midman

AACA Museum & AACA, What is Going On

Recommended Posts

Gets better:

Word Mark AACA
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Belts; Coats; Headwear; Jackets; Pants; Shirts; Shoes; Skirts. FIRST USE: 20090801. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090801
Standard Characters Claimed  
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 87145483
Filing Date August 21, 2016
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 10, 2017
Owner (APPLICANT) CORRINE AND SUDIE HOLDINGS, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE 51 TRENTON AVENUE WHITE PLAINS NEW YORK 10606
Attorney of Record Kimra Major-Morris,
Prior Registrations 3715650
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May we expect a cease and desist letter or demand for a licensing fee from CORRINE and SUDIE HOLDING LLC?.......... Oy Vey..............Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IANAL but that "Published for Opposition  January 10, 2017  " sounds like an opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, padgett said:

Gets better:

Word Mark AACA
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Belts; Coats; Headwear; Jackets; Pants; Shirts; Shoes; Skirts. FIRST USE: 20090801. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090801
Standard Characters Claimed  
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 87145483
Filing Date August 21, 2016
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 10, 2017
Owner (APPLICANT) CORRINE AND SUDIE HOLDINGS, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE 51 TRENTON AVENUE WHITE PLAINS NEW YORK 10606
Attorney of Record Kimra Major-Morris,
Prior Registrations 3715650
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

If you look a bit closer on the trademark site you will see that this applicant is associated with ATLANTIC APPAREL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION, INC. 

There is also the AFRICIAN AMERICAN COLLEGE ALLIANCE. I am sure there are other organizations with the initials AACA as well.

 

I don't think that any of us are experts on trademark law. I really don't think that the club has too much to worry about losing the use of the club's name from what I have seen in existing data from the trademark site. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

I don't think that any of us are experts on trademark law

 

I'm certainly not, and I suppose the club's attorneys are, but it might be prudent to register AACA as the club's property. I'm guessing that's already been explored. I hope so anyway..............Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok everyone, I needed to take John Saylor's post down until these documents linked to our Web Site can be verified by the AACA Committee concerned with this merger.

 

Steve Moskowitz is out today and should be able to add more later.

 

Thanks for your patience with this issue!

 

Wayne 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been, up til now, somewhat quiet on the issue.  Someone on the first page asked if the cause was egos or money... Since the above links only show one side of the story, my guess is egos...

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the info I read from the Museum sounded reasonable.

 

Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, R W Burgess said:

Ok everyone, I needed to take John Saylor's post down until these documents linked to our Web Site can be verified by the AACA Committee concerned with this merger.

 

Steve Moskowitz is out today and should be able to add more later.

 

Thanks for your patience with this issue!

 

Wayne 

Why not just call the Museum and verify the accuracy of their comments.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the multiple documents I find it confusing that one document describes something as free and another museum document then shows that their definition of free is apparently 1.4 million dollars. I look forward to all of the facts coming out in a future Antique Automobile Magazine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, R W Burgess said:

Ok everyone, I needed to take John Saylor's post down until these documents linked to our Web Site can be verified by the AACA Committee concerned with this merger.

 

Steve Moskowitz is out today and should be able to add more later.

 

Thanks for your patience with this issue!

 

Wayne

 

Bad move, Wayne. This is the "whiff" I spoke of. It would have been far far better to have noted the documents were unverified and left them stand to be refuted, if necessary.  We're intelligent people here and deserve full transparency................Robert Beck

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bhigdog said:

 

Bad move, Wayne. This is the "whiff" I spoke of. It would have been far far better to have noted the documents were unverified and left them stand to be refuted, if necessary.  We're intelligent people here and deserve full transparency................Robert Beck

 

Bob, there are other web sites to read that material! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then the only result of your preemptive deletion was to make the club look like they are covering something up. Bad move..............Bob

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time director of the Pierce Arrow Foundation Museum, a separate entity and separate orginazation of the "Pierce Arrow Society" , I was well aware that most clubs museums are at arms length to entirely separate entities. Both of our orginazations have always been close, sharing annual meetings and locations, working together in harmony moving forward together to create two things that are better than one. That was what was planned, and what has transpired. However things evolved between the two AACA orginazations, over time it is not uncommon for two orginazations to diverge and go in different directions. I don't know the history, purpose, back room deals, conflicts of interest, problems with personalitys, or any other issues currently causing the problems between the two AACA entities. What I can tell you, and I am certain of, is it is in both of their interest to find middle ground, and draw an outline of future understanding, working together in one location, with one overall vision, or both will suffer and be less than the possible sum of the two. Everyone who has helped build the brick and mortar of both AACA's will be worse off of if they go separate ways. Now the question is can people put the interest of the hobby and a vision of two as one in front of their own personal ideals and objectives. We shall see........sooner or later.........I sincerely hope it is sooner, and with a positive outcome for both.

 

On a personnel note, I first attended the fall meet in 1971, at five years old. It changed my life.......more than I could have imagined. I have been to most of the Fall Meets since then, missing a few due to family or work, but overall it's fair to say I am a regular attendee, and it's my only blocked off date on my calendar for the past thirty years. I never joined the AACA until about five years ago, only because as figured I had a debt of honor that was due, for the enjoyment and benefits that this forum has provided to me. I have enjoyed a lifetime spent in this hobby, traveling the world making friends, fixing cars, earning a living, the returns the old car world has given me are much more than I could have asked for........or expected. While never very involved with the AACA except at the fall meet and this forum, I have seen both the club and museum become much better organized, and professional than in the "old days" when the entire operation was a much smaller and more of a family affair. It would be a shame if the two can't come to together  and find common ground, for the hundreds of thousands of people's lives that have been enriched by this crazy thing we call our hobby..... time will tell........... Ed Minnie, Ludlow Mass

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, I am not personally on that committee, but we do not allow posts until they can be verified and proven true. For all I  know some of those documents could have had changes (not saying that they do), so they need to be verified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives the appearance of circling the wagons, Wayne. That really should be avoided. Once that appearance is set in peoples minds getting them to believe anything you say is an uphill battle. Bad move.....................Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I read the documents, and as mentioned, the first document, the Letter of Intent, is an interesting read.

