A buddy of mine is being sued by a

[HelenePA]

I think because the design was exactly the same as theirs and they had a patent.

I dont think so.. there has to be more to her story than she's telling you. I knew a ton of people who sold them on ebay back then and none of them got letters.

 

[Hannathy]

Maybe she called them taggies?

 

[lovetoscrap]

Maybe she called them taggies?

She may have, or may have referred to the company in her marketing. She was really proud of how she could make them much cheaper. I think she was selling for $10. I will have to ask her, it was so long ago I don't remember exactly, but I do remember how excited she was to make all of them and then how bummed she was when she said she had gotten a letter telling her to stop. I do think she said that there were a lot of them on ebay but pretty soon after most disappeared, so she may have just got into it at the time that the company decided to crack down.

And everyone was getting them for baby gifts from her after that. She even offered to sell me some at her cost to get rid of them!

I will see her in the next few weeks-- I will have to remember to ask her.

ETA: She may have been using their photo for her ads, because I think that was back when she was still using film.

 

[tlbwriter]

ETA: She may have been using their photo for her ads, because I think that was back when she was still using film.

Not only dishonest, but a HUGE copyright violation. No wonder they shut her down.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I know the friend was wrong but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I get a pang of irritation whenever a big company goes after regular people for this sort of thing. I'm not making light of it. I know the person who does it is wrong and needs to be fined but the idea that a company comes down heavy with full force on some nobody with bad judgement just gets under my skin. I'm still totally tee'd with how Napster put some families in the poor house and won't use them out of principle. I think punishment should take the offenders station in life into consideration, not the stature of the victim.

 

[okeydokey]

He didn't sell watches, it's not illegal to sell watches. He sold shirts, hats and posters.

But he stole their logo. He should be sued.

 

[C.Ann]

A few years ago Disney sued a local day care for using images of it's characters on the walls in the day care. I guess you can't blame these large companies for protecting themselves. This watch company is know to go to all sorts of extremes and expense to protect their name.

My memory is kind of vague on this, but a number of years ago there was a bar in the Capital District called "Mickey's Place" and I believe they had some sort of mouse head on the building.. If I recall correctly (and I could be wrong), it looked nothing like "Mickey Mouse", but due to the name and the mouse head on the building, they were contacted by Disney, had to remove the mouse head, and I "think" change the name of the establishment (although I'm not 100% sure on the name change part)..

I know Disney in particular is very, very adamant about infringing on their rights..

Anyhow - does your friend have the ability to pay that kind of money? Looks like he made a very costly "oops"..

 

[Art 1]

But he stole their logo. He should be sued.

For goodness sakes I agree, read back on my posts. And so does the guy, he knows he was wrong. Like I said, he will pay the penalty and move one.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

McDonalds is also one of those companies you don't mess with. They have shut down several restaurants over the years because of similar sounding names.

 

[Hannathy]

I know the friend was wrong but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I get a pang of irritation whenever a big company goes after regular people for this sort of thing. I'm not making light of it. I know the person who does it is wrong and needs to be fined but the idea that a company comes down heavy with full force on some nobody with bad judgement just gets under my skin. I'm still totally tee'd with how Napster put some families in the poor house and won't use them out of principle. I think punishment should take the offenders station in life into consideration, not the stature of the victim.

I guess you don't go to Disney then? If you don't use napster out of principal then you shouldn't go to Disney because they are terrible about this sort of thing. I know of a very small bar (think shot and a beer) that used a common name but one that is usually associated with Disney and then stupidly of course put a picture of the character on the door and Disney sued them and they had to take the picture down and pay a fine. they could keep the name because it was common enough.

 

[Desnik]

I can't tell you how many local fairs/festivals I have gone to where people were selling things with Disney characters on them. I have seen blankets, jackets, things to hang on your walls, all sorts of things. DH and I always wondered how these people get away with selling stuff like this? Also, I can think of at least 4 daycares that I have seen that have Disney characters painted on their walls. I always thought that wasn't allowed, am I wrong?

 

[Hannathy]

you can decorate with Disney you just can't use it in advertising or in your name/logo.

 

[tasha99]

you can decorate with Disney you just can't use it in advertising or in your name/logo.

I don't think so . . .

