Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

For the record, no, it was selling physical merchandise including the actual names and symbols from the show/toys.

Then Hasbro has a strong case for a C&D.

[MarcAFK]

Also hasbro happens to own the trademark for equine posterior tatoos.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, it's not like Hasbro has a choice. If they don't act upon these infringements, they risk loosing the trademark/copyright/ Intellectual property.

[Putnam]

I don't think it's so much losing as having it become indefensible.

[Neonivek]

Besides, it's not like Hasbro has a choice. If they don't act upon these infringements, they risk loosing the trademark/copyright/ Intellectual property.

Honestly every time I hear that a buzz is in my ear that just goes "That's not right" and yet I know nothing about it.

Something seems wormy and just not right about that. Like it is meant to disadvantage someone incredibly unfairly.

[palsch]

Besides, it's not like Hasbro has a choice. If they don't act upon these infringements, they risk loosing the trademark/copyright/ Intellectual property.

This is only true for trademarks.

Trademarks, unlike copyrights or patents, are unlimited in their duration but only so long as they are in use and enforced. Either not using them for a period (~5 years) or failing to defend them against others use of them (where that use is substantial and the trademark holder is aware of it) is grounds for the trademark being considered defunct.

The best example here would be Mickey Mouse. Disney wants to keep trading on him as a trademarked symbol of their brand. They don't want to give control over that image - an image entirely entangled with Disney - to whoever cares to throw together a mouse-ear product or ten. That means they have to enforce their trademark against everyone, not just those who are producing bad (in their eyes) products. They have to either license or shut down every substantial infringement on their trademark.

Compare to copyright. You get the rights for a given duration. What you do with those rights - how you enforce them - is entirely up to you. Your ignoring a thousand people pirating your latest film doesn't stop you suing the thousand-and-first person.

[Sensei]

Another good example, is, say, Xerox, who've sent letters asking people not to use Xerox as a verb for copying in general instead of their brand. Even if they don't succeed or expect to succeed, it makes good evidence that they are attempting to enforce their trademark and should retain the rights to it.

[MrWiggles]

Copyright in of itself has strong competent 'use it or lose it'. Your case against infringers (that you were aware of), weakens the longer you take to send a C&D. After a due time, when you can show that all parties were aware of what was happening, you can argue, and has been argue that you have a gratis to continue your infringing work. If I didnt have ~2hrs to be on line, I would go dig for citation, for this.

Also hasbro happens to own the trademark for equine posterior tatoos.

If someone where to sell a line Pony merchandise, of whatever that happen to match the style of the any of the MLP shows but were all original ponies with original flank designs, Hasbro probably would have a harder time making a case that it was infringing upon their IP space and causing market confusion and market dilution for their merchandise. There no real clear cut lines of what is or isn't too close. It also matter how these Off Brand Pony Look-A-Likes were marketing their pony merch. If they were say, encouraging market confusion, or not doing anything to separate their brand, that would generally lean on the 'bad' sign, but if they make effort to separate themselves from Hasbro, that would lead closer to the 'good' sign. But again, there are no hard laws for this. This is all subjective judgement stuff. If it were brought to Court, it would lie with the opinion of the Judge.

[GlyphGryph]

Trademark law is pretty much "if doing this thing makes customers think they are buying products from another company, then you can't do it".

The reason you can lose trademarks is because, if you allow people to use it without contesting it, you lose the ability to argue that they would think they were buying from your company.

Trademarks are very very different from copyright law, as they are primarily intended to be an anti-fraud consumer-protection tool. A stand-in identifier for the company that owns them. This isn't always how they are used, but this is how they work.

Copyright in of itself has strong competent 'use it or lose it'. Your case against infringers (that you were aware of), weakens the longer you take to send a C&D. After a due time, when you can show that all parties were aware of what was happening, you can argue, and has been argue that you have a gratis to continue your infringing work. If I didnt have ~2hrs to be on line, I would go dig for citation, for this.

Even if that's true, for copyright at least, there's no general precedent. Letting one person do it does not weaken your case against anyone else. For trademark, letting someone else use does.

Also, your cease and desist will still stand, it's just that you'll have a hard time suing them for previous use.

[Neonivek]

There are other things you can do other then a cease and desist though.

As long as you take legal action ANY legal action.

[Sensei]

Cease and desist is basically the lowest legal action. Below that, they could issue a warning, but that's not legal action.

There's really no case in favor of the crappy pony coins.

[Ameablable]

have you ever wanted to help a man in Texas create a Mjolnir Spartan suit from Halo??
well now you can!

[Draco18s]

have you ever wanted to help a man in Texas create a Mjolnir Spartan suit from Halo??
well now you can!

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONE--
Wait a sec.  WTF?

[Ameablable]

have you ever wanted to help a man in Texas create a Mjolnir Spartan suit from Halo??
well now you can!

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONE--
Wait a sec.  WTF?

exactly my reaction!

[kilakan]

I wonder who pledged two dollars, and why they did that.