Re: Ontrack Power Controls 7.2 Crack
Tae Damndjperiod
Our domain controller died, with no hope of recovering anything. The AD backup died with it. Due to no longer having a DC, our Exchange is unable to start. I'm trying to use "Kernel for Exchange Server" to recover the mails that are in the mailbox store. I've found the .edb file, but the .stm file is nowhere on the machine.
Exchange 2010 doesn't uses stm files, since 2007 - no stm filesyou can use kernel data recovery or ontrack power controls to restore your mailboxes from mailbox.edb - you would need logs and database files to have the most recent restores.
OnTrack is known for its ingenuity and experience in developing solutions for a wide range of packaging line management problems. Leaders in quick change philosophy, we use "Lean Manufacturing" principles to meet the ongoing demand for high productivity and cost reductions.
OnTrack's orienters are custom-configured in various frame sizes and head configurations and can handle glass or plastic containers of almost any size or shape. Standard features include automatic speed controls, finger tip settings, digital speed read-out, and power height adjustment.
Our Wet Case Detector prevents shipment of wet cases by detecting leaks before they leave the packaging line. It senses moisture on the bottom surface of a damaged case and then prompts removal of that case from the line, either manually or automatically. Wet cases are then removed from the line before they reach the skid where liquid spills could easily cause damage to other cases.
At that time, three BD management employees, Ward Flannery, Darren Ste. Marie, and Ed Gardiner, negotiated the purchase of all assets including all equipment, technology, and intellectual property of Bottling Development. From 2007 to 2012, the company operated as OnTrack Automation Inc., providing packaging line management components, systems and solutions to a growing list of customers across many industries.
On January 1, 2012, Ontrack Automation Inc. joined forces with Pneumatic Scale Angelus, a division of Barry-Wehmiller Companies Inc. In 2020, the team joined Zepf Solutions and continues to operate in Waterloo, Ontario under the Zepf Solutions leadership team.
This case presents a trademark dispute involving the competing marks ONTRACK and INTRACK. Each term is a trademark for computer software for "manufacturing execution systems," called "MES." RWT Corporation, the owner of the ONTRACK mark, which is federally registered, No. 1,764,091, sued Wonderware Corporation, the owner of INTRACK, in December of 1995. RWT seeks a preliminary injunction barring Wonderware from further use of the INTRACK mark pending the conclusion of this suit. The parties conducted expedited discovery and I held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. For the reasons stated in this opinion, RWT's motion is denied.
RWT is an Illinois corporation located in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. RWT designs, produces, and sells MES software. RWT began using the ONTRACK mark on its MES software in 1990. ONTRACK software is designed for use in manufacturing plants. It tracks or monitors products through each step of the manufacturing process, monitoring the steps in that process, which allows a company to know what is happening on the factory floor at any time. It will report on such things as schedules, resource status, work-in-process status, the amount of scrap and non-conforming product, historical trends, and productivity. MES software can identify a particular part used in a particular product, raw materials used, and which manufacturer provided the materials. ONTRACK software is run on personal computers.
RWT's principal product is ONTRACK software, constituting, along with maintenance of the product, 70 percent of RWT's revenue. During the past year, RWT spent in excess of $90,000 advertising or promoting ONTRACK through direct mailers, brochures, trade shows, and print media advertisements in North America and Europe. RWT prominently displays its ONTRACK mark.
Wonderware is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Irvine, California. It is a public corporation with annual sales exceeding $35 million. Until 1995, although Wonderware sold computer software, it did not compete with RWT. Sometime in 1994, Wonderware began negotiations with another company, EnaTec, which owned a software *586 called Chinook, which competed with ONTRACK, although the sale was not finally announced until June, 1995.
Wonderware's first public announcement that it would market a software, which combined the Chinook and Wonderware's own InTouch software and would be called INTOUCH, was at a large trade show at McCormick Place in Chicago, in March, 1995. It is unclear how much of an announcement took place at the show. The show is a huge exhibition, and Wonderware's exhibit was large and covered several, perhaps all, of its products. When the exhibit arrived in Chicago, it did not include any sign identifying any product as INTRACK. Sometime during the show, or perhaps before it opened, a sign was put up, identifying one display as INTRACK. Furthermore, in the months after the show, Wonderware sent letters, one of which went to RWT's president, Bernard Asher, in which it described several products, including INTRACK, which it said was "due out this spring." For a couple of months, it also ran an advertisement in trade journals describing INTRACK software. On June 29, 1995, Wonderware announced that it had purchased the remaining 80 percent ownership of EnaTec and that it had combined the EnaTec software with its own "in our soon-to-be-announced InTrack MES product."
