[Mccoypottery-talk] RE: Re: info on fakes OT McCoy

[Kevin Reffitt]

Please, forward me a link to the list!!

Kevin


At 03:20 AM 3/24/04, you wrote:
>
>This came from the Fenton list.
>Anyone like to comment?  I'm not going to get into a battle with this man 
>as he is good friends with the moderator of the group but I'll be more 
>than happy to forward any information that is correct.
>Even better.... Kevin if you are out there, you might want to join the 
>list and refute this man!
>Jennifer
>Jennifer  & Rodney Smith
>Baltimore, Ohio
><<http://www.ohiopotteryandglassware.com/>http://www.OhioPotteryandGlassware.com>
><http://stores.ebay.com/id=1857615&ssPageName=L2>
>
>When Mount Clemens bought McCoy, they changed the logo to include the Mt. 
>Clemens logo but continued to use the McCoy name.  They owned McCoy 
>Pottery Company in the same way  VIACOM owns CBS.  Just because Columbia 
>Broadcasting had a new owner, the name wasn't changed from CBS.  In fact 
>most of the time when one company buys another, they insist on the rights 
>to use the company name so they can continue to capitalize on any good 
>will the company may have built up.
>
>Roger Jensen is another story.  Neither he nor his company had any ties to 
>original McCoy Potteries (of which there two) .  We are by no means close 
>but I have known and known of Roger for many, many years.  I knew him when 
>he had his pottery in Rockwood, TN.  He later moved it up on the mountain 
>between Dayton and Spring City, TN which is not far from the town in which 
>I live.  I spoke with Roger on the telephone last month.  I have never 
>known of him to use the name Roger Jensen McCoy.  What he did do was from 
>a company called MPI Industries.  McCoy Pottery had never registered the 
>1940s mark.   All Roger had to do was use the mark for one year which he 
>did starting in 1991.  After he used it for one year he was able to fire 
>for a trademark with the US Government which he did in 1992 and the 
>trademark was approved in 1993.  There was no need for Roger to use the 
>name McCoy as his name.  You or I could have done the same thing.  If 
>anyone has a claim, it would be Roger against the importer's and other 
>producers in the US (including some of Rogers family members and the 
>infamous Faye) who making items with the mark.  But, trademark suits can 
>be time consuming and expensive and I don't think Roger wants to fight 
>that battle.  He has had other important things that have made to many 
>demands on his time in the past few years.
>
>The original McCoy family have no rights to the trademark just because 
>their name is McCoy.  If anyone want to see a copy of the trademark 
>registration, see page 244 of Roerigs CE of Cookie Jars, Book 2