Rigby - California

20 June 2008, 19:37

577NitroExpress

Found this from 2005:

quote:
JOHN RIGBY: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
---------------------------------------------------------
Debtor: John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers) Inc.
500 Linne Road, Suite D
Paso Robles, California 93446

Bankruptcy Case No.: 05-13079

Type of Business: The Debtor manufactures guns.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: October 3, 2005

Court: Central District of California (Santa Barbara)

Judge: Robin Riblet

Debtor's Counsel: Jay L. Michaelson, Esq.
7 West Figueroa Street, Second Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101-3191
Tel: (805) 965-1011

Financial Condition as of October 3, 2005:

Total Assets: $3,250,000

Total Debts: $1,950,080

Debtor's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

Entity Nature of Claim Claim Amount
------ --------------- ------------
J Mark Grosvenor Unsecured loan $130,750
P.O. Box 1444
Wilson, WY 83014-1444

Ken Griffin Consumer deposit $115,000
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603

Gary Honbarrier Unsecured loan $100,000
495 Griffith Road
Advance, NC 27006

Suzanne Webb Vendor $89,541

Dr. Victor Pickett Consumer deposit $60,000

Marc Halcon Purchase money $52,882

Dwight Van Brunt Consumer deposit $42,320

Fernando Soler Valle Consumer deposit $40,000

Gassner and Company Vendor $37,282

Mike Scruggs Consumer deposit $34,965

J Paul Beitler Consumer deposit $24,000

Bradley T. Moore Vendor $21,847

E. Boddington Unsecured loan $21,423

Lee Thompson Consumer deposit $16,875

William McAlphin Consumer deposit $15,120

Int'l Sprotman's Marketing Vendor $15,077

Craig Boddington Unsecured loan $12,998

Cameron Hopkins Consumer deposit $11,116

Joseph Thompson Consumer deposit $10,000

Dale M. Evans Consumer deposit $9,990

20 June 2008, 20:07

surestrike

That is a shame but it really doesn't surprise after looking at a couple of Merkles...Umm I mean California Rigbys and the prices they were trying to get for them.

20 June 2008, 20:08

Rusty

Oh, WOW! Can you say "Lost their Deposit"?

And to think they wasted all that money running a great rifle maker's name into the ground. A tragedy!

Rusty
We Band of Brothers!
DRSS, NRA & SCI Life Member
"I am rejoiced at my fate. Do not be uneasy about me, for I am with my friends."
----- David Crockett in his last letter (to his children), January 9th, 1836
"I will never forsake Texas and her cause. I am her son." ----- Jose Antonio Navarro, from Mexican Prison in 1841
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Arbroath April 6, 1320-“. . .It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

20 June 2008, 21:48

SWD

They were at the Reno SCI show this year. Lousey work for lots of money. They should be ashamed of their stock work.

20 June 2008, 21:48

470Evans

This is from 2005, anyone have an update?

21 June 2008, 00:09

MacD37

quote:
Originally posted by SWD:
They were at the Reno SCI show this year. Lousey work for lots of money. They should be ashamed of their stock work.

Not suprizing to me! The best thing about the Cal rifles, IMO, is the fact that they used Merkel made A&D boxlock, and sidelock actions!

Man I feel for the guys who lost their deposits. Even though they were paying far more than the rifles were worth, even if the deposits were the full cost of the rifles! Since this is 2005 info, I'm hopeing the courts gave back the deposits before the holdings were exausted!

21 June 2008, 00:15

577NitroExpress

the info for 2005 was all that I could find.

21 June 2008, 01:03

Jim Manion

Looks like they are still in business:

http://www.johnrigbyandco.com/pages/Main-Guns.html

The Bankruptcy filing seems a little strange. Granted, they filed for reorganization and not liquidation, but their assets were almost twice their debts.

They could have had a bank loan they were trying to renegotiate, some bad leases they were trying to shed, or some large contract they were trying to break. But if I were one of their debtors, I would have tried my darndest to get the company liquidated if they did not reaffirm my loan to survive the bankruptcy. It is possible that those deposits didn't get wiped out.

22 June 2008, 21:49

peterdk

i know for a fact that john rigby and co.(gunmakers)ltd LONDON was bought some months ago.

they intend to have the first best guns done by late fall to midwinter, AND it will be on a rising bite

action made by them.

it looks like the rigby name will mean something good again.

best regards

peter

23 June 2008, 19:19

jvw375

Now that is the best news I have heard in a long while!

24 June 2008, 00:21

500N

It's been going on for a while so somehing will show up soon I think.

