[Mr. Olufsen]

Why not add a little fuel to this thread by adding some more data? First, a few statements of facts that I think we can agree on:

- We do not know the contents of the license contract referred to. 'Exclusive' is a header in a press release, and though it has some legal significance the devil is in the detail and we do not know the detail.

- According to one source there are 196 countries in the world. Though some international bodies deal with intellectual property in various ways there is no uniform, global law on copyright, trademarks, design patents, utility patents, etc. In short: it is a mess! What is perfectly legal in one country might be considered an infringement in another country. A copy or replica may be manufactured perfectly legally in a country where protection or enforcement is weak and lawfully exported to another one. Then what do you do? There is an infinite number of complex issues here, so there often is no 'yes' or 'no'. Just the usual lawyer's reply to all yes/no questions: 'Well, it depends...'

I really do not want you to believe a single word I am saying, so I shall limit myself to posing a few questions and seeing whether a bit of Googling will help me.

Might the shape of a product - a car for instance - be protected against infringement without its even being registered or patented?
Lawyers like the term 'design' much better than 'shape'. Let us take the UK as an example, and see what their Copyright Service say in their fact sheets.

Surely, a car manufacturer cannot formally protect his car designs?
If they could not, a lot of lawyers would have to look for new jobs. Anyway, lawyers specialising in this niche seem to think so. See what mr. Fladung wrote in an article on automobile design protection in the NJ (US) Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.

Do car manufacturers really sue copycats? Wouldn't they lose this sort of lawsuits?
Do you remember the 'Miami Vice' series? The best known car design court case that I know of is often referred to as the 'Miami Vice' case, FERRARI S.P.A. ESERCIZIO FABRICHE AUTOMOBILI E CORSE v. CARL ROBERTS. It seems that both the first and second instance courts favoured the view of the original car manufacturer.

If a design is not really unique (e.g. an F1 design or something else that looks like a 'me-too-product') there is no protection of course?
Well, in Case V-78-05 of 2006 the Maritime and Commercial Court of Denmark (a tiny EU member state) thought that laws on unfair marketing practices could prevent a supermarket chain from marketing red F1 toy cars imported from China. They had no logos, emblems or odd-toed ungulate mammals on them but the court seemed to believe that someone intentionally and without permission wanted to confuse consumers into thinking that they represented a famous Italian car. I am sorry that I cannot share a link to this one - the site is restricted to registered users. Try searching, and it will pop up as 'Court Puts Ferrari Toy Cars in Pole Position - International Law Office'. You may be able to read it once, I think.

That is all, folks! Remember that this was only a presentation of available data from three (3) countries (196, remember?). Please be aware that judges are human beings (!) and human beings can be wrong. Please continue the discussion from here

Christian

PS: I just could not resist it, Ember...
PPS: Thanks for the extreme patience to those of you actually checking the links.
PPPS: Apologies to any lawyers that might be reading this. This piece is not even worthy of the Reader's Digest, is it?

 

[Ember]

Thanks Christian.

You must admit it has been entertaining. Hasn't it?

Truth of the matter is I do know any "creative" endeavour is protected by copyright (in most countries) Even without the application of the accepted symbols. (That note is obviously for others who may be reading)

Thanks for the up to date links.

I still think Logic is more fun than Law.

Now. Can we tackle cheese?

 

[Mr. Olufsen]

Very entertaining! Tackle cheese ? Well, that depends, Ember

I know that you know and logic and a heap of other things are more fun than law.

 

[PETER GUNN]

Ummmmmmmmmmm so after this discussion between Mr Olufsen of Denmark and Ember of Australia does it mean from the last quote if I race a piece of cheese with a Ferrari sticker on it I need a license from Ferrari ??????????.

 

[Mr. Olufsen]

You will need a license if you want to market Ferrari stinkers. Annoyed by that? Well stiff cheese!

 

[Ember]

 

[KarKraft]

So, then, how about we throw some fuel on the fire. The relatively long-established SlotCarMAG, has produced an event program for Gaydon. Inside is a piece on Policar, with two images of red cars, suggesting these might be in the future product range...

 

[rogerbass]

So if we race Parma ham it has to come from a region in Italy, but it's opponent on the track Cheddar cheese can be made anywhere

not just Somerset.

 

[FZSsemans®]

You will probably not have a problem calling a corvette for its coke bottle design......but if its congnac coloured with a champagne interior....you will.

 

[Wraith]

I spoke to Racer today, there are certain "loop holes" which means there will be a "512BB" but its not a Ferrari

and yes, Policar have two "not" ferraris as well.

 

[Mr. Olufsen]

Oh the fun we have been having today. To think of the things they have been missing out on all the people at Gaydon, poor fellars...

Wraith, you're on to something: Quite a few un-registered designs are left without protection because they are too generic, because the proprietor has not been exploiting them for ages, because he tolerated or failed to prosecute copycats, etc. etc. Then walk the narrow path avoiding trademarks (brand names, logos, etc.) and you might just have found that hole (in the cheese).

