Aerotech Releases New Single Use motors!

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That does leave pro series, proline, and whatever other rocketry related pros out there.

Trademarks are important. I don't fault anyone for defending them. But pro is pretty common.



Pro, A-1, Top Notch, Best-all used extensively and within the same industries, fields, what-ever. I see no issue with Pro-this or that as long as it is not exactly the same as Pro-this or that.
 
So you're saying they have the trademark on the word "Pro?" WOW..

What about this...Heck, they even have "pro" motors.

Or how about this...

And even an entire line of "Pro" rocketry products...

Or even outside of rocketry...Doesn't CTI refer to their product like as ProX? Oh yeah, they do.

Where do you draw the line? I mean c'om on this is ridiculous. "PRO" is a very common word. It's like trying to trademark the color blue.

Awww, hell, just let 'em fight. Duke it out in court with lots of lawyers and pass on all those wonderful lawyer fees on to us with MUCH higher motor costs. Nobody minds do they?


Well if your read the C&D the US PATENT OFFICE agrees they are the ones who sent the C&D. so I would think they have a lagit thing..

But no they dont own the word "PRO" but they do seem to have rights to it used in the terms they are using them in..


Example (although crude and extreme)

should Ford come out with a new car called the Camaro XT ?? My opinion NO thats infringement..
Now if ford wants to come out with a say.... Kite, and call it CAMARO... I think they have the right to.. why?
Not because of the name... but because its the same name for a different thing.. does that make sense??


Let me say this.. should CTI own the word PRO.??? maybe.. depending on how and when it is used..

should AT have the right to use the word "PRO" ?? MAYBE depending on how its used. BUT in this case, I would say NO.

NOW, heres the bottom line and the IMPORTANT THING.. was it smart to use the same name (or variation there of) by AT..... NO WAY

Did AT do it on purpose? only one person will Ever know the answer to that.. and I doubt we will hear from him.


Now for arguments sake.. who's right and who's wrong here...... AT or CTI?? I don't know, I'm not a Trademark Lawyer... or any kind of lawyer.

lastly you said WE are the only ones that are gonna pay for this... well maybe if it goes to court but I HIGHLY doubt it will. who would be DUMB enough to spend the kind of money to fight over a 3 letter word... change the name, be done with it and move on.. do that and it will be easy on everyone.. even us buying the stuff. when I go to my vendor and ask for "PRO" stuff I dont want them to have to say.... AT OR CTI pro?? or the new guy that comes to a vendor and says hey you carry that new PRO so and so.. and the vendor will have to say witch one A or C... then the Newbie goes.. well hell I don't know..



oh and for your examples.. none of those have ANYTHING to do with rocket motors... so they are not crossing a TM line (in my unprofessional opinion) you know there are only so many words in the English language.. you gotta share names for SOME things.. BUT since there are only a few motor makers.. why do they need to call their line the same thing?? there are lots of other things that they could have been called.
 
Last edited:
I've gotta ask, have you ever gone to a vendor and asked for "pro" motors? Honest question. I've never heard the motors refered to anything other than CTI, AT, Cesaroni and aerotech.

I really don't see this causing any real confusion.
 
I've gotta ask, have you ever gone to a vendor and asked for "pro" motors? Honest question. I've never heard the motors refered to anything other than CTI, AT, Cesaroni and aerotech.

I really don't see this causing any real confusion.

I always ask for a Pro(x) 1,2,3 etc grain (propellant type) when getting CTI motors. A lot of vendors don't know the designations just the types so it is easier. With AT I say the designation, then case size. Then if need be propellant type and that works pretty well
 
Oh...I have seen far stupider than that.

So have I..Just a few years ago a micro brewery in the North East got a C&D letter from Monster Energy Drink because they named one of their beers with the word 'Monster' in the name..Court threw it out IIRC...
 
I always ask for a Pro(x) 1,2,3 etc grain (propellant type) when getting CTI motors. A lot of vendors don't know the designations just the types so it is easier. With AT I say the designation, then case size. Then if need be propellant type and that works pretty well

Even with that.... Your asking for a Pro29,etc. No confusion by asking for a pro29 3grain, or a 29mm pro-SU. Especially since CTI doesn't make SU motors. Is it a dumb move by AT? Likely. Is it Purposeful to cause trouble/confusion? I really don't see any sense in that.
 
I could see these definitely having a negitive impact on people who never intend to fly them.
Now people don't NEED cases to fly high power. With a wide range of SU motors, why buy a case?
There will undoubtedly be people who were going to invest in cases, but now no longer feel the need.
Case sales will drop, which means lower production runs, which means steeper prices for the people who ARE going to buy cases.


