Echo1 banned from ShotShow

[Danke]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

ok, trades are one thing; I completely agree and understand using a companies name without their permission is wrong. What about the shape? If I decide to make sell plain t shirts, should I have to pay a license fee?

lets make the example more relevant,lets say I make plain t shirts for dolls, should I have to pay fruit of the loom license fee's for using something that replicates the form of a t shirt? How would fruit of the loom loose money by me selling doll shirts?

This has already been touched on. If what you make is junk, then their name becomes associated with junk and you have harmed their business.

Now you're going to argue that everyone knows that your stuff isn't the real thing but I'm going to propose a test for you.

Go to the People of Walmart site. View for as long as is required. Then ask yourself the question would those people be able to tell? You may even know the answer now.

Originally Posted by Jcotter

What about the shape? If I decide to make sell plain t shirts, should I have to pay a license fee?

Originally Posted by MadMorbius

Can a shape be a trademark? Is the shape unique? Does the shape uniquely identify the product or manufacturer?

Patent and trademark law is pretty big. But as I understand it, it comes down to an identifiable trait. If you can uniquely identify something based on a trait, and the trait itself is not in common usage at the time of the trademark, that trait can be trademarked.

[Jcotter]

hahaha I love the people of walmart reference. I'm not saying I 100% disagree. I can see both sides of this issue.

Why I feel the way I do is because if cybergun buys up all of the licenses and shuts down any company that sells something similar sans trades. All we will be left with is cybergun and unrealistic guns that have no real world counterpart. While the clone market may take money away from madbull,cybergun or umarex, ect. They are still making a shittonne of cash and doubt that clones will force them out of business. Sure the shareholders may lose a dime or two but I can live with that.

When it comes to clones very rarely is the quality on par with what was cloned. If I am ok with sacrificing some quality for cost I will.

ie. eotechs, while I think they rock I can't justify or afford to spend $1200.00 on an optic and magnifier for an airsoft gun that has no real recoil that does not require the tolerances an QC provided by eotech. As a consumer I will shop around and buy the product best suited for my needs.

Do companies that make action figures have to pay license fee's for the plastic weapons they use?

Is it right? in an ideal world no but i'm still gonna do it./ Arrr matey

[Danke]

Cybergun won't want to shut the other companies down.

They'll want them to pay a fee and those folks will fold the price of the fee into the price of their product.

Right now though they're just going for the low hanging fruit. Maybe hoping by doing so the other folks will fall into line to avoid a future hassle.

[kalnaren]

Originally Posted by MadMorbius

Patent and trademark law is pretty big. But as I understand it, it comes down to an identifiable trait. If you can uniquely identify something based on a trait, and the trait itself is not in common usage at the time of the trademark, that trait can be trademarked.

In addition, it also has to already have a brand association to be trademarked.

For example, you can't just draw a random logo and apply for a trademark. Patents cover a process (unless it's a US patent, in which case it covers every fucking thing conceivable) and can be applied for regardless of the market status of your process. Trademarks have to be brand identifiable.

This is one reason why two completely different companies can actually have similar logos or slogans -both trademarked- so long as their products are completely different and an average consumer would not confuse one brand for the other.

So two technology companies, both making similar products, would likely suffer trademark wars like Apple & Samsung. However, if the two companies were a medical imaging equipment company and a mechanical water pump company, their products are so different that consumer brand confusion would be unlikely to occur, and thus could have similar trademarks.

At least, that's what my limited understanding of trademarks says.

Copyrights are different yet again.

[Augiedoggy18]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

ok, trades are one thing; I completely agree and understand using a companies name without their permission is wrong. What about the shape? If I decide to make sell plain t shirts, should I have to pay a license fee?

lets make the example more relevant,lets say I make plain t shirts for dolls, should I have to pay fruit of the loom license fee's for using something that replicates the form of a t shirt? How would fruit of the loom loose money by me selling doll shirts?

As M102404 said, its not really possible to trademark something this obviously available to everyone (like a sock, etc). T-shirts have been made by thousands of companies for decades. Fruit of the Loom has zero expectation that anyone seeing a t-shirt will automatically identify it as a Fruit of the Loom product.

This is not the case with the SCAR. If you see an airsoft gun of that design, you would say "That's a SCAR." You wouldn't call it anything else no matter what the distributor was calling it (ASC, MK16, MK17, etc). The SCAR design is proprietary to FN and they have the expectation that only FN and its licensees will produce guns with that look. If FN had sub-licensed manufacture of the real steel SCAR to someone else, then this argument wouldn't be valid (see Enterprise Arms and the FAL).

