On Sun, 21 May 2017 19:41:12 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/21/2017 7:00 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:12:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , says...

On 5/21/2017 5:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:


Stanley didn't get a factory, they didn't get workers, or foremen, or
stocks of materials, or contracts with suppliers. There's nothing for them
to "shut down". If Stanley wants to sell tools that are labelled
"Craftsman" they are going to have to start making them in their own
facilities, make their own agreements with suppliers, or buy them from
Sears which already has such agreements in place and has stocks of product
ready to ship.


Once Sears is gone (probably soon) Stanley can shut down the Craftsman
name if they desire. They own it. They can improve it and bring it
back to what it was 40 years ago or get rid of the competition allowing
Stanly branded tools take that market share.

To say that they can "shut it down" implies that Stanley has something to
"shut down". If Stanley decides not to do anything with the brand that
they just paid lots of money for, then it could die with Sears, which is a
bit different from being "shut down". Although if the objective is to
eliminate a competitor, it would have been a lot cheaper and more effective
to _not_ give that competitor a large cash infusion.

I don't think Stanley is worried that their cash is going to save
Sears.

The point is that if the objective was to eliminate a competitor, why
bother at all?


Beats me IMO, had they waited a while they could have gotten the use of
the Craftsman name for 50 bucks cash. Sears has been gone and in death
throes for years. Slow at first, but picking up speed.

When Sears goes into receivership, the courts decide who gets what and
for how much. It might get messy. If they think the brand has value
(and it does, though perhaps not with those in this forum), it's
better to remove doubt, not to mention try to salvage the name before
Sears has a real chance to savage it.