 

[abbo]

QUOTE So, then, how about we throw some fuel on the fire. The relatively long-established SlotCarMAG, has produced an event program for Gaydon. Inside is a piece on Policar, with two images of red cars, suggesting these might be in the future product range...

Did you not see the Slo... I mean Policar Ferraris on display?

M

 

[Wraith]

Personally I'm over the moon that these "non" Ferraris are being produced.

 

[Michael363672]

QUOTE (Mr. Olufsen @ 12 May 2013, 18:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>found that hole (in the cheese).

Don't drag the Swiss into this, you know they are neutral

 

[KarKraft]

QUOTE (abbo @ 13 May 2013, 03:55) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Did you not see the Slo... I mean Policar Ferraris on display?

Sadly, my press pass didn't include airline tickets...

 

[alexis in greece]

Dreaming further,Policar brand at some point was owned by the now defunct ProSlot,which produced Ferraris 355 and 360 and F1s with pinions that split in the box,any chance we see again any of them?The Toyota mould was presumably aquired
by Scaleauto the rest of the moulds?

 

[Pioneer]

This subject crops up a couple times a year. Here is an edited version of my previous posts across a number of forums:

I'll try quickly to digest what I've learned (and paid to find out) over the last few years regarding copyright and trademarks....

1/ All copyright holders prefer to be asked before possible infringement of IPR. Any payments due range from fair to zero. Most car manufactures are not in the least bit concerned about a micro (in world sales terms) amount of toy slot cars being made.

2/ A scale model - exactly what is being discussed here - is a representation of the shape of a 1:1 car. It is not a direct copy. You can't use it as transport. Therefore there is no DIRECT infringement of copyright law. It is not a real life sized copy, merely a derivative representation in a smaller form. It does not do the job or was it ever intended to replace the product for which the copyright exists.

3/ You can print 'FORD Mustang 1:32 scale model' without a license on product packaging because that is descriptive. You could not use the FORD logo or Mustang script on the packaging (without a license) as they are trademarks. BUT you can scale down the logo to create a scale representation of the mark on the model. The same applies to Ferrari and any other car brand or automotive brand like tyres or oils.

4/ What most copyright holders are concerned about is a/ loss of income and b/ brand damage by poor copies. The original copyright holders, in this particular instance of model toy cars, are not ever in the business of scale model production and neither is a poor scale model of a Ferrari 250GTO likely to damage the Ferrari brand so there is no legal case to answer

5/ Most potential or supposed infringement copyright chasing is done by third party firms that trawl the world for assumed infringements then report them to the owner and then work on a no hay, no pay basis. These cases often begin with a cease and desist communication. When they realise the small potatoes on offer there is usually no point in initiating a high cost legal case.

6/ Most infringement or trademark copying is directly related to logos and passing off a product as 'official licensing' when it is clearly not the case with a scale model EXCEPT if you make a model of a Ferrari and then apply Ferrari logos to the packaging in an attempt to pass it off as official merchandising.

7/ Finally, there is such a thing as retrospective licensing. In the unlikely event that the maker of the slot car - or any product - finds themselves challenged then a well oiled legal procedure is in place to take care of the matter. It really is no big deal.

Jules

 

[Mr. Olufsen]

Thanks, Jules, brilliant! I have read your crisp and clear reply elsewhere and have been hoping for a cut'n-paste

Many years ago, when I was a rookie, I was at the other side of the table chasing copycats on behalf of a couple of high profiled brands (not automobile manufacturers), and your outline mirrors exactly what is going on. Being a stickler I would avoid the term 'copyright', it's more about design rights, trademark rights, trade dress rights, and laws on unfair marketing (passing something of as something that it is not).

QUOTE Michael363672: Don't drag the Swiss into this, you know they are neutral

Alright then... Feta (protected designation of origin) cheese has no holes. If you want to stay on the safe side, I would believe the risk of prosecution is limited if you start producing Theologou, Biamax, Sfakianakis, Saracakis, Namco, Neorion, ELBO, Petropoulos, Malkotsis, Scavas, AK Hellas, Attica, DIM, AutoDiana, Balkania, MAVA-Renault, MEBEA, Motoemil, Ros, SAM, or Styl Kar slot cars. Alexis - am I right?

 

[masmojo]

Jules, Thanks for the Info., what you have said is almost exactly as I would expect and have said before, but over the last 15 or so years, as the subject has come up here and elsewhere, people who "know what they are talking about" have disagreed with much of what you are saying. I suspected that they knew less of what they are talking about then I, but not being an expert myself it's hard to call BS even though my BS detector is going off the scale!!

When people tell me that licensing has to be paid for every sponsor decal on the car I have to roll my eye's!

Nice to see some levity on the subject!! your response is nice and concise!!

 

[Pete-slot]

Nice answer from Pioneer .. I was kind of wondering about the POLICAR cars.

More on this subject of licensing ...

this may be different because its a race not a sponsor ...

you have to pay ACO (I believe) when you use the LE MANS race logo for any particular year on your model car.

I remember this discussion from when Salvatore Noviello had started producing the R18, and the cost of that LOGO was horrendous.

Note the SLOT IT versions of R18 have the LE MANS logo the NSR ones do not.