I have been following this case and Snyder is indeed going at Nationwide strong. He has some very valid arguments on his website and I think that if it does go to trial he has a great chance of winning. I also give him a lot of credit for standing strong against a company the size of Nationwide.
While this will be fun to watch and I think it’s kind of funny to think of this guy creating angst for Natiownide’s Exec’s, he has no chance of winning. There’s plenty of precedent and case law to support Nationwide’s position. The arguement that he is small and they are big is totally irrelevant. He either infringed on their trademark or he didn’t, and he did. Any ethical attorney would advise him to take the first monetary settlement offer Nationwide makes for him to stop using the slogan and go away.
If he had a good argument then there would be an attorney willing to take his case and there isn’t one. He violated the trademark and there’s good case law to protect N’Wide. Not sure he can prove that the N’Wide slogan is meaningless. They’re certainly on your side when they settle a BI claim up to policy limits aren’t they?
Here is a copy of a post I just made on a different article about this case. “I have really been following this case and I read on Snyder’s Facebook page a while back that he interviewed a lot of attorneys and couldn’t find an attorney on a contingency fee or otherwise that he felt could handle the case as well as he thinks he can. He claims that his experience within the industry is what he is using to try and win the case and at this point he is using his in house team for the majority of the case with his attorney/s only as advisors. He says that is the only way he can insure that he doesn’t lose control of the direction of the case. He claimed that decision would also limited his cost of daily tasks. You should read up some more on this case, I read the whole thing in the court records and Snyder makes some dang good arguments. I personally think he is gonna win”
David and Goliath. Go David!! Now all we need is an attorney that wants to make a name for himself and will take the case pro-bono or at least assist this guy with the legal process. We’re rooting for you!
I wonder if any insurance commissioners, The FTC, or better yet one of the other giant insurers are looking into this? I read the other articles on IJ to and I think Snyder has good points in regards to the false advertising claim. Nationwide really might lose their slogan here, whether it be by the hand of Snyder, a law maker, or someone else that jumps on this opportunity. Probably smart to, him going pro bono at first to defer his cost till later at trial when he really needs the attorneys. I’m sure as a PA he has some experience with the legal system and probably knows what he’s doing. If he didn’t do that, I bet Smith would be correct and Nationwide would probably just bury him in legal fees until he gave up. I wonder what life post (Nationwide Is On Your Side) will be like. LOL GOOD STUFF!!
Good luck to Snyder, but I think the real losers in this fight are the policyholders whose rates will go up as Nationwide pursues expensive legal battles like this that really aren’t necessary. It’s not like he was an agent or insurer who was competing against them.
How would it be false advertising for Nationwide to say they’re on your side?
If someone has bought an insurance policy and there is a covered loss, it’s covered and paid per the terms of the contract.
Isn’t this an Insurance Journal, do we not understand the basic concept of indemnification? How is that not “on your side”?
Gordon, you’re too logical on this one. You see you have more dislikes than likes. Not sure why. I pull for the little guy as well but a trademark is a trademark and regardless if it makes sense, N’Wide owns it. This case law actually protects the little guy on this. Without it, every large company with deep pockets could legally steal any name or tagline they wanted.
You guys realize that a public adjuster doesn’t compete with Nationwide right? Also his main argument is that it would be extreme conflict of interest and against insurance law for Nationwide’s adjusters to work on the side of the insured and the side of insurer on the same claim. Snyder is saying that each the insured and the insurer have a right to have an adjuster on their side to solely look out for their best interest and it cannot by law be the same person for both. He says he is licensed to represent the insured’s side on a claim and the insurer’s adjusters are licensed to represent the insurer’s side. By Nationwide claiming to be on the insureds side they are falsely advertising because they are not legally entitled to do so.
This is also why Snyder claims he picked that name On Your Side Adjusting, because he claims he was using his company name to describe to the insured what he did. He said he is the adjuster on their side. It’s use is legal as a descriptive term. I read that in his complaint against Nationwide.
And by using his “company name” how many people do you think called him, or signed with him, BECAUSE they thought he was “associated with” (or at least had an inside track with) Nationwide??
