teeshirt copyright infringement

H20911 · 05-20-2006, 04:42 AM

saw this and thought......cool. but won't last long. sorry if it a repost I have gone awhile.

http://cgi.ebay.com/PORSCHE-911-944-914-Fuch-Wheel-T-Shirt-Carrera-SC_W0QQitemZ4640600501QQcategoryZ10408QQssPageName ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

rouxroux · 05-20-2006, 04:45 AM

Cute! I really like his 917 Gulf/Le Mans shirt.....

matt13421342 · 05-20-2006, 03:11 PM

I've never seen Porsche pursue anything small-time like that. The guy can probably sell em forever as long as he stays small.

Vipergrün · 05-20-2006, 03:36 PM

I made some shirts for my son and I. Found a few high quality Porsche crest logos on the net, printed them on "transfer" paper with my inkjet and ironed them onto the t-shirts

Wonder if I'll get busted...

Wayne 962 · Wayne 962's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by matt13421342
I've never seen Porsche pursue anything small-time like that. The guy can probably sell em forever as long as he stays small.

They go after everyone - they have to in order to maintain rights in their trademark.

BUT, this guy is in the UK, which has looser rights management than here in the states. I doubt they would be able to go after him for this. Heck, I don't think they've been able to touch "911 & Porsche World" magazine...

-Wayne

matt13421342 · 05-20-2006, 04:25 PM

I think people would be surprised at how loose the interpretation of trademark can be in the US as well. Of all the shirt designs this guy makes, probably the only one that would stand up to infringement tests would be the Fuch'd design. The others don't infringe in a way that is protected by trademark law. For instance, there is no copyright protection for reproducing a photograph of a car (or an illustration of a car) as long as you have rights to the actual image. So he can make shirts with 914s and 944s on them all day without risk. The designation "917" would only be protected as far as reproducing the number would mislead a consumer into thinking they were buying a 917 or some newer iteration of the vehicle, but would not extend to a shirt because Porsche would be unable to make any case that the 917 tshirt was damaging their brand financially.

A lot of the case law surrounding trademark can be found by looking at Playboy's famous symbol. The courts found that if the symbol was modified by only 20%, it would not be found to infringe on Playboy's rights to the mark. As a result, a company could (and did) create a bunny which had one ear folded lazily downward, thus passing muster. This 20% rule has become the standard.

matt13421342 · 05-20-2006, 04:27 PM

On the other hand, in the case of the proliferation of kit cars, the creation of these inferior machines DOES in fact hurt the reputation, and therefore financial stability of carmakers like Porsche and Ferrari, which is why the courts have continued to shut down the kit car guys. Cars vs. cars. Much like handbags vs. handbags with the huge crackdown on counterfeiting that Louis Vuitton has spearheaded here in New York City.

Ove · 06:04 PM

The t-shirt would be much nicer without the text.
The correct name is Fuchs, not Fuch!!
So it should read "Fuchs'd"

http://www.fuchsfelge.com/

Plecostomus · 05-20-2006, 06:05 PM

I bought some great longsleeve t shirts with a hi-quality porsche badge on the left chest. They are only $9 plus s/h. Do a search on Ebay for Porsche shirt. I bought 4 so far

dvkk · 05-21-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matt13421342
.....For instance, there is no copyright protection for reproducing a photograph of a car (or an illustration of a car) as long as you have rights to the actual image....

VW's trademark lawyers would give you an argument. They clamped down on everyone selling T-shirts with pics of Beetles on them.

matt13421342 · 05-21-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dvkk
VW's trademark lawyers would give you an argument. They clamped down on everyone selling T-shirts with pics of Beetles on them.

Oh yeah, you're RIGHT! I had forgotten about that piece of case law. They established that the image of the beetle was so unique to the brand that it did merit protection.

randywebb · 05-21-2006, 10:51 AM

Is this based on a subjective test? Reasonable consumer?

If not, how do they determine the 20%?

plain fan · 05-21-2006, 11:10 AM

I guess you could always take surface area of a design and compare it to the original to determine if it meets the "20% rule."

matt13421342 · 05-21-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randywebb
Is this based on a subjective test? Reasonable consumer?

If not, how do they determine the 20%?

