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.
Before everyone goes and destroys/sells their CTI cases, how about we just calm down and see what happens? Thats a lot of money to throw out just because of a notion that this will be the end of one or both companies. give it a lil' while, and just let AT, CTI and their lawyers try to figure this out.
 
Before everyone goes and destroys/sells their CTI cases, how about we just calm down and see what happens? Thats a lot of money to throw out just because of a notion that this will be the end of one or both companies. give it a lil' while, and just let AT, CTI and their lawyers try to figure this out.

Well said. Neither company should go out of business for this. Everyone needs to just relax, including CTI and AT. This would not even be on our radar if AT had not published it on facebook.
 
I find the typography of both product names to be so similar as to obviously be intentional. I don't know who 'owns' the rights to this name but it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I had similar feelings when AT came out with their delay adjustment tool that seemed to copy CTIs implementation of the same.
 
Well said. Neither company should go out of business for this. Everyone needs to just relax, including CTI and AT. This would not even be on our radar if AT had not published it on facebook.

Yeah but do you think they are just going to absorb the lawyer fees? Nope, we, the consumer get to pay for that.
 
People's "opinions" here do not matter, unless you're a trademark/patent lawyer. Then it's not your opinion, it's your interpretation. It's obvious they both feel they are within their bounds and it's between them to sort this out through mediation, arbitration, adjudication, etc. etc. etc.

Aerotech makes Estes "Pro-Series" motors, and nothing was said about them (that we know of). Estes had "Pro-Series" kits years ago, but nothing was mentioned when CTI came on the scene. It wasn't a problem then, why is it a problem now?

They're done playing nice. We'll see where it goes.
 
YES. For the new " Pro-SU™ Motor Line" the delays are designed to be adjusted by the user and the ejection charge is not installed at the factory.



These new motors are *not* the same as regular single use motors that average people can buy at retail at a store. Those single use motors have the black powder ejection charge installed at the factory with a cap over the top. I have clearly stated my concerns about average consumers removing pre-installed balck powder to perform drilling on a motor.

Most of us discussing hobby shops are referring to the pro-SU G80-14a that AT has shown some photos of, and hoping the idea carries over to more mid power SU motors. Not suggesting taking a Mikita to current SU motors.
 
Did CTI patent their delay tool? If so, did they go after AT when they copied it?

Patents don't necessarily prevent somebody from copying what you've done, they give you the right to go after them in court with a reasonable chance of success. CTI would have to prove in court that AT copied their design and as a result that they have suffered harm. They might be able to prove the former, however it would be difficult to prove the latter; most HPR hobbyists have dealt with both CTI and AT, and I doubt that anyone has purchased CTI over AT just because of the DAT. Good luck finding a judge that knows HPR.

AT could probably get around the DAT issue by including some kind of stacked delay grain scheme (maybe with separate grains for 3, 5, and 8 seconds, and spacers for the ones that you don't use), but of course that will entail more assembly. The reality is that this motor really isn't a classic Aerotech SU because you have to bond the thrust ring to the case, so a little more assembly isn't likely to deter anyone from using them.

I find the typography of both product names to be so similar as to obviously be intentional. I don't know who 'owns' the rights to this name but it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I had similar feelings when AT came out with their delay adjustment tool that seemed to copy CTIs implementation of the same.
 
Yeah but do you think they are just going to absorb the lawyer fees? Nope, we, the consumer get to pay for that.

Agreed - the cost will find its way down to the consumer in one way or another unless this ends quickly and peacefully. However, us getting all riled up about it won't help the situation.

In the end vote with your wallets, which some of you are already going to do. Right now, with little "facts" and without being a lawyer it is hard for me to determine who is right and who is wrong. More accurately, I guess it doesn't matter right now until something happens., if anything.

If you want to avoid paying for the legal fees for this situation then talk to Scott over at Loki and give him your money.
 
Hey CTI...cease and desist your freaking lawyers or I will cease and desist buying your products. I don't have a lot of CTI hardware but I am real close to putting it up for sale...


SO you are saying that CTI should not protect what it has invested in?? and because they want to protect themselves and their investment you would stop using them?? WOW..
 
