# Tru Technology - The Truth



## senior800

I never intended to write this but I have just had a very stern email from eBay (on behalf of Tru) so thought I would tell people the truth (I know it has been touched upon many times before) but in a bit more detail as I am sure I am one of the very few that know the whole story on this side of the pond.

Last night I put up a listing for my Zelos Full Tube, and in it I wrote something along the lines of: "Designed and built by the same designer of many of the Tru amplifiers, such as the copper and hammer series." Although 100% true, this apparently "violates their intellectual property rights" and "contains unlawful comparison to trademark owner's brand name."


So the truth behind Tru Technology:

TRU is owned by American born Korean (John Yi) and was introduced to Mr. Kim (Abyss International) for ODM proposal. Abyss saw a good opportunity to expand their business to this side of the world so accepted John's offer and made and sold them amplifiers under the "TRU Technology" brand name. 

After a few years of this arrangement, TRU 'stole' the blue prints and took them to Chinese/Taiwanese factories to minimize his cost, as he then didn’t have to pay for the rights to the designs. I'm not sure how widely known it is but in hotter countries there was a huge amount of problems with the billet series of amplifiers as the power supply blue-prints were separate and John didn't get a hold of these. John is not an amplifier designer (he is a 'businessman') and they had great difficulty in making them work correctly. It wasn't until recently that the problems have been sorted.

Mr. Kim obviously terminated the contract (there wasn't one left anyway,) and went onto designing and releasing more series of amplifiers (there have been 3 or more series of amplifiers after the billets,) while Tru has stayed largely the same since the split (a part from the Steel series and various ‘upgrades’.)

Tru used to be attacked a lot for this (although they amazingly even deny ever having dealt with Abyss at all,) so decided to move the factory to America to make them ‘hand built in America,’ and try to totally differentiate themselves from any other company. 



I am also not saying Abyss is a perfect company; in fact they have probably shut down in the last couple of months. They do not however steal designs, and constantly lie in order to attempt to keep things covered up. Abyss made a mistake by not properly fighting it with the authorities when it first happened, but Tru's actions have hurt the overall car audio relationships between Asia and overseas as a whole. On multiple occasions I have had people quote this occurence as reasons for them stuttering with deals with myself.


----------



## English audiophile

All is not fair in Love & Car Audio Manufacturing....


----------



## Vital

Just curious how do you know this?


----------



## Porsche

senior800 said:


> I never intended to write this but I have just had a very stern email from eBay (on behalf of Tru) so thought I would tell people the truth (I know it has been touched upon many times before) but in a bit more detail as I am sure I am one of the very few that know the whole story on this side of the pond.
> 
> Last night I put up a listing for my Zelos Full Tube, and in it I wrote something along the lines of:* "Designed and built by the same designer of many of the Tru amplifiers, such as the copper and hammer series*." Although 100% true, this apparently "violates their intellectual property rights" and "contains unlawful comparison to trademark owner's brand name."
> 
> 
> So the truth behind Tru Technology:
> 
> TRU is owned by American born Korean (John Yi) and was introduced to Mr. Kim (Abyss International) for ODM proposal. Abyss saw a good opportunity to expand their business to this side of the world so accepted John's offer and made and sold them amplifiers under the "TRU Technology" brand name.
> 
> After a few years of this arrangement, TRU 'stole' the blue prints and took them to Chinese/Taiwanese factories to minimize his cost, as he then didn’t have to pay for the rights to the designs. I'm not sure how widely known it is but in hotter countries there was a huge amount of problems with the billet series of amplifiers as the power supply blue-prints were separate and John didn't get a hold of these. John is not an amplifier designer (he is a 'businessman') and they had great difficulty in making them work correctly. It wasn't until recently that the problems have been sorted.
> 
> Mr. Kim obviously terminated the contract (there wasn't one left anyway,) and went onto designing and releasing more series of amplifiers (there have been 3 or more series of amplifiers after the billets,) while Tru has stayed largely the same since the split (a part from the Steel series and various ‘upgrades’.)
> 
> Tru used to be attacked a lot for this (although they amazingly even deny ever having dealt with Abyss at all,) so decided to move the factory to America to make them ‘hand built in America,’ and try to totally differentiate themselves from any other company.
> 
> 
> 
> I am also not saying Abyss is a perfect company; in fact they have probably shut down in the last couple of months. They do not however steal designs, and constantly lie in order to attempt to keep things covered up. Abyss made a mistake by not properly fighting it with the authorities when it first happened, but Tru's actions have hurt the overall car audio relationships between Asia and overseas as a whole. On multiple occasions I have had people quote this occurence as reasons for them stuttering with deals with myself.


So, let me get this straight, you tried to sell your amp by using Tru as a reference, yet you have ethical issues now with Tru since they made you pull there name. So now you throw Tru under the bus, Give me a f'n break


----------



## senior800

Porsche said:


> So, let me get this straight, you tried to sell your amp by using Tru as a reference, yet you have ethical issues now with Tru since they made you pull there name. So now you throw Tru under the bus, Give me a f'n break


I didn't say anything remotely harmful towards Tru in my listing.

All I said was that it was designed by the same person that designed some of the Tru amplifiers, such as the copper and the hammer series. I didn't mention that he didn't work for Tru or how Tru stole his designs or anything like that. I also didn't mention that it was an amplifier that could have been branded as a Tru amplifier (The Abyss series were the same as Tru, where as Zelos was higher end.)

Tell me how that warrants them contacting eBay, getting my listing taken down (I assume losing my listing fee?) and have a warning put against my account for selling something which 'violates intellectual property.' 

I have tried to contact Tru today and all they reply is that Zelos never had any brand affiliation with Abyss/Zelos (we all know that is BS.) So I am in the wrong.

It's pathetic when they keep going on about this 100% design and made in America stuff when at least half of that is untrue (I don't know how much is made in America.) So yes I am pissed at them, and if they hadn't made this attack towards my stuff, when I did nothing wrong, then I wouldn't go on the offensive, but they have, So I am. 

All the information that I wrote came straight from the top of Abyss (very few people on this side of the world will have heard it because the owner only speaks Korean,) and frankly it all fits in perfectly, where as the things that Tru say about the partnership (that there wasn't one) are obviously false as you can see the see Tru branded models of amplifiers that Abyss released years before.


----------



## Porsche

senior800 said:


> I didn't say anything remotely harmful towards Tru in my listing.
> 
> All I said was that it was designed by the same person that designed some of the Tru amplifiers, such as the copper and the hammer series. I didn't mention that he didn't work for Tru or how Tru stole his designs or anything like that. I also didn't mention that it was an amplifier that could have been branded as a Tru amplifier (The Abyss series were the same as Tru, where as Zelos was higher end.)
> 
> Tell me how that warrants them contacting eBay, getting my listing taken down (I assume losing my listing fee?) and have a warning put against my account for selling something which 'violates intellectual property.'
> 
> I have tried to contact Tru today and all they reply is that Zelos never had any brand affiliation with Abyss/Zelos (we all know that is BS.) So I am in the wrong.
> 
> It's pathetic when they keep going on about this 100% design and made in America stuff when at least half of that is untrue (I don't know how much is made in America.) So yes I am pissed at them, and if they hadn't made this attack towards my stuff, when I did nothing wrong, then I wouldn't go on the offensive, but they have, So I am.
> 
> All the information that I wrote came straight from the top of Abyss (very few people on this side of the world will have heard it because the owner only speaks Korean,) and frankly it all fits in perfectly, where as the things that Tru say about the partnership (that there wasn't one) are obviously false as you can see the see Tru branded models of amplifiers that Abyss released years before.


my point is that when you thought you could use Tru as a reference to sell your own product you had no issue with them, they make you remove there name and now they are evil. give me a break

there are 2 sides to every story, how do you know that what you have been told is 100% true


----------



## 6spdcoupe

I am a bit confused here though. TRU flagged something and Ebay took it down since it violated THEIR IPR, but you're angry at TRU only ? Ebay created the rule and enforced it. TRU called it and Ebay did the job that They created to do. If TRU was somehow in the wrong here wouldn't Ebay deny the claim ?

Further, you take the word of a fellow that is at the 'Top of Abyss', but not one of the the top of TRU ? Boggling. I am not stating which you should listen to, perhaps neither. But why one over the other ? Especially from one that has really done nothing for years and was held up by a string that eventually broke as opposed to one that is still going.

Where are the claims that 'John created everything' ? Maybe you're onto the wrong John here. There was this guy ( Rest his soul) named Fairchild ...

I even personally and directly stated their WAS a former relationship. Again, the denial ?

You were also ok to USE someone elses name to help promote a sale, but upset when that person didn't like it ? Can I use you as a reference for a sale ? Wait, I wanna do it *before *you answer. Matter of fact, forget I actually asked. Kinda silly, dontcha think ?