Glock went after importers of the KWA/KSC Glock-style airsoft pistols a few years ago. Most of these guns coming into the US didn't say Glock anywhere on them, but they replicated a Glock exactly. Since the design of the Glock is unique to Glock, they had every right to send out Cease and Desist letters in order to protect their trademarks and trade dress. I don't recall a huge "Boycott Glock" campaign when this happened?

Cybergun does what it can to protect its license agreements in North America by stopping importation of knock-off product. This step is required by most license grantors. They don't go after retailers and it is nearly impossible to go after factories in Asia.

After reading through all of the posts, I still find it comical that people say that Cybergun makes ONLY crap. I guess if you consider G&G, VFC, King Arms, Classic Army, JG, and Inokatsu crap, then you're spot on.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

hahaha I love the people of walmart reference. I'm not saying I 100% disagree. I can see both sides of this issue.

Why I feel the way I do is because if cybergun buys up all of the licenses and shuts down any company that sells something similar sans trades. All we will be left with is cybergun and unrealistic guns that have no real world counterpart. While the clone market may take money away from madbull,cybergun or umarex, ect. They are still making a shittonne of cash and doubt that clones will force them out of business. Sure the shareholders may lose a dime or two but I can live with that.

When it comes to clones very rarely is the quality on par with what was cloned. If I am ok with sacrificing some quality for cost I will. *snip*

Unfortunately what one wants and nationally accepted principles do not necessarily coincide. We would like airsoft guns free of trademark encumberances. The real steel manufacturers want to protect the image they so heavily invest into. I can't really see how it would be fair for us to purloin the appeal that real steel makers directly build even if it sucks that it'll cost us more. Truth is that if we ONLY prized combat effectiveness, then we'd be happy with airsoft guns specifically optimized for airsoft. But then nobody here really likes the look of a mag loaded paintball gun.

[Jcotter]

Ok, another question... If anti piracy legislation goes though, what will happen to the ASC classifieds section? Will people be forbidden to sell clones and knock offs, or any product with out proper license?

[Dimitri]

It is already illegal to violate copyrights, patents and trademarks. Manufacturers/importers are generally the ones who are on the hook for their violations, not the person buying the knock off products for their personal use.

So I don't see the difference even with the changes to the law?

Dimitri

[Jcotter]

Correct me if I'm not mistaken but sites like ASC could be blocked and face thousands if not millions in fines? I know it's unlikely but, not out of the realm of possibility.

[Danke]

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

Correct me if I'm not mistaken but sites like ASC could be blocked and face thousands if not millions in fines? I know it's unlikely but, not out of the realm of possibility.

SOPA which had the ability to do what you say, seems to be shelved for now.

Don't worry about it, till the internet herd tells you to the next time these laws are back on the table okay?

Dimitri

[Jcotter]

It was a legitimate question. It could be argued that ASC provides a service that allows the sale of counterfeit goods. Under SOPA or the proposed SOPA like changes to Bill C-11, the site could be shut down and, or face fines. Am I wrong?

I know the focus of the legislation is the prevention of media theft but, it does have allowances for counterfeits and other types of copy right infringement.

I am just playing devils advocate. I am looking for your thoughts and opinions.

[Dimitri]

There is NO SOPA like changes proposed to C-11. That is just fear mongering now that SOPA was defeated in the US, the bad evil Conservatives are going to do it in Canada instead.

None of the changes in C-11 to the Copyright Act are new, the provisions are in other laws (such as the Criminal Code) already. We are adding them to the Copyright Act to comply with our international agreements on WIPO, which was signed under the Liberals, but this does not go near as far as the US did with their DMCA (for them to comply to WIPO), nor is it anywhere near SOPA.

Dimitri

[Jcotter]

Originally Posted by Dimitri

There is NO SOPA like changes proposed to C-11. That is just fear mongering now that SOPA was defeated in the US, the bad evil Conservatives are going to do it in Canada instead.

None of the changes in C-11 to the Copyright Act are new, the provisions are in other laws (such as the Criminal Code) already. We are adding them to the Copyright Act to comply with our international agreements on WIPO, which was signed under the Liberals, but this does not go near as far as the US did with their DMCA (for them to comply to WIPO), nor is it anywhere near SOPA.

Dimitri

May I ask how you know this? What is your source? I do hope you are right. According to Dr. Michael Geist,the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa you are not.

According to the music industry document, Bill C-11's "enabler provision" should be expanded to include "services that are primarily operated to enable infringement or which induce infringement." Those demands are echoed by the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, which called on the government to "amend the enabling provision to ensure that it applies to services that are "designed or operated" primarily to enable acts of infringement." Both groups also want statutory damages added to the enabler provision so that liability can run into the millions of dollars for a target website.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6257/125/