• Mark Posted: 3/21/2011 1:25am PDT

    While some of the vehicles (the 200) don't live up to the tough image of Imported from Detroit (where are the Challengers and Rams etc?), Chrysler still came up with the concept so I think they have every right to defend their intellectual property. Maybe I would have had more sympathy for the T-Shirt company if they were actually American made in some dis-used Highland Park or Belvedere locale deep inside MOTOWN!

  • Mark Posted: 3/21/2011 1:21am PDT

    While some of the vehicles (the 200) don't live up to the tough image of Imported from Detroit (where are the Challengers and Rams etc?), Chrylser still came up with the concept so I think they have every right to defend their intellectual property. Maybe I would have had more sympathy for the T-Shirt company if they were actually American made in ome dis-used Highland Park or Belvedere locale deep inside MOTOWN!

  • richard avatar Richard Posted: 3/19/2011 2:03pm PDT

    @John: I fully respect you being a lawyer, but as I point out in the article, Chrysler HAS trademarked the phrase "Imported from Detroit" -- in fact, they've done so several times over. (You can follow the link on the phrase "Chrysler owns the trademark" in the third paragraph to see the variations that they've registered.)
    .
    I agree that the situation is somewhat absurd, but I've also recently been involved in a case in which an organization that failed to protect its trademarked name lost control of it, as David mentioned above. So based on my experience, it would seem that Chrysler's suit has some legitimacy. As someone who's trained in this field, perhaps you could walk us through the finer points of trademark law?

  • John Posted: 3/19/2011 8:01am PDT

    IAAL (I am a lawyer) and you guys are flat wrong to believe that "The law is on Chrysler's side." Richard, you should have consulted a lawyer before making such a statement. In fact, the law is really on PURE DETROIT's side and Chrysler has the uphill battle. Chrysler made the mistake of using a merely descriptive phrase that is NOT protected by trademark or any other law. We all agree how absurd it is for Chrysler to try to publicly crush tiny PURE DETROIT.

  • richard avatar Richard Posted: 3/17/2011 6:30pm PDT

    @Damien: Think of it as poetic license, with Chrysler implying that Detroit is its own little world. And on a very base level, it's also a jab at the mere thought of importing vehicles. As in, "Yeah, buddy, I got your import right here."
    .
    @David: You're correct. And IANAL either, but IMHO (since we're getting acronymic), Chrysler seems a little too aggressive on this one. A cease-and-desist order would probably have covered Chrysler's trademark obligations without ratcheting up the tension. Then again, it's possible that they sent one and Pure Detroit ignored it...

  • fb_709357878 avatar David Posted: 3/17/2011 2:28pm PDT

    It's my understanding that U.S. trademark law requires companies to enforce its trademarks against all infringement or lose them. Of course IANAL. :)

  • Damien Posted: 3/17/2011 1:59pm PDT

    I still, truly, do not get "Imported from Detroit". Is Chrysler trying to say that their home grounds are separate from the rest of the U.S.? It would be different if this campaign existed in some other country...