----------



## senior800

6spdcoupe said:


> I am a bit confused here though. TRU flagged something and Ebay took it down since it violated THEIR IPR, but you're angry at TRU only ? Ebay created the rule and enforced it. TRU called it and Ebay did the job that They created to do. If TRU was somehow in the wrong here wouldn't Ebay deny the claim ?
> 
> Further, you take the word of a fellow that is at the 'Top of Abyss', but not one of the the top of TRU ? Boggling. I am not stating which you should listen to, perhaps neither. But why one over the other ? Especially from one that has really done nothing for years and was held up by a string that eventually broke as opposed to one that is still going.
> 
> Where are the claims that 'John created everything' ? Maybe you're onto the wrong John here. There was this guy ( Rest his soul) named Fairchild ...
> 
> I even personally and directly stated their WAS a former relationship. Again, the denial ?
> 
> You were also ok to USE someone elses name to help promote a sale, but upset when that person didn't like it ? Can I use you as a reference for a sale ? Wait, I wanna do it *before *you answer. Matter of fact, forget I actually asked. Kinda silly, dontcha think ?


Why did Tru feel the need to flag my eBay add that had nothing to do with them. Was factual, and wasn't in anyway harming their business. eBay isn't going to look into a case like this, they give me a black mark and move on. "TRU Velocity Group, Inc (TRU Technology), a member of our Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO)" said it was bad so they took it down as to "Comply with the law."

I don't believe Tru because they continue to deny any involvement with Abyss/Zelos ever (as proven by the e-mails I received today.) You may say they were involved, I don't know? But Tru themselves are saying they weren't. Why would they do this if they had nothing to hide? As things were obviously very sour between the two companies, why would this have been if Tru had bought (rather than stolen) the rights to build the amplifiers?

Saying that Abyss never moved on is untrue. After the split they made the Abyss CT series, the Abyss Mini AA and then at the end of 2010 they made the Abyss Nobella series (this is not including any of the special edition Zelos amplifiers.) That is a huge amount more than Tru has done? (what have they done? Line-drivers and steel series only?) The abyss series was out for about 6 months before the demise of the company (Julyish 2011) but they sold around 300 units (across the 4 models) which is pretty impressive!

Yes Abyss struggled through the recession but the actual demise was nothing to do with the company. The owner had family problems and closed the business (not my place to go into in any further detail.)


----------



## 6spdcoupe

senior800 said:


> Why did Tru feel the need to flag my eBay add that had nothing to do with them. Was factual, and wasn't in anyway harming their business. eBay isn't going to look into a case like this, they give me a black mark and move on. "TRU Velocity Group, Inc (TRU Technology), a member of our Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO)" said it was bad so they took it down as to "Comply with the law."
> 
> I don't believe Tru because they continue to deny any involvement with Abyss/Zelos ever (as proven by the e-mails I received today.) You may say they were involved, I don't know? But Tru themselves are saying they weren't. Why would they do this if they had nothing to hide? As things were obviously very sour between the two companies, why would this have been if Tru had bought (rather than stolen) the rights to build the amplifiers?
> 
> Saying that Abyss never moved on is untrue. After the split they made the Abyss CT series, the Abyss Mini AA and then at the end of 2010 they made the Abyss Nobella series (this is not including any of the special edition Zelos amplifiers.) That is a huge amount more than Tru has done? (what have they done? Line-drivers and steel series only?) The abyss series was out for about 6 months before the demise of the company (Julyish 2011) but they sold around 300 units (across the 4 models) which is pretty impressive!
> 
> Yes Abyss struggled through the recession but the actual demise was nothing to do with the company. The owner had family problems and closed the business (not my place to go into in any further detail.)


You used their name, it is enough. Whether fact or fiction it doesn't matter. Same applies if I use your name. I can use you as a reference and say great things about you, the truth though is that I do not know you at all. Wouldn't it be pretty ****ty to do even if I was saying nice things ? Yes. 

Again, Ebay sided with TRU making them Just as responsible for your anger, but it still seems solely focused on TRU. 

Whether they deny or claim it, there was a relationship. YOU believe who you want, however I have seen some of the FACTS behind it first hand. Nothing I have stated here on this very forum was inaccurate in the least. However you can continue going about believing someone that you will never know/meet and has done more harm than good.

Perhaps their denial is simply due to wanting to remove ANY and ALL affiliation with that 'company'. Personally I don't care why they do. Still doesn't change the facts of what happened in the past. The bold claims of 'stealing' the Billet design from Abyss is just plain ludicrous though.

I will also mention that if you have the 'whole story' about the 'family problems' you might be singing a different tune or none at all just out of the ill feeling you get from what went down.


----------



## senior800

6spdcoupe said:


> You used their name, it is enough. Whether fact or fiction it doesn't matter. Same applies if I use your name. I can use you as a reference and say great things about you, the truth though is that I do not know you at all. Wouldn't it be pretty ****ty to do even if I was saying nice things ? Yes.
> 
> Again, Ebay sided with TRU making them Just as responsible for your anger, but it still seems solely focused on TRU.
> 
> Whether they deny or claim it, there was a relationship. YOU believe who you want, however I have seen some of the FACTS behind it first hand. Nothing I have stated here on this very forum was inaccurate in the least. However you can continue going about believing someone that you will never know/meet and has done more harm than good.
> 
> Perhaps their denial is simply due to wanting to remove ANY and ALL affiliation with that 'company'. Personally I don't care why they do. Still doesn't change the facts of what happened in the past. The bold claims of 'stealing' the Billet design from Abyss is just plain ludicrous though.
> 
> I will also mention that if you have the 'whole story' about the 'family problems' you might be singing a different tune or none at all just out of the ill feeling you get from what went down.


Why can't I use there name on eBay? If what I am saying is factual (and nobody is denying that) then there is no reason why i shouldn't say it. Whether using something else in comparison (e.g. a review where you can slate a company in anyway you want), or like I did, saying it was the same person behind so and so's amplifier. Take Conrad Johnson for an example of the same type of thing. Companies use their opposition in their advertising all the time, saying how they are directly better than their competition (I was actually talking to an ex-head marketer for (I think) pizza hut (college professor) about this earlier and she said there was nothing wrong with what I wrote.)

This is a car forum. I am not going to vent on here about eBay. And eBay's reason is obvious anyway (they are told by a registered company that I have stolen from them - it's a lot easier for them to just take it down then bother looking into it.)

You also know nothing about my relationship with Abyss. How do you know I don't know them (and what do you mean by they have done more harm than good?) For your info I have had many phone calls, and probably 100+ text messages/e-mails shared between myself and Abyss.

If there is a story why don't you say it? I have read stories on Tru ripping off Abyss many times, but never have I seen a proper one in defense of Tru. Only something a long the lines of 'it's not true.' What evidence is there?

I also don't understand your last paragraph? (In reality I see no reason why the strength/lack of strength of the two companies is anything to do with any of this?)


----------



## 6spdcoupe

senior800 said:


> Why can't I use there name on eBay? If what I am saying is factual (and nobody is denying that) then there is no reason why i shouldn't say it. Whether using something else in comparison (e.g. a review where you can slate a company in anyway you want), or like I did, saying it was the same person behind so and so's amplifier. Take Conrad Johnson for an example of the same type of thing. Companies use their opposition in their advertising all the time, saying how they are directly better than their competition (I was actually talking to an ex-head marketer for (I think) pizza hut (college professor) about this earlier and she said there was nothing wrong with what I wrote.)
> 
> This is a car forum. I am not going to vent on here about eBay. And eBay's reason is obvious anyway (they are told by a registered company that I have stolen from them - it's a lot easier for them to just take it down then bother looking into it.)
> 
> You also know nothing about my relationship with Abyss. How do you know I don't know them (and what do you mean by they have done more harm than good?) For your info I have had many phone calls, and probably 100+ text messages/e-mails shared between myself and Abyss.
> 
> If there is a story why don't you say it? I have read stories on Tru ripping off Abyss many times, but never have I seen a proper one in defense of Tru. Only something a long the lines of 'it's not true.' What evidence is there?
> 
> I also don't understand your last paragraph? (In reality I see no reason why the strength/lack of strength of the two companies is anything to do with any of this?)



Firstly, I have absolutely no clue why you want to argue with me about the rules/laws of Ebays practice. I did not write them. There is a rule/law in place and it was violated. Not sure why you are unable to accept that yet. I have Zero invested into it.

You're right it IS a car audio forum. TRU sells car audio amps. Car audio has no involvement on Ebay though ? Really ? I think more of it is sold there in one single week than TRU ( any small company) sells in a decade. So how is it not relevant ? 

You are right, I don't. However after all of those phone calls you seem quite content to believe a 'stranger' over anything else. You're asking for proof from one side, where is the proof from Abyss ? It does work both ways my friend. I have seen proof, but why believe me ? Continue on, as I already stated, believe what you will.

I am Not airing anyones laundry out here. "stories' as it is put can stay as exactly that. Not my place to put em out in public.

You see no reason why the strength/lack of strength has anything to do with it ? You are the one that brought it on with a 'ripped' off statement.