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that (1) it has some likelihood of succeeding on the merits and (2) it has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if preliminary relief is denied. Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992). If the party establishes both these criteria, the court then considers (3) the balance of harm to each party of denying or granting the injunction and (4) the public interest. Id. at 11-12. The court then balances all four factors, using a "sliding scale" approach. Id. at 12. "Even if [the plaintiff] ha[s] only a modest chance of prevailing on the merits, it would be entitled to a preliminary injunction if it could show that the denial of the injunction would inflict severe irreparable harm on the plaintiffs." Green River Bottling Co. v. Green River Corp., 997 F.2d 359, 361 (7th Cir.1993).
Wonderware argues that RWT's ONTRACK registration should be declared invalid on the ground that ONTRACK is descriptive.[1] Wonderware relies on statements in RWT's promotional materials that say "Get your factory OnTrack;" "By dispatching and tracking your order," the customer can tell how it is doing; and "Get OnTrack." RWT says the statements carry a double meaning, intending to convey the idea that the customer should buy the ONTRACK software. RWT also notes that of 25 MES systems listed in Defendant's Exhibit 13, ONTRACK is the only one that uses the word "track" in its name.
Wonderware's evidence indicates there may be another company out there that also calls itself an MES manufacturer that also markets software called ONTRAC. Wonderware points to various evidence that the word "track" is part of the name of other MES or similar products. RWT, of course, claims protection for ONTRACK, not "track."
Various tests have been suggested for making such a determination. Judge Friendly discussed the "imagination" test (stating that "a term is suggestive if it requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of goods," Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 537 F.2d at 11), and while the Seventh Circuit appears to concur, it has also said that by imagination it means the "mental process required to connect a name that is incongruous or figurative with the product." Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d at 953. It has added that even if imagination were required to link a purported mark with its product, it could still be descriptive if the mark described a characteristic of the product. Id.
Each party to the present case argues that under this test, or others suggested by them, that ONTRACK is descriptive or suggestive. I do not think, at least as a matter of law, that ONTRACK is incongruous as a name for MES software designed to help a manufacturer keep "track" of its manufacturing process. On the other hand, if someone were simply told that this product is software with the name ONTRACK, I do not think that without some thought, including imagination, most people would assume this product is software "meant to automate production control and process management," as described in one of Wonderware's exhibits.[2]
I conclude that there is some likelihood that a finder of fact may find ONTRACK as a name for MES software to be suggestive. ONTRACK describes, in part, what use of the software is intended to enable a purchaser to do. It does not describe the software, however. Furthermore, various advertisements for other MES software put in evidence show that neither "track" nor "ontrack" is necessary to describe how MES software works or its purpose. Indeed, in my review of numerous advertisements and articles from a magazine supplement submitted in evidence by Wonderware, I noticed the word "track" used only once.[3] But under Seventh Circuit case law, there is also some possibility that it could be found descriptive. It is not a necessary word to describe what *588 the software does, but it is an apt term. It is not a "strong" mark, in trademark terms.[4]
RWT says even if its mark were to be found descriptive, it has established secondary meaning. Descriptive marks may have trademark protection if they have acquired secondary meaning, that is, "`an association in the mind of the consumer between the trade dress [or name] of a product and a particular producer.'" International Kennel Club of Chicago v. Mighty Star, Inc., 846 F.2d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Vaughan Manufacturing Co. v. Brikam International, Inc., 814 F.2d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 1987)) (alteration in original). RWT's evidence to support this finding is, however, weak. Until this litigation arose, it had done very little print advertising, and had principally promoted its product at trade shows. While RWT evidently has been successful, there was simply very little evidence to indicate that any consumer, even limited to those in the market for MES products, identifies ONTRACK with a particular source. Indeed, two of RWT's own salesmen, who had worked in the sale of manufacturing and engineering software (although not the sale of MES software), admitted that they had not heard of ONTRACK until shortly before they went to work for RWT. I conclude that there is little chance that RWT will be able to prove that ONTRACK has strong secondary meaning.
b1e95dc632