copyright infringement?

[2Hill]

And here we see the main problem with American big business. They sell you something that is designed to be attached to a piece of clothing, then cry foul and sue you when you attach it to a piece of clothing. Claiming that you are representing that item of clothing is endorsed by them. When you are telling every man and his dog they Do Not endorse the item .

I am going to take a wild guess here and say the TShirt suit was filed in America. Because; as you said, "in the UK there is no law to protect a persons image". Which means it would most likely be thrown out of the UK system or they would have a harder time proving their case. Now if the shop had advertised the TShirts as Official Rhianna merc or endorsed by Rhianna then they are screwed no matter which Court system the case goes before, as they should be.

For twenty years or more the term "ugh boot" was a generic term in Australia for a hair-on rough-out item of sheepskin footwear. Then some Seppo company decides hey that's a cool name let's patent it. Now despite my understanding that prior use invalidates a patent application; I had better be talking about a deep pocketed Seppo companies product and not the worn out boots I have owned for thirty years, made by one of their competitors, who had been making said boot for years before they started production. Or I will be sued. That is Merican business for you.

[BDAZ]

Sounds like you have been on lock down too long mate!

First off you need to read up on the difference between a patent, a copyright and a trademark. I have all three and they are distinct protections for different activities. The thing you are not understanding is that when I sell a "branded" item be it a key chain or a logo on a Ferrari and it is sold with the understanding that it is for purchase by a consumer who will use it for the use intended by the manufacturer. Not to imply a  fraudulent product is endorsed or produced by the original manufacturer. The UGG (Not UGH as you have written)  boots (I hate them) were not patented but was trade marked along with an accompanying logo

There is no such thing as prior art in trademarks.

Bob

Edited May 25, 2020 by BDAZ

[fredk]

41 minutes ago, 2Hill said:

. . . I am going to take a wild guess here and say the TShirt suit was filed in America. Because; as you said, "in the UK there is no law to protect a persons image". Which means it would most likely be thrown out of the UK system or they would have a harder time proving their case. Now if the shop had advertised the TShirts as Official Rhianna merc or endorsed by Rhianna then they are screwed no matter which Court system the case goes before, as they should be.

. . . 

Actually, no, It was taken in Belfast Courts. On grounds of 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product'. The shop did not promote the T-shirt as endorsed or official. They lost, compensation of £10,000, costs (estimated at £50,000) plus destruction of £25,000 worth of T-shirts. Shop no longer exists, owner on social security benefits and social housing.

In the US a person has automatic 'copyright' of their image so this case could have been taken as 'breach of copyright' in the US

There's a world of difference between me taking a BMW badge and adding it to my own key ring and me taking that same badge and adding it to products I could make for my son's garage to sell (he sells BMW car parts and services BMW cars) without BMW saying its ok.

Its just not 'American' big business, its all companies which have a brand to protect.

BMW own the brand name of Mini and produce a new version of the car. Late 1990s they sent a cease notice to a club in Northern Ireland. The club was Minis In Northern Ireland, M.I.N.I. The club let it go to court. BMW lost as the club origins went back to the 1970s and the court ruled Mini was a descriptive word and its use could not be enforced outside the context of using as describing one certain car.

[BDAZ]

Where in the North are you? Hung my hat in Mayo Bridge for a while in the 70s. Got out of the UK in March by the skin of my teeth.Had been on holiday...

Bob

[fredk]

East coast, about 20 miles east of Belfast, near the mouth of Belfast Lough. 7 miles further east of Bangor

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Donaghadee/@54.5890347,-5.7743502,10z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4861762a42e07373:0xe985d44e36324315!8m2!3d54.6425555!4d-5.5375995

Mayobridge, a place where I've rallied through but never needed to stop in.

[2Hill]

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

First off you need to read up on the difference between a patent, a copyright and a trademark. I have all three and they are distinct protections for different activities

OK looks like I got that one wrong. But my memory  of the news reports at the time are that it had been patented not trademarked. Faulty memory I guess.

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

The thing you are not understanding is that when I sell a "branded" item be it a key chain or a logo on a Ferrari and it is sold with the understanding that it is for purchase by a consumer who will use it for the use intended by the manufacturer.

No I am understanding this. What I am not getting across is that it is being used for it's intended purpose; decoration. I am either making the item for myself (most likely) or a customer has asked me to make the item. Then I buy the logo "whatever" (if it is for me) and attach it; or the customer (if it is for them) buys the logo "whatever" and says your sewing is better than mine please attach this to my " " that you just made for me when you finish it.

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

Not to imply a  fraudulent product is endorsed or produced by the original manufacturer.

After attaching the logo "whatever" I realise "Oh poo these guy like suing people for putting their stuff on things. I better make sure every one knows this is not their stuff. It only has their logo "whatever" on it as decoration as intended when they sold it". And add"THIS IS NOT A " " PRODUCT" around their logo "whatever".

 

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

The UGG (Not UGH as you have written)  boots (I hate them) were not patented but was trade marked along with an accompanying logo

At the time there were several different spellings being used. These two were the most commonly used.

 

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

There is no such thing as prior art in trademarks.

My understanding was wrong then. It still stinks when you can trademark a generic term though.

 

 

 

 

[2Hill]

1 hour ago, fredk said:

Actually, no, It was taken in Belfast Courts. On grounds of 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product'. The shop did not promote the T-shirt as endorsed or official. They lost

Losing on copyright grounds I would be able to understand. On 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product' just proves the"Law" is an arse.

 

1 hour ago, fredk said:

The club was Minis In Northern Ireland, M.I.N.I.

They didn't happen to be owners and/or fans of that particular "one certain car" did they?

Edited May 25, 2020 by 2Hill
punctuation correction

[chrisash]

I believe that there can be many trademarked logo's for the same name and owned by different companies, although they have to be clear they are not passing off another company

[BDAZ]

Fred, If someone brought a branded concho to be, say Ford, or what ever, and asked me to put it on their wallet, I wouldn't hesitate. If some came to me with 1000 conchos and asked me to make 1000 items and afix the logo, I would tell him to take a hike. 

The disclaimer has no legal standing in patent and trademark law.

 

Bob

[fredk]

1 hour ago, BDAZ said:

Fred, If someone brought a branded concho to be, say Ford, or what ever, and asked me to put it on their wallet, I wouldn't hesitate. If some came to me with 1000 conchos and asked me to make 1000 items and afix the logo, I would tell him to take a hike. 

umm, thats what I said in a different manner