----------



## senior800

6spdcoupe said:


> Firstly, I have absolutely no clue why you want to argue with me about the rules/laws of Ebays practice. I did not write them. There is a rule/law in place and it was violated. Not sure why you are unable to accept that yet. I have Zero invested into it.
> 
> You're right it IS a car audio forum. TRU sells car audio amps. Car audio has no involvement on Ebay though ? Really ? I think more of it is sold there in one single week than TRU ( any small company) sells in a decade. So how is it not relevant ?
> 
> You are right, I don't. However after all of those phone calls you seem quite content to believe a 'stranger' over anything else. You're asking for proof from one side, where is the proof from Abyss ? It does work both ways my friend. I have seen proof, but why believe me ? Continue on, as I already stated, believe what you will.
> 
> I am Not airing anyones laundry out here. "stories' as it is put can stay as exactly that. Not my place to put em out in public.
> 
> You see no reason why the strength/lack of strength has anything to do with it ? You are the one that brought it on with a 'ripped' off statement.


I really don't think you have followed anything I have said. 

I'm not in any form affiliated with Abyss so there is no reason why I would of seen any documents or anything else that you may take as evidence. I am sure I could find pictures from before Tru was around (though you admit this,) of Abyss amplifiers of the same design, or maybe I could post on modifikasi and get them to give you further details.

I have given you 'my story' about how the ordeal went down (have heard the same from multiple people.) So why don't you reply with 'your story' and explain why things were so bitter after, and how they continued to use Abyss' designs? I have never heard anything beyond 'they went separate ways' from Tru's side. I have never heard a comment on how they continued producing the amplifiers after they split and why they went to another foreign factory first.

I would also be interested in hearing what you were shown.

I will send you my phone number and if you feel like it/have time you can phone me to go through this.


----------



## evo9

This was covered at great length over at ECA many many years ago! There was a connection between the two & thats all I can remember. I can tell you, you are not telling some of use members nothing we have not already heard. Especially those of us from the old ECA days.

As for your auction. Maybe I should go off on microsoft for having the same done to my auctions. A trade name/mark is an Intellectual property which requires permission to use in this country. Not because you may have used other band names makes it ok. It means you got lucky. 




.


----------



## Horsemanwill

for me this is what i see......it's like Monster Cable taking on all taking on all those businesses' just because they have the word Monster in their name. While we may feel this is not right, many courts have felt that they do have that right and have sided with them. So therefor you using "Tru" the name of the company is going against their rights. So with all said at the end of the day what happened may not be rigth in our eyes, but in theirs and the courts it is.


----------



## rain27

Putting the whole ebay thing aside...

The fact that Tru blatantly lies about any affiliation with Abyss is, well...a bit shady...don't you guys think?

What're they hiding?

And what credibility is left when a company can't even be forthright about its own beginnings?


----------



## TrickyRicky

From what I've heard they kinda stole LP's future designs (that never took place). John Fairchild was working with Jerri McCord (engineer for LP & kicker) for the legendary Cerwin Strokers. Thats when John Fairchild fell inlove (kinda) with LP's TO3 transistors and SQ, the 5002 and Cerwin Stroker were made around the same time and were made pretty much for eachother. 

This is were it gets kinda sticky, and maybe someone else can shine some light, John Fairchild took or saw some "future" designs that LP had in-mind (the whole TO3's being mounted upside down so the transistors be located on top of the amp showing them off). LP never did it, dont know why, maybe cause they got beaten by TRU since they did it before LP could ever do it. But after John showed Yi the designs he took them and called them "his own".


Now dont take my side of the story, this is just what I've heard before. Wish I was there to see what really happened.

That being said, I never own any TRU items. Was close to buying a Hammer "John Fairchild" edition amp but seller backed out.


----------



## lsm

rain27 said:


> Putting the whole ebay thing aside...
> 
> The fact that Tru blatantly lies about any affiliation with Abyss is, well...a bit shady...don't you guys think?
> 
> What're they hiding?
> 
> And what credibility is left when a company can't even be forthright about its own beginnings?


Sometimes you can't disclose things whether they are true or not... I have been in situations before where I had signed Non-Disclosure Agreements and couldn't discuss matters involving other companies, even thought doing so would have made me look better... Other people could have done so, but I myself personally couldn't. It's one thing to "have the inside track", but it's entirely another to know it and sign the dotted line stating you won't talk about it.

The bottom line for me is John Yi and John Fairchild (RIP) are both great guys who build the best amplifiers I've ever used. I could honestly care less about any behind the scenes drama, it doesn't make their amps perform any differently...


----------



## AndyInOC

Need some mighty tall boots to wade through some of the ******** in this thread


----------



## MarkZ

Can somebody please explain to me HOW this is an IP violation?

Put another way, what is a better way to communicate the idea that the designer of one amplifier also designed another amplifier? I see all over this site, "FS: Amp XYZ, designed by Stephen Mantz of Zed". Is that an IP violation? If so, why aren't the DIYMA mods removing all references to Mantz (and to Zed Audio corp)?


----------



## TrickyRicky

"Its a Harley....... a Harley compatible. Basically the same bike since it was build by the same engineer."

-Mr.Furious from Mystery Men.


----------



## MarkZ

Does, "Brought to you from the same director who directed Star Wars..." violate IP law?


----------



## mikey7182

MarkZ said:


> Does, "Brought to you from the same director who directed Star Wars..." violate IP law?


Only if the director doesn't want anyone to know he directed the first movie with Steven Spielberg then stole all his ideas and started making his own.


----------



## starboy869

When I tried to sell my abyss tube-2. Tru had my auction pulled on basis of the picture alone. I never mentioned tru in the listing. Since the tube-2 and c7.2t looked the same TRU went to ebay saying it's a counterfit.


----------



## MarkZ

Sounds to me like they're pricks. Just sayin'.


----------



## senior800

starboy869 said:


> When I tried to sell my abyss tube-2. Tru had my auction pulled on basis of the picture alone. I never mentioned tru in the listing. Since the tube-2 and c7.2t looked the same TRU went to ebay saying it's a counterfit.


Wow!

My conversation with Tru curtailed with them continually saying that I had received misinformation because there has never been any ties with Abyss. So I copied much of my original post to them, and of course they stopped replying.

I'm planning to take this up with eBay but have been very busy recently.


----------



## AAAAAAA

Crazy TRU would do that.

Many of us have heard the story but that they actively go to ebay to make sure the secret doesn't come out hehe. Funny


----------



## starboy869

I still have the emails straight from John @ TRU tech saying they're a counterfit. I also have a legit story from Abyss International (you should see their FACEBOOK PAGE btw) about the fall out between TRU and Abyss. BTW John did some trash talk ABYSS and the counterfit / TUBE-2 saying it was basically junk compared the to c7.2t. However comparing pictures between those models it showed most of the same components, but the ABYSS model had some higher end components. Did it make a difference in SQ? I don't know.


----------



## Dubstep

hey,
I have a esx amp that was designed by the same guy that designs... or up for sale is a esoteric d7 thats now owned by Diamond...exile..ppi..KIA..Audi...opps my bad. list goes on and on. I know he only used TRU's name as a reference to say hey it along the same lines or if you heard of this then you might like.....so why bust his chops like you guys are TRU police??? did ya get a check for it? You would be mad to!

Has everyone forgot that TRU is a snake in the grass or do we have to many TRU nosers/noobs in here? this **** is OLD ASS NEWS~like ECA old..TRU is probly #1 on the dis-honest,aint nothin TRU about them list.(ok they designed a couple things since then woopty-do) nothing wrong with bringing it up again, its the OP's choice to say whatever he feels. and I guess everyone elses choice to point out the huge conspiracy in his listing.
TRU had this guys listing yanked cause they wanted to be a dick,period! cause they are guilty guilty guilty! almost anyone & everyone in the know, knows it...

Just for that fact Id never buy a TRU-copy amp anyways. steal someones design take credit for it, deny any todo's, then get people that dont know the truth to defend TRU..yeaa right!


----------



## evo9

^^^ Drama aside! The name is a registered trade mark. It cannot be used in that manner without permission from the owner. Remember what monster cable was doing a few years back??


----------



## MarkZ

evo9 said:


> ^^^ Drama aside! The name is a registered trade mark. It cannot be used in that manner without permission from the owner. Remember what monster cable was doing a few years back??


This is what I was asking earlier. I really don't think this is true. Otherwise, every single ebay seller that mentions the brand of the item they're selling would be violating trademark.


----------



## npdang

MarkZ said:


> This is what I was asking earlier. I really don't think this is true. Otherwise, every single ebay seller that mentions the brand of the item they're selling would be violating trademark.


Trademark infringement would generally have to involve acts or representations that would cause the a consumer to confuse the infringing party's product with the trademarked product. I don't believe that the statement given here rises to that level.


----------



## MarkZ

I don't think that's trademark infringement. That's misrepresentation. My understanding is that trademark infringement is using a trademarked phrase or logo in advertising or in a product. I'm pretty certain that selling used items and listing them does not violate IP law. I'm also pretty sure that you can say things like "The Aiwa brand is owned by Sony" in your ad for an Aiwa boombox, because it's a statement of fact. If what he said about Tru in his ad is not true, then that would fall under misrepresentation or libel, not IP.


