Applied Science TRADEMARKING everything inspection related!

Originally Posted By: rfrancis
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Gerry, I don't see myself ever "giving up" trying to correct what I see is our industry's 4 biggest problems:

1. NAHI permitting its members to bribe REALTORs to steer their clients away from the best inspectors and toward the inspectors that pay them the most.

2. NAHI lowering their code of ethics to permit their members to work to correct defects they find on an inspection thus killing our industry's most precious virtue...impartiality.

3. ASHI's total lack of entrance requirements which creates 30 second inspectors who ruin our markets with lowball pricing.

4. ASHI telling its 30 second inspectors (candidates) who have no qualifications whatsoever to go out and perform a number of actual inspections for poor unsuspecting consumers as the only way to reach full membership.

Getting me to "give it up" is simple... show me (or any NACHI member for that matter) that any of the 4 issues mentioned above is good for our industry and our members and I will "give it up" immediately.

NACHI does plenty of good works http://www.nachi.org/whats_new.htm and 99.9% of the time our efforts are spent making NACHI better, but we also have a moral duty to fight wrong... and the 4 mentioned above are just plain wrong.

Wrong for REALTORs, wrong for NACHI members, wrong for the industry, and wrong for consumers.

Nick

P.S. We are very close to ending #1 & #2



Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
There can be two sides to the story, or at times information and facts get misconstrued.
We hope this unprofessional tactic has not inconvenienced you. [/i]


Thanks Claude for the information,
It is nice to get the other side of the storry .
I notice you give corections about NACHI and others when they are incorrect.
I also do not remember you ever correcting any thing about CAHPI or OAHI.
I can most certinly understand why you do not .

Below is just one of many letters I get from OAHI members.

QUOTE "I think that there are so many who are still members out of fear of the possible need when the so called National Initiative comes in.
If it ever gets here and has not got the teeth that it proclaims, many more will be so pi$$ed off that they paid to stay where their dollars got them nothing but ignored." end of QUOTE.

Thanks at least you do try and give some info .
Actually there are three sides to most stories your side my side and the TRUTH!

Roy Sr.

A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER........... Tried it and loved it.


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Personally I fail to see the difference between ASHI and NACHI because NACHI and ASHI does not receive any monies from the Canadian Federal Government.


On another related note it appears that Canadian membership in ASHI is dwindling.

Roy to correct you on one small item from one of your previous posts. OAHI has published its 2004 audited financial statements. What it has not published or produced are the final 2005 financial statements, only the first quarter balance of 2005 and first quarter financial report 2005 have been published. Also Board of Directors Meeting Minutes Jan 10, 2005 still remain unpublished as do the rest of the years BOD minutes! I just want to ensure accuracy in reporting. Seems many members in OAHI like to remain ignorant. I stand to be corrected but because the financial statements have not been published for 2005 it puts in OAHI in contravention of its own by-laws and the Corporations act.

Merry Christmas.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Roy - the point of my post is focused on the issue of “erroneous” information - “regardless” of the source. This is not meant to be a pro or anti statement, as suggested. There are other points to consider before boldly assuming such is the case. Rendering a final opinion should be based on having all of the facts, not just part of the facts. Than one armed with all of the facts is entitled to render an informed decision. But in several cases in the past the letter writing and posts have actually help others use this “erroneous” information in turning the tables on those complaints to support the cause.


Regarding the statements in question, it may depend on your point of view of what was meant, or a matter of real verifiable fact. Using the number of 5000 is likely a "best guesstimate" of potential inspectors. Again I am not defending that number, and it is not mine to second guess. Similarly, it would be somewhat like assuming that NACHI has 10,000 "practicing" members. Is that a true statement of fact or a possible target, now or in the near future? In fact what is the real number? And why are such bold statements like this made?

The other issue - some points of view are bound to differ, but I fail to see how that relates in striking out at individuals and creating another round of "making" assumptions based on only having part of the facts. Again - I am not placing blame or faulting - its just another matter to consider before firing off another response or complaint to others.

Lets take this as possibly another point of view - a home inspector serves on the committee for 5 years and invests personally 200 hours/per year (actually much more) into the project. The in-kind contribution is established at a rate of $50.00 per hour. (Much less than what one would be paid for a home inspection) That would equate to $50,000. Now consider 8 inspectors sitting on that same committee would equate to $400,000 of in-kind time towards this same project.