 

[Geoff_M]

My memory is kind of vague on this, but a number of years ago there was a bar in the Capital District called "Mickey's Place" and I believe they had some sort of mouse head on the building.. If I recall correctly (and I could be wrong), it looked nothing like "Mickey Mouse", but due to the name and the mouse head on the building, t

There was a bar near my home town that got a legal nasty-gram from Disney back when I was in high school and they changed their name. They used to be called "Dickey Mouse" with a character on the logo of a mouse that was more akin to "Jerry" mouse than Mickey. As a result they changed their name to "Mr. Mouse" and it remains that way today in Yorktown, Indiana.

After we moved to Michigan there was a local 50's themed diner called "Chevy's" that got a similar letter from General Motors... and thus "The Big Kahuna" grill was born (since torn down and a Wal-mart now stands).

 

[MushyMushy]

I know it's a different situation, but I got hit with a threatening letter from a representative of a pretty famous actor. I was writing a blog and I used a picture of him from one of his roles (actually I only LINKED to the IMDB picture of him) and compared my gym teacher to that character. My blog wasn't widely read... just a very small number of readers.

It was nasty business. There was a writer's organization that found out about it and wanted to back me up and pursue the legalities of it, but I just totally backed down from it. There was no way I could afford trouble like that, even with a group representing me.

I'll never look at that actor the same way again. It's likely that he was so removed from the representatives that he had no idea it was going on, but there was still that connection.

 

[DMRick]

I can't tell you how many local fairs/festivals I have gone to where people were selling things with Disney characters on them. I have seen blankets, jackets, things to hang on your walls, all sorts of things. DH and I always wondered how these people get away with selling stuff like this? Also, I can think of at least 4 daycares that I have seen that have Disney characters painted on their walls. I always thought that wasn't allowed, am I wrong?

I thank taberone http://www.tabberone.com/ for taking on Disney, and now we can use Disney material to make items (such as pillows) and resell them (Disney used to object to their material being used commercial). She brought out the First Sale Doctrine. We can also sell thing that use Disney printed paper. What you can't do still, is scan the papers and then use the characters. You can use stickers to make things with Disney now also. I can't use the characters from , for instance a Disney graphic program, but anything (like Stickers) where you are using the original, is First Sale.

 

[Geoff_M]

Indeed, because if the neglect to do so whenever it is brought to their attention, they sacrifice to do so when it matters.

Whenever a topic like this crops up, the discussion here often blurs between "copyright" and "trademark". Those are two different legal concepts with their own set of laws. A copyright is given to the author of a copyrightable work for a given period of time that allows exclusive control over the reproduction and use of the work. A trademark is granted to a business entity and only covers a unique name/graphic logo used by that business as a common identifier for a specific type of good or business. Trademarks also are "open ended" and last for as long as the business continues to use them. A copyright cannot be "lost" or invalidated if a holder fails to be vigilant in taking legal action when it is misappropriated, but a trademark can. The main negative consequence of ignoring copyright abuse is that the holder may lose the ability seek certain financial damages if they suddenly decide to start playing hardball after turning a blind eye to abuse, but they still can demand that the abuser cease their activity.

The OP said this was a "copyright" complaint and not a trademark dispute. Assuming they are correct, then the likely problem is that the friend used all or part of watch designs in their "tribute" works. Taking all or part of a copyrighted work and using in a unique creation is known as a "derivative work". Legally, a copyright will flow from the original work to the derivative. However, since the items in question reportedly used the "logo" of the watch maker, then perhaps the OP is incorrect and this trademark is the issue (though something can be both a trademark and have a copyright... like the character of Mickey Mouse). In order for the watch maker to prevail in a court against the friend on the trademark issue, they would have to demonstrate that the use of the logo would be likely to create confusion in the eye of an average consumer that the friend's items were created or were marketed by the watch maker.

I know a fella in London who shipped two of this brands watches to the US and they were seized by customs, returned to the watch company and never returned. True story. They do not allow for the importation of their product into the USA except by them.

