[bobmaxja]

If recession come, the value of the camera business will be cheap. I have 2 Olympus high end compact , and the 2 die in less than 18 months, same problems, zoom have a hard time getting out. Got a 1 ch Lumix , instead and very very different build quality.

[Mistral75]

Not only is the Pentax name shared between medical and photographic equipment, but Pentax Medical is also using the 100th anniversary of Asahi Optical as a promotional tool.

Indeed, Hoya were happy to grant Ricoh the licence to use the Pentax trademark. I think they would have been prepared to more than that to get rid of the Pentax imaging business, which was of no interest to them.

Being owned by Hoya, the company which Asahi Optical (renamed Pentax in the meantime) merged with and dissolved into and which owns the rights to the Pentax trademark, Pentax Medical are totally entitled to use the 100th anniversary of Asahi Optical as a promotional tool, even more so than Ricoh, which bought the camera business from Hoya and entered into a licence agreement to use the Pentax brand but have no legal link with Asahi Optical.

[2B1]

Being owned by Hoya, the company which Asahi Optical (renamed Pentax in the meantime) merged with and dissolved into and which owns the rights to the Pentax trademark, Pentax Medical are totally entitled to use the 100th anniversary of Asahi Optical as a promotional tool, even more so than Ricoh, which bought the camera business from Hoya and entered into a licence agreement to use the Pentax brand but have no legal link with Asahi Optical.

Either Hoya sells the rights to the Pentax name to Ricoh. Or the next camera or lens should be branded Ricoh.
Ricoh should only invest and develop a brand they own.

[Mistral75]

Either Hoya sells the rights to the Pentax name to Ricoh. Or the next camera or lens should be branded Ricoh.
Ricoh should only invest and develop a brand they own.

That's your point of view, may be not theirs nor Hoya's. Or that of many Pentaxians.

[mlt]

I.....Ricoh, which bought the camera business from Hoya and entered into a licence agreement to use the Pentax brand but have no legal link with Asahi Optical.

But the Pentax cameras and lenses Ricoh are producing certainly have the Pentax dna in them, more so than any of the film era slr’s and lenses Ricoh produced under their own name. i don’t think there ever could have been a sale of the Pentax camera division by Hoya if the name rights weren’t included.

[2B1]

That's your point of view, may be not theirs nor Hoya's. Or that of many Pentaxians.

Yes it is my point of view
May not be theirs.9Ricoh). Of course it is, Ricoh are spending money a name they do not own.....(You must be able to see the issue with this.

Of course Hoya are not complaining , there earning from licensing. rights and are having their brand developed and promoted , without spending a penny..

Many Pentaxians , may not like this , but I am sure they would rather have the Pentax brand in the hands of a company (Ricoh), that have and will continue to invest , rather than one (Hoya) ,that have little interest in Pentax..

[Rondec]

Either Hoya sells the rights to the Pentax name to Ricoh. Or the next camera or lens should be branded Ricoh.
Ricoh should only invest and develop a brand they own.

Pentax name has some meaning to Pentaxians. And Hoya has made it clear that they aren't going to fight over the use of the branding for cameras.

[RobA_Oz]

Yes it is my point of view
May not be theirs.9Ricoh). Of course it is, Ricoh are spending money a name they do not own.....(You must be able to see the issue with this.

Of course Hoya are not complaining , there earning from licensing. rights and are having their brand developed and promoted , without spending a penny..

Many Pentaxians , may not like this , but I am sure they would rather have the Pentax brand in the hands of a company (Ricoh), that have and will continue to invest , rather than one (Hoya) ,that have little interest in Pentax..

I’m not sure it’s that simple. Ricoh, as I understand it, bought the Pentax Corporation from Hoya, while Hoya had previously separated everything but the camera (and telescope?) product lines from that business. I’m sure that, if Ricoh wanted to, they could make a legal case for using the Pentax name, if only because they’ve essentially bought the AOC.

Anyway, people in the West often mistakenly believe Japanese (and Asian, in general) businesses operate by the same rigid legalistic (even ideological) rules as they do. I learned that lesson some years ago, working with a few. Ricoh will be happy to use the Pentax name while those products earn them a profit.

[Mistral75]

I’m not sure it’s that simple. Ricoh, as I understand it, bought the Pentax Corporation from Hoya, while Hoya had previously separated everything but the camera (and telescope?) product lines from that business. I’m sure that, if Ricoh wanted to, they could make a legal case for using the Pentax name, if only because they’ve essentially bought the AOC.

