My guess is because there's nothing to buy and the legacy is already preserved by Packard's official museum, the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio where Packard was founded. Many Packard fans and collectors have high respect for it and donate to it. The Packard family lived and is buried there and the museum has the most historical artifacts of the company. From what I heard, Gullickson tried to sell it 20 years ago however the museum lawyer's found the selling price was far higher than the brand's real value in the marketplace (e.g. was asking $1.5MM for it in 1999 when IntraBrand stated it's worthless even back then). Further, originally he was trying to sell it on Ebay, got some bids around $275k (1999 dollars), then flipped it into buying shares in his company in an attempt to give it another go. It was a total turn off by the respective buyers, a bait and switch perhaps. Maybe the museum and buyer's lawyers back then found the same issues that have arisen today via the USPTO challenge? I found all this in articles online - I enjoy investigative journalism about cars and marketing, so much intriguing history! https://sometimes-interesting.com/2011/08/15/largest-abandoned-factory-in-the-world-the-packard-factory-detroit/ https://carzhunt.blogspot.com/2013/12/packard-motor-car-company.html https://packardmuseum.org ... View more

Happy to oblige. A trademark's dollar value is all about brand value - how much it's perceived in the public's mind. When you ask someone "what's your opinion of PACKARD"? More than likely they will think of Hewitt-Packard computers or something else. In fact, they will probably have no idea a Packard car company or "Packard holding" company exists. That means you have a "dead mark" in the eyes of the USPTO because there is no likely-hood of confusion in the marketplace. When I talk about Packard cars with my son or other young people, and even some folks in their 50's, they have no idea Packard ever existed let alone someone tried to revive it. Further, the mark may lose an infringement case if a new owner tried to sue for infringement - there are other "Packard" companies doing automobile-related commercial products and activity for quite some time. It wouldn't pass the SCOTUS trademark smell test let alone the USPTO's. Regardless, the original Packard is awesome and would have it's day back in the spotlight with great professional marketing and seasoned entrepreneurs - and different trademarks. Have a word mark that hasn't been in commercial use much if at all doesn't mean you automatically dominate the marketplace. Now, time for a drive to the recycle bin with the Christmas boxes! ... View more

I've like Packard quite a bit my whole life. I looked into this during the New Year downtime. When building a brand, it's utmost important to get necessary trademarks and complimentary ones to build a proper IP portfolio and protect the brand. The Packard trademarks are owned by at least a few different entities and this one looks to be out of compliance with USPTO standards. The Packard name is a surname and would never be approved. This one was approved due to some sketchy filings it appears. I wouldn't buy this package because 1) Gulickson's PMC Arizona company is defunct - hasn't filed state filings for at least a few years, 2) the trademark itself has multiple issues, 3) the brand cannot be protected like a car company needs and 3) the Packard core audience is around 84 years old and the younger generations are not buying Packard collector cars. It would take many, many millions of dollars to make a go of this and the hobbyist would be wasting their money, even if paying a few hundred thousand for it all. In times like these, best to hold on to your cash and invest it much wiser. Nevertheless, long live Packard and it's amazing legacy and beautiful cars! Happy New Year everyone! ... View more

Reading through the challenge of the trademark at the USPTO, it appears Mr. Gullickson is trying to sell this off before he has to prove it’s validity. The other party in the challenge has presented compelling evidence after almost being duped into buying it. Again, anyone who wants buy this package will have all the problems that come with it. Research with a good IP attorney is definitely required before purchase. I think PACKARD could come back in another way while keeping the marque DNA. After all, best comebacks are all about the original founders. ... View more

Looks like the Gullickson trademark has been challenged at the USPTO. There are certain legal ways to keep a trademark and perhaps the owner hasn’t been doing that. Just “holding” a trademark and restoring old cars isn’t enough. Anyone looking to buy this package should do a lot of legal research and wise thinking first. The Packard community was burned really bad by this endeavor 20 years ago because they didn’t like the car, the plan or the man. ... View more