MLB Properties sues Donruss Playoff over trademark use

[scotty21690]

Rarity isn't the sole factor in determining a card's value. If this is indeed DLP's last baseball venture these 2008 cards could earn a premium.

I doubt it. Their cards didn't realize a premium when they originally lost their MLB license and Fleer certainly didn't go up in value when they went bankrupt.

I can see Donruss producing baseball this year, but putting more focus on college and high school draftees than the retired/HOF players.

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

I'd like to see Donruss' response. Clearly they anticipated this being a possibility when they started down this path, so I would hope that their attorneys came up with some pretty good arguments at that time.

This should be fun!

Craig

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I'd like to see Donruss' response. Clearly they anticipated this being a possibility when they started down this path, so I would hope that their attorneys came up with some pretty good arguments at that time.

This should be fun!


Craig

I'll be checking the court website weekly. I don't know what Donruss' argument can be other than they obscured it substantially.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I'd like to see Donruss' response. Clearly they anticipated this being a possibility when they started down this path, so I would hope that their attorneys came up with some pretty good arguments at that time.

This should be fun!

Craig

You're right, there is no WAY they weren't expecting this...

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

[quote="Craig - 21hawk":6thwuilg]I'd like to see Donruss' response. Clearly they anticipated this being a possibility when they started down this path, so I would hope that their attorneys came up with some pretty good arguments at that time.

This should be fun!


Craig

I'll be checking the court website weekly. I don't know what Donruss' argument can be other than they obscured it substantially.[/quote:6thwuilg]

I don't know either. Unless they try and argue a lack of damages to MLB, and that Donruss' profits weren't attributable to the use of the trademarks. Not doing any trademark work, though, I'm not sure that's a viable argument even if they could somehow prove both points.

Craig

 

[ThoseBackPages]

They should pay!

 

[Tom Oates]

Anyone have any scans of cards like this in the set. I didn't buy any so I didn't see how good of a job they did.

Using the above card as an example... The logo on the hat is blurred out. Does MLB have a patent on the city name Detroit? Or the abbreviation "Detr" since that is all that can be made out on the jersey? Based on the above example, I think Donruss has a defense.

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

Anyone have any scans of cards like this in the set. I didn't buy any so I didn't see how good of a job they did.

Using the above card as an example... The logo on the hat is blurred out. Does MLB have a patent on the city name Detroit? Or the abbreviation "Detr" since that is all that can be made out on the jersey? Based on the above example, I think Donruss has a defense.

The Detroit Tigers have a trademark on the word "Detroit" written in that style.

I look at the Porcello card and think "Donruss is probably screwed."

Craig

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Tom Oates":183lxwjg]

Anyone have any scans of cards like this in the set. I didn't buy any so I didn't see how good of a job they did.

Using the above card as an example... The logo on the hat is blurred out. Does MLB have a patent on the city name Detroit? Or the abbreviation "Detr" since that is all that can be made out on the jersey? Based on the above example, I think Donruss has a defense.

The Detroit Tigers have a trademark on the word "Detroit" written in that style.

I look at the Porcello card and think "Donruss is probably screwed."

Craig[/quote:183lxwjg]

Can you legally use the Coca-Cola script but leave off the "la" in selling your product?

nope.

And I don't think you can leave off the "oit". I saw these cards - hell, I opened a ton of Threads -- and thought that litigation would be pending. I feel bad for Donruss, but I've got my money on MLB to win.

Assuming it doesn' tsettle and this is Donruss' way of getting a license...

 

[thefasterblade]

Yea, just because it is cut off and the name of the City, doesn't mean that its not the symbol/logo. That was a poor job by Donruss in attempts to cut corners.

 

[cubfan131]

The Porcello is a bad example. Here is a Nolan Ryan where you can clearly see the logo on his hat.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

These lines are interesting...

"Donruss' release of the trading cards at issue additionally violates the Minor League Baseball players' right of publicity, which are controlled by MLBP, as agent for Minor League Baseball and Major League Baseball entities."

and...

"in addition, pursuant to its agency agreement with the Minor League Baseball Entities, MLBP also is responsible for enforcement of the names and likenesses of the Minor League Baseball players (the "Minor League Baseball Players Images"), which rights are exclusively controlled by the MLB Club to whom they are under contract and the Minor League clubs to which they are assigned to play when in the Minor Leagues."

Ok attorneys...to me this seems to imply that the MiLB players' images are the right of MLBP to control, right?

Therefore any and all products not licensed would therefore be in violation? Obviously Razor, Just and Donruss are all using images of player...so how do this play?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

All of these brands except for Score which nobody liked, still produced or are still producing baseball cards...but again rarity is not the only factor in determining a card's value.

Rarity isn't the sole factor in determining a card's value. If this is indeed DLP's last baseball venture these 2008 cards could earn a premium.

[quote="Jeff N.":3826fwsr][quote="Pine Tar":3826fwsr]So will the cards in question go up in value then???

Again, they shouldn't. They're still #ed the same....

[/quote:3826fwsr]

Seriously?

Want some old Score cards? How about some Donruss cards from what, 2006, when they lost their license the first time? How about some 2006 Fleer cards?[/quote:3826fwsr]

 

[Lars]

Razor - high school/college uniforms of draftees
Just - airbrushed/obscured; only licensed by the players [?]

These lines are interesting...

