11 March 2016 - Forum Rules
Started by tvtoon, August 10, 2016, 02:03:23 PM
Quotehttp://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/LossofTrademarkRightsFactSheet.aspxThe relevant bit for this scenario would be: " a trademark may be deemed abandoned if the trademark owner licenses or authorizes other parties to use its mark without exercising adequate control over the use of the mark, which can include inadequate control over the quality of the goods and/or services offered under the mark.In addition, a trademark may be deemed abandoned if the trademark owner purports to assign its mark separate and apart from the goodwill represented by the mark. Under U.S. trademark law, this often is referred to as an "assignment in gross" of the mark. Other countries may recognize assignments without the associated goodwill. Always check with local counsel in the country in which an assignment is contemplated."
Quote from: Sliver X on August 15, 2016, 12:08:23 AMCopyright is for works (i.e., Super Metroid, the game itself) while Trademark would cover Samus, Zebes, Motherbrain and the name Metroid itself.
Quote from: Sliver X on August 15, 2016, 12:08:23 AMThe bullshit surrounding Sherlock Holmes was primarily based on Trademark law and not Copyright.
QuoteBut attorneys for the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle this week insisted that the complete characters of Holmes and Watson won't be freed until the final 10 stories published after 1922 enter the public domain, in 2022...."There is a very good reason why the Estate did not assert trademark protection: The Estate does not own any trademarks," Klinger told PW. "They have applied for them, and there will be substantial opposition."
Quote from: Reiska on August 16, 2016, 01:24:51 PMBecause Nintendo (or The Pokemon Company International or whoever) owns a trademark on the term "Pokémon", they own the exclusive right to exploit the trademark for their own gain. If they become aware that another, unauthorized party is exploiting the trademark for their own gain, they have a legal duty to protect their exclusive rights. This is especially crystal-clear when money changes hands, and Pokemon Uranium's developer(s) had a Patreon, so on the surface (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer), there'd appear to be an extremely clear-cut case of trademark infringement there and Nintendo is, to some extent, being generous by only demanding a takedown and not actually suing.
Quote from: Jorpho on August 16, 2016, 11:34:31 PMBut they'd have just as much right to demand the product be taken down if they only had copyrights and not trademarks, would they not? I think MisterJones's link made a good case for there being no such "legal duty".
Page created in 0.064 seconds with 20 queries.