That my friends is the textbook definition of a deceptive trade practice.
Dislike all you want, but do you really think that he wasn’t thinking of, or at least leveraging his business plan against, the Nationwide trademark? Gimme a break.
May 14, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Brian says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
At InsGuy, this was also addressed in Snyder’s complaint. He asks, why would he want people to think he was part of an insurance company, why would people hire him to go up against their insurance company if they thought he was owned by an insurance company? That makes no sense!
The thought of a public adjuster who wants people to believe he is owned by an insurance company is absurd.
Next would be a personal injury attorney trying to make people think he/she is an insurance company. Your an insurance guy, think about what your saying.
May 15, 2014 at 9:37 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Brian, I am starting a Sky Diving Company that specializes in “first time jumpers”. My slogan will be “Just Do It”. This phrase is more descriptive of my business than Nike’s use of the phrase. Do you think Nike will let me use it because it’s less deceptive than their use of the phrase and a more accurate description of my services than theirs? Wish me luck.
May 15, 2014 at 10:17 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I think Nike would be smart enough to know you are not trying to compete with them by using that phrase. If you were opening up a shoe store, maybe.
May 15, 2014 at 11:22 am
InsGuy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@ Brian.
Oh, OK. Brand recognition has no value. My mistake.
May 15, 2014 at 11:25 am
InsGuy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How many sheeple do you think will vote for Hillary simply because they recognize the name Clinton – with absolutely no knowledge/opinion of either candidate?
May 15, 2014 at 11:56 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bahhh.
May 14, 2014 at 2:21 pm
MeIsEinstein says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I will bet that his home and/or auto insurance policies aren’t with Nationwide.
While I do not believe Nationwide is using deceptive marketing, neither do I believe they coined the phrase “on your side”. Those words have been in use since time began and belong in the public domain. I believe Nationwide should drop their suit and make restitution for any monetary damage that Snyder can prove.
I have been following this case and Snyder is indeed going at Nationwide strong. He has some very valid arguments on his website and I think that if it does go to trial he has a great chance of winning. I also give him a lot of credit for standing strong against a company the size of Nationwide.
While this will be fun to watch and I think it’s kind of funny to think of this guy creating angst for Natiownide’s Exec’s, he has no chance of winning. There’s plenty of precedent and case law to support Nationwide’s position. The arguement that he is small and they are big is totally irrelevant. He either infringed on their trademark or he didn’t, and he did. Any ethical attorney would advise him to take the first monetary settlement offer Nationwide makes for him to stop using the slogan and go away.
If he had a good argument then there would be an attorney willing to take his case and there isn’t one. He violated the trademark and there’s good case law to protect N’Wide. Not sure he can prove that the N’Wide slogan is meaningless. They’re certainly on your side when they settle a BI claim up to policy limits aren’t they?
Here is a copy of a post I just made on a different article about this case. “I have really been following this case and I read on Snyder’s Facebook page a while back that he interviewed a lot of attorneys and couldn’t find an attorney on a contingency fee or otherwise that he felt could handle the case as well as he thinks he can. He claims that his experience within the industry is what he is using to try and win the case and at this point he is using his in house team for the majority of the case with his attorney/s only as advisors. He says that is the only way he can insure that he doesn’t lose control of the direction of the case. He claimed that decision would also limited his cost of daily tasks. You should read up some more on this case, I read the whole thing in the court records and Snyder makes some dang good arguments. I personally think he is gonna win”
David and Goliath. Go David!! Now all we need is an attorney that wants to make a name for himself and will take the case pro-bono or at least assist this guy with the legal process. We’re rooting for you!
I wonder if any insurance commissioners, The FTC, or better yet one of the other giant insurers are looking into this? I read the other articles on IJ to and I think Snyder has good points in regards to the false advertising claim. Nationwide really might lose their slogan here, whether it be by the hand of Snyder, a law maker, or someone else that jumps on this opportunity. Probably smart to, him going pro bono at first to defer his cost till later at trial when he really needs the attorneys. I’m sure as a PA he has some experience with the legal system and probably knows what he’s doing. If he didn’t do that, I bet Smith would be correct and Nationwide would probably just bury him in legal fees until he gave up. I wonder what life post (Nationwide Is On Your Side) will be like. LOL GOOD STUFF!!
