I'm peeved !

[Richard Negus]

I'm mad as hell, bl**dy peeved, at an untruth being circulated by Peter Scatchard, one of the NOC vice presidents, in an e-mail widely circulated today.\rNorton Racing Ltd have most definitely not bought the Norton rotary motorcycle intellectual property (= designs, drawings, tooling, authority to manufacture, etc) from the Americans. The Americans may have 'sold' it to them (caveat emptor), or Scatchard may have misunderstood what Mr Garner said to him - but ownership of the those designs, drawings and tooling remains with my company, Norton Motors Ltd.\rThey do say that journalists never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Fortunately, some journos (thank you Nigel, thank you Mick) had the common sense to call me for comment before proceeding into print.\rFor the avoidance of doubt, Norton Motors Ltd is for sale as there is no successor with sufficient time available to manage the company when I retire in February 2009. That, however, is a totally different matter to reading public statements that suggest you don't own what has been sitting in your own factory for the last five and a half years. \rRichard.

[Derek Nicol]

Hi Richard\rI have no malicious intent in making this post, im simply confused! :? \rI know nothing about business law & intellectual property rights, can you explain in laymans terms what Norton Motors owns? \rI assume that you own the rights to the Interpol 2, Classic, Commander and F1 and no one could put any of them back into production without your say so?\rIf that is the case, it would seem reasonable to assume that you own the rights to the Norton 588cc air and liquid cooled engines for use in Motorcycles and again, no one could put any of them back into production without your say so?\rI am aware that another company still makes a version of the Norton 588 engine for use in unmanned aircraft, presumably they are not allowed to manufacture the engine for Motorcycle use? Are they restricted from selling on basic engines without a gearbox if they know they are intended for use in a Motorcycle?\rNow, the bit that really puzzles me... is ownership of the Norton trademark split between two owners? one owning the right to use of the TM for use on Motorcycles powered by piston engine and the other for use of the Norton logo on Rotary powered bikes?? (Norton Racing clearly believes that Kenny Dreer has sold them the 961 complete with the right to the Norton name).\rIf that is the case, and Norton Motors owns the rights to the use of the Norton TM on rotary powered bikes, would that restrict Norton Racing from designing and building a completely new wankel engine (not neccessarily 588cc) and using it in a Norton badged Motorcycle (however unlikely that may be) ??\rAnd finally, is there any time limit on all this given that the last Norton Rotary was put together by Norton Motors Germany in 1992? As i understand it, for example, sufficient time has passed that nobody now owns the rights to the Wankel engine. I guess that the rights to a Trademark never expire though? What about rights to the use of a TM for a specific application? does that have a time limit?\rIm 'sticking my neck out' a bit asking all this... i hope you dont mind.

[Richard Negus]

Hi Derek & other readers,\rIf I hadn't pressed the wrong key last night, deleted all my carefully composed response to your previous message, and gone to the pub in a huff, you would have been able to read my opinion on 'Norton' trademarks and Norton rotary IPR last night.\rSo now to try again, bearing in mind that trademarks and intellectual property rights (IPR) are two separate subjects here and that the laws on both are very complex :-\r. Norton rotary IPR can be defined as the designs, drawings, development experience, patents and know-how associated with development and manufacture of Norton rotary engines and motorcycles; all of the original Norton patents have expired.\r. the US Norton company acquired the scroll Norton trademark for the UK and US (and perhaps other countries too) and, in a deal with Joe S. in 2003'ish, the rights for most other European countries.\r. I believe Norton Racing / Stuart Garner purchased all of those rights from the US company.\r. no other company can market a new motorcycle, rotary or piston, with that scroll trademark without authority from the trademark holder.\r. Norton Motors(1993)Ltd (a UK company but Canadian owned) owned the\r Norton rotary IPR but sold the aero part (including relevant original drawings and other documents) to a German investor (not Joe S.) in May 1995. Mid-West Engines, then Diamond Engines,and now Austro Engine GmbH manufacture rotary engines using that IPR.\r. UAV Engines Ltd were licensed by Norton in 1991 to use the IPR for un-manned aviation applications only and were supplied with copies of the relevant drawings & other documents.\r. current Norton Motors Ltd (NML) purchased the original motorcycle and motorcycle engine drawings and other documents at the liquidation closure of the successor to Norton Motors(1993)Ltd (it changed name several times and I'm not sure of the final company name).\r. I believe that NML is the only company with authority to manufacture parts and assemblies in accordance with those drawings. Any other company manufacturing parts exactly in accordance with those drawings, or unauthorised copies, is infringing NML's copyright.\r. any other company can manufacture rotary engines for motorcycle use which may be similar to the Norton, providing they make significant changes to the design and thus not infringe copyright.\r\rA while ago, I asked on here if anyone had seen an XR50 engine. Having dismantled one and compiled a report, I was able to confirm that it did not infringe anyone's IPR. Although obviously based on the Norton/MWE?Diamond/Austro single rotor water-cooled engine, only the rotor gas seals and springs are the same as Norton but the remainder is substantially different.\r\rI started the original rant, not at Norton Racing as some have misinterpreted, but at another individual who published his understanding of the Norton Racing press release and stated that they had acquired the rotary IPR from the US at the same time as the trademarks and rights to the 'Dreer' Commando. This is not the case, and I have argued the point with him, asking for evidence that Stuart Garner actually claimed this. No evidence has been produced to date. I believe I'm not on his 'friends' list any more.\r\rI hope this brief (!) message has made things more understandable - but I have the feeling that his is going to end in tears. Still, it's better than a forum with absolutely no contributors.\rRichard

[Derek Nicol]

Richard\rThanks very much for the reply, yes that makes things a lot clearer.\rOne more question arising from that, if Stuart Garner exclusively owns the Norton scroll logo and has said that he will strongly enforce his position as the new owner and implement a robust protection programme... where does that leave Norton Motors use of the Norton scroll in the company logo? will we see a change to a plain typeface? or is it ok for you to continue using it given that its been the company logo for some years now?\rHopeing this doesnt all end in tears :)

[Richard Negus]

Derek,\rMy understanding is that those companies with a previous agreement for use of the trademarked scroll logo, including but not limited to, Andover Norton, Norvil Motorcycles, Norton Owners Club and Joe's own companies, are not affected by the new arrangement. Time will tell, however.\r\rHow other companies might be affected by the other registered marks ( Manx, International, Commando, etc.) acquired by Norton Racing is beyond me.\r\rWhen the Canadians took over Norton, they instructed several of us to attend the 1993 NEC Show and threaten every exhibitor selling items with the Norton scroll logo that, if they didn't withdraw them from sale, legal action would be taken.\rNeedless to say, they all said "bu@@er off, you can't touch us, we've been doing this for years" and nothing more was heard. Times are different now, there's money to be made by trademark licensing so the situation may change.\rRichard

[Derek Nicol]

Ive learnt more in just 22 hours than in weeks of speculation... \rThanks Richard.