----------



## Buzzman

npdang said:


> Trademark infringement would generally have to involve acts or representations that would cause the a consumer to confuse the infringing party's product with the trademarked product. I don't believe that the statement given here rises to that level.


NPDang, you are correct sir. But, in addition to what you have stated, a party's rights to a trademark is violated when the mark is used for a third party's benefit. In the circumstance described by the OP, if I were representing TRU I would argue that the TRU name was being used to facilitate the sale of the other amplifier. The statement might be true (no pun intended) but why else mention the designer's affiliation with TRU? Because the reference to TRU, which is still in business and makes a high quality product, will garner interest in the product being sold. 

But, the trademark violation issue is separate from the claims going back and forth about whether TRU has some shady business history or actually called eBay about the OP's ad. I am an active eBay user and once had an ad cancelled because I referenced in my listing a company *other *than the manufacturer of the product I was selling. My recollection is that this is an eBay policy put in place to protect eBay from possible liability for facilitating activities that might infringe the rights of third parties. They already have enough headaches to worry about regarding sales of counterfeit merchandise. etc. for which people seek to hold them responsible. And, since eBay presumably approves every ad that is published, the risks are great for eBay, and they want to minimize, if not eliminate, such risks. Now, if TRU is actually monitoring every eBay ad that is published for references to TRU, and complained to eBay, more power to them. But, I really doubt that TRU would expend the time necessary to do so. 

Also, I would caution anyone on this forum about publishing rumors and other information about TRU or any other business that they have not learned FIRST HAND. These kinds of statements do harm to a company, and if you do that enough you will end up receiving a summons and complaint.


----------



## MarkZ

Buzzman, if what you say is true, then why don't the mods delete ads here that refer to "Zed" amplifiers? It's like I see one of those every week, and they're usually referring to ESX, Alphasonik, or someone else.


----------



## Buzzman

MarkZ said:


> Buzzman, if what you say is true, then why don't the mods delete ads here that refer to "Zed" amplifiers? It's like I see one of those every week, and they're usually referring to ESX, Alphasonik, or someone else.


Mark, probably because the owner of DIYMA has not considered this issue and asked the mods to delete such ads. On the other hand, big companies like eBay have an entire staff of IP lawyers who review developments in the law and set policy to reduce risk of lawsuits and liability. In addition, it could well be the case that Zed either isn't aware of this or doesn't care. The trademark owner is responsible for policing and protecting its marks.


----------



## GS3

what if the situation were reversed? let say i've a tru amp for sale that was made by abyss and imported by tru that was badged under the tru name. (the eca crow knows the rest of the story) can i make reference to say "tru/abyss amp for sale"? 
in this scenario, tru can't say i'm violating their trademark since the amp i'm selling is badged and claimed it was made by them, can they? 
i think in the example i've mentioned, the complaint would need to come from abyss as i'm now referencing their trademark for selling a tru product, am i right or wrong?


----------



## Buzzman

GS3 said:


> what if the situation were reversed? let say i've a tru amp for sale that was made by abyss and imported by tru that was badged under the tru name. (the eca crow knows the rest of the story) can i make reference to say "tru/abyss amp for sale"?
> in this scenario, tru can't say i'm violating their trademark since the amp i'm selling is badged and claimed it was made by them, can they?
> i think in the example i've mentioned, the complaint would need to come from abyss as i'm now referencing their trademark for selling a tru product, am i right or wrong?


The scenario you lay out really isn't the "reverse" of the situation described by the OP. In your situation Abyss would not have any viable grounds to object to your using their name in your ad because, as you say, they built the amp that bears the TRU brand. I would argue that they are therefore indelibly tied to the product being sold. In the situation described by the OP, he stated in his ad "Designed and built by the same designer of many of the Tru amplifiers, such as the copper and hammer series." Here he could have simply used the designer's name. Instead, he links the designer to TRU and TRU's name is now associated with a product that may or may not be equal to its quality standards, notwithstanding the designer's prior history with TRU. That's where the road separates. Suppose after the designer's relationship ended with TRU he had a stroke and his mental acuity diminished, and it was during this stage that he designed these new amps? Get the picture?


----------



## KP

Karma perhaps?


----------



## AndyInOC

Abyss didn't build amps, Abyss was simply the connect in Korea for the build house.


----------



## senior800

As I understand it the build house is in Korea.

Mr. Kim, moved to Indonesia a few years ago and they carried on being built in Korea but he was with them before that.

The Zelos amplifiers are different however as they are top range limited edition and I believe handmade by John himself.


----------



## AndyInOC

senior800 said:


> As I understand it the build house is in Korea.
> 
> John Yi, moved to Indonesia a few years ago and they carried on being built in Korea but he was with them before that.
> 
> The Zelos amplifiers are different however as they are top range limited edition and I believe handmade by John himself.



John Yi lives in so cal bud.


----------



## senior800

Corrected sorry. Was cross-referencing with my first post without paying any attention


----------



## AndyInOC

senior800 said:


> As I understand it the build house is in Korea.
> 
> Mr. Kim, moved to Indonesia a few years ago and they carried on being built in Korea but he was with them before that.
> 
> The Zelos amplifiers are different however as they are top range limited edition and I believe handmade by John himself.


Yes the build house is in Korea, and no the build house was never Abyss, they were the contractor tru was the sub contractor


----------



## senior800

How was Tru a sub contractor?

Tru were clients


----------



## AndyInOC

senior800 said:


> How was Tru a sub contractor?
> 
> Tru were clients


Same thing in essence, call it whatever you like. Abyss had a contract with the Korean build house, Tru had a contract with Abyss. Client, subcontractor, whatever.


----------



## senior800

a sub contractor would be this build house that was separate to Abyss...

Whether they employed a separate factory or owned the factory I don't know and doesn't really change anything. They were Abyss designs that were made for both Tru and Abyss.

Many companies don't own factories. Nike sub contracts all their work etc.


----------



## AndyInOC

senior800 said:


> a sub contractor would be this build house that was separate to Abyss...
> 
> Whether they employed a separate factory or owned the factory I don't know and doesn't really change anything. They were Abyss designs that were made for both Tru and Abyss.
> 
> Many companies don't own factories. Nike sub contracts all their work etc.


And again.... Whatever.... A simple error on how I refer to one company is nothing in comparison to the wealth of misinformation in this thread lol


----------



## 14642

This is silly and yet another example of the misunderstanding surrounding things made FOR brands BY third-party factories. 

An identical heat sink and similar board layout doesn't make two amps the same any more than the same basket makes two woofers the same. 

What if you invented something and sold it to two separate parties and the agreements with both parties made no mention of exclusivity? Let's also say that one brand spent 20 million dollars on advertising, a huge customer support staff, rigorous reliability testing to weed out failures and no-questions-asked replacement of any defective parts. Let's also say that the other brand spent nothing and simply offered the product for sale with no warranty. These are some of the things that contribute to brand value. Because of this, the first company is able to sell the product for $500 and the second company can only manage to sell it for $400. 

Are the two products the same? Are the purchases the same? As a consumer selling used gear or as a reseller, is it ethical to sell the second by suggesting that they are?


----------



## MarkZ

Andy, he never suggested they were the same product. He said it was made by a guy who made another product, trying to appeal to the crowd that thinks that amp designers are like artists. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, advertisers do this all the time with the "Brought to you by the makers of XYZ." That doesn't mean "This product is the same as XYZ."

Buzzman, I'm still not convinced that this is a breach of IP. Do you have any links or anything I could read? My sense is that eBay is treating it as a counterfeit case, just because they're ultra sensitive about counterfeiting these days.


----------



## senior800

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is silly and yet another example of the misunderstanding surrounding things made FOR brands BY third-party factories.
> 
> An identical heat sink and similar board layout doesn't make two amps the same any more than the same basket makes two woofers the same.
> 
> What if you invented something and sold it to two separate parties and the agreements with both parties made no mention of exclusivity? Let's also say that one brand spent 20 million dollars on advertising, a huge customer support staff, rigorous reliability testing to weed out failures and no-questions-asked replacement of any defective parts. Let's also say that the other brand spent nothing and simply offered the product for sale with no warranty. These are some of the things that contribute to brand value. Because of this, the first company is able to sell the product for $500 and the second company can only manage to sell it for $400.
> 
> Are the two products the same? Are the purchases the same? As a consumer selling used gear or as a reseller, is it ethical to sell the second by suggesting that they are?


It is not the same as a build house making lots of companies amps. Say Arc, Vibe and whoever else getting the same (or similar amps made), because they are buying a generic designed amp from the factory, and not through the other company like in this case.

It was Abyss' owners design and Tru was ordering the amplifiers through Abyss, not through this build house.

Quality matching also isn't an issue here. Abyss was a quality brand in Asia, it had full support/warranty etc. The same as Tru in America. They were just in different countries.

