| Message/Author |
|
|
 Anonymous posted on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 08:01 pm
|
|
|
See this story!
www.cinergetics.com/namechange.htm
Although I've known about this for some time, I had no idea of the scope and grandeur of Imax's arrogance! Pulllllease! In other words, no one in this industry had dare use the generic and most obvious word of all in naming their product. I suppose that I should secure "Large". "Giant", and "Big" before some power-hungry "I"-company decides to usurp them. Better yet, I'll rename myself Max and go into business -- "Max's Theater Chain"
Imax...get a life!
-- An LF veteran |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 08:52 pm
|
|
|
I wonder if Apple is safe with its iMac? Put more than one in a room and you'd have "iMacs" in your own home or office.
Then, a quick trip to Express.com (click here for IMAX DVDs listing and you could be watching your favorite IMAX flicks on your iMacs... and guess what? You own the theater for a couple thousand bucks instead of a couple million in lease fees.
WARNING: Do not visit the following link from work
My favorite bastardization/use of a similar-sounding name is I MAX International ("World's finest Tattoo Supply and fantastic Body Piercing Jewellery" according to their site). Their URL is http://www.imaxinternational.com (cut and paste it to visit... don't want any accidental visits getting anyone fired). It has a lovely opening page that I'm sure "our" IMAX has got to love.
Kidding aside, I do understand protecting ones trademark, but back to the topic at hand, it's not like "they" didn't know about MaxImage! from the first issue. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 09:19 pm
|
|
|
Showmax and (Zion's) Cinemax have been around for years. The Dynamax in Albuquerque (which is an Iwerks theater) has been in operation for OVER A DECADE!
Next case: MAXIpads!
Don Iwerks should sue Imax for the unrightful use of the "I" which is clearly taken directly from his name! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 10:27 pm
|
|
|
| I'm not exactly sure why people are going on a tirade about this. This is one area where I think Imax was pretty justified. It's fairly well known that the phrase "Imax" was derived from the phrase "Maximum Image", which is pretty close to MaxImage, and then you have the fact that the first four letters are the same (Imax vs. MaxI). |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 16, 2000 - 10:34 am
|
|
|
| Are you sure the name wasn't a spinoff of "Ian Maxwell" played a role in the creation of the projection system during early Graeme Ferguson days of the company? |
|
|
|
|
| I always understood it came from Image Maximization |
|
|
|
|
SHEESH! Next they'll be after the MAXi muffler shops we have here in Tennessee for trademark infringment due to muffler maximization and large format brake calipers :-}
Looks to me like somebody has a case of microsoft envy! |
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Maxi-flight golf balls.
Why not sue every English publication; newspapers, broadcast, magazines, dictionaries, etc. and have maximum removed from the language? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, June 17, 2000 - 06:22 pm
|
|
|
What a sorry abuse of trademark protection. I'm reminded of the film "The Greatest Places", Which was originally titled "The Greatest Places On Earth" until Ringling Bros caught wind and threatened a lawsuit. They have been 100% successful over the last century in not allowing anyone to use the phrase "The Greatest (fill-in-the-blank) on earth -- even if something really is the greatest...and it just so happens to be on earth.
By the way, I came across this link whilst web-surfing:
http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/orig/html/2000fca25888.o.en.html |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 07:46 pm
|
|
|
Yes, I (The original poster) am quite aware of where "Imax" comes from. However, registering a trademark does not allow a company/entity the exclusive rights to all incarnations of said trademark name nor of it's elemental root words.
I'm certainly not suprised that there are folks that believe that Imax is merely protecting it's trademark, after all -- The general public almost exclusively associates LF with Imax (regardless of what name is on the theater). That brand recognition is the core of Imax's argument. However, that ignorance is no one else's problem. Certainly, there should be no special treatment of the law should any of these cases ever reach a courtroom. Imax would clearly lose. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 10:44 pm
|
|
|
One wonders how long a company that sues its trade
partners over trivial issues is going to be
around. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, June 19, 2000 - 10:37 am
|
|
|
| Recently I have seen TV ads for Desenex or some other ointment promising to heal "to the Max." Boy are they in trouble. |
|
|
|
|
With great interest I have followed this thread. There is a small difference..."Showmax" had "max" in it and is a direct competitor in the film industry. Mufflers, ointment, etc really don't compete or degrade the "IMAX" name.
Look from this perspective...The "IMAX" brand name is known world-wide. For what? A quality experience unlike any other that can be had on a screen. I would venture to say that most of us work with Imax equipment, and for us to lose that well-known image (pardon the pun) would not be good. What other film-maker goes to space? Who else went to Everest? Who else got Disney to the LF screen, and thus had gotten other major studios interested in LF? Who started the entire LF process 30+ years ago? The future indeed looks bright for Imax (and us all).
What's so bad about wanting to protect that? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, June 19, 2000 - 01:01 pm
|
|
|
| Interesting, but irrelevant. Again, this is NOT about what or who Imax is, it IS about what is law and what is not. I don't especially agree that all Imax theaters have always maintained such a great "image". Who ever said that? Imax? Image degradation is not the result of competition. I've been very impressed with quite a few competing theaters. If Imax were actually protecting their trademark or copyright, then I'd be totally behind them. This is neither. This is anti-competitive behaivior. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, June 19, 2000 - 01:26 pm
|
|
|
Who got Disney involved? LF filmmakers.
Who went to Everest? MacGillivray Freeman Films, with their own lightweight weather-resistant 1570 camera. An Imax camera? Are you kidding?
Who goes to space? An Imax camera along an EXCLUSIVE NASA contract dating back to a pre-competition marketplace.
Who started the process 30+ years ago? The many, many folks that were involved with Cinerama, Don Iwerks while working with Disney's systems, and yes -- among them, IMAX. The 1570 format and rolling loop system was indeed developed by Imax. However, no one company can claim to have developed the idea of bigger and better cinema. Imax is a pioneer. I enjoy their product. I've based my livelihood on their product. But I find it wrong that they bully others into submission based on an issue that would never hold any water in a real court. |
|
|
|
|
| Silly me....I thought they had real courts in Canada.... |
|
|
|
|
Also, let me direct your attention to this link, concerning the Imax camera based on the MKII design, that went to the top of Everest.
http://www.imax.com/innovations/services/cameras/lightweight/index.html
Exclusive (long) contract with NASA? Yep, when you are the only ballgame in town at the time. Good business sense to go for the longest contract you can.
LF filmmakers getting Disney involved? MF? NWave? Maybe Imax?
Either way, it's a hot topic...but if you read the link in the post way above this one, (really read it) everyone might view this in a different light. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2000 - 12:34 pm
|
|
|
| Maybe its how one goes about protecting their interests rather than if they are justified, that pisses just about everyone off? Just a thought. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 06:03 pm
|
|
|
| If there was an eyeball named max, would everyone get upset at it. cause he would be eye-max. |
|
|
| Back to top |
