says, "Companies that trade on the OTCBB will require Cash/Cheque. "
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I wonder why they didn't increase the A/S
on that Def 14C?
They'll need to at some point to cover Mr. Wallach's (when exercised) 107M options, right?
Also, from the filing, it appears the float is around 175M; the IBOX should be updated accordingly.
Regards
You must have great faith
in this company to make such a bold move (selling everything and investing it all in SKCI).
Have you verified your low-float thesis with the TA? What did they say?
Regards
= .027 per share, so far
Regards
That share structure is from the shell
Is it still valid? Has anyone contacted the TA?
This looks like the 211 for the old company:
http://www.nqb.com/pdfservlet?id=1992
Item (vi): Number of shares or total amount of the securities outstanding and a list of securities
offerings.
Restricted 40,630,000
Free Trading 10,428,000
Treasury 48,942,000
Routh Stock Transfer is the TA. Someone should contact them. I turned up this link while googling them. Maybe it's old news to everyone here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/personalfinance/stories/032507dnmetsecinvestigate.40...
Regards
Yes it is up to the Examiner
to make the determination. Now we're getting somewhere. As yet, they have not assigned an examiner for CHDT's trademark application.
When they do, the examiner is guided by the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedures (TMEP). I redirect you to my original link, Chapter 1200 of that manual:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T120303
1203.03(e) False Suggestion of a Connection
Section 2(a) prohibits the registration of a mark that consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols. See TMEP §1203.03(a) regarding persons, TMEP §1203.03(b) regarding national symbols, and TMEP §1203.03 for information about the legislative history of §2(a).
To establish that a proposed mark falsely suggest a connection with a person or an institution, it must be shown that: (1) the mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity of a person or institution; (2) the mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution; (3) the person or institution named by the mark is not connected with the activities performed by applicant under the mark; and (4) the fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the mark is used with the applicant's goods or services, a connection with the person or institution would be presumed. In re White, 73 USPQ2d 1713 (TTAB 2004); In re Nuclear Research Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1316, 1317 (TTAB 1990); Buffett v. Chi-Chi's, Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 429 (TTAB 1985); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204 (TTAB 1985).
If I may interject
Boy, you're a pitbull with this stuff rvd! That's OK, I enjoy the intellectual give and take.
May I use Lanham?
§1051. Registration of trademarks
...
(b)
(1)
A person who has a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith of such person, to use a trademark in commerce may request registration of its trademark on the principal register hereby established by paying the prescribed fee and filing in the Patent and Trademark Office an application and a verified statement, in such form as may be prescribed by the Director.
(2)
The application shall include specification of the applicant's domicile and citizenship, the goods in connection with which the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark, and a drawing of the mark.
(3)
The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify--
(A)
that the person making the verification believes that he or she, or the juristic person in whose behalf he or she makes the verification, to be entitled to use the mark in commerce;
(B)
the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce;
(C)
that, to the best of the verifier's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate; and
(D)
that, to the best of the verifier's knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
Except for applications filed pursuant to section 44 [15 USC 1126], no mark shall be registered until the applicant has met the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) of this section.
(4)
The applicant shall comply with such rules or regulations as may be prescribed by the Director. The Director shall promulgate rules prescribing the requirements for the application and for obtaining a filing date herein.
...
Now, how are they going to comply with 1051(b)(3)(D)? Does not simplycomfortrv.com use the common law trademark, Simply Comfort to sell a similar product? Would it not cause confusion in the consumer's eye as to whose product that is?
Umm, OK
Should CHDT get the trademark registered, we'll all consult Langham.
What we are discussing is whether their application will be approved, not what happens after that.
The trademark process is a lengthy one, with lots of lawyers involved. It could take years to complete the process.
I think they could have chosen a better name, considering a company already has been selling pillows under the name Simply Comfort, and would probably take offense if someone else tried to trademark the name and sell Chinese made goods under that name.
Regards
Also by the way
This might just be the much anticipated MP3 Pillow product we're discussing:
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/life/txt/2006-12/10/content_50391.htm
Regards
Common Law Trademark Rights
Trademark rights arise in the United States from the actual use of the mark. Thus, if a product is sold under a brand name, common law trademark rights have been created. This is especially true once consumers view the brand name as an indicator the product's source.
Common law trademark rights are limited to the geographic area in which the mark is used. Thus, if a coffee blend is sold under the name BLASTER in California only, the trademark rights to that name exist only in California. If another coffee retailer begins to market a different blend in New York under the same name (assuming they had no knowledge of the California company), then there would be no trademark infringement. However, if the New York company attempted to sell their coffee blend nation-wide, they would discover that the California company's common law rights to the mark would prevent them from entering the California market.
