tombrewster421
Regular Member
Just not allowed to sell a product that competes. That's why his business card makes it clear that he does NOT sell coffee of any sort.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
It's this kind of hubris that got us kicked out of Starbucks
- Thread starter deanf
- Start date
Just not allowed to sell a product that competes. That's why his business card makes it clear that he does NOT sell coffee of any sort.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Starbucks does not sell t-shirts, and other forms of marketing their tradebrand? Not that I agree with you marketing trademarks without licensing has resulted in complications, Harley Davidson is a good example. They went after restuarants as well marketers of Harley clothing. If a trade mark is not licensed to you~you are not entitled to make a buck off of it.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Ohhh I wish I had a rolling on the floor laughing my arse off smiley. The above is the most naive or insane post of the day.
911Boss
Member
I am sure SNL makes quite a bit of money. The poster was using sarcasm to point out the insanity of you using SNL as an "example" of parody being allowed when there is no profit.
Believe what you wish, but Parody is protected, even when that parody result in products being sold and profit being made.
If someone came up with a clever parody of the Harley logo and made reference to "97% of all Harley's ever made are still on the road, the other 3% made it home" they could sell a million of them and HD couldn't do a thing about it so long as it was an obvious parody and no reasonable person would confuse it with the actual product.
Google "Parody stickers" and you will find hundreds of examples of registered trademarks that have fallen to mockery by others. These stickers are all for sale, TM holders are aware of the rules and don't pursue loser cases as it just costs them money.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Sez the guy who apparently has no concept of rhetoric or logic.
YOU claim the presence or absence of profit determines fair use in regards to parody.
YOU cite an example of 'acceptable' fair use that you approve of -- one that involves a private company making a profit.
That's a logical contradiction, and proves your original premise false.
Laughing doesn't make you smarter or more right.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
The TM for selling coffee is a distinctly different category than the TM for selling t-shirts. Protecting a mark in both categories requires two separate applications afaik.
Charbucks surely has properly filed in both catagories, but that doesn't protect them against parody -- or any OTHER category of fair use.
For instance, a company could put the Starbucks logo (a real version) in a book that educates the public about the dangers of consuming too much sugar at Starbucks. And Starbucks could not successfully block the publication and sale of that book, as long as the author takes steps to meet 'educational fair use.'
Welcome to the world of IP.
http://www.lagcc.cuny.edu/fastfoodnation/
In other words, go bark at the moon wolf, you don't know crap about this topic.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
The South Butt
There are always exceptions. It really boils down to whether or not the "real" company feels that the parody "company" is making too much money, as in taking customers. The North Face thought so and won a civil action against The South Butt.
Parody? OK, just as long as it ain't a really really good money making parody.
There are always exceptions. It really boils down to whether or not the "real" company feels that the parody "company" is making too much money, as in taking customers. The North Face thought so and won a civil action against The South Butt.
Parody? OK, just as long as it ain't a really really good money making parody.
South Butt was a clothing and accessories company and therefore in direct competition to the North Face. Big difference. I'm not arguing right or wrong, but recognizing the difference it makes if one is a competitor.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
SNL makes profit from humor, not marketing a product on back of a trademark. Can't get over the stupidity involved on understanding copyrights.
http://cpyrightvisualarts.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/art-rogers-vs-jeff-koons/
On December 10, 1990, Judge Charles Haight of the federal District Court in Manhattan granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. The jusge denied Koons’ claims of fair use. Koons was ordered to turn over all “infringing materials,” including a fourth edition of the sculpture, an artist’s proof.
http://www.ibtimes.com/getty-images...ters-dwindling-stock-photo-giant-hits-federal
http://piratedthoughts.com/harley-d...fitters-trademark-infringement-altered-goods/
Urban Outfitter has a program called “Urban Renewal” whereby it takes old products such as handbags and alters them with studs or in the case of shirts “artistically” tears them and puts holes in them. In the case of Harley Davidson t-shirts, the “Urban Renewal” team, takes authentic Harley Davidson shirts by shredding the sides, cutting off sleeves, and removing the Harley Davidson tags and labels and replacing them with Urban Outfitters labels. Harley Davidson claims these material alterations to its trademarks and claims that such alterations false suggests and and are likely to create mistaken impression that the products are authorized by Harley Davidson, when they are not. Harley Davidson claims trademark infringement, dilution and other related causes of action.
In the case above the defendents were using licensed apparel, just changing the apprarels structure and appearance. Not changing the licensed already paid for image, do not know the outcome.
Urban Outfitter has a program called “Urban Renewal” whereby it takes old products such as handbags and alters them with studs or in the case of shirts “artistically” tears them and puts holes in them. In the case of Harley Davidson t-shirts, the “Urban Renewal” team, takes authentic Harley Davidson shirts by shredding the sides, cutting off sleeves, and removing the Harley Davidson tags and labels and replacing them with Urban Outfitters labels. Harley Davidson claims these material alterations to its trademarks and claims that such alterations false suggests and and are likely to create mistaken impression that the products are authorized by Harley Davidson, when they are not. Harley Davidson claims trademark infringement, dilution and other related causes of action.