And to answer a previous question, yes it was Tru that got it taken down: "Your item was removed because of a request we received from TRU Velocity Group, Inc (TRU Technology), a member of our Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO), asking us to remove the item for:"


----------



## AndyInOC

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> This is silly and yet another example of the misunderstanding surrounding things made FOR brands BY third-party factories.
> 
> An identical heat sink and similar board layout doesn't make two amps the same any more than the same basket makes two woofers the same.
> 
> What if you invented something and sold it to two separate parties and the agreements with both parties made no mention of exclusivity? Let's also say that one brand spent 20 million dollars on advertising, a huge customer support staff, rigorous reliability testing to weed out failures and no-questions-asked replacement of any defective parts. Let's also say that the other brand spent nothing and simply offered the product for sale with no warranty. These are some of the things that contribute to brand value. Because of this, the first company is able to sell the product for $500 and the second company can only manage to sell it for $400.
> 
> Are the two products the same? Are the purchases the same? As a consumer selling used gear or as a reseller, is it ethical to sell the second by suggesting that they are?


It's easier to go to a forum where most people can stay anonymous and whine about some sort of offense, real or imagined.


----------



## rain27

Furthermore, Tru is claiming that any other amps that share a likeness to theirs is a counterfeit, as if Tru originated the designs themselves. To say that Abyss amps were made illegally (counterfeit=illegal), no less, is pretty low. 

In order to sell a $2,000 amp, Tru needs to distinguish itself from the pack, and they apparently do this by lying.


----------



## kyheng

Abyss - Forums - Mobile Electronics AU
Some story.....


----------



## Buzzman

MarkZ said:


> Andy, he never suggested they were the same product. He said it was made by a guy who made another product, trying to appeal to the crowd that thinks that amp designers are like artists. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, advertisers do this all the time with the "Brought to you by the makers of XYZ." That doesn't mean "This product is the same as XYZ."
> 
> Buzzman, I'm still not convinced that this is a breach of IP. Do you have any links or anything I could read? My sense is that eBay is treating it as a counterfeit case, just because they're ultra sensitive about counterfeiting these days.


Mark, I would have to refer you to treatises on trademark law, cases, law review articles, etc. This is not an area of the law that one learns or understands by simply reading a link. As I stated before, the intellectual property rights of a trademark owner are infringed if their mark is used by another party, without permission, for that party’s commercial benefit. In the instance described by the OP, the argument on behalf of TRU would be that the OP is trading on the “goodwill” associated with the TRU mark to facilitate the sale of the OP’s amplifier. TRU didn’t build the amplifier and by all accounts had nothing to do with the amplifier. So why reference TRU? Because by doing so the consumer might draw an inference that this amp is of equal quality with TRU amps. Without putting my whole resume out here, this is the work I do and have done for almost 30 years. I know more than a few things about this subject. The thing about the law is that there are always two or more sides to every position. I stated what I would argue if I represented TRU, and trust me, it’s a winning argument.

As far as your comments regarding advertising that references “brought to you by the makers of XYZ” are concerned, I can’t comment without a more specific example. But, I am confident that in such cases there will have been an agreement in place with the makers of XYZ that permitted the use of their name. 



senior800 said:


> It is not the same as a build house making lots of companies amps. Say Arc, Vibe and whoever else getting the same (or similar amps made), because they are buying a generic designed amp from the factory, and not through the other company like in this case.
> 
> It was Abyss' owners design and Tru was ordering the amplifiers through Abyss, not through this build house.
> 
> Quality matching also isn't an issue here. Abyss was a quality brand in Asia, it had full support/warranty etc. The same as Tru in America. They were just in different countries.


Unless you were involved in any transactions between Abyss and TRU, it would be to your benefit to qualify what you say with “I think,” or “I heard,” or whatever else shows that what you state as fact is actually just hearsay. 



senior800 said:


> And to answer a previous question, yes it was Tru that got it taken down: "Your item was removed because of a request we received from TRU Velocity Group, Inc (TRU Technology), a member of our Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO), asking us to remove the item for:"


More power to TRU. I didn’t get such a notice in my situation with eBay. This is the kind of vigilance that a trademark owner must exercise to protect its rights to its marks. As a consumer you might not like it, but it’s no different than copyright owners cracking down on free music downloads and file sharing. It’s the proper business decision. Note also that TRU is part of an eBay rights owner program. So, eBay clearly wants to minimize its risk in these situations as I noted earlier. 

And, a final note, I am out of this silly debate/discussion. I don’t care to spend my time reading hearsay versions of purported business relationships that are not relevant to what should be our priority –sharing ideas on how to improve our systems and enhance our music listening experience.


----------



## senior800

AndyInOC said:


> It's easier to go to a forum where most people can stay anonymous and whine about some sort of offense, real or imagined.


I'm not being anonymous.

I've tried to talk to Tru about this matter. They know exactly who I am, I'm certainly not the first person who has had a problem with them and I won't be the last.
All they replied with was that they haven't anything to do with Abyss, and since I have posted them my first post and asked how my post was illegal they have failed to reply, even though I have attempted to follow it up.

Everything I have said about Tru is stuff that I have personally been told straight from the top of Abyss. To me, coupled with Tru's long history of lieing, makes me happy to say it as facts.


I'm not a marketer but I have been through the entire conflict with somebody who has been in top jobs in the industry for the last 40+ years, and she says nothing that I have done breaks the law. That is good enough for me.


----------



## rain27

Buzzman said:


> And, a final note, I am out of this silly debate/discussion. I don’t care to spend my time reading hearsay versions of purported business relationships that are not relevant to what should be our priority –sharing ideas on how to improve our systems and enhance our music listening experience.


Some of us care about who we give money to and which companies we are willing to support.


----------



## rain27

AndyInOC said:


> It's easier to go to a forum where most people can stay anonymous and whine about some sort of offense, real or imagined.


So if a real offense has taken place, discussing it is whining?


----------



## AndyInOC

rain27 said:


> So if a real offense has taken place, discussing it is whining?


Linking a company to an amp that they weren't involved with in order to hock your product and then crying and posting up rumors & misinformation qualifies as whining in my world

Oh and as a final thought we can all attest to the honesty of Abyss based on the amps that were thrown together with spare parts with tru endcaps & name plates when the ship was sinking right?


----------



## senior800

AndyInOC said:


> Linking a company to an amp that they weren't involved with in order to hock your product and then crying and posting up rumors & misinformation qualifies as whining in my world
> 
> Oh and as a final thought we can all attest to the honesty of Abyss based on the amps that were thrown together with spare parts with tru endcaps & name plates when the ship was sinking right?


Provide evidence of this? - That's the problem I have is with all this. By all means prove me wrong, but I have posted evidence from the top of Abyss, there is a long history of Tru blatantly (nobody can dispute that) to at least some extend lying about the whole situation, and then all that 'Tru people' can come back with is that I'm posting false stuff. Where's any evidence?

Did Abyss throw these amps together with spare parts before they were even affiliated with Tru? Because they were making those amps before Tru was even a company?


----------



## MarkZ

Buzzman said:


> Mark, I would have to refer you to treatises on trademark law, cases, law review articles, etc. This is not an area of the law that one learns or understands by simply reading a link. As I stated before, the intellectual property rights of a trademark owner are infringed if their mark is used by another party, without permission, for that party’s commercial benefit.


<snip>

Well, I'm not a lawyer so I was hoping for an explanation that was more my speed.  That's why I asked for a link. But a thorough explanation works too, so thanks for typing that out.

So is it a violation of IP to sell your Tru amp and call it a Tru amp? I would assume not. Is there any possible way to write the ad and reference Tru, even if it's not a Tru amp? For example, there are plenty of commercials (e.g. DirecTV) that directly mention their competitors, presumably not getting consent for doing so. So it's obviously not a violation of IP for DirecTV to mention Dish Network in a negative light, probably because the statement is a factual one, right?

I'm having a hard time reconciling the fact that third parties are mentioned all the time in advertising, even without consent, with the idea that his ad violated IP law. It seems like the same thing.


----------



## rain27

AndyInOC said:


> Linking a company to an amp that they weren't involved with in order to hock your product and then crying and posting up rumors & misinformation qualifies as whining in my world
> 
> Oh and as a final thought we can all attest to the honesty of Abyss based on the amps that were thrown together with spare parts with tru endcaps & name plates when the ship was sinking right?


If there's misinformation, let us know what that is.

Up to this point, nobody is denying a close link between Abyss and Tru (well, except Tru). Even those that deal with Tru say there is a link with Abyss.

That's where the honesty issue is.


----------



## Buzzman

MarkZ said:


> <snip>
> 
> Well, I'm not a lawyer so I was hoping for an explanation that was more my speed.  That's why I asked for a link. But a thorough explanation works too, so thanks for typing that out.
> 
> So is it a violation of IP to sell your Tru amp and call it a Tru amp? I would assume not.


Correct.



MarkZ said:


> Is there any possible way to write the ad and reference Tru, even if it's not a Tru amp? For example, there are plenty of commercials (e.g. DirecTV) that directly mention their competitors, presumably not getting consent for doing so. So it's obviously not a violation of IP for DirecTV to mention Dish Network in a negative light, probably because the statement is a factual one, right?
> I'm having a hard time reconciling the fact that third parties are mentioned all the time in advertising, even without consent, with the idea that his ad violated IP law. It seems like the same thing.