Since no registration is required in order to establish common law rights to a trademark, it can be difficult to discover whether anyone has trademark rights in a particular mark. This is the legal background for the difficulties and expenses involved in trademark clearance searches. If registration were required for trademark rights, clearance searches would only need to examine trademark registers. Under U.S. law, however, an attempt must be made to discover these common law rights.
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html
By the way, Bart Fisher...10% insider or no?
Regards
By the way
CHDT may have already surmised the potential conflict and amended their application on 4/24/07.
I see where they specifically claim a "Cushioning not of rubber or plastic in the nature of stuffing"
Was that on the original application? or added on 4/24/07? Dunno.
I still think simplycomfortrv might object to the implied connection.
Regards
1203.03(e) False Suggestion of a Connection
Section 2(a) prohibits the registration of a mark that consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols. See TMEP §1203.03(a) regarding persons, TMEP §1203.03(b) regarding national symbols, and TMEP §1203.03 for information about the legislative history of §2(a).
To establish that a proposed mark falsely suggest a connection with a person or an institution, it must be shown that: (1) the mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity of a person or institution; (2) the mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution; (3) the person or institution named by the mark is not connected with the activities performed by applicant under the mark; and (4) the fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the mark is used with the applicant's goods or services, a connection with the person or institution would be presumed. In re White, 73 USPQ2d 1713 (TTAB 2004); In re Nuclear Research Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1316, 1317 (TTAB 1990); Buffett v. Chi-Chi's, Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 429 (TTAB 1985); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204 (TTAB 1985).
http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T120303e
And here's what simplycomfortrv.com has to say about cheap Asian made goods:
Why you should buy a quality memory foam product from Simply Comfort?
Because not all memory foam is the same. Most consumers have heard of memory foam products, which is actually visco-elastic foam. In the past these memory foam products were only marketed by a few companies at very prohibitive costs for the majority of consumers. But as more and more consumers experienced the benefits from sleeping on memory foam products, and the interest and demand increased, manufacturers tried to duplicate the quality memory foam. Today there are many variations of memory foam being manufactured around the world. Most recently there has been a large amount of “low quality” memory foam being imported from Asia .
Many chain and super discount stores are carrying and promoting these memory foam products at what appears to be a good price. These low cost imitations of memory foam from China differ significantly in quality and durability from high-quality memory foam from Europe and America .
---
Can you see where simplycomfortrv.com might oppose this trademark application?
Regards
No
There have been 3 previous attempts to trademark Simply Comfort, all abandoned or canceled.
Have a look:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=ib8bhe.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&...
I don't think it matters if no one has trademarked it before, I don't think CHDT can use it for pillows if simplycomfortrv.com objects.
It's kinda like prior art and patents, my guess. Consult your local IP lawyer for a proper opinion.
Regards
Simply Comfort Pillows
From the looks of this website, they may have problems getting that trademark application through, especially considering the proposed MP3 pillow product.
http://www.simplycomfortrv.com/index.asp?PageAction=COMPANY
And here you can track their progress at the Trademark office:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77146406
Regards
Coming in May on Pinksheets.com
Disclosure Categories
Current Information (icon: Pink Checkmark) - Must either be registered with the SEC pursuant to 12(g) of the Exchange Act and current in all electronic filings posted on the SEC's EDGAR system, OR if not registered with the SEC, must meet Pink Sheets Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information, confirmed by a quarterly letter from an attorney, all of which must be posted on the Pink Sheets News Service and displayed on pinksheets.com (*- exceptions below). Disclosure is deemed to be current if it is posted within 120 days of the fiscal year ended (annual reports) and within 60 days of the quarter ended (quarterly reports) and interim material events should be disclosed on a timely basis.
* *Banks and Financial Institutions - Companies that report to federal or state banking regulators or to insurance commissions will be placed in the Current Information category if they post onto Pink Sheets News Service the same information they supply to their regulator (for example, to the FDIC), in a timely manner. An attorney letter is not required.
* *Foreign Private Issuers - Non-U.S. companies that do not furnish electronic reports on the SEC's EDGAR system that are listed on a qualified international stock exchange will be placed in the Current Information category if they post onto Pink Sheets News Service the same disclosure they supply to their home country exchange and to their shareholders, in a timely manner. The disclosure must be in English. No attorney letter is required.
