Misrepresentation of AutoHome roof top tents

[Flagster]

Way too funny. Do glampers take off their gloves in a dual?
One has a Fratelli Orsini golve and the other a pig skin Kinco.

This just made my day as much as seeing the guy in the truck fully built for overlanding chasing a black bear around with an iPad this morning on the side of the road. I almost stopped to tell him it was not a good idea but I think he was looking for adventure. I just texted the mile post to a friend looking to fill a tag.

Thanks for the foam.

LOL...:coffeedrink:

 

[bansil]

When I look at that page, I see a Jeep with a tent on it (cool camping picture) even for a Jeep :ylsmoke:

I then read "Overland adventure outfitters sells roof top tents and camping supplies.
We sell Cascadia vehicle tents, eezi-awn, tepui tents, top bunk and roost USA->snip!

No mention of autohome tents

I also see no mention of selling Rubicon jeeps or some antique general store

It's his personal picture that showed an awesome product...or it did...there goes advertisement for your product

And all the good reviews and customer recommendations he had

You even say he didn't misrepresent the autohome in anyway....oh except he didn't say "these tents are not the ones I sell"

really????

If I click on a tent that DOESN'T say Autohome and has ANOTHER name and is a lot cheaper...why in the **** would I think I was buying a autohome????

I am not as stupid/ignorant as it appears some people are.....I guess I will go to the Ford dealer and see a Chevy on the lot and then sign on the line for the Ford and expect to get the Chevy I SEE???

This is a very good showing of what is happening to this country, people are getting too dumbed down.........

I will now sit on my soap box....that looks like a egg crate

 

[Honu]

Way too funny. Do glampers take off their gloves in a dual?
One has a Fratelli Orsini golve and the other a pig skin Kinco.

This just made my day as much as seeing the guy in the truck fully built for overlanding chasing a black bear around with an iPad this morning on the side of the road. I almost stopped to tell him it was not a good idea but I think he was looking for adventure. I just texted the mile post to a friend looking to fill a tag.

Thanks for the foam.

wish you had some video of this would be funny to see

kinda like in some parks OH HONEY go stand next to that buffalo !
OK GREAT now pet it !!!!

 

[Driver-Navigator]

I just want to note my appreciation of Martyn's real-world input, as well as his suggestion to turn this into a productive, informative discussion.

 

[hurricane harry]

Thanks for the internet fodder.
Looks like I might be able to afford a hard shell rtt after all.

 

[Martinjmpr]

"Unlicensed" copies?

I'm curious about the OP's reference to someone selling "unlicensed" copies of Maggiolina or Autohome tents.

So, are either designs still patented? My understanding is that these designs have been around for quite a while so most likely patent rights have already expired (patent protection normally lasts 20 years.)

I also can't help but think that if the tent was patented, OP, as exclusive distributor, would have a right to sue anybody infringing on the patent (as has been said, with patent/copyright/trademark you have to enforce your rights if you want to maintain them.)

Now, unlike patent and copyright, trademarks can last indefinitely, so certainly any company that wanted to market a product with the Maggiolina or Autohome name would have to license it.

But as far as the design of the tent itself, unless there's an active patent on it, anybody can make and sell one and they don't have to license anything about it.

 

[Mike S]

Thanks for your comments and analysis. You are looking at this from a legal standpoint. Fine. A license usually includes some intellectual property, this may, or may not, include patented designs, etc. The license is a structure under which two companies co-operate. An unlicensed copy is just that - a copy that is done without the benefit of a license or consent from the originator.

For the record, at least one Chinese company has claimed to be AutoHome's Asian manufacturer, implying a legal / commercial relationship where none in fact, exists. In short, this is a misrepresentation of products and relationships.

I'm curious about the OP's reference to someone selling "unlicensed" copies of Maggiolina or Autohome tents.

So, are either designs still patented? My understanding is that these designs have been around for quite a while so most likely patent rights have already expired (patent protection normally lasts 20 years.)

I also can't help but think that if the tent was patented, OP, as exclusive distributor, would have a right to sue anybody infringing on the patent (as has been said, with patent/copyright/trademark you have to enforce your rights if you want to maintain them.)

Now, unlike patent and copyright, trademarks can last indefinitely, so certainly any company that wanted to market a product with the Maggiolina or Autohome name would have to license it.

But as far as the design of the tent itself, unless there's an active patent on it, anybody can make and sell one and they don't have to license anything about it.

 

[expedition4x4]

Is there a patent that covers the designs in question? Or are you implying he is misrepresenting your brand because he took a picture of his property (showing your trademark) and was marketing other products in the same website?

 

[007]

Mike S., the only crime here is that you haven't offered up an apology to Wade at OAO4x4.com. To say that Wade is misrepresenting or being dishonest to consumers is absurd and completely ignorant of the way he does business.

Others, I can tell you from experience that Wade is the guy to call for Roof Top tents, etc. He has owned the high end stuff and the cheaper stuff, he can give an excellent comparison. He has no qualms about explaining the shortfalls (or upside) of any products he sells. He will give a very honest comparison and let you choose what to buy (or not).

When I talked to Wade about Roof top tents and my needs, he told me to check out Flip-pacs before doing anything. Wade doesn't sell flip-pacs, he just wanted me to have the best setup for my needs.

I know Wade well now, (we live in the same area) and to think someone would try to defame him on a site where others actually know him is comical to say the least.

 

[Mike S]

James - Nothing I have written here is incorrect. The dealer was using a photo of our tents (several, actually) to stimulate sales for an unlicensed Chinese copy. Call it what you will.

 

[007]

James - Nothing I have written here is incorrect. The dealer was using a photo of our tents (several, actually) to stimulate sales for an unlicensed Chinese copy. Call it what you will.