SO you are saying that CTI should not protect what it has invested in?? and because they want to protect themselves and their investment you would stop using them?? WOW..


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?
 
Agreed - the cost will find its way down to the consumer in one way or another unless this ends quickly and peacefully. However, us getting all riled up about it won't help the situation.

I disagree, if we let them know we aren't happy about getting lawyers involved (no matter which side you are on) I think they will get the idea that, "Hey if we let this go to court our customer base is not going to be happy."

In the end vote with your wallets, which some of you are already going to do. Right now, with little "facts" and without being a lawyer it is hard for me to determine who is right and who is wrong. More accurately, I guess it doesn't matter right now until something happens., if anything.

If you want to avoid paying for the legal fees for this situation then talk to Scott over at Loki and give him your money.

Yep, I'm already well on my way to doing just that. I may just start tinkering in EX now that I have every 38mm LOKI case except for the 38-1200.
 
I actually think CTI has done an admirable job of framing their argument. The key is that the only thing CTI appears to be objecting to is the use of a Trademarked designation *which is a direct competitor* to their product. There are lots of PRO*** products out there, but only one which markets high power rocket engines. Since trademarks are limited to the specific industry, there is no fear of mistaking your ChamWow PRO for a rocket engine, there is no conflict.

FWIW, did you know that the color brown is trademarked by UPS, as are (I believe) the colors used on the packets of sugar substitutes?
 
Prime numbers can also be copyrighted too, so you can have "illegal numbers", because all data on a CD, hard drive, etc...really boils down to is a very long collection of ones and zeros. Anyway whomever (whoever?) writes the Aerotech Facebook page seems to be in a rather ironic mode, and is trying to make fun of CTIs C & D order. But let's think of a similar scenario, Apple makes iDevices right? But if Dixie made a paper plate made called the iPlate (probably) would not sue, no conflict of interest there. However if Microsoft made a smartphone called the iPlate they most definitely would. This is essentially what is happening between Aerotech and Cesaroni. There was not a conflict of interest with the Pro-Maxx rocket since it was a kit, and CTI does not sell kits, though they can technically sue, it is not impinging (actually probably helping in a small way) on their sales. However, Aerotech has made a High Power rocket engine with the Pro-... trademark, which they can sue based on, and have legal precedent on their side. Again, also remember this could be (I am not saying it is) a deliberate move on Aerotech's part to force CTI into a legal battle, though this is unlikely as it really is a Lose-Lose situation and they would be gambling quite a lot of money. I dislike the fact that lawyers have to be involved, however this is the society that we have literally bought and paid for, and as such we really should not be surprised by Aerotech's or CTI's tactics.
 
Last edited:
Given the extensive use of the word "pro" in many different ways by many different companies involved in hobby rocketry, I think CTI would have a tough sell to a jury, much less a judge. They probably COULD put together a decent case for a C&D order on AT's DAT, but since it's been around for awhile and they have failed to do it in the past it may be regarded as being a moot argument now and they may have a hard time getting an injunction.
 
Prime numbers can also be copyrighted too ....

No, you can't copyright a number. You might, however, be able to trademark one. But the trade mark would only be used for identifying a specific brand, product, or service. The trademark wouldn't affect other uses of the number.

Of course, CTI could sue Aerotech based on Aerotech's use of the "Pro-SU" name. But, that doesn't mean they would win such a law suit. The court could rule in Aerotech's favor, for example, saying that "Pro-US" does not infringe on CTI's trademarks based on the commonality of "Pro" and the prior art represented by other uses of "Pro" in names of rocketry products. The court could even rule that CTI's trademarks aren't valid at all for some technical reason. And, of course, it takes time and money to persue a law suit. So, it may not be in CTI's best interest to sue.

I don't think Aerotech decided to pick a fight on purpose. "Pro-SU" is a rather uninspired name, so I don't think Aerotech put much thought into it. If that's true, they may not have even considered that it was similar to CTI's trademark. And, it doesn't make sense for them to invite a law suit. Even if they won and recovered their legal fees, they wouldn't benefit other than being able to continuing using what is (IMHO) a rather lame name.

