Sunday, June 13, 2004
Trademarks®
I was reading one of my model magazines today and came across yet another reference to some company hassling a model company over a trademark dispute.
First let me say that I am all for trademark/copyright protection within limits. I tend to be gestapo-like in policing the documents I write at work for trademark use. There's nothing that drives me so crazy as seeing VW's new bug or Winchester's new rifle. Properly done, it should be The new VW® bug, or the new Winchester® rifle (note the lack of apostrophes). Also bad is going Rollerblading® or making a Xerox®. These aren't done.
What really bugs me is when a company gets all over-protective of their trademark. This seems to come up a lot in models, (plastic, not nude). Racing cars have a big problem with this. Look at a NASCAR®. Do you have any idea of the nightmare of getting permission for all of those sponsor decals?
The other problem is when some cottage marketer is trying to make a Conan® figure or Batman® accessory. Usually they can get away with a "barbarian warrior" figure of sometimes a "costumed crime fighter." Other times, this won't satisfy the company and the poor little business either gets legally steamrolled or they have to pay so much for licensing fees, it isn't worth it.
I can understand the need to make sure item isn't going to reflect badly on the company that owns the trademark. What I don't understand is why the company makes it so difficult for a small business that does make good stuff to make a cheap and sane licensing deal. After all, a small cottage industry making a couple of thousand of figures isn't going to hurt the company. In fact, the interest generated by the small product will most likely help the owner in the long run.
What also really riles me in when a company owns a copyright/trademark and rather than do anything with it, actively attacks anyone else who would like to do something with it.
2fers: SM Stirling - Draka and Steve Jackson - Ogre
