A Minolta? But didn't they leave the camera business years ago? The re-emergence of the Minolta brand in the US highlights some interesting quirks of the laws around trademarks. Image: Minolta

In the wake of our look at the way Eastman Kodak allows its brand to be used on everything from solar panels to T-shirts, we've been looking at the way other historic camera brands are now being used.

In the case of Kodak, the company licensing the name has a continuous link back to the one that built the brand in the first place. Eastman Kodak may have sold its photo film business as part of its bankruptcy restructuring, but today's corporate entity is still based in Rochester, New York, and still focused on the way products sold in its name reflect on the rest of its business.

Use it or lose it

This isn't always the case, though. In most countries, trademarks only remain valid if they're being used and actively protected. If you aren't using a trademark or it can be shown that you aren't making efforts to defend it, then someone else can come along and challenge its use.

This is currently happening in Europe and the UK, where a Dubai-based property developer is arguing that the trademark James Bond hasn't been used by its owners for more than five years and hence should be cancelled. There's a comparable process in the US: an episode of NPR's Planet Money looked at the story of a man who's made a business out of challenging abandoned trademarks and re-launching previously defunct confectionery brands.

One of the last Konica Minolta products was the Dynax / Maxxum 7D, the world's first DSLR to feature in-body image stabilization. The company using the Minolta name today is not connected to the original Konica Minolta, which still operates in an array of industries. Photo: DPReview.com

It's through this process that Minolta-branded cameras have started to appear recently in US stores such Costco, BestBuy and B&H Photo. The original owner, Konica-Minolta, sold its camera business to Sony in 2006, which initially used its technologies in a series of A-mount DSLRs before moving to its own E-mount mirrorless system, developed internally.

With Konica-Minolta out of the industry, Californian brand licensing company JMM Lee Properties challenged the trademark in 2015 and was awarded the right to use it for a range of photographic goods. JMM Lee's business model appears to be finding and claiming abandoned brand names, which it then licenses to other companies. For instance, if you want to get into the power tool business, JMM Lee can license you the Renault brand name for the US market.

'Minolta,' by Shenzen Soda Digital for Elite Brands

The Minolta brand is currently being licensed to New York-headquartered Elite Brands Inc, the US importer of Samyang lenses. So the cameras currently appearing in Costco are made for Elite Brands, which also licenses the Bell + Howell brand for some products.

Some of the Minolta-branded cameras share their specs with models offered by Asia Optical, a Taiwanese OEM manufacturer that has been making Kodak-branded cameras for JK Imaging for over a decade.

Other models include the $99 Minolta MND23, a camera described as a 48MP point and shoot with 16X digital zoom and the ability to capture 4K UHD video. A closer look at the specs shows it to have a 13MP sensor from Sony Semiconductor (very probably a Type 1/3, 17mm² chip) that can shoot 4K resolution at up to 10fps.

The Minolta MND70 shares its specs with the Songdian DC203S, made by Shenzhen Soda Digital Technology. Image: Minolta

The 3.37mm F2.2 lens and the presence of a second, 'selfie' sensor on the back of the camera matches the specs of a lens that appears in a variety of products from Chinese maker Shenzhen Soda Digital Technology Co.

And, similarly, the camera sold for $179 as the Minolta MND70 shares all its key specs, though with the same company's DC203. Just to give an idea of what that means for the well regarded Minolta name, Amateur Photographer's (and formerly DPReview's) Technical Editor bought a DC202, which lacks the 203's Wi-Fi and selfie camera, for around £40 (∼$54). He described it as 'the worst camera I've ever used."

With thanks to forum user ishwanu for background on the trademark cases.