A "Modern" rising third bite - that would be good.

25 June 2008, 13:23

peterdk

i forgot to mention that the two companys have no connections with eachother, wich in my humble oppinion should give the new guys a fighting chance conserning quality.

best regards

peter

25 June 2008, 21:33

MacD37

quote:
Originally posted by peterdk:
i forgot to mention that the two companys have no connections with eachother, wich in my humble oppinion should give the new guys a fighting chance conserning quality.

best regards

peter

Cal Rigby bought the Rigby "NAME", and unless they have sold that, or have gone under, the guy in England can't use the RIGBY name! It's a copyrighted private domain!

26 June 2008, 00:22

peterdk

mac

that is not the case, but lets not discuss law's
since they differ alot between the US and the EC.

im just looking forward to seeing the first rifles rolling out their door.

best regards

peter

26 June 2008, 01:51

500N

[/QUOTE]

Cal Rigby bought the Rigby "NAME", and unless they have sold that, or have gone under, the guy in England can't use the RIGBY name! It's a copyrighted private domain![/QUOTE]

Maybe in the US, but anybody in any other country can register the same name and trade under it. Remember, the US doesn't control everything in the world.

Now as to whether you would have much credibility, that's a different story.

Pity that the Royal Warrant isn't valid any more.

26 June 2008, 02:25

capoward

Actually copyrighted names require the holder to renew the copyright on a periodic basis else they can lose the rights to the name. I understand that there are speculators who follow the copyrights of international corporations hoping to identify a lapse in some area of the world so that they can capture the â€œnameâ€ and resell its use to the international corporation.

An example in the not too distant past is when Exon corporation changed its name to â€œExxonâ€. According to business news reports, Exon corporation had failed to renew all of its worldwide copyrights to the â€œExonâ€ name resulting in the name being copyrighted by another (individual or group) in the lapsed country(countries). Exon corporation rather than paying the requested â€œvery large sum of moneyâ€ for right to use the â€œExonâ€ name in that lapsed country(countries) changed their business name worldwide by copyrighting the Exxon name; apparently is was much cheaper to change everything worldwide to Exxon rather than paying the piper to retain the name Exon in the lapsed copyright area.

So if John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers) Inc., a California, USA Corporation, failed to renew the copyrighted name of John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers) Ltd. in the British Isles â€“ then any individual or legal entity else could lawfully copyright the John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers) Ltd. name and thereafter lawfully conduct business utilizing that name. I donâ€™t know but do assume this to be the case - hopefully so as returning the name and related firearms to their earlier grandure would be nice.

26 June 2008, 02:39

peterdk

john rigby inc. california closed down shop in england in 02, thereby having no buisnes in the intire EC since then.
and claming intelectual rights would mean that they should make rigbys and we all know that they dont. case closed

the way i see it, is that now the guys in london have to prove to the world, that they can make best guns on a constant basis.

peter

26 June 2008, 03:38

Will

quote:
the US doesn't control everything in the world.

But we're working on it!

-------------------------------
Will / Once you've been amongst them, there is no such thing as too much gun.
---------------------------------------
and, God Bless John Wayne. NRA Benefactor, GOA, NAGR
_________________________

"Elephant and Elephant Guns" $99 shipped.
“Hunting Africa's Dangerous Game" $20 shipped.

red.dirt.elephant@gmail.com
_________________________

If anything be of note, let it be he was once an elephant hunter, hoping to wind up where elephant hunters go.

26 June 2008, 04:24

MacD37

quote:
Originally posted by 500N:

Cal Rigby bought the Rigby "NAME", and unless they have sold that, or have gone under, the guy in England can't use the RIGBY name! It's a copyrighted private domain![/QUOTE]

. Remember, the US doesn't control everything in the world.

.[/QUOTE]

I don't see a need for sarcasm!

Copyright enfrengment is copyright enfrengment no matter where you live! Why on Earth would anyone spend thousands of dollars for the exclusive use of a trade name, if anyone who wanted could still use it in the trade?

Like you I wish the Rigby name had never been sold to the California company, but it was, so I guess that was a fraud to begin with, HUH?

...............BYE

26 June 2008, 05:47

oldun

quote:
Originally posted by Will:
quote:
the US doesn't control everything in the world.

But we're working on it!

If history has taught us anything it is that all efforts will result in failure.

26 June 2008, 06:49

500N

quote:
Originally posted by MacD37:
quote:
Originally posted by 500N:

Cal Rigby bought the Rigby "NAME", and unless they have sold that, or have gone under, the guy in England can't use the RIGBY name! It's a copyrighted private domain!

