Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Meet the GIVES! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (2194)	6/14/2002 2:11:25 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6378

He certainly does, and he might have a big hole. When he starts in, I say...Zip it!!! Zipper maker YKK wins infringement suit By DANIELLA AIRD Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer Call it a zipped-up case. YKK Corporation of America, the Marietta-based manufacturer and supplier of zippers, has successfully sued a rival for trademark infringement. A U.S. District Court agreed that the competitor's name was a bit too similar. The court has granted summary judgment in favor of YKK against zipper contender YPP Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Korean manufacturer Jungwoo Zipper Co. Ltd., ending the companies' yearlong squabble over "p's" and "k's." "YKK is a very global company," Senior Vice President Bernie Rubin said of the zipper giant, which has 121 companies operating in 59 countries around the world. "It's one that manufacturers and retailers are familiar with," he said. YPP "is a complete infringement on our trademark and our brand name." YKK sells zippers, other fasteners and related products to Levi Strauss, Sears and Gap, among other companies. Representatives from YPP, a California company that distributes Jungwoo's products in the United States, declined to comment. Rubin of YKK said there's room for only one company with a three-lettered name beginning with a "Y" in the zipper-maker business. The court agreed. According to the ruling, YKK's 68-year-old trademark was "beyond question and should be afforded the widest [amount] of protection from infringing uses." The rival has been using a copycat name, the court deemed. "We felt [YPP] was trying to ride on the coattails of our trademark," Rubin said.