BTW: Lets not forget about travel expenses, etc. Is the $2M statement - matter of fact or interpreted as erroneous information, or simply a best guesstimate? I fail to see why this is such a contentious issue - other than possibly the names attached to the announcement, based on past bias noted from previous posts. This countinued pettiness will once again serve to only divide our profession, rather than foster opening up the communication links between NACHI and CAHPI. That's just my point of view - you and others are most certainly welcome to express your POV.


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
Roy - the point of my post is focused on the issue of "erroneous" information - "regardless" of the source. This is not meant to be a pro or anti statement, as suggested. There are other points to consider before boldly assuming such is the case. Rendering a final opinion should be based on having all of the facts, not just part of the facts. Than one armed with all of the facts is entitled to render an informed decision. But in several cases in the past the letter writing and posts have actually help others use this "erroneous" information in turning the tables on those complaints to support the cause.

Regarding the statements in question, it may depend on your point of view of what was meant, or a matter of real verifiable fact. Using the number of 5000 is likely a "best guesstimate" of potential inspectors. Again I am not defending that number, and it is not mine to second guess. Similarly, it would be somewhat like assuming that NACHI has 10,000 "practicing" members. Is that a true statement of fact or a possible target, now or in the near future? In fact what is the real number? And why are such bold statements like this made?

The other issue - some points of view are bound to differ, but I fail to see how that relates in striking out at individuals and creating another round of "making" assumptions based on only having part of the facts. Again - I am not placing blame or faulting - its just another matter to consider before firing off another response or complaint to others.

Lets take this as possibly another point of view - a home inspector serves on the committee for 5 years and invests personally 200 hours/per year (actually much more) into the project. The in-kind contribution is established at a rate of $50.00 per hour. (Much less than what one would be paid for a home inspection) That would equate to $50,000. Now consider 8 inspectors sitting on that same committee would equate to $400,000 of in-kind time towards this same project.

BTW: Lets not forget about travel expenses, etc. Is the $2M statement - matter of fact or interpreted as erroneous information, or simply a best guesstimate? I fail to see why this is such a contentious issue - other than possibly the names attached to the announcement, based on past bias noted from previous posts. This countinued pettiness will once again serve to only divide our profession, rather than foster opening up the communication links between NACHI and CAHPI. That's just my point of view - you and others are most certainly welcome to express your POV.



Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Roy I cannot answer for others, but only for myself.


1) Yes, I served on the CHIBO Committee for approximately 5 years.

2) You still confuse TPA's with input from others. They are two very distinct tasks.

3) No one paid me or any other person that served as a committee member on the CHIBO committees. So I hope you are not inferring "we" were paid. The fact is "we" were not!

Just a few points of clarification.


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
There can be two sides to the story, or at times information and facts get misconstrued.

Here is another example.

December 21, 2005, Vol. 1, #8 The Inspector

Don't be mislead - The ASHI Experience is yours

An erroneous news release was recently distributed reporting
"that the long running Trademark infringement dispute between
ASHI's "ASHI Experience" and NACHI's "HI Experience" recently
settled on November 29th, 2005 when the United States Patent
and Trademark Office awarded NACHI the Trademark."

Author Nick Gromicko indicated that "Use of "ASHI Experience"
or "The ASHI Experience" is an infringement on NACHI's
Registered Trademark."

Please note that while NACHI owns their registration as identified,
your continued use of The ASHI Experience and ASHI Experience
is perfectly legal and is in no way an infringement on their mark.

To view a PDF of the letter from ASHI's Legal Counselor
providing specifics on this matter, please click here.

We hope this unprofessional tactic has not inconvenienced you.

Sorry Claude your click here does not work unfortunatly you only put in part of the letter from the ASHI Lawyer. a part you left out " We have filed a counterclaim with the U.S. Trademark Office" and untill this is Settled I guess it is OK for ASHI to USE HI EXPERIENCE?
This is a politions way Of handling things. Time will see who is correct.

