yeah, RK only cancelled orders to the USOriginally Posted by drifand
Rank 1 - New or Inactive
yeah, RK only cancelled orders to the US
Rank 6 - Dedicated Member
How the hell US knows which is going? Isn't that intrusion of privacy?
I have a bad feeling that this toy has broken gov laws of smoke ads rather than Marlboro making a deal
Rank 8 - Deluxe Member
That's what I hear. Something about trademark infringement and the red/white 'roof' logo.
Any figure that comes with swords demands wrist articulation.
Rank 6 - Dedicated Member
Is not a infringement without the words though.
Funny how this is taken seriously while ko are running around with no issues?
Rank 8 - Deluxe Member
Rank 10 - Admin
You can trademark images (visual logos) as well as words (name logos).
Look on the cans of coke, and they will (or used to) say that the "ribbon" was trademarked (as well as the name)... so if anyone tried to sell something in that category with a "coca cola ribbon" on the packaging, they could be sued for it.
The golden arches on McDonalds is trademarked as well, which is registering the way the M is written, not the M itself.
Same with these tobacco brands - they register their imagery as well as their names, because that was the whole problem here when the Australian Government forced the companies to have plain packaging. This was because they paid a lot of money for their trademarked names and visual logos, and were being prevented from using them to promote and sell their products. Marlboro would be identified by their red logo... and if something is produced (like this toy) that has that red logo (with or without the accompanying name) to imply their product or sell base on that product, they have the rights to prevent someone else from making money off their expensive trademark... in the countries they are registered in under that category.
There are about 50 categories of Trademarks, so if Marlboro don't have the trademark of that visual logo in the Toys category in Australia, they wouldn't be able to object.... however, there may be Federal Government laws prohibiting the sale of Toys that relate to or promote cigarettes.
(I remember those musk-type candy sticks in the 80s that were called "Fags" and looked like a packet of cigarettes... later they had to be called Fads and not look like a pack of fags, and now I don't think they are sold here anymore due to not having the same "adult" gimmick for kids to want anymore.)
Rank 8 - Deluxe Member
Fads are still around.... But lost the red "ink" off the end to look "lit"
Rank 6 - Dedicated Member
I still disagree is a logo, this is like Apple patent right block shape phones.
The shape without the word Marlboro is not Marlboro IMO . Is not the same as Maccus using Golden Arches as that is a proper representation.
I know where some of the debate is at, I am just not agreeing that this had broken copyright as there isn't any indication that this is a Marlboro car until I decal it stating it so.
Marlboro logo is the two lions and whatever is the main logo triangles and shapes are not relevant without the wording nor logo, is unfair that some one cannot paint a house with red roof and white walls and being told Marlboro owns it. Vice versa a red and white car happen to have triangular shapes is disallowed.
I know the debate is but that's Marlboro logo, I just saying it isn't without the printed words.
Also Marlboro had to ditch this shape to a barcode in their racing series.
The Ferrari team claimed the barcode was part of the car design, not an advertising message.[8] well if this is so then I claim this is part of the toy design not a smoking ad
In anyway it looks bad, not sure this will even make it to production now. Still definitely somebody had snitched this to the tobacco company.
Last edited by drifand; 14th December 2014 at 05:43 PM.
Rank 8 - Deluxe Member
You know why most Apple cases have a cutout for the Apple logo? It's because it is copyrighted and only Apple can legally use it so case manufactures can't use it. Apple didn't sue Samsung because it patented "block shape phones". The shape of a phone isn't patentable, patents cover innovations that are non-obvious like "swipe to unlock". You can however copyright or trademark a design. If you look at the early Galaxy phones they look similar enough to the trademarked design of the iPhone 3G.
Oops I forgot about the design patent which is still current but is probably about to got away along with software patents.
Images can absolutely be copyrighted and trademarked so Philip Morris is well within their right to sue. What I object to is this idea that we must get rid of every historical reference to cigarettes. If you watch footage of racing from the era they had tobacco advertising it's all blurred out. I want smoking banned but ruining something that documents the past really doesn't sit well with me.
I have a list of all G1 characters that have been released in CHUG form. You can find it here. Please feel free to let me know if I got anything wrong so I can fix it.
Rank 6 - Dedicated Member
Funny thing is this is a chance for free advertising.
So if this is within their rights, I guess fararri is also breaching regardless of barcode design.
So how do model kits sell nowadays? They must pay for every single sponsor ad?
Find it funny how hungry jacks cannot use Burger King when the rest of the world is known for that and the restaurant owner gets to win in this situation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote