Well now. With the clubhouse renovation nearing completion and the $15 million line of credit fully drawn, it seems that the Association’s recently obtained ownership of various trademarks may have become leadership’s newest and latest pet project.
So much so that the trademarks are the discussion of practically every closed door meeting since the April 11th consummation of the deal. (1) And while property owners may still be experiencing sighs of relief that the board’s threatened name change did not take place, our elected board may be going rogue by quietly unleashing a monster. Many questions follow. Stay alert.
A non-existent trademark? . . .
As noted in an April 15th post, (2) this writer questioned “why the POA would enter into a transaction to purchase the ‘Big Canoe Brokerage’ mark when there is no indication that the name or mark has ever been trademarked?” And as referenced in a subsequent post on May 9th, the trademark assignment agreement confirms and further states that a trademark for “Big Canoe Brokerage” was “not applied for”.
Surprise, surprise – a new trademark application . . .
Ownership of the “Big Canoe” name and logo should have been more than sufficient to protect the interests of the Association. And yet, subsequent to those posts and oddly contradicting the original trademark assignment agreement, the attorney representing the POA filed an application with the USPTO on May 16th to trademark the name of “Big Canoe Brokerage, LLC”. (3) To view that application, click here
The application specifying the goods and services (class) to be trademarked as “real estate brokerage” included copies of Mike Rhodes’ Pickens County business license and corporate registration with the Secretary of State along with links to his BCB website.
According to the USPTO, the application is currently pending and has not yet been assigned to an examiner. Once assigned, the process may take a number of months to complete.
Note: There is no mention of this application in the closed session minutes. Perhaps the transaction was discussed and approved during the 6.5 hours of executive sessions since the closing of the April 11th deal.
Additional note: In anticipation of continued non-responsive replies from leadership on the trademark subject, no questions have been submitted via Ask the POA.
A misappropriation of property owner assessment dollars? . . .
One must ask, why are property owner assessment dollars being used to fund application and attorney fees to trademark the name of a corporation licensed and owned by someone else (Mike Rhodes)?
Further, Article VI, Section 2, Purpose of Assessments of the 1988 covenants (4) states that “the assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively for the acquisition, improvement, maintenance, and operation of the Common Properties and to pay for services which the Association is authorized to provide, including, but not limited to . . . management and supervision necessary to carry out its authorized functions, . . . and for the purpose of enabling the Association to perform its authorized functions . . . “
Seriously,
Is the registration of a Big Canoe Brokerage, LLC trademark an “authorized function” of the Association? For that matter, was the purchase of the “Big Canoe Realty” trademark an authorized function of the Association?
And what about our non-profit status? . . .
Why would a 501(c)4 organization (non-profit) seek to register a new trademark classifying its goods and services as real estate brokerage? Such a classification clearly does not apply to a non-profit endeavor.
And was this new registration cleared with the Association’s accountants, Mauldin & Jenkins? Similarly, was this cleared with the IRS?
In fact, could this entire trademark exercise have placed our community in jeopardy of losing our tax exempt status? Just asking.
Perhaps leadership could provide the property owners with a letter of assurance from corporate counsel or the accounting firm certifying that our tax exempt status will remain intact despite these transactions.
As for those closed door meetings . . .
Following the execution of the original trademark agreements, the board had discussions in a closed door session regarding the “next steps” to be taken. One must certainly wonder what those might be.
And in yet another closed door session on May 12th, it appears that responsibility for the trademarks may have been delegated to the General Manager as it was noted that he is “in the process of gathering samples and definitions that assist in the process of defining the various classes of Trademark use and how they will be defended”.
Seriously?
Surely leadership should have fully understood the definitions of the classes of trademark use before disbursing $400k for their purchase.
The various classes of trademark use and/or infringement assigned to these trademarks are actually pretty straightforward. They are real estate services, real estate brokerage and real estate management.
Perhaps the General Manager’s time might be more wisely spent gathering definitions of a non-profit organization.
Meanwhile, could it be that the GM and leadership are attempting to circumvent the intent and expand the interpretation of those classes in order to generate future licensing fees?
And is the GM preparing to launch an onslaught of threats similar to the AECD citations on unsuspecting perceived “infringers”?
Sounds like another wait and see.
Insanity unhinged.
. . . . .
If you believe the information contained on this site is important, please continue to share and pass it on. Should you wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification or check back frequently. And as always, feel free to contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Meanwhile, take care, stay safe and thank you for your readership.
Patricia Cross
10438 Big Canoe
References:
1) Special Board Meeting Minutes, April 21st, 2025 and May 12th, 2025
(POAwebsite>login>meetings>Minutes>2025>April 21st>May 12th)
2) “The untouchables”, April 15th, 2025, bcmatters.org, https://bcmatters.org/the-untouchables/
3) To view that application, click here or go to https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn99189619&docId=APP20250516165633&linkId=1#docIndex=0&page=1
4) Click here: Article VI, Section 2, Purpose of Assessments of the 1988 covenants