Personally, I think Aerotech should have put more thought into the name and avoided any chance of confusion. CTI shouldn't have overreacted to the name. And the spat between them should have been kept private. "Airing your dirty laundry in public" is distasteful.

-- Roger
 
Last edited:
I disagree, if we let them know we aren't happy about getting lawyers involved (no matter which side you are on) I think they will get the idea that, "Hey if we let this go to court our customer base is not going to be happy."



Yep, I'm already well on my way to doing just that. I may just start tinkering in EX now that I have every 38mm LOKI case except for the 38-1200.

1. Maybe I'm just jaded but I'm pretty sure that our collective opinion doesn't matter to either side. "Business is business and this is the cost of doing business". Maybe logic and sensibility will prevail, but when lawyers are involved that tends to not happen.
2. I am with you - I have been saving my pennies to invest in Loki casings even if there is no place to burn EX 'round here. I'd rather support that business right now, especially while the other ones seem to be doing a cranial-rectal inversion temporarily.
 
I sent a warranty claim off to AT this morning, wonder if this will slow the process...
 
Simple for me, if it turns out someone at CTI did have something to do with this letter being sent then they're off my list for good. This hobby is small enough without adding that kind of crap to it. However, as there is conflicting information I will have to reserve judgment until we know for sure what is what.
 
CTI has various Pro- designations trademarked. Knowing of violations of those trademarks, and failing to protect them, causes them to lose those trademarks.

If you want to see the trademarks themselves, go to the US PTO Website. Setup the search like this:

uspto.PNG

Is it a violation? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not going to pretend to be one. But apparently there are lawyers who think it is, or the Cease and Desist request would not have been sent. Since their lawyers appear to believe it's in violation, CTI has to act, or they risk losing their trademarks.

Trademarks, unlike Copyrights, aren't just granted -- there's research done to find previous usage of the mark. There's a reason there are lawyers who specialize in trademarks.

-Kevin
 
The reality is that this motor really isn't a classic Aerotech SU because you have to bond the thrust ring to the case, so a little more assembly isn't likely to deter anyone from using them.

Actually, the moulded case design is very recent. Many sites still have old pictures of SU engines up where you have to glue on the thrust ring.
 
CTI has various Pro- designations trademarked. Knowing of violations of those trademarks, and failing to protect them, causes them to lose those trademarks.

That's a very important point, Kevin. It is not CTI that has caused this situation, it is Aerotech through its disregard for the law and lack of due-diligence.

Most corporations will research the current registered trademarks before going public with a new one. Once it's determined the mark is unique within their industry/market, they will register the new trademark and begin presenting the mark in public. This is why trademark law exists: to prevent confusion among competitors, provide fair trade practices, and offer legal recourse. Aerotech seems to have chosen to ignore standard business practices with an obvious understanding of how consumers would be confused... *and* how CTI must response as part of their corporate responsibilities.

A trademark case judge will look at the evidence and weigh which party has "clean hands" and which one is ignoring prior established registrations. Judges are very good at seeing which party has "clean hands" and which one is poking at the other looking for a response. The design elements of the mark (fonts/colors, etc) are equally as important as the words. Aerotech's choice of style of the "Pro" lettering is another strike against them. From what I see, it's an easy case for CTI.

For those that think CTI is somehow "the bad guy" here, it's difficult to understand. There are so many other descriptive trademarks that Aerotech could have used that would have been better aligned with their previous products, and therefore more recognizable by consumers as AT products.

Personally, I've been on both sides of trademark cases. It's been a while since I took a law class on intellectual property, but as I understand it, trademark situations are most often settled out of court.
 
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?"

But they can't prevent someone else, who makes shoes, from using the name "Brown's Shoes", as the two are wholly unrelated, and not going to cause confusion.

This is why a trademark application includes a Statement of Use -- what sector(s) do you plan to use the mark in?

So, Macbook Pro, Prosus (it's abandoned, by the way), Hardcore Hockey (owned by Prosus LLC), and yes Fred, propecia, are all irrelevant.

-Kevin
 
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.
 
Back
Top