API sues cheaters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, two things worth mentioning since Amsoil was brought up:

The lawsuit is in direct relation to the use of FALSE API logos, not just a 'claim' to meet or exceed API standards.

SSO is boutique. XL, OE etc...are not all formulated like the SSO lineup. Especially OE. So, if it's a debate about whether Amsoil is 'over dosing' beyond API specs, it's probably only with their high-end oils.

I have yet to see evidence that shows API-SN with it's generally low cal/higher mag content is even on par with API-SM standards. That is actually one of those grey areas. Is the new standards the best just because it says it's the best? Well, then define best. Again, another debate.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Amsoil makes some oils with additive packages that would preclude API certification.
These oils are intended for very specific uses, like very long drain intervals.
The UOA section here shows that Amsoil products intended for long drains hold up well in them.
These oils offer performance way beyond any API spec, while having additive levels beyond what any current API spec allows.
They are boutique oils for a niche market, but it is nice that these oils exist.
If I suddenly found myself having to commute three or four times the distance I do now to keep a job or gain a valuable promotion, which is a real possibility, I'd be looking real hard at SSO, backed up with a couple of UOAs.
Amsoil does have considerable long drain interval cred, which many oils claim,but few really match.


In the little snip I quoted I think they were referring to XL and OE, and implying that oils like PP, PU, M1, etc. simply meet the spec while OE and XL exceed it. I'd say its safe to say they all exceed the spec. No doubt SSO is a long drain oil, longer than the others I mentioned. However I'd use PU, M1 EP, or M1 AFE, over XL, and I'd take PP, or M1, over OE. JMO, nothing more.
 
Originally Posted By: jaj


At this point in the discussion, we're only referring to Amsoil as one of many companies that may possibly be trespassing on the API's private property by using references to the API, its standards and its licencees in in its advertising and on its product labels without having a license or permission from the API to do so.


Referencing is now "trespassing on...private property"? That's beyond a stretch.

Quote:
APPLICATIONS
AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil is excellent for use in all types of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It is recommended for all domestic and foreign vehicles requiring any of the listed performance specifications:

0W-30 (AZO): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A; Chrysler MS-6395N; Suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)


It would suck for API to waste it's money and lose.
 
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
...The lawsuit is in direct relation to the use of FALSE API logos, not just a 'claim' to meet or exceed API standards...


I disagree with you about the basis of the API's claim. It might appear that the lawsuit is a simple case about vendors using the API logo on non-compliant products, but if it were that simple, then it would only be copyright infringement combined with fraudulent misrepresentation.

However the API's actual claim, as related in the first post in this thread, is that the defendants were "unfairly trading on API’s goodwill", a much broader claim than mere copyright infringement. It alleges that the defendents were using the credibility and good name of the API to sell a product without permission from the API. That the product didn't meet API's standards was still misrepresentation, but it's not a necessary precondition for guilt. They can be found guilty of abusing the API's goodwill without making misrepresentations about their products. It's that subtlety that puts Amsoil (and others) at risk. Even though they don't misrepresent their own products, they do rely on the API's brand name and goodwill in their advertising, even if's only to subtly disparage the organization, its standards and its licensees and characterize their products as minimally adequate.
 
I am with you.
If all I wanted was an off the shelf oil API SM/SN, which is all I need at the moment, I wouldn't bother with Amsoil.
For the way we currently use our cars, PP, Ultra and Synpower are very good oils, delivering good UOAs on moderate (Synpower) to long drains (PP longer than Synpower, Ultra longer than PP).
If I really racked up miles each week with a killer commute, I'd look hard at SSO, just because while I don't mind changing oil every 4-5 months, I really don't want to have to do it every other month, especially during the cold ones.
WRT "exceeds", almost every blender plays that card.
It is hardly exclusive to Amsoil.
Various oil blenders claim that their products meet or exceed standards they are neither licensed nor tested for, Dexos 1 being a prominent recent example for at least a couple of well known brands.
Now, I doubt that either XL or OE are superior to Ultra in any way, nor are they likely superior to the better flavors of M1, but these are API licensed oils, not the boutique ones.
Anyway, what blender doesn't, in some non-actionable way, claim to offer the best oils?
 