(...)

On the 29th of July, 2011, Hoya transferred their Pentax imaging systems business to a newly established subsidiary called Pentax Imaging. The transfer included the right for this subsidiary to use the brand Pentax, the trademark of which belonged to Hoya, for some Nice class 9 products, including cameras, lenses, binoculars, telescopes and their accessories, this right being embodied in and defined by a brand licence agreement by and between Hoya on the one hand, Pentax Imaging on the other hand.

On the 1st of October, 2011, Ricoh acquired all shares of Pentax Imaging and renamed their newly acquired subsidiary Pentax Ricoh Imaging. On the 1st of August, 2013, the company name was changed to Ricoh Imaging.

Therefore Ricoh cannot 'make a legal case for using the Pentax name', nor do they need to: the way they may use the Pentax name, the products they may use it for, the duration and more are defined in the brand licence agreement that bounds their subsidiary Ricoh Imaging as licensee and Hoya as licensor.

[Mistral75]

(...) Ricoh are spending money a name they do not own.....(You must be able to see the issue with this.

(...)

This is called a brand licence agreement and is very common in the business world.

When a bunch of different companies promote and sell Star Wars branded products, do you think they own the trademark? No, it belongs to Lucasfilm Entertainment Company.

(...)

Of course Hoya are not complaining , there earning from licensing. rights and are having their brand developed and promoted , without spending a penny..

(...)

1. How do you know that the brand licence agreement between Hoya and Ricoh Imaging provides for licence fees (royalties)?
   xxx
2. Hoya use the Pentax brand for BtoB products (endoscopes and related medical equipment and services). Do you think their sales of Pentax-branded medical products and services benefit from the development and promotion of Pentax cameras and lenses, targeted to a BtoC clientele, done by Ricoh Imaging?

(...) Many Pentaxians , may not like this , but I am sure they would rather have the Pentax brand in the hands of a company (Ricoh), that have and will continue to invest , rather than one (Hoya) ,that have little interest in Pentax..

Hoya are very much interested in Pentax. They fought and spent hard money to acquire it. Simply, they were and still are uniquely interested in Pentax medical products and services, not in Pentax cameras and lenses.

[Mistral75]

(...) Hoya has made it clear that they aren't going to fight over the use of the branding for cameras.

Would they, they could not: as licensor they granted Ricoh Imaging the right to use the Pentax brand name. As long as Ricoh Imaging are not breaching the brand licence agreement, there is nothing Hoya can do.

[Rondec]

Would they, they could not: as licensor they granted Ricoh Imaging the right to use the Pentax brand name. As long as Ricoh Imaging are not breaching the brand licence agreement, there is nothing Hoya can do.

My impression is that Hoya had a somewhat distressed asset on their hands in Pentax Imaging. In order to get another company to buy it, they had to agree to let the brand name go with whatever other assets there were. My guess is that Olympus would do the same if they could get someone to give them 90 million for their Imaging arm.

[Mistral75]

My impression is that Hoya had a somewhat distressed asset on their hands in Pentax Imaging. In order to get another company to buy it, they had to agree to let the brand name go with whatever other assets there were. My guess is that Olympus would do the same if they could get someone to give them 90 million for their Imaging arm.

The situation is not the same. When Hoya sold Pentax Imaging the business was slightly unprofitable (as disclosed by Ricoh in their financial reporting on FY2011) and the ILC market trend was a two-digit growth.

Nowadays the market prospects are gloomy, in particular for small-sensor mirrorless cameras, and Olympus Imaging are bleeding money: 26.7 cents per dollar of revenue, of which 21.8 cents are recurring losses (FY2020 H1 data).

If Olympus were to sell their Imaging business, I think they'd have to pay the buyer to get rid of it.

[mlt]

I think any buyer would have to stipulate the sale included rights to all the associated names. Renaming the Olympus cameras to acme cameras would only work if the target buyers were a certain coyote.

[Mistral75]

I think any buyer would have to stipulate the sale included rights to all the associated names. (...)

It's almost always the case, at least for a certain period of time which can depend on the product(s) concerned.

You can't imagine the newly acquired company trashing from day one any and all letterhead, envelope, packaging, modifying the entire inventory of finished products, etc.