I was searching around on internet when I stumble on some interesting documents. It is a lawsuit that Britelyt filed against Pelam. There is too much law terminology for me but to what I can understand is that Britelyt lost. Maybe someone with more understanding of this law talk can give a better translation. The links to the documents are: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2010cv00822/243648 There is at least one interesting thing we learn from this lawsuit. As most of us have believed is that Britelyt has been buying there lanterns and parts in China even that they themselves have claimed it to be manufactured in the USA. Now we have a legal document from a Florida Court that tells us that they bought the lanterns and parts from Kaiping Silveray Metal And Plastic Products Company Ltd., the same manufacturer that has been manufacturing the original Petromax for Heinze and Pelam. To me it looks like Britelyt do not have understood the ownership of the trade name Pertomax. I think it looks like they thought that Kaiping Silveray owned the rights of the lantern. After that Pelam had taking over the rights of Petromax from Heinze and later the control of the production at Kaiping Silveray they seems not to have wanted to sell the lanterns and parts to Britelyt no more. To what I have seen is that Pelam stopped selling to anyone and that’s including Kaiping Silveray own products. Their product names Santrax and Silveray disappeared from the market at the same time. Fully understandable, who want to sell to competitors? Maybe this lawsuit is the reason that Britelyt do not use the name Petromax no more and maybe they have come to an understanding because Britelyt must buy from somewhere. The parts still look like Petromax parts but their new lantern has changed in design. My guessing is that it is still manufactured by Kaiping Silveray/Pelam but that they changed the design not to look like the Petromax. They still have the 150cp lantern in their product range and to what I know it is only Kaiping Silveray/Pelam that manufactures it, but I might be wrong. We will see what will happen with Britelyt after this. Personally I have a problem with a company that lies and badmouth as much as Britelyt have done. They “steal” a trade name and file it in the US. They patents things that have been invented and patented elsewhere. They badmouth the original Petromax even that it is manufactured in the same factory. Maybe the “new management” at Britelyt will change that. Michael
We all avoid her in the states. She threatened to sue Neil McKray for an article he wrote .he tryed to warn people their claim of burning gasoline safely was not true. It was very dangerous lantern on gas.
Yes, they seem(ed) completely unable to distinguish between two sentences:- 'Petromax-type lanterns cannot burn gasoline-type fuels' and; 'Petromax-type lanterns cannot burn gasoline-type fuels SAFELY' It's not rocket-science, is it...
The brand name Petromax was owned for a while in the US by the Mantle Lamp Co. (Aladdin)because Bill Courter and Tom Teeter were considering selling Petromax in the US and had acquired the brand. In the event they did not because they had safety concerns and the price was too high. I am not sure what happened but I always assumed Britelyt had bought the name from Aladdin. Perhaps they did not and Pelam took it over from Aladdin. ::Neil::
As far as I know the brand was owned (for Europe) by Schott (glass manufacturer) and since it was not their core business the brand was for sale and the guys from Pelam bought it. Also as far as I know Europe and America where seperate selling areas.
In the relatively recent past, I think that Pelam would not ship Petromax parts to the US because of legal hassles with Brite-Lyt. Has this been settled and / or will Pelam ship to the US now? One of the few recent changes I note at Britelyt are a near doubling of the prices. I guess the new executives need those big salaries... Paul
Paul, I have no connection with pelam. Best way is to ask them. As said earlier the brand name is now aplied to a lot of things, from wood fire starting schips to cast iron kettles.
Neil, when you own a tm and do not use it, you will lose the right on it. Anyone who is willing to use it (and proves his ability to use it it business) can go to court and usurp it. With the Petromax trademark the final ruling was only a few years ago. So Diana & the Britelyt co. legally own the trade mark in the US by court ruling as the former owners failed to use it. I once browsed through the files at the us trademark office, they are available online. Erik
Hail to all who read my rants. I happen to be the official, Ebay representative of Lancaster Lanterns, LLC, the Amish owned company that manufactures the famed stainless steel Night Hawk. During one of my many conversations with Jake & Mel King, Father & Son owners of the aforementioned company, I was told of how Ms Draper threatened to sue them over some rather frivolous perceived 'infringement', if it was indeed that. At any rate, Jake said to me, "the woman is absolutely impossible to deal with." Note that I feel that anyone who can not successfully interact with the very kind and gentle natured Amish needs to hire a psychiatrist to address their issues. In closing, I have had occasion to speak with Ms. Draper on several occasions and frankly, was not impressed. I felt I was speaking with someone who was trying to be someone they were not. We can only hope that the new owners will 'erase' all the associated 'hogwash' from the brand name. Thank you, Captain Mike De Long in Hampton, Virginia in the 'Colonies'.
I understand why they went for Neil McKray - Jay is hopeless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYRKv9XhGfw Claus C
Now that's funny, Ray! Let's hope people don't start posting funny captions for that photograph, eh...
Old age is affecting mine as well. I also have the problem that the letters have worn off on the keynoard ans bow abd thrb thunhs gwr tuoes weibg. ::Neil::