Good political answer.
Thanks Claude

Roy Cooke sr
A Happy NACHI member... NACHI just keeps growing
A Happy NACHI member


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Claude and Roy


You each raise very valid points. However I thought people ran for committee positions and the BOD because it was voluntary and to give something back to the association? When I was Chair of the DPPC along with other noteable members we were not compensated. Many times I foot the cost of mailing letters, phone bills, etc. My expense account is a testament to that. I have no problem with people being compensated for travel time or other costs. The CAHPI audited financial statements do not reflect any amount over the years that would come close to $2 million. So where that figure came from is anyones guess.

As to my time put into correcting the baloney that flows forth from some in CAHPI and OAHI, I figure my time is at least $100 an hour. My time is expensive as are my inspections. I am so pleased someone finally put a cost on volunteer time. Can I invoice CAHPI and OAHI for pointing out their obvious oversights and infringement of their own by-laws? ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Thanks Claude. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: bjones1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



can you say thread drift? icon_exclaim.gif


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
can you say thread drift?


Thread drift! ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Sarnia man heads inspectors

A Sarnia home inspector has been named to head a national program which will certify home inspectors.

Bill Mullen, owner of Bluewater Home Inspection, has been a professional home and property inspector in Sarnia for 13 years and has held several positions on the boards of both the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors (OAHI) and its national counterpart, the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI).

Mullen will oversee the implementation phase of the national certification program for Canadian home inspectors, which will be put in place after eight years of work and $2 million, to educate, assess and certify about 5,000 home inspectors in the country under the umbrella of CAHPI.

Mullen will direct the certification process of individual practitioners and the accreditation of educational institutions involved in training. All practitioners in Canada will be certified by the end of 2007.

The program is a joint project involving Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, Human Resource and Skills Development Canada, the federal ministry of housing, and CAHPI.


I got a reply from the London Free Press, they seem to be an agent for Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen replied to the article and the issues I raised.

Here for your edification and delectation is the reply.

Quote:
Mr. Mullen writes:
? The announcement does not claim that the certification is mandatory. I agree that it is voluntary and always will be.

? Nor to date has $2 million dollars been spent on this project. He is not involved, so he has no way to know what amount this cost. The figure represents about $ 750,000 in government money, about $ 250,000 in our membership money, another $ 250,000 invested by other inspection groups, $ 50,000 by smaller interested parties, and at least $ 750,000 in what are called 'in kind contributions' by volunteers. These figures can be easily substantiated, but since this gentleman has never offered one hour of volunteer help to the process he would have no idea.

? Nor are there 5,000 home inspectors in CAHPI, they only have (approximately) less than 1,000 members across Canada, The announcement does not state that there are 5000 CAHPI inspectors, There are about 5000 inspectors in Canada who are eligible to apply for this CAHPI certification. nor has CAHPI or OAHI released any of this information to its members. The membership has received very regular written updates over the years, and some of the leaders such as myself have given many presentations at membership meetings from coast to coast to tell inspectors about this.

? I think it would behoove you to check out the facts for yourselves to ensure the stories you print are accurate and not misleading. I invite you to check the facts that you printed if you wish. They can be corroborated by CAHPI Head Office at 1-888-748-2244 or CMHC in Ottawa at 613-748-2316 (ask for Jim Robar) . I gladly stake my reputation and credibility against this gentleman's. I served as National President of CAHPI for three years and I have worked hard to bring this project to where it is today.


Mr. Mullen appears to demonstrating his bias in his replies, he also seems unable to comprehend what he submitted in the article.

There has been information, and yes Mr. Mullen has made presentations, but it has been information which has been contradictory and as we all know he has been caught many times making erroneous statements.

Just want to be sure to accurately portray the facts. I stand behind my comments and reputation just as much as Mr. Mullen stands behind his.
Except he casts a larger shadow than I, as he has a larger ego and frame.
![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)

Merry Christmas.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: vmitchinson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rcooke wrote:
not asking for impute from those who would be affected most.

They say they do not have enough members helping .
This then is their own fault for not communicating this information to the membership.
I was not one who ignored the association I sat on three different committees and would be still helping if we had information given out as it should have been .
Fortunately being a little bit on the inside I saw how rules where bent, ignored, out right broken and ignored.


