 
Tim,

In reference to #2, I believe that at one point in time BK actually built the boats himself. The business went belly up, and he lost the trademark in the bankruptcy while maintaining the design rights via the construction manual.
 
I think the class will die anytime soon, lose the Olympic status and everybody will have top sail anythign else. I will.

The class will probably be a whole lot better without Olympic status to be fair!

With 200,000+ boats built the class will not die any time soon.
 
The class will probably be a whole lot better without Olympic status to be fair!

With 200,000+ boats built the class will not die any time soon.

I would agree. Olympic status has added little yet is apparently a massive hindrance (e.g. rumours about reasons for the ongoing delays in the new sail arrival - because of "the Olympics"). Losing Olympic status is a bit of an "ego" thing but does not help so it would be great for this to end.

However, 200000+ boats does mean it wont die soon. But as production stops (or people stop buying because of uncertainty about counterfeit boats), so the top end of the fleet may start migrating to different classes, so competition will decline and we could see a slow decline in the class (something that is already happening in my experience - and I think the sail issues are discouraging some from joining the class - but that is a different debate).

Ian
 
This class of boat will never die, there are just way to many of them in existence for that to happen. It's still, numerically, the largest single class in every sailing club around me, by a long way.

The best thing that could happen to it IMHO is for control of the class (builders / sail makers etc) to be passed to the owners. We are the ones who trully have the best interests of the class at heart. The burden of responsibility for future developments would fall on our shoulders (including the cost of developing and testing), but it would be in our interests to do that.

This approach is being taken by more and more one design classes in the UK , and it appears to work quite successfully (the latest is the Phantom, where the owners now own the moulds and have 'appointed' Ovingtons to build the hulls). I appreciate those classes are much smaller in number terms than the Laser, and are not international, but the basic model seems to work. It gives existing owners much more control over the future of their investment / toy.

If it means the Laser has to drop out of the Olympics, who cares. The Olympics is such a minority sport, I cannot see it would have any effect on the grass roots. In any case, you get the feeling that sailing is forever struggling to justify its inclusion on the Olympic roster, which is increasingly driven by TV ratings and being dumbed down as a result. Sailing really doesn't suit this 'new world' as it's a participation sport and not a sport that is entertaining to watch someone else doing.

I know the SB20 owners were 'cock a hoop' when they managed to move away from the LP/Laser stable and take back control of their class (with the help of the designer).

May be the time is coming when we need to do the same?
 
Some more light reading.... Funny, I never read the text on the plaque, but hard to miss BK's name on it now (exhibit 16)

Anyone want to help defray my outlay of cash to buy these (or pony up to buy the others..), let me know..
 

Attachments

  • Exhibit 16.pdf
    271.5 KB · Views: 147
  • Exhibit 9.pdf
    132.3 KB · Views: 127
  • Exhibit 8.pdf
    433.2 KB · Views: 102
  • Exhibit 5.pdf
    540.5 KB · Views: 104
  • Exhibit 4.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 110
So he gets a royalty of what, about $100 per boat? It's hard to believe that this whole mess is over that. I'm betting LPE wants to make major changes as to HOW they make a Laser. But if they can save another $100, so much the better I guess.
 
I think the class will die anytime soon, lose the Olympic status and everybody will have top sail anythign else. I will.
Laser sailing won't die anytime soon because it's fun and challenging. The people who are all up in arms about the topic of this thread are a small minority of all Laser sailors and even they will continue to sail their boats, whether it's a Laser or a Kirby Torch.

I certainly will!
 
Out of interest (being based outside the US), how long to these types of case take to get to court. I assume the defendants will need to be given some time to examine paperwork; but I can't see they have too much extended investigation as it sounds like a paperwork thing and it should all be readily at hand. Does the US have long delays before a hearing starts or is it pretty quick?

(I suppose my worry is that LPE will be uncertain of the outcome and if they will still be bulding/selling Lasers after it all so are unlikely to keep decent stocks of gear for the boat. When I last needed just a replacement bailer it was a nightmare getting one, so if a similar situation got worse it could be bad news for existing boats. A quick resolution has to be in everybody's interests).

Ian
 
So he gets a royalty of what, about $100 per boat? It's hard to believe that this whole mess is over that. I'm betting LPE wants to make major changes as to HOW they make a Laser. But if they can save another $100, so much the better I guess.

200k boats times $100 per boat is 20 million. In AU they retail for over $7000(I bet BK is getting more than $100). The Dude is 84 years old. I would be pissed as well if the bastards that build my boats won't have the decency to pay me the bit I'm owed.

If he was motivated he could have them all built in Taiwan with better quality and pocket the difference. They do it with $3500 Optimists made in the Far East(brand name).
 
200k boats times $100 per boat is 20 million. In AU they retail for over $7000(I bet BK is getting more than $100). The Dude is 84 years old. I would be pissed as well if the bastards that build my boats won't have the decency to pay me the bit I'm owed.