Limited Information (icon: Yield Sign) - SEC registered companies must have posted some disclosure on the SEC's Edgar system within the last six months. Non-SEC reporting companies must have, at a minimum, quarterly financial reports prepared in accordance with GAAP, including financial notes, and certifications by the CEO and CFO and not less than six months old, posted either on Pink Sheets News Service.
No Information (icon: Stop Sign) - The company does not make disclosure publicly available, or its available disclosure is older than six months.
Caveat Emptor/Buyer Beware (icon: Skull & Crossbones) - There is a public interest concern associated with this company, which may include a stock spam campaign or other questions concerning the security or issuer. During a spam campaign, companies that have not, at a minimum, qualified for the Current Information category will also have their company's quotes blocked on pinksheets.com.
More information on the category rollout, including Pink Sheets Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information and Attorney Letter Guidelines verifying Current Information, is available on http://www.pinksheets.com/otcguide/categories.jsp.
The bids/asks are unsolicited
All the quotes you see on pinksheets.com are unsolicited (for SKCI).
Unsolicited Quote
An unsolicited quote is one which represents an "Unsolicited Customer Order". Publishing unsolicited quotes allows a broker/dealer to meet an exception to Rule 15c2-11, which requires a broker to have in its possession current information, including financial information, about the issuer of the securities . To avail itself of this exception to SEC Rule 15c2-11, an NASD member firm must ensure that the quotation published or submitted: (1) is solely on behalf of a customer; (2) represents the customer's indication of interest; and (3) does not involve the solicitation of the customer's interest.
It's not UBSS you have to kick off the ask.
Regards
I'll ask you for the same consideration
Think before you talk. Nowhere did I say that the company put out the email. I don't think any of the spammed companies have any connection with these emails. That would be a really stupid thing to do.
The emails are put out by hopeful pump and dumpers.
And before you put more words in my mouth, I do not believe anyone here on Ihub had anything to do with the spam email on SKCI.
Regards
Roughly $525K profits for the year for Capstone
Which was roughly wiped out by the rest of the continuing ops of CHDT (OBS and SDI).
Fourth quarter is Capstone's biggest quarter. They had about $225K net profit through 3 quarters.
OBS needs the boot. They are an anchor at this point. Either deliver the goods, or divest.
Regards
There are mentions of loans
In the 10K, still outstanding. Search the 10K on this:
COMPLETE POWER SOLUTIONS, LLC: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS SINCE DECEMBER 31, 2006: DIVESTITURE OF INTEREST IN COMPLETE POWER SOLUTIONS
I think there are monies owed both ways. The passage is a little too long to include here.
Regards
Dizzy, it does
When they netted it all out, the whole CPS experiment was shown as a gain of $149K.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS - For the year ended December 31, 2006, the Company had a net loss from continuing operations of approximately $228,000 and income from discontinued operations of approximately $149,424. The income from discontinued operations were from the disposal of CPS.
...
The results of operations attributable to Capstone are included in the
consolidated results of operating beginning on September 13, 2006, the date on
which the Company's interest in Capstone was acquired.
The results of operations attributable to the Company's interest in its former subsidiary, CPS, for the period of time in which majority interest in CPS was held by the Company (January 27, 2006 through December 31, 2006) are included in
the loss from discontinued operations on the consolidated statement of income (loss). All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.
Regards
Dizzy, the CPS numbers are in there
as results from Discontinued ops.
It shrank the yearly net loss from 200K something to 79K something.
CPS doesn't show up in revenue, just in the final 79K net loss for the year. That's how the accountants handle the discontinued business.
Regards
Today's scheduled trip to WeeeeVille
has been rerouted through ProfitTaker's Point. Please keep your seats as we wait for the tracks to switch back.
Regards
Congratulations, Howard!
Especially closing the deal in mid-September when the bid price of CHDT was higher. Would have cost them twice the shares in October, and three times the shares by the end of 2006.
Considering the importance of Capstone
to overall CHDT revenues and profits, perhaps Mr. Wallach was due more than 3% of the O/S for selling his Capstone stake to CHDT.
Going forward, it's Capstone plus whatever OBS can generate, and from the 10K, they're pulling back on investing in OBS for now.
Regards
I would agree, not bad at all
If I had to nitpick, Capstone's revenues might be slightly lower in 2006 than in 2005 (it's hard to say for sure, based on how they presented the numbers).
Going forward, the story is OBS not carrying their own weight vs. Capstone bringing home the bacon. Which dominates?
First quarter results should add some clarity to that.
Regards
p.s. And here's to your No E call! Cheers!
Revenues $1,547,073
That's for the parent company, SDI, OBS (all of 2006), and Capstone (from Sept. 13th through the end of 2006).