Good luck to Snyder, but I think the real losers in this fight are the policyholders whose rates will go up as Nationwide pursues expensive legal battles like this that really aren’t necessary. It’s not like he was an agent or insurer who was competing against them.
$200 billion company? I don’t think so!
How would it be false advertising for Nationwide to say they’re on your side?
If someone has bought an insurance policy and there is a covered loss, it’s covered and paid per the terms of the contract.
Isn’t this an Insurance Journal, do we not understand the basic concept of indemnification? How is that not “on your side”?
The guy’s got nothing.
Gordon, you’re too logical on this one. You see you have more dislikes than likes. Not sure why. I pull for the little guy as well but a trademark is a trademark and regardless if it makes sense, N’Wide owns it. This case law actually protects the little guy on this. Without it, every large company with deep pockets could legally steal any name or tagline they wanted.
My main objection was to the idea of “false advertising”, saying that Nationwide is not “on your side.”
As for the rest, we’ll see what happens, but it would hardly be stealing. Nationwide has had the slogun for quite some time.
You guys realize that a public adjuster doesn’t compete with Nationwide right? Also his main argument is that it would be extreme conflict of interest and against insurance law for Nationwide’s adjusters to work on the side of the insured and the side of insurer on the same claim. Snyder is saying that each the insured and the insurer have a right to have an adjuster on their side to solely look out for their best interest and it cannot by law be the same person for both. He says he is licensed to represent the insured’s side on a claim and the insurer’s adjusters are licensed to represent the insurer’s side. By Nationwide claiming to be on the insureds side they are falsely advertising because they are not legally entitled to do so.
This is also why Snyder claims he picked that name On Your Side Adjusting, because he claims he was using his company name to describe to the insured what he did. He said he is the adjuster on their side. It’s use is legal as a descriptive term. I read that in his complaint against Nationwide.
And by using his “company name” how many people do you think called him, or signed with him, BECAUSE they thought he was “associated with” (or at least had an inside track with) Nationwide??
That my friends is the textbook definition of a deceptive trade practice.
Dislike all you want, but do you really think that he wasn’t thinking of, or at least leveraging his business plan against, the Nationwide trademark? Gimme a break.
At InsGuy, this was also addressed in Snyder’s complaint. He asks, why would he want people to think he was part of an insurance company, why would people hire him to go up against their insurance company if they thought he was owned by an insurance company? That makes no sense!
The thought of a public adjuster who wants people to believe he is owned by an insurance company is absurd.
Next would be a personal injury attorney trying to make people think he/she is an insurance company. Your an insurance guy, think about what your saying.
Brian, I am starting a Sky Diving Company that specializes in “first time jumpers”. My slogan will be “Just Do It”. This phrase is more descriptive of my business than Nike’s use of the phrase. Do you think Nike will let me use it because it’s less deceptive than their use of the phrase and a more accurate description of my services than theirs? Wish me luck.
I think Nike would be smart enough to know you are not trying to compete with them by using that phrase. If you were opening up a shoe store, maybe.
@ Brian.
Oh, OK. Brand recognition has no value. My mistake.
How many sheeple do you think will vote for Hillary simply because they recognize the name Clinton – with absolutely no knowledge/opinion of either candidate?
Bahhh.
I will bet that his home and/or auto insurance policies aren’t with Nationwide.
LLLET’S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLE!!
oops, that could cost me…it’s trademaked, too.
Actually, I think it’s free advertising. You should send the guy a bill.
While I do not believe Nationwide is using deceptive marketing, neither do I believe they coined the phrase “on your side”. Those words have been in use since time began and belong in the public domain. I believe Nationwide should drop their suit and make restitution for any monetary damage that Snyder can prove.
Nike might just come after your Sky Diving Company if their shoes don’t save someone who’s ‘chute didn’t open.