Well, just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. :laugh: I will respond since you asked, and hopefully this helps others understand what’s really at issue here. The advertising example you give is not a violation of another party’s IP rights because one advertiser is comparing its offering to another company’s offering, and the consumer is then left to make a purchasing decision based on whatever differences exist and whatever value they place on those differences. So, McDonalds can put out an ad comparing the weight of its beef patty with that of Wendy’s beef patty, or a DirecTV ad comparing its services to Dish. They would do so because they think it would be advantageous to make that comparison. They are not casting the other company in a “negative” light. Rather, they are showing factual differences that make their product or service look more favorable. But, they better be 100% correct about their competitor’s product because they would then be exposing themselves to claims by consumers and governmental agencies under tort law principles such as fraud and misrepresentation, and to claims by the competitor of unfair business competition. This is different than McDonalds putting out an ad for their Quarter Pounder showing a guy driving up to the drive through window in his Bentley with the car’s logo clearly visible. Do you think VW (they own Bentley) would be happy with that? Get the drift? So, back to the issue raised by the OP, TRU has every right to object to its name being used in an ad to sell a product not bearing its name when the only reason to use TRU’s name is to facilitate the sale based on the value of TRU’s name. 

Contrary to what rain27 and others might think (and obviously feel strongly about), this is not about TRU claiming that an Abyss amp is a counterfeit of a TRU amp. That’s a totally different issue, and based on the OP’s post, no such claim was made by TRU in order to have eBay pull his ad. There are some strong feelings by certain members about TRU for whatever reason. I feel just as strongly, however, that hearsay information (which is everything I have read in this thread) should not be thrown about to damage a company's reputation. If there are *FACTS *to support discontent, I am interested in learning them. But, I am not interested in reading personal rants based on info. learned only from one party that obviously has its own agenda. The Buzzman is officially out.


----------



## rain27

Buzzman said:


> Contrary to what rain27 and others might think (and obviously feel strongly about), this is not about TRU claiming that an Abyss amp is a counterfeit of a TRU amp.


This thread is about several topics (as most are), with the link between Tru and Abyss being one of them (that I chose to focused on).


----------



## senior800

As I read what you wrote, in my case, in order for it to be ip violation it has to be incorrect and not cast a negative light on them?

The Zelos amplifiers were designed by Mr. Kim. He also says he designed the Tru amplifiers.

For it to be ip violation then Tru have to say that somebody else designed them, which I am not sure they do? (At least I have never seen anywhere, where it says who designed the amplifiers (a part from the John Fairchild edition(s)) and it doesn't say anything on their website as far as I can see.)

Surely this


> But, they better be 100% correct about their competitor’s product because they would then be exposing themselves to claims by consumers and governmental agencies under tort law principles such as fraud and misrepresentation, and to claims by the competitor of unfair business competition.


 means that if Mr. Kim did infact design them, then there is no problem with me mentioning them in my listing.

I did not mention any negative allegations. Just they were designed by the same person.


----------



## MarkZ

Buzzman said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. :laugh: I will respond since you asked, and hopefully this helps others understand what’s really at issue here. The advertising example you give is not a violation of another party’s IP rights because one advertiser is comparing its offering to another company’s offering, and the consumer is then left to make a purchasing decision based on whatever differences exist and whatever value they place on those differences. So, McDonalds can put out an ad comparing the weight of its beef patty with that of Wendy’s beef patty, or a DirecTV ad comparing its services to Dish. They would do so because they think it would be advantageous to make that comparison. They are not casting the other company in a “negative” light. Rather, they are showing factual differences that make their product or service look more favorable. But, they better be 100% correct about their competitor’s product because they would then be exposing themselves to claims by consumers and governmental agencies under tort law principles such as fraud and misrepresentation, and to claims by the competitor of unfair business competition. This is different than McDonalds putting out an ad for their Quarter Pounder showing a guy driving up to the drive through window in his Bentley with the car’s logo clearly visible. Do you think VW (they own Bentley) would be happy with that? Get the drift? So, back to the issue raised by the OP, TRU has every right to object to its name being used in an ad to sell a product not bearing its name when the only reason to use TRU’s name is to facilitate the sale based on the value of TRU’s name.
> 
> Contrary to what rain27 and others might think (and obviously feel strongly about), this is not about TRU claiming that an Abyss amp is a counterfeit of a TRU amp. That’s a totally different issue, and based on the OP’s post, no such claim was made by TRU in order to have eBay pull his ad. There are some strong feelings by certain members about TRU for whatever reason. I feel just as strongly, however, that hearsay information (which is everything I have read in this thread) should not be thrown about to damage a company's reputation. If there are *FACTS *to support discontent, I am interested in learning them. But, I am not interested in reading personal rants based on info. learned only from one party that obviously has its own agenda. The Buzzman is officially out.


Ok, maybe you see this and decide to reply: 

Isn't DirecTV using Dish to sell its product by using factual information about what Dish is NOT? How is that different from DirecTV using Dish to sell its product by using factual information about what Dish IS? To use an example, suppose that DirecTV included in the ad, "DirecTV has more channels than Dish, but still has the same clear picture because both companies use the same Toshiba video chip." That seems to be more analogous to the situation here, where the poster is saying his amp uses the same designer as the other amp (again, assuming it's factual). He's not saying people who buy Tru amps buy his amps. He's not saying his amp is made by Tru. He's basically pulling the "made from NASA space age polymers" move.

The big issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the claim is factual. Ebay may just be playing it safe by assuming it's not factual because it was disputed. But if it were to go to court, and it could be demonstrated that the claim is indeed factual, then is it still a breach of IP?


----------



## senior800

MarkZ said:


> The big issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the claim is factual. Ebay may just be playing it safe by assuming it's not factual because it was disputed. But if it were to go to court, and it could be demonstrated that the claim is indeed factual, then is it still a breach of IP?


That is exactly what I want to know. My contact thinks that isn't a breach which makes what I am saying fine (as long as my statement about Mr Kim designing both amplifiers is true.)

Also for reference, I wasn't trying to use the Tru name to make my amplifier sound better or equivalent, anybody that was in a position to buy it would either know what it was or would do a lot of research and find this out. I was using the name so I could get it up in an eBay search (seeming as nobody is going to search for Zelos as they are beyond rare in America.) I was doing it in a way that I think is completely legitimate however.


----------



## DAT

:snacks:

This is getting good.


----------



## evo9

senior800 at the end of the day you created your own problem! It is clear you dont care for the tru brand due to your connection with abyss. So why in the world would you even use the tru name as reference in your listing??


----------



## Yuck.

DAT said:


> :snacks:
> 
> This is getting good.


Agreed.

:smash:
:laugh:


----------



## goodstuff

evo9 said:


> senior800 at the end of the day you created your own problem!


Tru complaing to ebay about this guys listing, right or wrong, is not this guy creating his own problem.


----------



## captainscarlett

This of some interest to me, as I've actually factored in a bit of Tru technology into my business plan.

TRU Technology: SSLD6 - Line Driver 
Car Audio & Security: Car Stereo, Speakers & Subwoofers, Car DVD Players, GPS and CD Changers

Having dealt with various companies who have threatened me with legal action on my fakeheadphones.com site (namely Sennheiser and Monster), it pays to have the facts. In my case of where amazon themselves sold me counterfeits (not a thrid party but it was amazon) I posted *pictures*, *receipts* and *email correspondents* _for all to read._ I see non of those things here!

example:
Fake CX300 II sold by Amazon.co.uk - Update. - Amazon
Amazon.co.uk - Amazon in name and shame
http://fakeheadphones.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sold-by-amazoncouk.png - Picture of my receipt

I defend fakeheadphones.com for the second time. - My heated discussion with Sennheiser

It helps to have proof of your discussions. When talking to people on the phone, for my purposes I always ask what I can and cannot put up on my site. In what i determin are minor matters I have put a few phonecalls up on youtube, to get 'Proof' of what I'm saying, or posting. 

fakeheadphones.com nicecans.co.uk are selling genuine Sennheiser headphones - YouTube
call to Sennheiser UK - YouTube

As to the original listing, I appreciate that senior800 saw it as a good idea. Unfortunately it has back fired. 

Personally, I'm still looking Tru and I simply want to know: . 

1) How does there stuff sound?

Who's doing business with who and where and in what country or whether they're lying about where their stuff is made is of no interest to me. I don't care if its being made by a goat farmer in Peru (no disrespect it was the first thing I thought of) is no skin of my nose! I think if we all knew who's in or out of bed with who business wise, our heads would explode.

As to senior800 losing money over what you feel is a lie, it sucks, I know, i've been there. But get me something solid from both Tru and Abyss!


----------



## whatzzap

I like Tru's product a lot but too bad John Yi is not really the kind of guy you want to deal with. Couple years ago me & John were having a conversation over at Tru's Facility in Socal. Back then I was still living in California(Currently in Indonesia now), and he ask me to take over Indonesian Distribution for Tru. Back then i am quite a fanboy of tru and thinkin it could be a really good Idea to become a dealer. John even ask me to invest in Tru's America since they are thinkin about making install accesories.