Alex
 
Look at mid power. Tons of SU. I'd bet the 29 40-120 is one of the most popular cases sold.
 
Cesaroni Technology Incorporated (CTI) began registering the Pro(-)X(X) labels as the trademarks for their high power reloadable rocket motors after their Pro38 design patent was awarded in 2000. Some examples are:

Since the introduction of the Pro38® line of reloadable high power rocket motors in 2000, the ProX® line by Cesaroni Technology Incorporated (CTI) has grown to cover every total impulse class from F to O.

New! CAR's MC² announces the approval of seventeen new ProXX® motors
Seventeen motors were tested ranging from 24mm through 98mm!

Pro24® Pro38® Pro54® Pro75® Pro98® Pro150®

Aerotech Rocketry (AT) has registered the label Aerotech Consumer Aerospace(R) but apparently has not registered their other trademarks such as Reloadable Motor System(TM), RMS(TM), Loadable Motor System(TM), LMS(TM) or Reload Delay Kit(TM), RDK(TM) as indicated by the TM designation. See the following examples.

AT1.jpg at2.jpg

Aerotech announced their Pro-SU(TM) motor line a month ago as shown below.

2/23/2013
AeroTech Unveils Pro-SU™ Motor Line at NARCON Convention in Santa Clara, CA
AeroTech is introducing a game-changing new product for the high power rocketry market, the Pro-SU™ line of single use motors.

The TM indicates Pro-SU is not a registered trademark.

As the Pro-XX trademark for hobby rocket motors was registered by CTI more than a decade ago, and as it costs money to register a trademark which provides product branding protection, and as AT started using the unregistered Pro-SU trademark for a line of hobby rocket motors this year, it appears that CTI's trademark attorney believes there is a basis for a trademark infringment claim.

Now it's up to the companies. lawyers and courts to figure it out.

For the rest of us, we go fly rockets just like we did before....

Bob
 
Last edited:
Sure hope you're right.



Oh...I have seen far stupider than that.

I hope I am right too.

And Yes I have seen WAY WAY stupider too.

whats crazy something so simple turning into an Issue. If someone sent me a C&D on one of my products and asked me to change the name do to a TM conflict. I would change it, announce a "new" name for a Good product and move on.. lets hope its that simple!
 
Even with that.... Your asking for a Pro29,etc. No confusion by asking for a pro29 3grain, or a 29mm pro-SU. Especially since CTI doesn't make SU motors. Is it a dumb move by AT? Likely. Is it Purposeful to cause trouble/confusion? I really don't see any sense in that.


Yes but what if CTI decides to make Single use motors sometime in the future... that may be the whole issue here.

and I agree simple mistake on name choice. . I am sure they were think Pro"SERIES" since they are working with Estes on that line and it never crossed their mind the CTI had rights to it..
 
Well if your read the C&D the US PATENT OFFICE agrees they are the ones who sent the C&D. so I would think they have a lagit thing.

The USPTO did not send the the Cease & Desist letter. And having a trademark registered with the USPO is no guarantee that it is a valid trademark or that a similar name infringes that mark. C&D letters are easy and inexpensive to send and pose little risk to the sender. I've received a few over the years because of things on web sites I created or managed. All were silly and most were just ignored. In a few cases I removed things even though I didn't have to. A couple of times I contacted the companies that the law firm represented. The companies were surprised that their law firm was sending out the letters.

And, I'm still having to spend way too much time removing trademark symbols form the word "Kevlar" in all the stuff I ported from EMRR into RocktReviews.com! :)

BTW ... the posts about the C&D letter have recently disappeared from Aerotech's Facebook page. I hope that's a good sign that the issue is either going away or, at least, moving out of the public spotlight.

-- Roger
 
There could be ALOT more to all of this we don't know......
Don't know if it's true, how true, or what....but heard that there was a push in California to outlaw the metal motor casings we use for reloads. Could that be why AT came out with the SU high power motors? It could be that CTI will have to do the same to compete with Aerotech in a very large state. So, by using the Pro-SU name, they would be infringing on a registered trademark of CTI's.
IF Aerotech registers a trademark on the word "Single Use", & "SU", then they would be protected from CTI releasing a Pro29 G54 Single Use or SU, as that would infringe on Aerotech just like they have with Pro-SU. But that would not stop Clorox from releasing a cleaning wipe and calling it a Clorox Single Use Kitchen Wipes.
I am sure the Aerotech Lawyers will see that they are in violation.....But will Gary want to just backdown or buckup. We don't as a society like it when someone tells us we "can't" do something.
 
