hoopster3977
New member
Both manufactures suck.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Leaf v. Panini - Battle of the PRISMatic.
- Thread starter Bob Loblaw
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Leaf v. Panini
While I cannot go into great detail, I can say the following;
1. Prismatic is a valid mark for Leaf. Prism (of Pacific fame) was a dead mark unused for 10+ years...
2. Their use if the mark and a shortened form of the mark is a trademark violation.
3. We are merely protecting our rights, the same way Topps protected its right to "chrome" when Panini tried to use "chromium"..
As always, there is far more to this story than anyone on this board has any knowledge of... The way companies name their products IS legally important and this issue's resolution will have an impact on manufacturers going forward..
I would ask that you do the prudent thing and reserve judgment until ALL the facts are out.. Short of that, you are making assumptions and leaps that just aren't based in fact..
This is all we can/will say on the matter..
BG
While I cannot go into great detail, I can say the following;
1. Prismatic is a valid mark for Leaf. Prism (of Pacific fame) was a dead mark unused for 10+ years...
2. Their use if the mark and a shortened form of the mark is a trademark violation.
3. We are merely protecting our rights, the same way Topps protected its right to "chrome" when Panini tried to use "chromium"..
As always, there is far more to this story than anyone on this board has any knowledge of... The way companies name their products IS legally important and this issue's resolution will have an impact on manufacturers going forward..
I would ask that you do the prudent thing and reserve judgment until ALL the facts are out.. Short of that, you are making assumptions and leaps that just aren't based in fact..
This is all we can/will say on the matter..
BG
Last edited:
Do you own the name Prizm?
Leaf v. Panini
We own prismatic.. This also protects shortened forms of the word (even when you change a letter,lol)..,
Bg
Ps- we were turned down by the trademark office on MAXX because someone else had MAXXOR.... Shortened forms are not ok..
We own prismatic.. This also protects shortened forms of the word (even when you change a letter,lol)..,
Bg
Ps- we were turned down by the trademark office on MAXX because someone else had MAXXOR.... Shortened forms are not ok..
- Thread starter
- #25
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Sorry big guy. The media analyzes and speculates on any big trial. This is a baseball card message board. We're going to analyze and speculate what is going to happen here. If you want to enlighten us unwashed, huddled masses, feel free . . . but don't ask us to reserve judgment and NOT make analyses. Your complaint has a plethora of untruths/misconceptions, and you should not win this case.
The term "unused" has a lesser meaning in sportscards. These cards are bought and traded and sold every day. The mark is, while not being produced by any manufacturer, definitely still in the consumer's mind. And that should be one of the many, many, many arguments Panini has.
Leaf v. Panini
I do have to leave it at that for now..
Rest assured, we have attempted and continue to attempt positive resolution to this issue. I have every confidence that Leaf and Panini will find common ground at some point, from which we can both move forward positively.
BG
I do have to leave it at that for now..
Rest assured, we have attempted and continue to attempt positive resolution to this issue. I have every confidence that Leaf and Panini will find common ground at some point, from which we can both move forward positively.
BG
- Thread starter
- #29
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Have more success? I'm not your attorney. You really should check over his spelling. I'm not anyone's attorney in this hunt. I'm a baseball card collector who's talking about a ridiculous lawsuit on a message board.
If I WAS your attorney, I would tell you to stop talking about this. But I'm not, so let's keep talking.
- Thread starter
- #31
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Maybe, maybe not. The point is, though, there's a big difference between Prism and Prismatic.
And further, again, the most ironic point in all of this is lost -- You're suing Panini attempting to defend the name of technology that was obviously copied from Topps.
Protecting your marks at what cost? I don't think anyone -- and you know this, Brian, you're a smart individual -- is actually thinking that "Panini Prism" cards are made by Leaf.
Now, as for RISE cards, thats a whole other issue.