 

 

http://www.aacamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/DOC-1_Final-signed-Letter-of-Intent-11-23-2015.pdf

I will attempt to summarize:

 

-the Club and Museum would become one entity, with combined membership

-there would be multiple boards, I'm not even going to go into any detail on that, maybe that was the holdup (egos?)

-the Club would pay off 1.4 million dollars of Museum debt, and for that be granted one-half ownership in Museum assets

-the Museum would give land to the Club, as part of the new entity, helping to raise money for a 45,000 square foot addition, 30,000 square feet for Club and Library, 15,000 square feet for additional Museum display area

-if any moneys were raised in that drive above and beyond cost of addition, those monies would go to enhance Museum exhibits

 

Wow.  I sure don't see the big ugly ogre in this agreement that I expected to see.  Looks like a sweet deal for all involved, particularly the Club, and the millions of dollars of Museum assets are now lost to the Club if this isn't done.

 

Monetarily, I think the Club loses big time by not pursuing this deal.  I first stated it was about the money, now I think I'm leaning toward some egos on the Club side.  Was the Board arrangement not to the Club Board's liking?

 

Someone tell me how I'm wrong, that the Letter of Intent is a bad deal...

Edited by trimacar (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the documents from this thread just blew a big tank of nitrous into this discussion, which was starting to run out of gas. Ooops.

 

Perusing the documents as presented, I tend to agree with David Coco; there doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker in there. Still, we're only getting one side (the museum has put their cards on the table, the club hasn't but has been calling and staying in the game). Removing the museum's documents from this discussion, even though they are available elsewhere, will only serve to fuel further speculation and unrest. Better still, keeping those documents here means that they can't later be amended to reflect a different point of view when it's convenient--a permanent record might have been useful. Now the only documents available are those provided by the source's website, which can be changed at will. Another mistake.

 

Again, I don't think members are unhappy that the two entities aren't merged or won't be merging. I think that most folks are upset about backroom deals and potential graft at members' expense, whether real or imagined. Club members have emotional and financial investment in the museum, and regardless of their legal status or members' ability to visit the museum for free, this wedge has been driven between the two and it's only getting pounded farther in rather than worked out.

 

This is a PR disaster for both sides. It's fine to say that all will be well (which it probably will) and that the museum and club will continue to operate as in the past, but people who feel as though they've been cheated or deceived tend to hold on to that impression, regardless of the actual injury the cheat or deception causes...

Edited by Matt Harwood (see edit history)
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

The letter of intent was the original document that the club and the Museum both agreed to. If you look at other documents, (which are clearly only documents from one side of the discussion) you will find that the original idea went through some changes before the club decided that the merger was not going to happen. Hopefully we can all be patient and see all of the documents from both organizations and see how the proposed merger fell apart. Hopefully either the future will find both organizations able to execute a mutually beneficial merger, or else both organizations find a way to continue to be supportive of each other's efforts for the benefit of the hobby at large.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Letter of Intent, a seemingly good deal for the Club, was REJECTED in big red letters (on the document, as seen in the Museum documents posted).  The "original idea" was a Letter of Intent from November of 2015.  I stand by my statement, this was a good deal for the Club from what I read and understand, and yet "later" the Club decided no, it wasn't....that's the very confusing part....and from what I read, can only be explained that the Club wanted control of everything, which isn't reasonable...the Letter of Intent clearly spells out that each entity, the Club and the Museum, operate independently, but "together" as a family.

 

If the Club board went in wanting to take control of everything, I can see how it fell apart, as that's not good business for the Museum.

 

OUR OLD CAR HOBBY SHOULD NOT BE POLITICAL BS, and that's what I'm now reading....I thought the Museum board was being unreasonable, but after reading the documents, not so much...and they even state that they're willing to continue negotiations.

 

I find it interesting in a statement of policy that the Museum went so far as to call the AACA Board a "dictatorship".....interesting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support both parties, and their getting together sooner or later.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'll treat them both equally well

and appreciate what both have to offer.    

Myself, I don't feel alienated a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little unhappy that my post of an hour or two ago was deleted--the first post deletion in 16 years as a member of the Forum.  I committed essentially the same grave sin as John_S (whose post has now been restored) by posting a link to the Museum's webpage (under "News") which provides links to five documents many of us have reviewed.  As to "verification" previously cited as a reason for deleting John_S's post, that's nonsense.  I'd appreciate a PM justifying that deletion.

 

On a lighter note, I see that I attended my fist Hershey the year Ed Minnie was born (1966), if my math is correct.

 

George Teebay

50+ year AACA member

Director Emeritus (Past President), Pierce-Arrow Society

Trustee, Pierce-Arrow Foundation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,


I think we have to be patient to see ALL of the documents from both organizations. Reading some of the documents provided by one side of a disagreement can clearly create a confusing view of the total situation. I look forward to learning all of the details instead of just some of the details. Hopefully it won't take too long to get this information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.