LL

You're the lawyer, not me, but there would appear to be a couple of salient points regarding Sakar's "purchase's" from Vivitar. This quote from sman's post, "The products are Sakar's first Vivitar-branded SKUs since Sakar acquired the well-known brand last year in a bid to broaden its camera offerings".

It appears that Sakar did not purchase the corporation. If that's so, Sakar has no liability for Vivitar's sins. Sound right to you? That would leave Vivitar as nothing but an empty shell with no assets, ergo nothing to attack. What's questionable on my part is, if Sakar purchased Vivitar's inventory, which was, of course, conceived in sin, would the fruit of that incestuous relationship (say like cash) be a legitimate target?

You're right about jumping the gun on Sakar before we know if new products are being produced and sold by Sakar under Vivitar's brand while using EDIG's IP. That's a horse of a different story. Yeah, I like mixing metaphors. :>) If that's the case, it would appear Sakar would intentionally be spitin' into the wind (I cleaned that one up just in case this is a family board). Of course maybe they don't think EDIG can prevail in the courts with their particular product. It's also possible they won't find it necessary to use EDIG's stuff.

What say you....and anyone else for that matter?