Paul is correct; it's tied to how much they want to defend their
trademark. Trademarks are a "use it or lose it" sort of thing (actually
more of a "defend it or lose it" thing). This is as opposed to patents
which are legally yours. If you don't defend your trademark, it can get
diluted and eventually lose its "specialness". Kleenex, Frisbee, etc., are
all trademarks that got diluted. For instance, Disney has been known to
force a day care center to paint over their large mural of Mickey Mouse,
because it was unlicensed.
The problem is that if it's brought to their attention and they ignore it,
then that creates a problem for them, because obviously they're not that
worried about defending it (in the eyes of someone else). This is why
Disney, and McDonalds, and Toys R Us are all fanatical about chasing down
the "McBurgers" and "Cars R Us" and other such variations. They probably
wish no one ever told them about the day care center (they got a lot of bad
publicity over that), but legally they had to do it once it was brought to
their attention, otherwise they'd set a precedent that would work against
them in the future.
That said, I agree that at most would be a cease and desist, if that. I
suspect Lucas doesn't have the resources to go chasing trademark issues,
but they'd probably toss it over to their corporate counsel (or Barrister
or whatever it is on the other side of the pond) who would write a nasty
letter.
Of course, we're looking at doing this with a sort of, shall we say,
affection for Lucas, and not necessarily evil intentions of exploiting
their trademark. Then again, we are writing emails about the very topic,
so it'd be hard to plead ignorance.
But, if we got a cease and desist, and it was worded in such a way to
describe the transgression, then it might be fun to make a t-shirt or
poster or something of the cease-and-desist letter! :)
- Tab
At 11:18 AM 8/16/03, Paul M. wrote:
> > As long as no one is making any money off the
> > trademark, and it is not
> > widely distributed, the use of it is less of
> > interest to the owner.
> > Besides, if we get slapped with an injunction to
> > stop wearing them, it will
> > make it all the more fun!
>
>Actually, it's not really that simple. First of all,
>how vigorously copyright or trademark infringment is
>pursued can vary widely, and it's always directly up
>to the company that feels it is being infringed upon.
>Some - like Mercedes-Benz and IBM - VIGOROUSLY defend
>their copyright, because they feel that ANY erosion of
>their image, no matter how slight, could have grave
>consequences in terms of their global promotional
>strategies. I have heard of Mercedes-Benz seeking
>monetary damages from it's own dealers for certain
>types of trademark misuse!
>
>Secondly, the penalties for copyright or trademark
>infringement are not based on profits. They can be
>based on almost anything, including damage to the
>reputation or image of the brand in question. In this
>case, I think the worst risk we likely face is a stern
>"cease and desist" order from Lucas which is, as far
>as I know, still a functioning brand and company.
>
>I got a taste of this myself once...
>
>When I was in a high school, I created a t-shirt based
>on the Porsche Crest that - instead of Porsche - had
>my university name on it, and the words: "There is no
>substitute" underneath. I advertised them in the
>school newspaper and sold a ton of them (in fact, I
>sold enough to buy a very nice 2.0L Porsche 914 with
>the profits...) About four months later I got a
>letter from Porsche's in-house legal team, threatening
>me with all kinds of legal action if I didn't cease
>and desist. They were pretty pissy about it, claiming
>I was devaluing the brand, etc, but ultimately, all I
>had to do was promise in writing never to do it again.
>
>But in this case, we really won't be mocking or
>ridiculing the Lucas brand anyway, so I can't imagine
>they would care even if they found out, which I can't
>imagine they ever would. I mean, we're not talking
>about significant quantities or anything, so I can't
>really see the harm.
>
>But it's worth noting that if Lucas is still a
>functioning brand (or even a dormant but "maintained"
>brand like Triumph is), using their logo without
>permission is clearly illegal.
>
>=====
>Paul Misencik
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|