I've been involved with many organizations over the years and have found that about 5% of the membership are active and end up running the show.
Another 5% bitch and complain about the 5% that run the show.
The rest go with the flow until some major event wakes them up and all hell breaks loose. The fur flies and if the organization survives it usually emerges with a new management team, things settle down and the whole process starts over.

I believe that anyone that does not attend the meeting and take part in the debate and vote are considered to have spoken and voted with the majority. If they did not speak up during the meeting they do not have the privilege of complaining afterwards.


Anyway that's my 2 bits worth


Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



?Certified Home Inspector? and ?CHI? are NOT REGISTERED Trademarks in Canada. See the Canadian Intellectual Property Office search on ?Certified Home Inspector?: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0909/trdp090934800e.html


The reason it failed to acquire approval for registration is quite simple: Under Canadian Law a common word, series of common words, or common phrases cannot be removed from the public domain.

Marks which identify or describe a product or service or which are in common use cannot be registered as trademarks and remain in the public domain for use by anyone. For example, a descriptive term such as ?certified? or a generic term such as ?inspector? could not be registered in relation to home inspectors.

Canada has laws which are designed to prevent trademarks' owners from making wrongful threats of trademark infringement action against other parties. These laws were intended to prevent large or powerful companies from intimidating or harassing smaller companies.

Where one party makes a threat to sue another for trademark infringement, but does not have a genuine basis to carry out that threat, such as the user of an unregistered trademark, or does not carry out the threat at all within a certain period, the threat may itself become a basis for legal action.


Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Claude:


"ASHI Experience" remains UNregistered for a different reason. It infringes on the existing REGISTERED Trademark "HI Experience" a REGISTERED mark owned by NACHI.


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Nick


Thank you for clarifying that. I was told the acronym was to generic.

I have CHI on my site under the NACHI logo as well as Certified Home Inspector and I have not received a letter. Gee I feel left out, I guess I am not worthy? ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)

All the best of the seaon Nick!

Warmest regards,

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
http://www.raymondwand.ca


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Who came first the chicken or the egg? Who has a right to defend that designation? Does prior use of the term have any significance? If thats the case CHI and certified home inspector are two distinct trademarks. It seems “certified home inspector” to be use of a generic term therefore does it become a mute point?


To add more info to the mix, once upon a time ASHI inspectors also used that CHI - certified home inspector acronym. Perhaps some may remember why ASHI dropped the use of "certifying" home inspectors. To say the least this still remains very confusing to the consuming public, let alone to those crying foul trying to figure out what certification in this business really means. Perhaps those legally challenged by those lawyer letters from B.C. would like to add their POV, and why they feared prosecution.


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I think some colleges are certifying inspectors, I believe George Brown does.


There is a distinct difference between Certified Home Inspector and Certified House Inspector.

I don't ever recall ASHI using CHI and I was a member of ASHI for many years. I believe they were on record as informing their members at that time and to this day they do not certify.

But I am getting older, maybe my memory is not too good.

Also OAHI cannot suspend anyone without a hearing first. That is a fact and it is in black and white in the by-laws. Someone should stop making threats based on misinterpretation of the by-laws.

Merry Christmas.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
assess and certify about 5,000 home inspectors in the country under the umbrella of CAHPI.


If that is not an inclusive statement which leads one to the conclusion all will be certified I don't know what is.

Quote:
All practitioners in Canada will be certified by the end of 2007.


I don't know how anyone else could read that statement any other way. Note the use of the word "All".

It is regrettable that CAHPI would condone blatant misinformation which is contradictory to what we have been repeatedly told.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



The generic word “certified” is part of the public domain in both Canada and the U.S. and can’t be a registered trademarked for the reasons I outlined above, which is why “certified home inspector” in Canada does not have a registration number…in Canada, we all own the common phrase “Certified Home Inspector.”


Searching both countries I can only find one mark that uses the word "certified" with respect to the inspection industry which enjoys a registration number and that is our own "Certified Master Inspector" (REGISTERED Trademark #2892104)

Just like there is:

Good
Better
BEST

There is also:

Home Inspector
Certified Home Inspector
CERTIFIED MASTER INSPECTOR

![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Nick


Thanks for the explanations.

In your search did you find any associated logos that were registered or not registered?

All the best, seasons greetings.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON