Origin Effects accused of bullying smaller builder Revival Electric in trademark dispute (now includes poetry & salsa)

Tabor

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,998
For poetry in the thread click here, here and here.
For the salsa recipe in the thread click here.

This thread was originally posted June 15th.
The post below was last updated June 28th.
Please read information from all sides and legal documents provided below.


These two companies have both now put out statements on Instagram regarding the legal proceedings and disputes they're having. Revival Electric came first with their accusations and Origin Effects responded a few days later. Revival Electric is a 12 year old business run by one person out of the Bay Area offering amp service and sales of EQ & vocal pedals. Origin Effects is a 11-person UK-based pedal company that started releasing pedals with the term "Revival" in their name starting in 2018.

The link to the entire Instagram post by Revival Electric is in this thread here.
The link to the entire Instagram response by Origin is in this thread here.

Here is a paraphrased version of the post by Revival Electric to IG: About 18 months ago Origin Effects took legal action against Revival Electric after their RevivalDrive pedal was denied a trademark. They could have just reached out or changed their own name but instead they decided to go after Revival Electric filing false allegations in an attempt to get the trademark office to remove the existing trademark for Revival Electric so that they can have their RevivalDrive name trademarked. Currently Origin Effects is illegally using the name Revival which infringes on Revival Electric’s trademark which is why they were denied a trademark for their RevivalDrive.

Here is a paraphrased version of Origin's statement posted on IG: Origin is a small, relatively new company; not a huge corporation with a team of lawyers. There are two sides to every story. When our trademark application was rejected we followed standard protocol, with the aim of either rebranding or finding a co-existence agreement. Our repeated efforts to make contact with Revival Electric yielded no response. Given that Revival Electric’s website appeared to be dormant, we felt it was reasonable to continue with efforts to register the name.

Only by starting a formal process were we able to make contact with RE, at which point we attempted to negotiate a settlement, including an offer to rebrand our products. Unfortunately, things escalated beyond our control when Revival Electric demanded royalty fees on all sales of Revival products that we were unable to meet. We felt that RE were attempting to unscrupulously profit from their trademark.

With the threat of legal action against us, we had no choice but to continue with the US trademark dispute system for a resolution. There is no lawsuit against Revival Electric.


Here's a link to an article on the topic from guitar.com
Here’s a link to an article on the topic from Guitar World.

Other important links provided in that article:
US Patent and trade office documents from Nov. 20th, 2019
40 pages of investigation documents by Origin
355 pages of Revival Electric's Opposition / Objection to Origin's petition

JUNE 28th update: RE has also now sued for Federal Trademark Infringement in OE. Harris v. Origin Effects Limited, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-01092-JAM-CKD.
 
Last edited:

sonichronic

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,151
is this just some dumb cancel culture shizz or what? what dirt/BS is on Origin? can't be anywhere near Vertex? oh wait?!?!! NO is MASON part-owner of @Origin Effects Ltd ? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

seriously, maybe Origin are douche nozzles but before posting a one sided story at least reach out to Simon and @Origin Effects Ltd for their side.

please don't turn TGP into a cancel culture venue
*and anyone who likens vertex to cancel culture CLEARLY doesn't understand what a waste human MASON is.*
 

Tabor

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,998
ie: calling out Origin Effects on 'bullying' a smaller company w/o a statement from Origin?
If you can find a statement from them please post it.
The company they've brought legal action against registered their "revival electric” trademark in 2008. The RevivalDrive didn't exist until ten years later in 2018. I can't imagine how they'd justify taking this action but let us know what you find.
 
Last edited:

rumbletone

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
7,121
This is not bullying. Party A registered a trademark for various goods and services. Party B is trying to get a trademark registration - as did Party A - and because they are similar Party B needs to get Party A’s mark cancelled for those particular goods and services. Party A presumably now needs to defend its previously registered mark in respect of those particular goods and services. That’s how the register works, and if someone is not prepared to defend their registration they shouldn’t get it in the first place. This is not bullying - this is IP protection and enforcement, and is a cost of business. If Party A’s registration is valid, it will be upheld and they can enforce their prior rights against Party A.
 
Messages
967
This doesn’t even make sense. Is Credence Clearwater Revival going to sue the winner after this? There is also Revival Rugs, Revival Animal Health, Revival Antiques, Revival Furniture, Revival Wellness, etc etc

On and on it goes with companies named Revival ________ (fill in the blank)

What makes Revival Electric so special or Revival Drive for matter?
 

Tabor

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,998
Pretty crappy if the company is still in business. Just rename the pedal.
Revival Electric is still in business, yeah. I linked to their website above. Cool stuff.

What makes Revival Electric so special or Revival Drive for matter?
The other “Revival” things you listed aren’t pedal companies. I think that’s where the problem started. It still seems weird to me that the tm office can’t just let both Revival Electric and RevivalDrive exist as separate trademarks in the same industry but :dunno
 
Last edited:

TheReplicant

Member
Messages
301
This is not bullying. Party A registered a trademark for various goods and services. Party B is trying to get a trademark registration - as did Party A - and because they are similar Party B needs to get Party A’s mark cancelled for those particular goods and services. Party A presumably now needs to defend its previously registered mark in respect of those particular goods and services. That’s how the register works, and if someone is not prepared to defend their registration they shouldn’t get it in the first place. This is not bullying - this is IP protection and enforcement, and is a cost of business. If Party A’s registration is valid, it will be upheld and they can enforce their prior rights against Party A.
Do you simp for billionaires too?
 






Top