. Remember, the US doesn't control everything in the world.

.[/QUOTE]

I don't see a need for sarcasm!

...............BYE

[/QUOTE]

Your a bit sensitive aren't you ?

Plenty of company's around the world have the same company namebut in different countries.

As to fraud, well, some people do like paying over the odds for things and no,
IMHO, the Rigby name is not worth much without the Royal Warrants which couldn't
be purchased with the name.

26 June 2008, 09:18

capoward

I performed some internet searches regarding copyright expirations and identified that I was incorrect in my earlier post, copyrights do not expire. However, a business name cannot be copyrighted as it is not an intellectual property, is can only be trademarked as the name relates to a business product and/or service. And trademarks can expire in either a 3yr or a 5yr timeframe and this expiration can be triggered by failure to conduct business under that name during the noted timeframe.

The Exon corporation illustration noted in my earlier post lost the right to the Exon trademark and the corporation thereafter trademarked the Exxon name rather than pay for the right to use the Exon name in the country/those countries where theyâ€™d failed to fulfill their lawful trademark obligations; i.e., conduct business under that name or request a renewal of the trademarked name before their prior trademark expired.

The John Rigby & Company, Ltd. (UK) was sold in 1997, was moved to the USA that same year, and was incorporated by the American investment group as a California corporation under the name John Rigby & Company, Inc. The Queen pulled the John Rigby & Company, Ltd.â€™s Royal Warrant when the business was moved to the USA. All business conducted by the USA company has been under the name John Rigby & Company, Inc. (USA) and it would appear that theyâ€™ve failed to keep the original name, John Rigby & Company, Ltd. (UK), alive by conducting any business since 1997 under the original name. Therefore it would appear that the new UK group could lawfully trademark the John Rigby & Company, Ltd. (UK) name and lawfully conduct business under that name regardless of whether John Rigby & Company, Inc. (USA) continues to function as a viable business enterprise or not. Anyway, I'm not an attorney so maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I'm not!

26 June 2008, 10:22

500N

In short, if the US Rigby did not maintain registration of the name Rigby in the UK,
then it is open for anyone to register it.

26 June 2008, 12:49

peterdk

quote:
Originally posted by 500N:
In short, if the US Rigby did not maintain registration of the name Rigby in the UK,
then it is open for anyone to register it.

not anymore

capoward you are completely right.

as i see it all rigby cal. got, is the books, and a crooked sence of buisnes.

lets just give rigby LONDON some time to prove that they are up for the task, i will ask them if they might want to come to the forum and share some photoÂ´s of the guns they are building.

best regards

peter

26 June 2008, 13:00

Will

Can John Rigby of Calcutta be far behind?

26 June 2008, 17:38

peterdk

quote:
Originally posted by Will:
Can John Rigby of Calcutta be far behind?

that depends will, are you gonna move and start making guns ?

peter

26 June 2008, 18:15

Will

Or John Rigby of Dubai?

26 June 2008, 23:38

MacD37

quote:
Originally posted by capoward:
I performed some internet searches regarding copyright expirations and identified that I was incorrect in my earlier post, copyrights do not expire. However, a business name cannot be copyrighted as it is not an intellectual property, is can only be trademarked as the name relates to a business product and/or service. And trademarks can expire in either a 3yr or a 5yr timeframe and this expiration can be triggered by failure to conduct business under that name during the noted timeframe.

The Exon corporation illustration noted in my earlier post lost the right to the Exon trademark and the corporation thereafter trademarked the Exxon name rather than pay for the right to use the Exon name in the country/those countries where theyâ€™d failed to fulfill their lawful trademark obligations; i.e., conduct business under that name or request a renewal of the trademarked name before their prior trademark expired.

The John Rigby & Company, Ltd. (UK) was sold in 1997, was moved to the USA that same year, and was incorporated by the American investment group as a California corporation under the name John Rigby & Company, Inc. The Queen pulled the John Rigby & Company, Ltd.â€™s Royal Warrant when the business was moved to the USA. All business conducted by the USA company has been under the name John Rigby & Company, Inc. (USA) and it would appear that theyâ€™ve failed to keep the original name, John Rigby & Company, Ltd. (UK), alive by conducting any business since 1997 under the original name. Therefore it would appear that the new UK group could lawfully trademark the John Rigby & Company, Ltd. (UK) name and lawfully conduct business under that name regardless of whether John Rigby & Company, Inc. (USA) continues to function as a viable business enterprise or not. Anyway, I'm not an attorney so maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I'm not!

Thank you sir that was very informative, and done with such class as well!