MLB Properties sues Donruss Playoff over trademark use

[MattinglyAlexander]

anyone think that Topps and UD were crying to MLB?

I wouldn't blame them if they were.

Yeah, but it's a little cheap. Donruss may have a problem with not fully covering the trademarks, but to carry it over to photo of players....
like I asked, how is it different for photos the paparazzi take and the rag mags use? If you're going to claim a likeness/image as a trademark...don't they have to actually reigister it as a trademark? It may be like a (C) though, and you don't really have to register it, it's yours period... could some form of intellectual property be claimed maybe? May not be the strict definition....but...

Anyway, I think this is fear from the "big two".

I guess they'll have goons watching out for cameras now....

 

[ThoseBackPages]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":2fyil81h][quote="Craig - 21hawk":2fyil81h][quote="Tom Oates":2fyil81h]

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:2fyil81h]

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...[/quote:2fyil81h]

I'm not saying it's right or that they will win their defense. I'm merely speculating on what their defense will be. In the Nolan Ryan image in this thread they clearly altered the "T" on the hat and they only show part of the city name. I already stated that MLB cannot have a patent on a city name and I'll add to it that they likely don't own a patent on the fonts of all MLB teams. AGAIN... I'm just speculating on what Donruss angle is for their defense. Splitting hairs is what lawyers do best.[/quote:2fyil81h]

You can't patent a font. You can patent a process.

The fonts are registered trademarks, however. That's why Microsoft Word doesn't have a "Phillies" font, or "Mets" font, or "Yankees" font.

I want a Phillies phont, though, if anyone can find it....

 

[Billy Packer]

BTW, is it just me or was this not the most stunning paragraph in that entire article:

In the last decade, according to the suit, the overall revenues from baseball card licensing have topped more than $100 million. However the overall card market has steadily declined from its peak of $1 billion down to about $200 million. The market share has also dropped to approximately 15 to 20 percent of the peak amounts at that same time.

Really?! I'd never seen these figures before. Stunning.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

 

[subpop77]

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

That is exactly what they are arguing. They are trying to destroy all non licensed cards regardless of trademarks.

Craig

Considering MiLB players are not a part of the MLBPA I don't understand how they can claim this.

exactly, say joe shmo gets injured/dies/or just plain sucks he will probably head back to his hometown and no MLB contract for him. So how can MLB claim a MiLB player without a ML contract?

 

[ThoseBackPages]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

Gone.

I know im in the minority, especially 'round these parts, but i have no use for unlicensed cards,
ESPECIALLY Rookie Cards

 

[ru4scuba]

but to carry it over to photo of players.... like I asked, how is it different for photos the paparazzi take and the rag mags use?

It is different. Photos used on cards are a commercial product while paparazzi photos are used as "editorial" which does not require the consent of the person being photographed. Anyways, like I said before, MiLB players are not a part of the MLBPA, therefore they have not signed away their likeness to the MLBPA and are free to sign individual contracts with the other card companies.

 

[All In Cards]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

Gone.

I know im in the minority, especially 'round these parts, but i have no use for unlicensed cards,
ESPECIALLY Rookie Cards

What's the big deal E? You dont like them, so don't buy them. Its really not that hard.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

Gone.

I know im in the minority, especially 'round these parts, but i have no use for unlicensed cards,
ESPECIALLY Rookie Cards

Frankly, with the garbage Topps and Donruss have been puting, I could live without them both.

BLASPHEMY! :twisted:

There's plenty of good older stuff we can buy.

 

[RL24]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

HAHA.... down with people who are brainwashed into buying graded prospect cards!

:lol:

I like Donruss. All of my favorite sets of all time were made by them. Prime Cuts, Leaf Limited, Leaf Certified, Prime Patches...

Sure, they made crappy sets like Sportscasters and Exhibits, but the beautiful thing is- you didn't have to buy them! They were there just in case you wanted to though.


YOU have no use for unlicensed cards, but why do you wish people who like them can't have them anymore?

 

[Craig - 21hawk]

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

That is exactly what they are arguing. They are trying to destroy all non licensed cards regardless of trademarks.

Craig

Considering MiLB players are not a part of the MLBPA I don't understand how they can claim this.

exactly, say joe shmo gets injured/dies/or just plain sucks he will probably head back to his hometown and no MLB contract for him. So how can MLB claim a MiLB player without a ML contract?

The argument is that the big league with that player's rights also owns the rights to publicize that player. Like I said, at first blush it appears to be a stretch, but it isn't a completely ridiculous claim.

Craig

 

[chuckbartowski]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

Gone.

I know im in the minority, especially 'round these parts, but i have no use for unlicensed cards,
ESPECIALLY Rookie Cards

Well, they're not licensed by MLB, but they are licensed by the players they use with individual contracts.

 

[ru4scuba]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

Gone.

I know im in the minority, especially 'round these parts, but i have no use for unlicensed cards,
ESPECIALLY Rookie Cards

Then quit trolling these threads. It is getting annoying.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

HAHA.... down with people who are brainwashed into buying graded prospect cards!

:lol:

I like Donruss. All of my favorite sets of all time were made by them. Prime Cuts, Leaf Limited, Leaf Certified, Prime Patches...

Sure, they made crappy sets like Sportscasters and Exhibits, but the beautiful thing is- you didn't have to buy them! They were there just in case you wanted to though.


YOU have no use for unlicensed cards, but why do you wish people who like them can't have them anymore?

GOD
BLESS
AMERICA
!!!

thats why!

 

[ThoseBackPages]

DOWN WITH DONRUSS!!!

Are you being facetious, or do you really want them gone?

Gone.

I know im in the minority, especially 'round these parts, but i have no use for unlicensed cards,
ESPECIALLY Rookie Cards

Then quit trolling these threads. It is getting annoying.

Then FOE me, not difficult.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

but to carry it over to photo of players.... like I asked, how is it different for photos the paparazzi take and the rag mags use?

It is different. Photos used on cards are a commercial product while paparazzi photos are used as "editorial" which does not require the consent of the person being photographed. Anyways, like I said before, MiLB players are not a part of the MLBPA, therefore they have not signed away their likeness to the MLBPA and are free to sign individual contracts with the other card companies.

Cards usually have some kind of editorial on the back.


This has the possibility to affect you negatively though man... I mean you are a pro aren't you?

 

[RL24]

GOD
BLESS
AMERICA
!!!

thats why!

AMEN BROTHER!!! You crack me up E.


I believe in freedom of Donruss. I hope the judge collects cards so he knows what's really going on... :lol:

 

[ru4scuba]

Then FOE me, not difficult.

I used to like reading your posts back on Beckett, but since you've come over here 99% on your posts have been anti-unlicensed cards. You've become a broken record and I have been considering adding you to my foe list already since you rarely say anything interesting anymore.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

GOD
BLESS
AMERICA
!!!

thats why!

AMEN BROTHER!!! You crack me up E.


I believe in freedom of Donruss. I hope the judge collects cards so he knows what's really going on... :lol:

Why can't everyone love eachother Ryan? Not physically, but spirtiually?