So i went back to Indonesia, we email few times regarding the plan etc. Until 1 day i need to get Tru line driver for my install which i am planning to use it for tru's demo car .Since they dont sell the line driver in indonesia so i email john, and just for my comparisson i also contacted one of Diyma's Tru dealer. To my surprise John try to sell me double the price from what the dealer quote me. So I decided to get it from the dealer. Few months later i need to upgrade my Preamp card for my billet amp, so i contacted both John & the dealer i dealt before. So the dealer went to contact John and ask for quotation, John found out that its for me, so he banned the dealer to sell anymore Tru's product to me. Ever since that i lost respect for John, altho i am still in love with Tru's product. How do they expect me become a distributor when they cant even be honest with me, and tryin to sell their products 2x from what their dealer sell to me.

A good friend of mine told me before that he is one of few guys that help John to set up Tru's back then. My friend told me he once help John unloading a batch of shipment of heat sink with abyss label still on it. So to say that tru dont have any relation with abyss thats pretty funny, since a lot of ppl actually know the TRUE story & not the TRU VERSION. Why can't they just admit it and just say that the relation went sour and they went separated way.


----------



## kyheng

If they admit the true story, I'm sure nobody wants to buy Tru products at that price anymore....


----------



## captainscarlett

whatzzap said:


> So the dealer went to contact John and ask for quotation, John found out that its for me, so he banned the dealer to sell anymore Tru's product to me. Ever since that i lost respect for John, altho i am still in love with Tru's product. How do they expect me become a distributor when they cant even be honest with me, and tryin to sell their products 2x from what their dealer sell to me.



If this is true, then John is no different to some people I've spoke with. At the end of the day its bad business, that will end up in tears. Sadly, I know/heard of worse business practices in the world of car audio. As a prospective retailer (me), its all a pain in the a55. But for now, its what i have to put up with decisions and attitudes like this until i get established. Believe me, it won't be forever. 

Doesn't mean I won't buy a Tru product though!


----------



## TrickyRicky

It means no TRU product for me, I never bought any and never fell into the whole "TRU" is the best hype. Now dont get me wrong, if someone offered me a TRU product for free or at a real cheap/steal price then I'll snatch it but not to use it to sell it and make my money back with some profit.


----------



## Renegadesoundwave

Most businesses i know act like thieves given the chance . Unless you have $$$$$$$ to hire the best lawyers etc you will get shafted .

Happened with a rather famous "shoe" company "Jimmy Choo" 

What took place there was terrible .


----------



## captainscarlett

Renegadesoundwave said:


> Most businesses i know act like thieves given the chance . Unless you have $$$$$$$ to hire the best lawyers etc you will get shafted .
> 
> Happened with a rather famous "shoe" company "Jimmy Choo"
> 
> What took place there was terrible .


*
Why, what happened with Jimmy? *

(not directed at you Renegadesoundwave) Business is business, I don't know what people want from a business. From Nike, to retail outlets and fast food chains that pays 2p per hour above minimum wage just to beat government statistics, business is there to make profit. If it wasn't there would be no business, because people/companies would go bankrupt. 
Now, giving my tax money to failing businesses, to support the lifestyle of the undeserving is a different issue, but in the case of Tru, I've seen and heard of worse situations. 

I don't care if Bose make speakers out of paper cones, ice cream cones or recycled toilet paper, if it sounds half decent (which out of the 100+ headphones I've owned, now i'm down to about 30 pairs and Bose are still in my collection) and people are happy (which i am with my Bose OE headphones) with their purchase then who cares

In the case of Tru, what deals were done in the past, what arrangements went sour is of little consequence to me when choosing their products. It's informative, however I've still got my sights on a Tru Line driver 

Car Audio & Security: Car Stereo, Speakers & Subwoofers, Car DVD Players, GPS and CD Changers


----------



## Renegadesoundwave

Lets just say that certain parties where told to "give up the business or spend a lot of time in hospital if lucky to survive


I hate companies that bully their way around . I never ever shop at Tescos in the UK or Asda . Asda are owned by Walmart and they suck big time


----------



## Z-Roc

wow!! interested hope goes well


----------



## envisionelec

Dan Fraser designed their Steel series. On Saturdays as a moonlight gig while working for Renkus-Heinz.


http://www.danielle-oc-ca.50megs.com/


----------



## thehatedguy

Uh...wow.


----------



## captainscarlett

envisionelec said:


> Dan Fraser designed their Steel series. On Saturdays as a moonlight gig while working for Renkus-Heinz. Oh, and cross dressing on the weekends, but nobody cares about that part...
> 
> I don't normally do this to people that have treated me fairly in the past. So here ya go: index


And what's that gotta do with the price of apples?

So, Tru like many companies lied about certain things to make money, and that one of the former designers is now a women. I'm not seeing anything to get shocked or upset about.


----------



## envisionelec

captainscarlett said:


> And what's that gotta do with the price of apples?
> 
> So, Tru like many companies lied about certain things to make money, and that one of the former designers is now a women. I'm not seeing anything to get shocked or upset about.


LOL. Nothing. 

Anything can be found on the internet. _Anything._


----------



## TrickyRicky

Nothing wrong with him being/wanting to be a woman. More power to him/her, this doesnt change her intelligance regarding design of amplifiers.

I for one dont care, heck if she designed another amplifier I wouldn't mind buying/using it.

Or even asking her questions regarding amplifiers.


To be honest I think that a low-blow for envision to do that, since his very professional, it seemed kinda weird reading it from his post.

Anyways there are other amplifier designers that are bi/****/trans/.... whatever you wanna call it, BUT THAT does not change the fact of their knowledge and experience in amplifier designs.


And am not trying to get into and arguement over this, it just seemed to me kinda weird.


----------



## Yuck.

envisionelec said:


> LOL. Nothing.
> 
> Anything can be found on the internet. _Anything._


Tru dat.


----------



## envisionelec

TrickyRicky said:


> Nothing wrong with him being/wanting to be a woman. More power to him/her, this doesnt change her intelligance regarding design of amplifiers.
> 
> I for one dont care, heck if she designed another amplifier I wouldn't mind buying/using it.
> 
> Or even asking her questions regarding amplifiers.
> 
> 
> To be honest I think that a low-blow for envision to do that, since his very professional, it seemed kinda weird reading it from his post.
> 
> Anyways there are other amplifier designers that are bi/****/trans/.... whatever you wanna call it, BUT THAT does not change the fact of their knowledge and experience in amplifier designs.
> 
> 
> And am not trying to get into and arguement over this, it just seemed to me kinda weird.


Yeah, it reads weirdly. I'll change that.


----------



## MarkZ

TrickyRicky said:


> Nothing wrong with him being/wanting to be a woman. More power to him/her, this doesnt change her intelligance regarding design of amplifiers.
> 
> I for one dont care, heck if she designed another amplifier I wouldn't mind buying/using it.
> 
> Or even asking her questions regarding amplifiers.
> 
> 
> To be honest I think that a low-blow for envision to do that, since his very professional, it seemed kinda weird reading it from his post.
> 
> Anyways there are other amplifier designers that are bi/****/trans/.... whatever you wanna call it, BUT THAT does not change the fact of their knowledge and experience in amplifier designs.
> 
> 
> And am not trying to get into and arguement over this, it just seemed to me kinda weird.


Uh...what did envision do? I missed it. To me, it looked like he linked to this person's web site. This web site, by the way, is centered on demonstrating that she's transgendered. It's not like it's a website devoted to her trip to Italy, or a website talking about amplifier repair, and that the fact that she's transgendered is an irrelevant side note. No, it's a website highlighting that she's pre-op. Obviously, she WANTS people to know this and is proud. And good for her.

It's also fairly unusual to be a pre-op transsexual, which is probably why envision linked to it anecdotally. [If it wasn't unusual, she wouldn't have created a website devoted to it. ]


----------



## envisionelec

MarkZ said:


> Uh...what did envision do? I missed it. To me, it looked like he linked to this person's web site. This web site, by the way, is centered on demonstrating that she's transgendered. It's not like it's a website devoted to her trip to Italy, or a website talking about amplifier repair, and that the fact that she's transgendered is an irrelevant side note. No, it's a website highlighting that she's pre-op. Obviously, she WANTS people to know this and is proud. And good for her.
> 
> It's also fairly unusual to be a pre-op transsexual, which is probably why envision linked to it anecdotally. [If it wasn't unusual, she wouldn't have created a website devoted to it. ]


Well that's what I did. There is a story behind it, but it doesn't belong here.


----------



## captainscarlett

envisionelec said:


> LOL. Nothing.
> 
> Anything can be found on the internet. _Anything._


Forgive my harsh tone envisionelec. 

"Interesting" doesn't quite cover it!

As to the topic in hand, I understand why people get slighted. As the editor for fakeheadphones.com i see a lot of people being slighted (for want of a better phrase), but i'm still scratching my head over this case. 