Since the first three had revenues of $573,344 through Sept. 30, 2006 (from the 8-K/A filed on 2/27/07), all 4 had fourth quarter revenue of about $975K.
The bulk of that has to be Capstone, making Capstone's revenue for 2006 very roughly $2M.
Also very roughly, Capstone had operating profits of around $525K, and the rest of the company had operating losses of around $528K.
Maybe they should ditch OBS.
First quarter results should make the revenue/profit breakdown between OBS and Capstone easier to see.
Regards
Leasing month to month
On September 1, 2005, the Company entered into a lease
agreement for approximately 1,200 square feet of office space. The lease requires monthly lease payments of $1,775. The lease expired August 31, 2006 and, through the date of this report, the Company is leasing the space on a
month-to-month basis. The office space is used as the Company's corporate headquarters. It is located at 10400 Griffin Road, Suite 109, Cooper City, Florida 33328, Telephone: 954 252 3440.
OBS still a start-up
with small sales so far.
OBS remains a start-up concern that has generated a few small
sales as of the date of this Report and relies on funding from China Direct,
supplemented by loans from Howard Ullman, a senior officer and director of China
Direct and SDI, to fund business operations. OBS is currently seeking vendor
relationships for its roofing tiles with the local South Florida stores of two
large national home improvement chains as well as marketing its roofing tiles to
local contractors and building supplies resellers. There can be no assurance
that any of these efforts will result in actual sales or profits, but OBS
believes, based on its marketing efforts to date, that there is a substantial
opportunity to sell OBS' Chinese-made roofing tiles in South Florida, especially
in light of the current, perceived storage in roofing tile inventory. Former
plans to market OBS roofing tiles in the Gulf States Region have been postponed
to devote resources to Capstone's business development efforts.
O/S 564,865,869 as of 4/12/07
Since affiliates hold approximately 361,000,000, the current float is around 205M.
As of April 12, 2007, there were 564,865,869 shares of the Registrant's common stock, par value $0.0001, issued and outstanding. The aggregate market value of the Registrant's voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant: On April
12, 2007, the closing bid and asked prices for the shares of common stock of registrant, were $0.028 and $0.029 per share, respectively. On that date affiliates held approximately 361,000,000 shares of this stock; thus, the
aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $5,708,244.
.027 x .028
Someone doesn't like the news, or my streamer is wrong.
100K at .027 so far. Anyone seeing anything else?
No matter, Steve
The numbers will be out soon, and I'm sure you're not planning on selling before that.
Regards
I hope Mr. Ullman wasn't talking
gross profit. That would be a bit of a downer. That would point to around $500K in 4Q revenue for Capstone (their gross margins are a healthy 45~50%).
Wait for the numbers.
Regards
Through 9 months 2006
Capstone only had $223K net profits on $1.1M revenue, so 4th quarter (the Xmas season) would have probably come in north of $1M in revenue.
Come on 10K! Let's see the details.
Regards
Well done, Capstone
If that's net profits ($250K), that's a very nice figure. Looking forward to the 10K!
Regards
Then both would be on time
No E in either case. Fair enough.
One thing though, when they filed the 8-K for the Capstone acquisition, they said they would file the 2004, 2005 and 9 months 2006 Capstone results in an amended 8K within 71 days of the original 8-K:
CHDT intends to file the audited financial statements of CPS* and a the pro forma financial presentation required by Item 9.01 (a) and (b) within 71 days after the filing of this Report on Form 8-K.
That was filed on 9/18/06. The 8-K/A with the results from Capstone came on 2/28/07.
Quite possibly, it's just really hard for a small company like CHDT to comply with all the 10K/10Q filing requirements, and do it on time.
Regards
* I believe they had a typo in their Capstone 8-K, and meant Capstone, not CPS.
The 10K, or 1Q 10Q?
What's Vegas saying the line is tonight?
Regards
Just think, Steve!
In less than a month, we get to go through this all again!
wEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
All Signs point to a definite Maybe
I read through that paragraph several times, and it just made my head hurt.
You could be right, though, he could be owed some shares to keep him at 3%.
Regards
Yes, that was in the 12b-25
they filed on April 2nd (the April 16th date).
They have until 5:30PM EDT Tuesday, April 17th.
Patience!
Regards
It went for roughly 1x sales
based on 2005 revenue results. With the swoon to .028, it's currently running about 0.5~0.6 x sales.
Got comparables? Does Mr. Wallach still get to draw a salary? Maybe he wanted out of the day to day Year of the Rat Race.
Regards