Card Magnet
New member
The funny thing is that "refract light" is used in Leaf's description of their cards in the lawsuit. Refract...refract...Hmm. I know I've heard that associated with something in the hobby before.
We can all agree that "Prismatic" is a descriptive term rather than a suggestive term right? I mean, "prism" means something that white light passes through and comes out multicolored. So, that makes the burden much harder to achieve for protection. Kinda like protecting the term "Yellow Pages".
Second concern: The term is not widely associated with leaf. A quick survey of listings for your "gold prismatics" suggests that the secondary market does not think the term has stand alone meaning (hence having to associated with a term like 'superfractor'. Absent secondary meaning, tough road to hoe.
Third concern: one big reason to protect trademark is to prevent consumer confusion. Is there any chance of consumer confusion when only one of the products (panini) is sold with the "prism" name directly to consumers from the company? leaff doesn't sell prismatics directly to its consumers, it randomly does so. Hence, no one goes to the store and accidentally buys Panini prism when looking for leaf's prisms, because one cannot buy leaf's prisms directly (ie, intentionally) from a retail outlet.
Additionally, there is a lesser likelihood of consumer confusion because panini has the league logos and leaf does not. To this point there has been no Panini prism baseball, right?
So, as I see it the issues are that the name is descriptive rather than arbitrary trivial (for example, if they were called Leaf Gall Bladders, it would be pretty clearly arbitrary and protectable) AND there is both a strong consumer disregard for the term as referential to only leaff products, as well as a very small likelihood of consumer confusion.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out. IP law is interesting.
Maybe leaf should do one of those "You can't xerox a xerox, only a xerox can xerox a xerox" ad campaigns so as to get resellers (ebay) to not use the term along with superfractor so as to create the appearance of brand/producer association and prevent genericide?
Second concern: The term is not widely associated with leaf. A quick survey of listings for your "gold prismatics" suggests that the secondary market does not think the term has stand alone meaning (hence having to associated with a term like 'superfractor'. Absent secondary meaning, tough road to hoe.
Third concern: one big reason to protect trademark is to prevent consumer confusion. Is there any chance of consumer confusion when only one of the products (panini) is sold with the "prism" name directly to consumers from the company? leaff doesn't sell prismatics directly to its consumers, it randomly does so. Hence, no one goes to the store and accidentally buys Panini prism when looking for leaf's prisms, because one cannot buy leaf's prisms directly (ie, intentionally) from a retail outlet.
Additionally, there is a lesser likelihood of consumer confusion because panini has the league logos and leaf does not. To this point there has been no Panini prism baseball, right?
So, as I see it the issues are that the name is descriptive rather than arbitrary trivial (for example, if they were called Leaf Gall Bladders, it would be pretty clearly arbitrary and protectable) AND there is both a strong consumer disregard for the term as referential to only leaff products, as well as a very small likelihood of consumer confusion.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out. IP law is interesting.
Maybe leaf should do one of those "You can't xerox a xerox, only a xerox can xerox a xerox" ad campaigns so as to get resellers (ebay) to not use the term along with superfractor so as to create the appearance of brand/producer association and prevent genericide?
Casebusters
Active member
when someone mentions Metal, I think of this
Card Magnet
New member
For what it's worth, Leaf Trading Cards does not have even an application in for a trademark on Prism or Prismatic according to the USPTO's site. They currently have five trademarks filed. I guess it's just the business model to dig up dead names rather than invent something new. All five filings are on established names in the hobby that went defunct at one point or another.
There is an official database of trademarks : Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
There is an official database of trademarks : Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
- Thread starter
- #39
Bob Loblaw
Active member
...or this could be a way to get Panini to turn over the rights to "Limited".
cmnkb8
New member
This is pretty silly. Can't we all just get along? Besides, any shiny Chrome-like card is just a "Refractor" to me. I've got Bowman Chrome Refractors, Leaf Refractors, and Prizm Refractors. And I'll continue to call them all Refractors. Don't like it? Sue me.