Tru, as far as i know/read, sell good products. How, when, where, what, why of how the business is run is of no concern for the quality of the products. I have received a personal email away from this forum detailing some dodgy business practices. Unfortunately it seems like car audio is moving into a more hard sales ... tactic. But i'm still waiting for someone to justify why i should stay away from Tru, because a business relationship has gone sour? I look forward to hearing a reply.


----------



## senior800

captainscarlett said:


> Forgive my harsh tone envisionelec.
> 
> "Interesting" doesn't quite cover it!
> 
> As to the topic in hand, I understand why people get slighted. As the editor for fakeheadphones.com i see a lot of people being slighted (for want of a better phrase), but i'm still scratching my head over this case.
> 
> Tru, as far as i know/read, sell good products. How, when, where, what, why of how the business is run is of no concern for the quality of the products. I have received a personal email away from this forum detailing some dodgy business practices. Unfortunately it seems like car audio is moving into a more hard sales ... tactic. But i'm still waiting for someone to justify why i should stay away from Tru, because a business relationship has gone sour? I look forward to hearing a reply.



If you don't care about their business practices than that is fine. Buy from them as you please. As the owner of fakeheadphones.com, then surely you should be the first to be against buying 'counterfeits' however  

Personally I don't want to support a business model such as Tru's so I won't be buying anything new from them. 
Do I have a problem with their products? No - because I know the quality of the designer. I just don't like funding companies with such business ethics.


----------



## Renegadesoundwave

Not bothered "whO " designs a amp. if its good its good

But i do have a issue with companies that cheat .For that reason i would advice anyone thinking of buying EBC brakes etc to do some searching about how this company was run and it still has the same owner . For that reason i will never ever buy their products. they made their money cheating the public


----------



## benny

Renegadesoundwave said:


> Not bothered "whO " designs a amp. if its good its good
> 
> But i do have a issue with companies that cheat .For that reason i would advice anyone thinking of buying EBC brakes etc to do some searching about how this company was run and it still has the same owner . For that reason i will never ever buy their products. they made their money cheating the public


Hook me up with a link, I can't find anything.


----------



## 101proof

Interesting


----------



## Renegadesoundwave

ebc rubbish - Google Search

one of many many pages 

They started off importing cheap nasty brakes and having the suppliers etc spray them any colour .these then got sold as been "specific" . The discs lasted days ! the pads ,,,,you might as well have jumped from the car 

the owner harks on about how he has changed etc 

yet was happy to cheat everyone 

They are crap pads anyway .


----------



## thehatedguy

Anything more specific than that? All I read was people's opinions on how they don't like or do like the pads.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

I would definately want more specifics on ebc. The EBC motocross brake pads are the only things even close on stopping power to the stock honda pads.


----------



## CrossFired

Renegadesoundwave said:


> Not bothered "whO " designs a amp. if its good its good
> 
> But i do have a issue with companies that cheat .For that reason i would advice anyone thinking of buying EBC brakes etc to do some searching about how this company was run and it still has the same owner . For that reason i will never ever buy their products. they made their money cheating the public


Who gives a F*ck, they sell good pads for a good price. I've been using them on my bikes for over 20 years, with no problems.

If folks followed your line of thought, they'd have little to nothing, in the way of consumer goods.


----------



## The Baron Groog

On the EBC bandwagon-I got some of their "green stuff" pads for my Gti6, after using them I realised the "green stuff" was the cash leaving my pocket for lousey brakes. Bedded them in properly but those ****ers would still BURN after some spirited driving, no more EBC for me!


----------



## danno14

Integrity- What you do when noone is looking......


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Hmm, never used their car pads. Have used many different motocross pads though, and the EBC's and stock Honda pads were always the best. The EBC's lasted a little longer, having a better backing plate than the stock Honda's, but if you doubled up Honda's insulator, they could last as long as the EBC's.


----------



## Thrill_House

envisionelec said:


> Dan Fraser designed their Steel series. On Saturdays as a moonlight gig while working for Renkus-Heinz.
> 
> 
> http://www.danielle-oc-ca.50megs.com/


Oh man that is awesome, Renkus Heinz makes some of the best PA speakers I have ever heard!


----------



## dales

effing wow. good read for me, very entertaining..............


----------



## falstaff

LOL great read for me as well!


----------



## npdang

Buzzman said:


> NPDang, you are correct sir. But, in addition to what you have stated, a party's rights to a trademark is violated when the mark is used for a third party's benefit. In the circumstance described by the OP, if I were representing TRU I would argue that the TRU name was being used to facilitate the sale of the other amplifier. The statement might be true (no pun intended) but why else mention the designer's affiliation with TRU? Because the reference to TRU, which is still in business and makes a high quality product, will garner interest in the product being sold.
> 
> But, the trademark violation issue is separate from the claims going back and forth about whether TRU has some shady business history or actually called eBay about the OP's ad. I am an active eBay user and once had an ad cancelled because I referenced in my listing a company *other *than the manufacturer of the product I was selling. My recollection is that this is an eBay policy put in place to protect eBay from possible liability for facilitating activities that might infringe the rights of third parties. They already have enough headaches to worry about regarding sales of counterfeit merchandise. etc. for which people seek to hold them responsible. And, since eBay presumably approves every ad that is published, the risks are great for eBay, and they want to minimize, if not eliminate, such risks. Now, if TRU is actually monitoring every eBay ad that is published for references to TRU, and complained to eBay, more power to them. But, I really doubt that TRU would expend the time necessary to do so.
> 
> Also, I would caution anyone on this forum about publishing rumors and other information about TRU or any other business that they have not learned FIRST HAND. These kinds of statements do harm to a company, and if you do that enough you will end up receiving a summons and complaint.


I know this is a very late reply 

I think you are confusing two different issues here. There is possible contributory infringement, which would be Ebay's facilitating an infringement of a mark for the benefit of the seller for financial benefit (or as you put it "used for the benefit of a third party"), and there is the seller's possible direct infringement. I believe from my cursory legal research that the test under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement is whether or not there was "any likelihood of confusion." That is not to say that there might not be other possible claims under State tort law. I just don't think that saying this amp that I am selling was designed by the same person who designed TRU's amps is going to lead any reasonable person to think that TRU is somehow connected to or endorsing the amp for sale.

There is also 15 USC § 1115(b)(4), which provides the affirmative defense to any trademark infringement "[t]hat the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, *or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party*, or their geographic origin;" which I think may apply.

Last point with regards to defamation, business that ply the forums can typically be considered public figures and generally can't receive damages for defamation unless they can show actual malice. You should be fine unless you are publishing defamatory statements flat out knowing that they are untrue, or with a reckless disregard for the truth. The focus is more on intent, and not on how you obtained the information. In other words, so long as you genuinely believe that what you are saying is true there is no defamation.


----------



## Buzzman

npdang said:


> I know this is a very late reply
> 
> I think you are confusing two different issues here. There is possible contributory infringement, which would be Ebay's facilitating an infringement of a mark for the benefit of the seller for financial benefit (or as you put it "used for the benefit of a third party"), and there is the seller's possible direct infringement. I believe from my cursory legal research that the test under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement is whether or not there was "any likelihood of confusion." That is not to say that there might not be other possible claims under State tort law. I just don't think that saying this amp that I am selling was designed by the same person who designed TRU's amps is going to lead any reasonable person to think that TRU is somehow connected to or endorsing the amp for sale.
> 
> There is also 15 USC § 1115(b)(4), which provides the affirmative defense to any trademark infringement "[t]hat the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, *or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party*, or their geographic origin;" which I think may apply.
> 
> Last point with regards to defamation, business that ply the forums can typically be considered public figures and generally can't receive damages for defamation unless they can show actual malice. You should be fine unless you are publishing defamatory statements flat out knowing that they are untrue, or with a reckless disregard for the truth. The focus is more on intent, and not on how you obtained the information. In other words, so long as you genuinely believe that what you are saying is true there is no defamation.


I vowed I would not continue with this debate, but given your response I will say this: I practice law as an intellectual property attorney and have more than 25 years experience in this area. I stand by my prior statements, which are not based on "cursory legal research," but on that experience.


----------



## MarkZ

cop out


----------



## npdang

MarkZ said:


> cop out


PP


----------



## subwoofery

kyheng said:


> Abyss - Forums - Mobile Electronics AU
> Some story.....


No real facts other than the above link? 

I have to admit, having read all those things (_Tru_ or false) about those 2 companies, I kinda side with Abyss on that one - don't really understand why Tru is lying about their old relationship with the Korean manufacturer... 

Kelvin


----------



## DAT

Tru is going down hill, few years and they will fade out from what I hear.

This is coming fro a few Dealers I know of....


----------



## DAT

Tru is going down hill, few years and they will fade out from what I hear.

This is coming fro a few Dealers I know of....


----------



## subwoofery

DAT said:


> Tru is going down hill, few years and they will fade out from what I hear.
> 
> This is coming fro a few Dealers I know of....


Interesting... Is it the quality of the product that is going downhill or the way they handle dealers and their business? If I may ask

Kelvin


----------



## starboy869

Abyss died, however I'm in the process of getting some old stock.


----------