If he was motivated he could have them all built in Taiwan with better quality and pocket the difference. They do it with $3500 Optimists made in the Far East(brand name).

It's 2% of the wholesale price. A better number to use would be in the neighborhood of $60-80 per boat (and that is at 2013 prices , no where near 20 mil over the course of 200K boats)
So if it's approx 2 years of non-payments for 1/2 to 3/4 of all the boats produced (2 builders, 1 has been paying) in that time period we are talking about maybe 3-4K boats ? The money owed seems just part of the whole suit
 
...The money owed seems just part of the whole suit

(My guess) I suspect it is more a question of getting the moulds/plugs/tooling back so that a new builder has a clear unconfused market (i.e. to avoid LP making them and making claims whilst new builder is making the Kirby authorised ones and trying to counter LPs efforts and the arguments and confusion continues damaging everybody). Maybe get ILCA out of the picture as well (given their previous attempts to cut him/Rights Holder out of "the triangle").

I don't think there will be any difficulties getting a new builder going very quickly (particularly if they get the moulds/plugs and tooling recovered from LP). It may even be that the Aus/NZ builder might be interested in additional territories or happy for a short term supply through "new builder" whilst production ramps-up. Plenty of possibilities.

Ian
 
200k boats times $100 per boat is 20 million. In AU they retail for over $7000(I bet BK is getting more than $100). The Dude is 84 years old. I would be pissed as well if the bastards that build my boats won't have the decency to pay me the bit I'm owed.

If he was motivated he could have them all built in Taiwan with better quality and pocket the difference. They do it with $3500 Optimists made in the Far East(brand name).

I was referring more to LPE's intentions rather than BK. I can certainly understand why BK is pissed. He doesn't want to build boats. It's hard to make money building and selling boats. He lets someone else do that and collects a royalty on his design.

However, I think this is about more than just a 2% royalty. In addition to paying the royalty, LPE must build boats within the narrow restrictions of the construction manual with the micro-management from the class association (who are looking out for us). I suspect what LPE really wants is to make a boat that looks like a Laser, but is made using more modern materials and techniques. And maybe put a fancy carbon rig with a transparent mylar sail to increase marketability. Doing this would mean not only bypassing BK and the construction manual, but eliminating the existing class association structure.
 
They could certainly do that if they kept the same hull. There is really no difference between the radial, 4.7, and a new modern rig with a carbon mast and fully battened mylar sail. The hull is the issue in my mind.
 
BK is dead right to try and resolve this. LP are so arrogant that they think it is "their" boat. They stopped paying royalties when they were financially crippled, and they would only pay people that were absolutely essential to get product out of the door, so the designer was not paid. This is also what happened to the sb3 class and the laser 2000. So the designer terminates the contract for breach of contract and finds a new builder - simple.

The fact that LP claim to own the trademark in certain regions to the term Laser and the emblem is really neither here nor there. For sure there will be a shitfight over the rights and wrongs here, but that shouldn't stop people going sailing. Use a new name if you have to and move on. Allow all the old boats to change the emblem and join the new class.

The world will be a better place without LP.
 
Exactly right. The problem is that Rastegar has transferred the Laser TM away from LP to another of his companies.

From what were are led to believe, he is supposed to seek permission from the rights holder in order to do this (as part of the builder agreement).

So as many have rightly said this is about BK regaining control of the TM. The tooling and moulds he may have no claim over (I think they are owned by a company completely separate to LP anyway as the hull building is contracted out I believe).
 
The following has been on the ILCA site for some time (even before the .... hit the fan):

The following ILCA Plaques (boat/sail numbers) are void and any boat showing these sail numbers is not a class legal Laser.
Date Starting Number Ending Number
Apr 18, 2012 203120 203139
Apr 26, 2012 203384 203483

That's a total of about 120 boats.

Interpretation?
 
Plaques have gone missing, be it in one of the factories the plaques, the ILCA/ISAF office, at one of the laser factories or has got lost in the mail. I wouldn't read to much into it, it's probably happens on a fairly regular basis (every few years).
 
2% at wholesale and maybe $80 per boat now but less than half that in the 1980's when even more boats were built than today. But there is also the future payments.
 
All this drama has reminded me of a similar story. If you get bored sometime, go Google "Donald Featherstone".

images
 

These are "intent to use" applications applied for by Bruce Kirby, Inc. Identical marks are owned by Farzad Rastegar through Karaya (Jersey) Limited.

A few speculations on why these applications were filed:

- Perhaps Kirby is preparing for potential outcomes of the lawsuit.

- If these marks are allowed (unlikely because they are identical to registered marks), then Kirby could license them to the builders as required in the ISAF and Builder Agreements.

- These applications might be used to clarify (or confuse) the ownership of the marks (e.g., through a concurrent use proceeding).
 
A twin Maclaren baby carriage was spotted in the park today with Rastegar and Kirby in it, having a nice cup of tea.
 

Back
Top