I'm not sure if people are intentionally being obtuse, or just don't understand how trademarks work.

The usage of a trademark matters, as it comes down to the likelihoood of the marks being confused. For example, UPS can trademark "brown" in the delivery sector, as with their line, "What can Brown do for you?"
-Kevin

Pretty sure what UPS has done is keep anyone in the delivery business from using brown delivery trucks and wearing brown uniforms. If someone else was out there in a brown truck driving recklessly, someone is going to call UPS and report it, but it's not going to do any good. Those same people would likely be swayed from using UPS to deliver something because they are going to remember "those UPS drivers don't care about anyone else, I'll take this to FedEx". Have you ever noticed who pays for branding in TV shows? You may see someone drinking a Sprite, and know it because of the iconic green can. But if they haven't paid Coke for use of that, you will always see the can turned so you can't see the name.
 
This whole thing sounds bogus... the USPTO wouldn't send a C&D letter, it would be prepared by the attorneys for the plaintiff (CTI). Posting it on Facebook??? Pleeeeease... and the link is dead, too.

If CTI goes after Aerotech for "Pro-SU", they're going to have to go after Estes for "Pro Series", or Aerotech will be able to use CTI's prior lack of enforcement as a defense. Since Estes' orginal Pro Series came out several years ago, CTI may have a hard time showing why THIS use of "Pro" differs from previous uses of "Pro".

The USPTO did not send the the Cease & Desist letter. And having a trademark registered with the USPO is no guarantee that it is a valid trademark or that a similar name infringes that mark. C&D letters are easy and inexpensive to send and pose little risk to the sender. I've received a few over the years because of things on web sites I created or managed. All were silly and most were just ignored. In a few cases I removed things even though I didn't have to. A couple of times I contacted the companies that the law firm represented. The companies were surprised that their law firm was sending out the letters.

And, I'm still having to spend way too much time removing trademark symbols form the word "Kevlar" in all the stuff I ported from EMRR into RocktReviews.com! :)

BTW ... the posts about the C&D letter have recently disappeared from Aerotech's Facebook page. I hope that's a good sign that the issue is either going away or, at least, moving out of the public spotlight.

-- Roger
 
It's been a few pages so its time to mention Pro-Jet one more time.

Pro-Jet

Pro-Jet

Pro-Jet
 
Okay so back on the topic of the SU motors. We at Michiana Rocketry have decided that these H135 motors scream MINIMUM DIAMETER DRAG RACE. Since most of us don't have the big bucks like some of you for trackers and the like the possibility of loosing a rocket without a casing is a little easier to stomach. Should be fun!
 
It's been a few pages so its time to mention Pro-Jet one more time.

Pro-Jet

Pro-Jet

Pro-Jet

And when were those motors last made? Per trademark law, if it's not being used currently, it's abandoned, and can be registered by someone else. Therefore, it's not relevant to the discussion.

From the USPTO website:

a dead or abandoned status for a trademark application means that specific application is no longer under prosecution within the USPTO, and would not be used as a bar against your filing.

-Kevin
 
This whole thing sounds bogus... the USPTO wouldn't send a C&D letter, it would be prepared by the attorneys for the plaintiff (CTI). Posting it on Facebook??? Pleeeeease... and the link is dead, too.

AeroTech removed all discussion around this from their Facebook page, including the scan of the FAXed C&D letter.

I suspect (but cannot verify, as I'm not involved in it, and I highly doubt either party is going to tell me) that this means that, in consultation with their attorneys, AeroTech felt it in their best interest to remove the information.

-Kevin
 
I feel sorry for both parties. Our HPR community is too small to have the largest motor vendors in a spat.

However, I have to admit when I first read the press release for Pro-SU I was confused. It took me a while to figure out it was not a CTI product.

Hopefully, they can sort it out and not hurt each other too badly. Last thing I want is their R&D $ to pay lawyers.

Kevin
 
I use motors from both manufacturers and like the competition. But I'm amazed at some of the comments on this thread. People who don't appreciate the value of intellectual property question efforts to enforce IP rights. If Aerotech sent someone over to CTI to steal a shipment of ammonium perchlorate, nobody would object to CTI doing something about that, or if Aerotech were to steal the formulas for propellant, we would all cry foul. But when CTI says the name Aerotech chose for its new motors is so close to CTI's registered mark that it is likely to cause confusion, people think that's somehow overreaching. It takes time and money to register a mark. The USPTO rejects proposed marks all the time. I hope it doesn't come down to it, but it seems likely to me that CTI could get an injunction. It would likely cost both sides upwards of $250,000 when it's all over with. I'd rather see Aerotech say, "oops, sorry" and change the name. Then we can all get back to buying the products that fit our needs.
 
