Vita Mobile Systems Inc (VMSI)

[hellcatjr]

I shared this on a separate board in regards to another members post. I figured I'd post it here as well... this is just some 'on the surface' scratching and conclusions... if anyone finds out else wise feel free to pm me or share it here...

Either way, this may be old information to some... regardless... enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------

The law states:

7. What constitutes trademark infringement?

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. ?? 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.

Between the two ends of the spectrum lie many close cases, in which the courts will apply the factors listed above. So, for example, where the marks are similar and the products are also similar, it will be difficult to determine whether consumer confusion is likely. In one case, the owners of the mark "Slickcraft" used the mark in connection with the sale of boats used for general family recreation. They brought an infringement action against a company that used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. Because the two types of boats served substantially different markets, the court concluded that the products were related but not identical. However, after examining many of the factors listed above, the court concluded that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

Proof?

(missing the torch, but you can clearly see where it once sat)






and then on their own website we see...



Pretty close imo...

Also let us tie a few more strings together...

Who is the senator of West Virgina?

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/

And why is this of interest??

TADA!

http://www.standardoilcompanyusa.com/PressReleases/2010-08-14_SOC_WVA.pdf

So someone mentioned confusion of Standard Oils history...?

Funny "Standard Oil" is a 'gas' heating company that provides services to Connecticut. Uses merely the TORCH of the OLD Standard oil...

http://www.standardoil.com/

Clearing the air on 'origin'.

Established in 1870 as a corporation in Ohio, it was the largest oil refiner in the world[3] and operated as a major company trust and was one of the world's first and largest multinational corporations until it was broken up by the United States Supreme Court in 1911.

Which is exactly 100 years ago... hm.

So besides going for oil, what REALLY gave them their edge?

Herein, we find even more evidence that the petroleum industry, and our own United States Government, have known for a very long time that Coal can be converted, one way or another, into liquid hydrocarbons.

http://www.wvcoal.com/Research-Development/standard-oil-1931-coal-conversion.html

Wait, say what again?

Herein, we find even more evidence that the petroleum industry, and our own United States Government, have known for a very long time that Coal can be converted, one way or another, into liquid hydrocarbons.

And why is this important again?

STANDARD OIL COMPANY USA, INC. (OTC:SOCU), announces it has signed the final Purchase Contract for the 18,000 acres of Natural Gas / Coal Bed Methane Properties in West Virginia.

Where there's smoke, there's fire...right? I mean these tidbits are all coincidental?

What about this statement...

About Us Statement: Standard Oil Company USA (SOCU.PK) is a leading independent energy company headquartered in Dallas, Texas and focused on oil and gas drilling, lease development and trading. Standard Oil Company, Inc., through its global network of buyers and sellers, along with its staff of seasoned oil, gas, refined fuels, trading professionals, drilling crews, engineers, attorneys and CPAs, will help facilitate the ease of transaction between buyers and sellers of actual, tangible oil and gas leases refined fuels allocations.

Makes me go... hmmmmmmmmm!

Then there's this whole...

Rights to the name
Of the 34 "Baby Standards", 11 were given rights to the Standard Oil name, based on the state they were in. Conoco and Atlantic elected to use their respective names instead of the Standard name, and their rights would be claimed by other companies.

By the 1980s, most companies were using their individual brand names instead of the Standard name, with Amoco being the last one to have widespread use of the "Standard" name, as it gave Midwestern owners the option of using the Amoco name or Standard.

Currently, three super-major companies own the rights to the Standard name in the United States: Exxon-Mobil, Chevron Corporation, and BP. BP acquired its rights through acquiring Standard Oil of Ohio and Amoco, and has a small handful of stations in the Midwestern United States using the Standard name. Chevron has one station in each state it owns the rights to branded as Standard except in Kentucky, which it withdrew from in July 2010.[35] Exxon-Mobil keeps the Esso trademark alive at stations that sell diesel fuel by selling "Esso Diesel" displayed on the pumps. Exxon-Mobil has full international rights to the Standard name, and continues to use the Esso name overseas.[36]

This map shows which state currently has the rights to the Standard Oil name belonging to. ExxonMobil has full international rights and continues to use the Esso name overseas. Kentucky is currently held by Chevron, however its status is up in the air after Chevron withdrew retail sales from Kentucky in July 2010.