Think about the private property issue this way: GM just spent millions on developing and publishing the dexos spec and its their private property. Other companies can use it on the labels of their products if they sign a contract with GM and pay for the right to do so. So now we have a another company that hasn't spent a nickel on the dexos spec and isn't paying GM for the right to use it selling their product by claiming that it's "suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™". Presumably the company believes that if they make that claim, they'll sell more oil than if they don't.

On that basis then, it seems to me that if the public accepts that company's statement and buys the product for use in their GM cars, then the company is using GM's private property in their business without permission. That's remarkably similar to trespass, is it not?
 
Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
My reference was to the 125K to 300K for testing....then the fees etc, etc....The up-front fees have not been mentioned in this discussion. They seem excessive in my opinion.


My understanding is that the fees are payments to testing labs like SWRI for work performed on specialized machines by highly trained professionals. I don't think the fees have anything to do with the API, except that you can't get the license if you don't pass the tests.
 
Originally Posted By: jaj
Think about the private property issue this way: GM just spent millions on developing and publishing the dexos spec and its their private property. Other companies can use it on the labels of their products if they sign a contract with GM and pay for the right to do so. So now we have a another company that hasn't spent a nickel on the dexos spec and isn't paying GM for the right to use it selling their product by claiming that it's "suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™". Presumably the company believes that if they make that claim, they'll sell more oil than if they don't.

On that basis then, it seems to me that if the public accepts that company's statement and buys the product for use in their GM cars, then the company is using GM's private property in their business without permission. That's remarkably similar to trespass, is it not?



Interesting. Seems like GM might have wasted a lot of money if there is no penalty to the offending company/companies. Of GM's legal dept missed a loophole?
 
I see what you are trying to say jaj, but to me there is a clear distinction.

API wouldn't sue Amsoil for 'deceiving the public' by referencing or claiming to exceed any certain API certification. I don't recall seeing the API star burst logos on their SSO lineup of oils.

What is the point?

Amsoil is not selling their SSO lineup on the basis of API standards, with intent to deceive.

The accused in the lawsuit deliberately and 'illegally'(apparently) used API's trademarks/logos with the intent of claiming it was licensed oil when it wasn't. The deception was due to those attempts to selling the basis of API standards alone. "We meet API standard ____ star burst logo).

Amsoil on the other hand, and many other oil companies/blenders have on their bottles references to any number of specs with claims of meeting/exceeding, etc. Some are passing 'take our word for it', otherwise known as marketing. The clear line is whether or not a company is falsely using logos on unlicensed products or is in fact not meeting/exceeding another spec that one specifically was looking for to use in their app.
 
^^ While what you're saying is true Jim, lets look at it another way. How about don't display the API logo at all? Then claim your product exceeds the specs? It seems to me the API only goes after those fraudulently showing their logo. So by not showing it you might just get a free ride, and safely make the claim that you exceed the spec. If they do spot check oils that are not part of the program, you might be reducing the odds of getting caught by not displaying the logo. Seems like it might be a better way for the cheaters to roll. JMO
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
How about don't display the API logo at all? Then claim your product exceeds the specs? It seems to me the API only goes after those fraudulently showing their logo. So by not showing it you might just get a free ride, and safely make the claim that you exceed the spec. If they do spot check oils that are not part of the program, you might be reducing the odds of getting caught by not displaying the logo. Seems like it might be a better way for the cheaters to roll. JMO


To my knowledge, API does not have the authority to pursue those that do not display a certification mark but claim compliance with the specification. Unlike their certification marks, terms like SM and SN are not trademarked and are in the public domain. They may be able to pursue companies on the basis of "unfairly trading on API’s goodwill", but it would probably have to be a pretty clear and egregious case as the API and its service categories are widely referenced worldwide in various ways.

IMHO, if any product label makes reference to an established and well defined specification in a manner that implies compliance or suitability, the formulation should have been fully tested against that specification and passed all criteria, with any exceptions specifically noted. This is a matter of corporate ethics, however, as there is no legal mechanism in place to enforce it. If an oil company lacks such test data confirming compliance, they may be vulnerable in court should a consumer prove oil related damages, but its a pretty safe bet that won't happen.