It's determined by "experts" in the field. It's of course somewhat subjective, but I did see once where they had set up a grid that divided the artwork into quadrants.

Wayne 962 · Wayne 962's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by matt13421342
I think people would be surprised at how loose the interpretation of trademark can be in the US as well. Of all the shirt designs this guy makes, probably the only one that would stand up to infringement tests would be the Fuch'd design. The others don't infringe in a way that is protected by trademark law. For instance, there is no copyright protection for reproducing a photograph of a car (or an illustration of a car) as long as you have rights to the actual image. So he can make shirts with 914s and 944s on them all day without risk. The designation "917" would only be protected as far as reproducing the number would mislead a consumer into thinking they were buying a 917 or some newer iteration of the vehicle, but would not extend to a shirt because Porsche would be unable to make any case that the 917 tshirt was damaging their brand financially.

Not really correct. Talk to Lloyd, owner of Lloyds mats who was sued by Porsche for putting 944, 911, etc. on the mats. You cannot simply take a photo of a car and then put it on a T-shirt, because you are still using the trademark and the name, despite the fact that you own the car. If you buy a can of Coke in the store, are you allowed to place it on a calendar or T-shirt, simply because you bought the can? The answer is no - A lot of people don't understand the nuances of the law. Here in Los Angeles, there are plenty of people who are well versed in this - you cannot have any brands or trademarks on a TV show without disclosure first. TV show vs. T-Shirt, it's the same thing...

-Wayne

matt13421342 · 05-22-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
Not really correct. Talk to Lloyd, owner of Lloyds mats who was sued by Porsche for putting 944, 911, etc. on the mats. You cannot simply take a photo of a car and then put it on a T-shirt, because you are still using the trademark and the name, despite the fact that you own the car. If you buy a can of Coke in the store, are you allowed to place it on a calendar or T-shirt, simply because you bought the can? The answer is no - A lot of people don't understand the nuances of the law. Here in Los Angeles, there are plenty of people who are well versed in this - you cannot have any brands or trademarks on a TV show without disclosure first. TV show vs. T-Shirt, it's the same thing...

-Wayne

The owner of Lloyd's was sued for using the actual PORSCHE and its models logos on mats, in the exact script Porsche has protected. You also could not use the word PORSCHE using their font. The same goes for the crest. Coca-Cola has the swoop on the letter "C" protected. But an image of their cars is not protected. If I create a painting of a 911, I can reproduce it and sell as many as I want because it's my interpretation of something that exists in reality. But if we use your argument as the absolute, Andy Warhol would have been sued for creating his famous series of paintings and selling them.

Wayne is right, it's all about nuances, and there is still an element of the law that's left up to the interpretation of the courts on a case-by-case basis. Trademark and copyright law is fascinating. As a publisher I get the opportunity to really look into the details of it all (sometimes by choice, sometimes with some prodding by somebody's legal dept). It never gets boring because it's a very fluid area of the law which is always open to a new interpretation.

randywebb · 05-22-2006, 11:59 AM

and Remember -- there is a big difference between being sued and/or settling and the actual law whether it is case law set by a court or a statute or rule...

also, the law for trademarks differs from that for copyrights

Wayne 962 · Wayne 962's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by matt13421342
[B]But an image of their cars is not protected. If I create a painting of a 911, I can reproduce it and sell as many as I want because it's my interpretation of something that exists in reality. But if we use your argument as the absolute, Andy Warhol would have been sued for creating his famous series of paintings and selling them.

That's not true. They have trademarked the sillouette of the 911, and thus go after anyone who uses it in print form. Trust me, I know people who have been hassled and sued over this very issue...

Porsche is bad, but VW is worse...

-Wayne

matt13421342 · 06-02-2006, 11:49 PM

I can't argue with you without knowing the facts on that one, but the nuances would probably come into play once again. Like if you were using the silhouette of a 911 as the logo for you company, you would be infringing, but if you created and reproduced artwork (even if it's screen printed on a shirt) you would be in the clear.

sammygon1 · 06-03-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
That's not true. They have trademarked the sillouette of the 911, and thus go after anyone who uses it in print form. Trust me, I know people who have been hassled and sued over this very issue...

Porsche is bad, but VW is worse...

-Wayne

I think PartsHeaven is in trouble.