Ford on trademark violations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Ford on trademark violations

Rich Holton
From a BoingBoing
post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html>
:

Josh sez, "The folks at BMC (Black Mustang Club) automotive forum wanted to
> put together a calendar featuring members' cars, and print it through
> CafePress. Photos were submitted, the layout was set, and... CafePress
> notifies the site admin that pictures of Ford cars cannot be printed. Not
> just Ford logos, not just Mustang logos, the car -as a whole- is a Ford
> trademark and its image can't be reproduced without permission.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

Steve Summit
> From a BoingBoing
> post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html>:
>
>> ...CafePress notifies the site admin that pictures of Ford cars cannot be
>> printed. Not just Ford logos, not just Mustang logos, the car -as a whole-
>> is a Ford trademark and its image can't be reproduced without permission.

Okay, but the key question is: is this Ford's position, or
CafePress's paranoid supposition of what Ford's worst-case
position might be?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

geni
In reply to this post by Rich Holton
On 14/01/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> From a BoingBoing
> post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html>
> :
>

There could be a potential trademark claim in this case with people
mistaking the calender as an official ford product (ford probably sell
or at least distribute calenders of their own). It is unlikely to have
any impact on us (lots of our images have potential trademark issues).


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

David Gerard-2
On 14/01/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 14/01/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > From a BoingBoing
> > post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html>

> There could be a potential trademark claim in this case with people
> mistaking the calender as an official ford product (ford probably sell
> or at least distribute calenders of their own). It is unlikely to have
> any impact on us (lots of our images have potential trademark issues).


In any case, the car club will be fighting back.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

Skyring
On 1/15/08, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14/01/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 14/01/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > From a BoingBoing
> > > post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html>
>
> > There could be a potential trademark claim in this case with people
> > mistaking the calender as an official ford product (ford probably sell
> > or at least distribute calenders of their own). It is unlikely to have
> > any impact on us (lots of our images have potential trademark issues).
>
>
> In any case, the car club will be fighting back.


Fast. Depends how many lawyers they can afford in fighting this
discrimination case.

--
Peter in Canberra
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

geni
On 14/01/2008, Skyring <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/15/08, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 14/01/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 14/01/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > > From a BoingBoing
> > > > post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html>
> >
> > > There could be a potential trademark claim in this case with people
> > > mistaking the calender as an official ford product (ford probably sell
> > > or at least distribute calenders of their own). It is unlikely to have
> > > any impact on us (lots of our images have potential trademark issues).
> >
> >
> > In any case, the car club will be fighting back.
>
>
> Fast. Depends how many lawyers they can afford in fighting this
> discrimination case.
>

Not a discrimination case. Straightforward IP case. Problem is I
suspect Ford may have a case and a win would only encourage them.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

Skyring
On 1/15/08, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14/01/2008, Skyring <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 1/15/08, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14/01/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > On 14/01/2008, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > From a BoingBoing
> > > > > post<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html
> >
> > >
> > > > There could be a potential trademark claim in this case with people
> > > > mistaking the calender as an official ford product (ford probably
> sell
> > > > or at least distribute calenders of their own). It is unlikely to
> have
> > > > any impact on us (lots of our images have potential trademark
> issues).
> > >
> > >
> > > In any case, the car club will be fighting back.
> >
> >
> > Fast. Depends how many lawyers they can afford in fighting this
> > discrimination case.
> >
>
> Not a discrimination case.


Sorry. An honest mistake.

--
Pete, glad it was ponies not cats
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by geni
On Jan 14, 2008 2:18 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not a discrimination case. Straightforward IP case. Problem is I
> suspect Ford may have a case and a win would only encourage them.

A lot of plastic model makers dropped parts of their product lines (of
cars, aircraft, etc) after IP claims similar to this were made against
them.

I diagree with all this, but IP law seems to be headed there.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

Matthew Brown-5
On Jan 14, 2008 4:16 PM, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A lot of plastic model makers dropped parts of their product lines (of
> cars, aircraft, etc) after IP claims similar to this were made against
> them.
>
> I diagree with all this, but IP law seems to be headed there.

A similar thing happened in model railroading when Union Pacific
decided to throw over a century of precedent in the trash and decide
that not only could it claim that models with its current name,
insignia, paint scheme etc. were trademark-infringing - even though it
had allowed such models to be made for pretty much the entire history
of the company - but also that historical versions of such that were
no longer used in trade were also going to be treated as infringing,
and furthermore that the name, marks and insignia of every railroad
the Union Pacific had ever purchased, taken over, or merged with and
subsumed were also in that category, even though the company had
discarded such names and trademarks as quickly as they could,
replacing them with their own paint, names and logos.

Of course, they then went ahead and decided to paint a bunch of new
locomotives in 'commemorative historic schemes of railroads now part
of Union Pacific', and the cynical view is that this was done
precisely to establish a better claim to those marks as being in
current use.

Pretty much all the manufacturers went along with it, too, with a few
notable exceptions; I'm not sure what happened in court with those
(probably came to a confidential settlement).

Bullying big companies with lawyers are killing good parts of fair use
and the reasonable traditional limits on trademarks' scope.

-Matt

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ford on trademark violations

Rich Holton
Here's an update, with a major reversal from the original story:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/25/black-mustang-club-c.html



On Jan 16, 2008 9:08 AM, Matthew Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 14, 2008 4:16 PM, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > A lot of plastic model makers dropped parts of their product lines (of
> > cars, aircraft, etc) after IP claims similar to this were made against
> > them.
> >
> > I diagree with all this, but IP law seems to be headed there.
>
> A similar thing happened in model railroading when Union Pacific
> decided to throw over a century of precedent in the trash and decide
> that not only could it claim that models with its current name,
> insignia, paint scheme etc. were trademark-infringing - even though it
> had allowed such models to be made for pretty much the entire history
> of the company - but also that historical versions of such that were
> no longer used in trade were also going to be treated as infringing,
> and furthermore that the name, marks and insignia of every railroad
> the Union Pacific had ever purchased, taken over, or merged with and
> subsumed were also in that category, even though the company had
> discarded such names and trademarks as quickly as they could,
> replacing them with their own paint, names and logos.
>
> Of course, they then went ahead and decided to paint a bunch of new
> locomotives in 'commemorative historic schemes of railroads now part
> of Union Pacific', and the cynical view is that this was done
> precisely to establish a better claim to those marks as being in
> current use.
>
> Pretty much all the manufacturers went along with it, too, with a few
> notable exceptions; I'm not sure what happened in court with those
> (probably came to a confidential settlement).
>
> Bullying big companies with lawyers are killing good parts of fair use
> and the reasonable traditional limits on trademarks' scope.
>
> -Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l