A few weeks ago, Getty Images Inc. went on a lawsuit spree of sorts, filing federal copyright-infringement complaints over images it claims have been used without its permission. Court records show the Seattle-based stock-photography giant filed five single-image lawsuits in the month of January alone. The legal complaints are virtually identical, employing a cookie-cutter template differentiated largely by the names of the defendants and images in question. In one case, it’s a law firm accused of using a stock photo called “Businessman Falling Over, Legs in Air.” In another case, it’s a design company accused of swiping the aforementioned “Spider Web With Dew.” The list goes on.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...copyright-victory/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
A Manhattan jury found that Agence France-Presse and its American distributor Getty Images willfully infringed upon Mr. Morel’s copyright of eight pictures he took of the 2010 Haiti earthquake and awarded him $1.22 million.
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/05/22/gucci-wins-trademark-infringement-cases-against-gu
Gucci may not be getting even close to the full $120 million it was seeking in its trademark infringement suit against Guess Inc., but it is walking away the victor.
Yesterday, a U.S. district court judge awarded Gucci only $4.66 million, saying while Guess did indeed infringe on some of Gucci’s marks, Gucci was not entitled to damages for lost sales or harm to its brand. Judge Shira Sheindlin went on to say that Gucci’s expert analysis was “highly speculative.”
The Italian apparel designer, more formally known as The House of Gucci, sued Guess claiming the American clothing company “Gucci-ized” many of its products by mimicking Gucci’s trademarked designs on wallets, belts, shoes and other items.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1436248.html
This one is just based on the work "Hog", and a bar and shield.
Laches defense. Grottanelli's defense of laches with respect to the bar-and-shield logo was also properly rejected. His intention to confuse undermines any claim of good faith, see Cuban Cigar Brands, N.V. v. Upmann International, Inc., 457 F.Supp. 1090, 1099 (S.D.N.Y.1978), and the Magistrate Judge found that Grottanelli would not be prejudiced if precluded from using his version of the bar-and-shield logo. Furthermore, Harley-Davidson has previously communicated its concern about earlier versions of Grottanelli's logo, and there is no evidence that Harley-Davidson was aware of Grottanelli's recent use of his current version of the logo.
For all of these reasons, Grottanelli was properly enjoined from using his current bar-and-shield logo and any mark that so resembles Harley-Davidson's trademarked logo as to be likely to cause confusion.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...gels-lawsuit-accuses-Dillard-s-of-4943664.php
Hells Angels lawsuit accuses Dillard's of trademark infringement
Hells Angels is suing 8732 Apparel and Dillard's Inc. in federal court, claiming trademark infringement of its famous skull-with-wings logo known as the Hells Angels Death Head.
Last edited:
I guess you've never seen this then, or your head might have exploded already!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/10/dumb-starbucks-parody-free-coffee/5357597/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/10/dumb-starbucks-parody-free-coffee/5357597/
tombrewster421
Regular Member
You keep citing instances where the companies are in direct competition and selling similar products. You also fail to acknowledge that the logo in question does not say "Starbucks[emoji769]", it says "I [emoji173]️ Guns and Coffee". The logo had been changed with the words and the fact that the siren is holding guns. It is no longer subject to the copyright. Also note that he actually holds the trademark for the "I [emoji173]️ Guns and Coffee" brand. He has successfully stopped others from infringing on his own copyright. What does that tell you?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Next time I would think you would refrain from posting a photo from dumb and dumber when you clearly have no clue. I take it was a representation of yourself.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
A bar and shield do not say Harley Davidson, a trademark or copyright material is entitled to compensation from use. The courts have ruled on this, whether it is images such as in the Koons case, or the image from Hell's Angels. It tells it is a exercise in irony.
From Starbucks:
Copyright and Limited License
Copyright and Limited License
Unless otherwise indicated, the Sites and all content and other materials therein, including, without limitation, the Starbucks logo and all designs, text, graphics, pictures, information, data, software, sound files, other files and the selection and arrangement thereof (collectively, "Site Materials") are the proprietary property of Starbucks or its licensors or users and are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.
My point was, and still is, that Starbucks if they were that upset over the use of their logo would take it to court. Considering the cases that have less merit have been taken to court it appears they do not care. But hey I was expecting conversasion with someone with a higher IQ than a character played in a movie.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
It is not the Starbucks logo or design though. It was redesigned from the ground up and made to be different. The Starbucks design team had nothing at all to do with the new design. It was not merely a Starbucks logo that was photoshopped. As for the Harley-Davidson issue, every once in a while a judge will make a bad call.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
We would not be discussing it if it was not, there would be no OP if it was not. Duhhhhhhhhhhh.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
This thread is full of win
Keep trying Wolf, even a stopped clock is right 2x per day.
Keep trying Wolf, even a stopped clock is right 2x per day.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
This thread is full of win
Keep trying Wolf, even a stopped clock is right 2x per day.
Please Charlie has it together more than you. Plus he can get laid...
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
OMG, quoting the Charbucks website! [/end argument]
Did that spike your sarcasm detector?
And the more broken clocks you have, the better the odds.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Actually that's completely backwards. If it were the Starbucks logo we would NOT be talking about it. The fact that it is different yet similar is why we are talking about it.