PDA

View Full Version : Grumman Models



jolly_magpie
06-09-2007, 12:27 PM
Ok, this is about plastic kits, but this could be a crack in the armour...

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37140&sid=60

jolly_magpie
06-09-2007, 12:27 PM
Ok, this is about plastic kits, but this could be a crack in the armour...

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37140&sid=60

Stew278
06-09-2007, 01:47 PM
Yeah, it seems like Congress just keeps sweeping this bill aside every time it comes up. The defense lobby has too much clout to ever allow it to pass.

It's funny how the lawyers like to claim that allowing companies to make scale models for hobbyists without royalties is somehow government confiscation of their IP. What? Why can't plastic and virtual models fall under the same exemptions that artwork and photos do? The only difference seems to be individual vs mass production of the product. This is just corporate greed and legalese run amok.

The bad thing would be that if it fails and the defense contractors do get to charge license fees to model manufacturers, then they'll have free reign to stick it to the game manufacturers too.

Next thing you know they'll be expecting royalties from every airshow that one of their planes shows up to.

-HH- Beebop
06-09-2007, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stew278:
...Next thing you know they'll be expecting royalties from every airshow that one of their planes shows up to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
SHHHH! They might hear you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

K_Freddie
06-09-2007, 03:13 PM
There are Soooooo many ways to move around copyrights and patents... doh doh doh! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2007, 03:15 PM
not again

Badsight-
06-09-2007, 03:17 PM
from what i understand , they recently lost a case about 3D models of Grumman planes (F14 i think) from appearing in media

-HH- Beebop
06-09-2007, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
not again </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But of course! It's the Ubi Forums. The place where any thought can be a brilliant topic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
06-10-2007, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by jolly_magpie:
Ok, this is about plastic kits, but this could be a crack in the armour... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... A few points that might be taken into consideration with respect to this "trademark" issue.

(1) I would argue that the manufacturer has no more right to trademark protection than an OEM manufacturer enjoys over products designed and built for another party. The overwhelming majority of military aircraft are designed and built at the behest and the expense of governments. As such, they are arguably public property and, by inference, in the public domain.

- - -

(2) I may be a little wet on this next point. If so perhaps an attorney among us might clarify. As I understand it, one of the four conditions governing entitlement to US trademark protection is based upon the following:

"The third requirement is the application must be based on an actual use or on a real intention to use the mark in business. For the application to be based on actual use, the applicant should indicate what products he or she has actually placed the mark on and sold for business. A mark for services will be considered "actual use" when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are actually rendered."

Source: http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/trademarks/requirements.html

With respect to the F6F or the P51, exactly what "actual use or ... real intention to use the mark in business" can Northrup/Grumman point to in this year of our Lord 2007?

- - -

Consider the practical implications of this position taken by Northrup/Grumman.

Could the heirs or estate of Josiah Humphrey claim trademark rights to the name and image of the USS Constitution?

Can the estate of John A. Roebling claim intellectual property rights over the Brooklyn Bridge? Interesting historical footnote: Kurfurst will, no doubt, be pleased to know that Mr Roebling was born in Prussia.