"Donruss' release of the trading cards at issue additionally violates the Minor League Baseball players' right of publicity, which are controlled by MLBP, as agent for Minor League Baseball and Major League Baseball entities."

and...

"in addition, pursuant to its agency agreement with the Minor League Baseball Entities, MLBP also is responsible for enforcement of the names and likenesses of the Minor League Baseball players (the "Minor League Baseball Players Images"), which rights are exclusively controlled by the MLB Club to whom they are under contract and the Minor League clubs to which they are assigned to play when in the Minor Leagues."

Ok attorneys...to me this seems to imply that the MiLB players' images are the right of MLBP to control, right?

Therefore any and all products not licensed would therefore be in violation? Obviously Razor, Just and Donruss are all using images of player...so how do this play?

 

[Old Kentucky Shark]

The Porcello is a bad example. Here is a Nolan Ryan where you can clearly see the logo on his hat.

But even that hat logo has been modified:

I'll be interested to hear what Donruss says about this. Should be interesting.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Razor - high school/college uniforms of draftees
Just - airbrushed/obscured; only licensed by the players [?]

These lines are interesting...

"Donruss' release of the trading cards at issue additionally violates the Minor League Baseball players' right of publicity, which are controlled by MLBP, as agent for Minor League Baseball and Major League Baseball entities."

and...

"in addition, pursuant to its agency agreement with the Minor League Baseball Entities, MLBP also is responsible for enforcement of the names and likenesses of the Minor League Baseball players (the "Minor League Baseball Players Images"), which rights are exclusively controlled by the MLB Club to whom they are under contract and the Minor League clubs to which they are assigned to play when in the Minor Leagues."

Ok attorneys...to me this seems to imply that the MiLB players' images are the right of MLBP to control, right?

Therefore any and all products not licensed would therefore be in violation? Obviously Razor, Just and Donruss are all using images of player...so how do this play?

Matt Wieters Razor singles show him in Baltimore and Baltimore minor league uniforms.

Regardless, the question remains...this suit appears to claim that the Major League teams control the Minor League players' image.

It's an interesting situation...especially with the the recent turn of events with NBA cards.

 

[trademhigh]

Razor - high school/college uniforms of draftees
Just - airbrushed/obscured; only licensed by the players [?]

These lines are interesting...

"Donruss' release of the trading cards at issue additionally violates the Minor League Baseball players' right of publicity, which are controlled by MLBP, as agent for Minor League Baseball and Major League Baseball entities."

and...

"in addition, pursuant to its agency agreement with the Minor League Baseball Entities, MLBP also is responsible for enforcement of the names and likenesses of the Minor League Baseball players (the "Minor League Baseball Players Images"), which rights are exclusively controlled by the MLB Club to whom they are under contract and the Minor League clubs to which they are assigned to play when in the Minor Leagues."

Ok attorneys...to me this seems to imply that the MiLB players' images are the right of MLBP to control, right?

Therefore any and all products not licensed would therefore be in violation? Obviously Razor, Just and Donruss are all using images of player...so how do this play?

Matt Wieters Razor singles show him in Baltimore and Baltimore minor league uniforms.

Regardless, the question remains...this suit appears to claim that the Major League teams control the Minor League players' image.

It's an interesting situation...especially with the the recent turn of events with NBA cards.

Sorry, but what events w/NBA cards?

 

[[email protected]]

Razor - high school/college uniforms of draftees
Just - airbrushed/obscured; only licensed by the players [?]

These lines are interesting...

"Donruss' release of the trading cards at issue additionally violates the Minor League Baseball players' right of publicity, which are controlled by MLBP, as agent for Minor League Baseball and Major League Baseball entities."

and...

"in addition, pursuant to its agency agreement with the Minor League Baseball Entities, MLBP also is responsible for enforcement of the names and likenesses of the Minor League Baseball players (the "Minor League Baseball Players Images"), which rights are exclusively controlled by the MLB Club to whom they are under contract and the Minor League clubs to which they are assigned to play when in the Minor Leagues."

Ok attorneys...to me this seems to imply that the MiLB players' images are the right of MLBP to control, right?

Therefore any and all products not licensed would therefore be in violation? Obviously Razor, Just and Donruss are all using images of player...so how do this play?

Matt Wieters Razor singles show him in Baltimore and Baltimore minor league uniforms.

Regardless, the question remains...this suit appears to claim that the Major League teams control the Minor League players' image.

It's an interesting situation...especially with the the recent turn of events with NBA cards.

Sorry, but what events w/NBA cards?

Read the post a few topics down...

 

[bballcardkid]

MLBPA is just like the government. Anytime they try to overregulate something, it just causes a mess. I'm going to be a bit hypocritical with what I've said in the past about limiting the number of companies, but I think there should be as many companies as possible. The regulation that is needed is the number of products each company distrubutes per year. More companies= more competition. More products= watered down junk. Keep as many companies but limit there anual production and the MLBPA is doing their job.

 

[cgilmo]

MLBPA is just like the government. Anytime they try to overregulate something, it just causes a mess. I'm going to be a bit hypocritical with what I've said in the past about limiting the number of companies, but I think there should be as many companies as possible. The regulation that is needed is the number of products each company distrubutes per year. More companies= more competition. More products= watered down junk. Keep as many companies but limit there anual production and the MLBPA is doing their job.

make money for its players short term and long term and the mlbpa is doing their job.