The F1M Forums

this is just as stupid as goodyear not allowing decals to be included in kits. utterly pointless.

Mr.Grumpy wrote:this is just as stupid as goodyear not allowing decals to be included in kits. utterly pointless.

Not pointless at all from Goodyear's point of view. As the deepest pockets in sight at the time Goodyear got sued over something that had absolutely nothing to do with them. A product that they had nothing to do with, hadn't licensed or approved in any way, probably didn't even know it existed, had the Goodyear logo on the tires of a children's toy. THAT'S why companies protect their trademarks and that's why we can't have accurate models - along with stuff like tobacco laws, of course.

Tyrone wrote:I'm actually surprised that worked out so well so quickly! Some good news at least - Faith in multi billion dollar mega-corporations restored.

For me its not very surprising. There likely was no human interaction involved in the initial request, and with a long holiday weekend. and probably a change on Friday to make these requests happen more often in an automated fashion, meant that the form was broken when one went to report it.

There are always going to be people who don't want to say the words Red Bull because they're convinced Horner himself is looking here, but I'm not convinced that would ever happen. The very nature of this site existing with the same acronym of Formula 1 Media with no big legal fight shows to me the low level of interest most of the teams have for our particular hobby. I'm sure more than one person has accidently come onto this site when they meant to go to FOM's site.

stubeck wrote:... The very nature of this site existing with the same acronym of Formula 1 Media with no big legal fight shows to me the low level of interest most of the teams have for our particular hobby. ...

Hey, Grosjean built a Tamiya six wheeler while in Japan a few years back, he must have some interest!

Never did hear how that one turned out.

Pretty well! He didn't paint it, but it looks reasonable.

Well. Nice it worked out finally good, and even better, Kars, you stood to your point.
Kinda reminds me of that Frank Capra movie with Jimmy Stewart, holding position to some corporate giant!
Yes and I understand GY's POV if that has happened to them. As we say in Spain, "Cat that has got burn with boiling water, is well wary of tepid water" Yes, in Spanish it sounds way better!!!

dmarek wrote:So if I were to create a Red Bull painting would it be taken down? I have toyed with the idea especially when I work for Honda R&D... Sorry Kars...Maybe Photoshop in Red BullS@#t on the livery

Dave

I can answer this question from a US perspective. There was a case over 10 years ago about a painter who did paintings of Auburn football games - with Auburn approval - ie, he was working in conjunction with them. They had a falling out but he continued to do paintings as well as sell prints and calendars and other items with his paintings on them. Auburn sued him for trademark infringement.

Long story short, the decision was split. The artist could do his paintings and sell his paintings and prints. But he could not put them on calendars, mugs, etc. The gist of the case was that there is fair use trademark protection for historical depictions in art - ie if you are creating a work of art depicting a time in history and a trademark is central to that artwork you are free to use it and to sell that artwork. A model car is definitely an historical artwork depiction, as would be your painting of a Red Bull car. The reason he couldn't put them on things like calendars is that THOSE products could be mistaken as an Auburn University product. So go ahead and do your Red Bull painting, just don't sell T-shirts or calendars of it

Also, Trademark claims generally fall under two categories - dillution and confusion. Dillution would be like using Photoshop as a verb, or calling every soda "Coke". The best known case of this is aspirin. Aspirin was a trade name but it's generic use was lost due to dilution. Today "Aspirin" is trademarked but anyone can use 'aspirin'. Confusion is somewhat self evident - if you sell actual tires under the name Good-rear - you're gonna get sued for trademark confusion and you are going to lose. You sell a model car with Goodyear decals on the tires - well, nobody is going to confuse those for real Goodyear tires and you'll win (although you might go broke defending it). Some companies know they don't have the law on their side in some instances but they'll use intimidation - and the prospect of expensive legal fees - to force compliance. I'm guessing this is why model companies either agree to licensing or just leave certain logos off - it's not worth the hassle. (but I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on that - I only know what I read on teh intarnet )

Michael is correct. You may be right, but it all depends on who has the bigger lungs, so the big corporate can hold their breath longer tan you...
By the time your case wins you are well asphyxiated!
And that leads to the case of G'year again and what Noddy told: generally speaking there's no case for "confussion" between a 1:1 tyre and a 1/2oth one, but you might find attorneys thet see reasonable that this small tyre was also manufactured by them and sue them for someone swallowing it or whatever.
Another curious case of dillution is the shape of the Fender Stratocasters. The body was copied sooooo widely (and was so easy to make "similar but not exact") that finally it was deidced that the body was of public domain, but not the headstock.
So strat guitars (common accepted name, but don't dare call them Stratocasters) have proper body shape, but different headstocks. Never mind: I own more than one that its headstock is almost impossible to tell apart from the true Strat's

Almost afraid to ask this question here...

How do the specialty sellers get away selling certain awesome logos?

Now I will go for a smoke and look at tires in the parking lot....

Most of the time, they simply aren't on the radars of the companies they're making decals of.