That is an extreme take on the matter. It would be like me saying that you are misrepresenting roof racks because your site includes pictures of roof racks that you don't actually sell.

 

[Utah KJ]

Cheap is expensive. Auto Home has always been the most expensive and has never pursued the buyer who doesn't mind giving their money to company that offers knock offs and that will be the subject of "has anyone heard from?" threads in 7 mos after they close shop.

 

[irishcoffee]

Thanks for the heads up guys! Looking on the http://www.oao4x4.com/ those copies dissapeared :victory:
"Education by information"
Ps: comparisons here (French): http://www.jamesbaroud.eu/index.php...c-n-11&catid=4:comparatifs&Itemid=832&lang=en

 

[Chili]

I know this is old news, but I came across it due to the recent bump.

James - Nothing I have written here is incorrect. The dealer was using a photo of our tents (several, actually) to stimulate sales for an unlicensed Chinese copy. Call it what you will.

I disagree. You specifically pointed to wardrow's website as an example of an illegal use of photos, and a violation of copyright laws:

There is a company in China (LONGROAD CAMP&OUTDOOR INDUSTRIAL CO.,LTD - Beijing P.R.C China) that is producing an inferior and unlicensed copy of the AutoHome Columbus and Maggiolina hard shell tents. These are being sold by a couple of private label distributors here in the USA.

I would not normally post here on the Expedition Portal to discuss this type of business issue, but some of the resellers marketing practices are confusing to consumers and becoming egregious. Some of these resellers are claiming that their copies are "made in the same factory in China" as the AutoHome tents. This is not the case. To set the record straight, AutoHome tents are made solely in Montavo, Italy in a dedicated factory and have been since 1958.

Other resellers of the Chinese copies are illegally using photos and descriptions of AutoHome tents to represent these products. To set the record straight again, these photos misrepresent the product offered and constitute a violation of copyright laws. An example below of a photo on the home page of a company selling the Chinese copies:

Caveat emptor

You even titled the screenshot "OAO_Illegal_photo_use.jpg". Then you give another example, but specifically pointed out that it was not wardrow's in that case:

Wade, et al: I don't have any problem competing - we sell every tent we get within a week or two of its arrival at our distribution point. This season is our best ever. Apparently many people prefer to buy quality, but some go for price. Fair enough. My point is not so much to take issue with the Chinese copiers of our products, but with the misrepresentation of our products by US importers of the Chinese knock-offs and the use of photos (and even our website text) of our products to sell these knock-offs. One dealer (not you, Wade) actually COPIED our website photos and text to promote the knock-offs.

Our dealership terms are not at all onerous, quite the opposite, in fact. A number of small outfitters are dealing successfully in our products. We welcome quality representation.

As for my confrontational tone - you're right. Using photos of our products to promote an unlicensed knock-off product does not sit well with me. When we talked you were pretty vague as to when you would remove the photos of our products from your home page and gallery. We have worked for over a decade to build a market (where non existed prior) and to secure our brand in that market. In that time we have seen imitators come and go. If I do not defend our brand and market position aggressively I will soon come to regret it.

If you had spent over ten years and a million dollars building a business and creating a brand reputation, you might see this issue a little differently.

Not to discount the fact that you have surely made substantial investment into your business, of both time and money, but I think that based on that second to last paragraph it looks to be pretty clear that your emotions are what drove this attack on him. With such a substantial commitment already made on your part, and if you believed what he was doing was illegal, why wouldn't you have a C&D drafted and sent, rather than calling him directly with a confrontational tone, and then calling him out specifically on a public message board?

Thanks for your comments and analysis. You are looking at this from a legal standpoint. Fine. A license usually includes some intellectual property, this may, or may not, include patented designs, etc. The license is a structure under which two companies co-operate. An unlicensed copy is just that - a copy that is done without the benefit of a license or consent from the originator.

For the record, at least one Chinese company has claimed to be AutoHome's Asian manufacturer, implying a legal / commercial relationship where none in fact, exists. In short, this is a misrepresentation of products and relationships.

Why wouldn't Martinjmpr have looked at it from a legal standpoint? That is how you presented it in your original post.

Not that I saw. Wade did have quite a number of photos of AutoHome tents in the 'gallery' section. There was no identification of AutoHome (and no disclaimers regarding the photos) beyond the ID on the tents in the photos. I would much prefer not to have these issues, but success does attract imitators - in this case the Chinese manufacturer and US importer. My issues with Wade was simply the use of photos of our tents to sell an unlicensed imitation. As was pointed out by Martyn, if we do not defend our intellectual property and brand name we could render it indefensible.

But you must also be responsible in how you choose to defend that intellectual property and brand name. As you have presented it in this thread, you seem to have made wardrow out to have been violating laws and infringing on your copyrights, making him the target of your ire. Making claims like those sure do come off as libel, IMO.

It is very confusing to me that you would publicly identify and defame wardrow, who you later acknowledge did not misrepresent his product as a Autohome. You mention 2 entities that appear to have actually violated laws (Dealer copying your text / using your pics and manufacturer claiming to be Autohome's Asian manufacturer) but chose not to name them?

The thing is, your point could as easily have been made without using him as an example, by just making it known that there are imitators selling a similar, but lesser-quality product, and that people should be sure not to confuse them with Autohome. I absolutely agree with Martyn (and you) that you must defend your trademarks and intellectual property or risk losing it, and I'm sure many of us have had this discussion in business law classes. But it seems to me, as I already mentioned, that the best way to do so would be with Cease and Desist letters rather than confrontational phone calls and false assertions on a public message board.

Sorry for the long post. Had some time to kill.