Without an official and well policed certification mark, we are taking the manufacturer's word that their product complies as stated. That's fine if we know and trust the manufacturer.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
How about don't display the API logo at all? Then claim your product exceeds the specs? It seems to me the API only goes after those fraudulently showing their logo. So by not showing it you might just get a free ride, and safely make the claim that you exceed the spec. If they do spot check oils that are not part of the program, you might be reducing the odds of getting caught by not displaying the logo. Seems like it might be a better way for the cheaters to roll. JMO


To my knowledge, API does not have the authority to pursue those that do not display a certification mark but claim compliance with the specification. Unlike their certification marks, terms like SM and SN are not trademarked and are in the public domain. They may be able to pursue companies on the basis of "unfairly trading on API’s goodwill", but it would probably have to be a pretty clear and egregious case as the API and its service categories are widely referenced worldwide in various ways.

IMHO, if any product label makes reference to an established and well defined specification in a manner that implies compliance or suitability, the formulation should have been fully tested against that specification and passed all criteria, with any exceptions specifically noted. This is a matter of corporate ethics, however, as there is no legal mechanism in place to enforce it. If an oil company lacks such test data confirming compliance, they may be vulnerable in court should a consumer prove oil related damages, but its a pretty safe bet that won't happen.

Without an official and well policed certification mark, we are taking the manufacturer's word that their product complies as stated. That's fine if we know and trust the manufacturer.

Tom NJ


Thanks Tom- A cheat is a cheat, ethical companies hopefully comply and follow the rules. It just seems to me in this day and age, there are compaines that would take advantage, print on the label "Exceeds API Specs", or something along those lines and take the free ride. IMO the smart cheat is the one that doesn't use the API logo, they merely states they exceed the spec, and call it a day. JMO

What the API should start doing it testing products that state they exceed the spec or meet it, even if they don't display the logo. Merely stating the "API" on a label or in literature should put them up to investigation, and fines if the info is in fact false.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


Thanks Tom- A cheat is a cheat, ethical companies hopefully comply and follow the rules. It just seems to me in this day and age, there are compaines that would take advantage, print on the label "Exceeds API Specs".....


Quote:
Mobil 1 5W-30 meets or exceeds the requirements of the industry’s toughest standards.....


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Merely stating the "API" on a label or in literature should put them up to investigation, and fines if the info is in fact false.


Fines? API has no such authority. API has to spend a ton of money going to court to enforce only the misuse their trademark. I hope API wins in the case of true cheats. They are not a governmental agency, thank God. All this talk of trespassing and such is just www hypertalk and wishful thinking by a few.
 
My views aren't entirely web-enhanced theories. I am mindful of the fact that "it's the way the industry does business" and "everybody does it this way so it must be ok" can be the last thing that guilty defendants say before they go to jail. Think about the New York financial industry when Elliott Spitzer went after it as Attorney General of New York in the late 1990's and early 2000's.

But this is 2011 and litigating intellectual property cases has evolved into a huge new business opportunity for the "law industry" in the last decade or so. It's a burgeoning field, and contingency lawyers in search of fees are looking for opportunities to make big bucks ambushing companies who make money by using intellectual property that they don't own or license.

That's why the breadth of the API claim is so interesting. If the API wins that broad claim about protecting their goodwill, then the case becomes an important precedent that any lawyer can use (in any industry) to pursue others. In the lube industry, it opens the door to considerable mayhem for the independents that choose not to license the standards they claim to meet (or "exceed").

In the end it doesn't matter to me whether Amsoil and the other independents keep doing what they're doing or not. I think they're vulnerable, but that's not my problem. It'll be what it'll be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Mobil 1 success
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
12K
TobyU
Tom NJ
  • Locked
Warren introduces first API 0W-16 synthetic
2 3
Replies
59
Views
23K
The Critic
OVERKILL
  • Locked
Remington emerges from bankruptcy
Replies
7
Views
2K
OVERKILL
R
  • Locked
California bans sale of obsolete motor oil
2 3
Replies
52
Views
34K
wwillson
Tom NJ
  • Locked
API Sues Bullseye Motor Oil for $ millions
Replies
15
Views
7K
RF Overlord
Back
Top Bottom