Unless US Customs thought that the watches may have been counterfeits, I'm not sure what the legal basis for seizing the watches would be. It's not illegal to "parallel import" goods to the US outside of the maker's authorized US supply chain. This happens all of the time with things like camera equipment and it's often done in the open. Photographic retailers like B&H Photo in NYC will take advantage of currency fluctuations and differences in local pricing to buy camera equipment overseas and ship them here to sell. This "parallel imported" equipment is also known as "grey market" items. On B&H's website you will often see two prices listed for items like high-end Nikon cameras and lenses... the higher one is shown as being for the "USA" product and the cheaper is for "Imported". Nikon USA does everything it can to try and stop the sale of "grey" stuff (including refusing to repair such items, even for a fee) and they won't honor the warranties (if it breaks under the "international warranty" you have to ship it back to Japan on your dime). However, B&H's "imported" cameras/lenses are perfectly legal under US law, thus "grey" vs. "black market". The reason is it legal in the US is the same as cited by the business that DMRick linked to about the battle to sell items made from legally obtained Disney fabrics... the "first-sale" doctrine.

One problem is that some unscrupulous web-retailers will slip you "grey market" stuff when you buy from them and not tell you.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I guess you don't go to Disney then? If you don't use napster out of principal then you shouldn't go to Disney because they are terrible about this sort of thing. I know of a very small bar (think shot and a beer) that used a common name but one that is usually associated with Disney and then stupidly of course put a picture of the character on the door and Disney sued them and they had to take the picture down and pay a fine. they could keep the name because it was common enough.

I'm not saying the companies should not enforce their rights, I just don't like it when it reaches David vs Goliath proportions. Fining someone is ok but crushing them and destroying the individual is something else again. If Disney got into the habit of suing families when their kids paint Minnie & Mickey on the walls of their rooms or make posters for their book reports I do think things would change for me... this is how the Napster thing went down in my eyes. If the fight is between 2 giants then crush away but a giant vs an ant is different to me. again it's not whether they are right or wrong, it's weather the threat they pose really deserves being crushed into dust?

Consider all the people who do Hidden Mickey, is that copyright infringement? It probably is but Disney lets it go.

I'm just saying there are shades of gray for me, I'm ok with other people disagreeing with me but this is how I feel.

 

[bicker]

I know the friend was wrong but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I get a pang of irritation whenever a big company goes after regular people for this sort of thing.

I think the problem with that line of reasoning is that many "regular people" invest in big companies, so when someone wrongs a big company, they're wronging a lot of "regular people". My wife and I are reaching the age where we're facing the prospect of living off the proceeds of a lifetime of earning income working for big companies, at times, and the proceeds of investing our hard-earned income in retirement savings accounts that provided us gains mostly through the good work of big companies. It steams me up to think that some people would seek to abuse or exploit the bigness of those companies, effectively harming my wife and I, just out of their own avarice.

I'm not making light of it. I know the person who does it is wrong and needs to be fined but the idea that a company comes down heavy with full force on some nobody with bad judgement just gets under my skin.

With respect, I think it is your "skin" that you should seek to moderate. Companies defending their IP are doing what they're righteously justified in doing, and indeed what they're doing reflects their overriding obligation to "regular people" like my wife and I, and almost surely, you and yours even if you choose to not let that register until you get to that point in your life.

I'm still totally tee'd with how Napster put some families in the poor house and won't use them out of principle.

Families who selfishly ignore the law for their own personal jollies don't deserve your concern. Instead, you should direct your admirable concern for the families of those who rely on the success of the companies you have chosen to categorically undercut.

I think punishment should take the offenders station in life into consideration, not the stature of the victim.

Neither. Punishment should take only the offenders' transgressive actions into consideration.


(EDITED to add reply to your follow-up...)

I'm not saying the companies should not enforce their rights, I just don't like it when it reaches David vs Goliath proportions.

That's really up to David, since David took the transgressive action. Why don't you blame David?

Fining someone is ok but crushing them and destroying the individual is something else again.

There is no crushing going on. There is no destroying. What happens is fair and equitable administration of the law. If the offender built so much of the foundation of their life on transgression, then it is the offender's fault that the remediation of their transgressions has such impact on them and their family.

I'm just saying there are shades of gray for me, I'm ok with other people disagreeing with me but this is how I feel.

And I appreciate that. There are shades of gray: The fair and equitable administration of the law does have different levels of sanction for different levels of transgression.

 

[bicker]

I can't tell you how many local fairs/festivals I have gone to where people were selling things with Disney characters on them. ... I always thought that wasn't allowed, am I wrong?

you can decorate with Disney you just can't use it in advertising or in your name/logo.

That is not the case. The key is that legal action need only be taken if the use is either glaringly obvious or otherwise brought to the attention of the owner.