Quote:
Actually, BBDA does own its products to include Koma Unwind.
Actually, no they don't.
Quote:
You should do some research.
Since you apparently have done the research, why not share your proof/evidence with everyone like I do, instead of taunting people?
Here's the summary. I realize some of these concepts go
way over the heads of many of the people reading them, but try to keep up.
The product trademarks are registered to DLR Associates. This is, in essence, the "ownership" of the products because there is nothing else recognizable or patently unique about them.
The formula of the drinks is not patented because they are not unique enough to merit a patent. Few, if any, drink formulas are patented because patenting a formula would require publishing it. That's why formulas are "secret" and not patented. Similar products exist in the marketplace because flavors and formulas of any type of drink are easily reverse-engineered by competitors.
Take these two facts together and understand that a consumer looking to buy Koma Unwind looks for the trademarked Koma Unwind brand. They will still buy the product based on this recognition, even if the formula of the drink changes slightly. Slap the Koma Unwind
trademark on something else and it will sell as Koma Unwind. It's the product's
identity.
On the other hand, if you put Koma Unwind's formula in a completely different package, it will not be perceived as Koma Unwind, so customers looking to buy Koma Unwind will not necessarily buy it. It may sell as some entirely different product because it's good tasting and effective, but you are back to zero with marketing and brand recognition if the trademarked brand is not part of the package.
BBDA claims 30% equity in DLR Associates. There is no verifiable evidence of this claim, but even if it is true, that does not automatically translate to 30% equity in the trademarked brands, 30% of the sale of the trademarks or 30% of anything else. Nobody has any idea what DLR Associates internal structures are like or what the equity ownership consists of. Regardless, 30% represents a minority interest in whatever it is.
The Koma Unwind cans state it is "Produced under the authority of Bebida Beverage Company." You don't need to own a product to have the authority to have it produced, holding a license to the trademark gives you the "authority" to do that. This statement on the package is likely in reference to the all-inclusive bottler being allowed to create and package the product.
A license is not ownership. BBDA management has claimed a license of the trademarks from DLR Associates for $1 a year. Do you know all the terms of the license agreement? Do you know the length?
Do you know what happens if the trademark ownership is transferred?
It sure would be nice to know how money flows between all these companies, public and private, owned by the same two people:
Bebida Beverage Company, Wyoming (2.5M shares auth) 11/26/2008
Bebida Beverage Company, Delaware (5B shares auth) 5/4/2009
Bebevco Holdings, LLC (Wyoming) 4/27/2011
Bebida Beverage Company of New York, LLC (no record found in WY, DE, NV, NY, NC)
DLR Associates Inc, Delaware 1/17/2007
DLR Associates Inc, Wyoming (150K shares auth) 5/11/2012
Potencia USA, LLC (Delaware) 1/17/2008
Race Fumes, LLC (Delaware) 5/10/2006