Don't know if it's true, how true, or what....but heard that there was a push in California to outlaw the metal motor casings we use for reloads.

I haven't heard that.

The fire codes classify ALL metal cased rocket motors as HPR motors. So the AeroTech D13/RMS-18 motor is a HPR motor in California and can only be flown at an high-power launch. One cannot fly them at a model rocket launch. :(
 
I haven't heard that.

The fire codes classify ALL metal cased rocket motors as HPR motors. So the AeroTech D13/RMS-18 motor is a HPR motor in California and can only be flown at an high-power launch. One cannot fly them at a model rocket launch. :(

I think we can all agree that California is NOT a very logical state.

tisasillyplacebabyblue_fullpic.png
 
But I'm amazed at some of the comments on this thread. People who don't appreciate the value of intellectual property question efforts to enforce IP rights. If Aerotech sent someone over to CTI to steal a shipment of ammonium perchlorate, nobody would object to CTI doing something about that ...

I certainly appreciate the value if Intellectual Property. It's how I've made my living for 30 years.

Just because trademark has been registered, it doesn't mean that the mark is valid or that a mark having some similarity to the registered mark is infringing. So, your analogy is a bit off. It's as if CTI alleged that Aerotech stole a shipment of AP ... but it's not clear that Aerotech took possession of the shipment of AP, that the shipment of AP actually existed, or that CTI owned the shipment of AP.

The use of "Pro" in a trade or service mark is not unique in general or in the world of rocketry. So, I don't think it's correct to say with certainty that the "Pro-SU" name infringes on CTI's trademarks.

I don't fault CTI for wanting to protect their IP, but I'm not sure it's being infringed upon. On the other hand, as I said before, I don't think Aerotech's name is very intriguing and it doesn't seem like it would be very valuable to Aerotech. So, there's a simple solution ......

-- Roger
 
Last edited:
Not 'fire code', but "Law".

The "Law" in CA is the "Health & Safety Code" and it has had the same antiquated definitions of a "Model Rocket" (500 gram limit) and "Model Rocket Motor" (no handling of ingredients and no metal casings) for decades. When the CSFM revised the 'fire code' which are the "Regulations" known as "Title 19", they intended to have the "Law" changed but that never happened. For many, many years they officially "Classified" RMS motors in the model rocket class as "Model Rocket Motors" and they bear the seal of the CSFM indicating this.

After an enforcement issue with a notorious motor maker/seller they were forced to follow the strict letter of the (never revised) "Law". They sent a letter to manufacturers telling them that future reloadable motor submissions would need to be Classified as "High Power Rocket Motors". They did not say that existing RMS motor reloads in the retail pipeline were no longer "Model Rocket Motors". They did say they would allow manufacturers to resubmit motors to have them reclassified with no fee. Of course, if you do not resubmit them, the old "Classification" remains.

I spoke with the person in Sacramento at the CSFM office and they said they had no intent to do anything about motors that were in consumers hands or in the retail pipeline that were already "Classified" as "Model Rocket Motors".


So, at our NAR section launches where we have a permit to launch "Model Rockets", we must observe the 500 gram liftoff weight limit and verify that all motors have a CSFM seal "Classifying" them as "Model Rocket Motors". RMS motors with that seal of classification on the package are allowed. If the labelling someday changes, they will not be allowed.

We want to get the law changed, but the process is very slow. (Years).


I haven't heard that.

The fire codes classify ALL metal cased rocket motors as HPR motors. So the AeroTech D13/RMS-18 motor is a HPR motor in California and can only be flown at an high-power launch. One cannot fly them at a model rocket launch. :(
 
Lets post ultra-cool sounding names that Aerotech could use if they chose to change the name of the new product line.

Feel free to claim the name is your idea or intellectual property and clearly state if you intend to retain it as your own or allow Aerotech to use it.
 
Lets post ultra-cool sounding names that Aerotech could use if they chose to change the name of the new product line.

iMotors :)

Actually, naming things like this is tough. Although I think that "Pro-SU" is pretty lame, I'm not sure I could come up with anything better.

-- Roger
 
Back
Top