Topps Sues Leaf Over "Best Of" Product!

[TwinGnats]

I just think it's funny Leaf can't come up with an original concept for a base product and resort to gimmicks. Leaf and Classic might as well be blood brothers. Just junk in general.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I just think it's funny Leaf can't come up with an original concept for a base product and resort to gimmicks. Leaf and Classic might as well be blood brothers. Just junk in general.

You really believe that Leaf has not nor are going to release original product?

 

[gonzagacubs]

In my opinion, companies shouldn't take another company's work and call it their own. Worry about making your own products, and quit mooching off another company's work.

 

[masonphillip]

I just think it's funny Leaf can't come up with an original concept for a base product and resort to gimmicks. Leaf and Classic might as well be blood brothers. Just junk in general.

Eh, this is just one of many products they've released.

I'm in the topps doesn't have a case camp and happy to have Leaf continue to participate in the market.

 

[Ty Hope]

I like Leaf, but would much rather they continue with their own original products. Not a fan at all of the re-packaged stuff. Not the way to become a big player in the industry IMO.

 

[DeliciousBacon]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

That doesn't mean they still don't hold a trademark on them. Chevy can't use a song in a commercial to sell their cars without permission of the copyright holders, so why should Leaf be able to use Topps' copyright in advertising to sell their product? Some people seem to be missing the point that Topps isn't objecting to the content, they're objecting to the use of their trademarks to sell this product. There's a high likelihood that there are issues relating to people potentially thinking this is a Topps release, or done with the consent/assistance of Topps.

 

[bballstar029]

Was Razor's agreement back when Alonso and Wallace's names appeared on a Chrome Checklist/Sell Sheet any different than topps'? Not sure if it's really apples to apples, but the story included Topps owning the right to certain names. Jeff

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

That doesn't mean they still don't hold a trademark on them. Chevy can't use a song in a commercial to sell their cars without permission of the copyright holders, so why should Leaf be able to use Topps' copyright in advertising to sell their product? Some people seem to be missing the point that Topps isn't objecting to the content, they're objecting to the use of their trademarks to sell this product. There's a high likelihood that there are issues relating to people potentially thinking this is a Topps release, or done with the consent/assistance of Topps.

So how come Topps isn't suing blowout/Dave and Adams, FCB and anyone else for advertising Topps products on their websites? They show pics of the boxes and sometimes singles, no? There is a HUGE difference when you SELL a product MEANT for resale. Topps sells a product made specifically for RESALE, so to go after people for trying to resell is laughable.

 

[Ty Hope]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

That doesn't mean they still don't hold a trademark on them. Chevy can't use a song in a commercial to sell their cars without permission of the copyright holders, so why should Leaf be able to use Topps' copyright in advertising to sell their product? Some people seem to be missing the point that Topps isn't objecting to the content, they're objecting to the use of their trademarks to sell this product. There's a high likelihood that there are issues relating to people potentially thinking this is a Topps release, or done with the consent/assistance of Topps.

So how come Topps isn't suing blowout/Dave and Adams and FCB for advertising their products on their websites? They show pics of the boxes and sometimes singles, no? There is a HUGE difference when you SELL a product MEANT for resale.

I would assume its because they aren't competitors.

 

[FortyFour]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

lol if they own it then they own it for ever.

Its not like because Topps wasnt using it someone else can.

 

[TwinGnats]

You're right Metal was a great concept that has never been done bef...

Topps does have a case, and I for one hope they win. Those other people that are using their trademarks to repackage stuff could be sued but aren't due to how small of a market share they would be attempting to take.

Leaf on the other hand is a manufactuer (kind of) and is a direct competitor stealing topps trademarks. All this super limited repackaged stuff, they're operating a lottery/raffle and the attorney general should be cracking down on them.

I just think it's funny Leaf can't come up with an original concept for a base product and resort to gimmicks. Leaf and Classic might as well be blood brothers. Just junk in general.

Eh, this is just one of many products they've released.

I'm in the topps doesn't have a case camp and happy to have Leaf continue to participate in the market.

 

[matchpenalty]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

lol if they own it then they own it for ever.

Its not like because Topps wasnt using it someone else can.

No they don't....
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

lol if they own it then they own it for ever.

Its not like because Topps wasnt using it someone else can.

They could never prove damages. They sell product specifically meant for resale. Even if they can prove copyright infringement, the best they will probably get is some kind of cease and desist. They would never in a million year be able to prove damages.

 

[DeliciousBacon]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

That doesn't mean they still don't hold a trademark on them. Chevy can't use a song in a commercial to sell their cars without permission of the copyright holders, so why should Leaf be able to use Topps' copyright in advertising to sell their product? Some people seem to be missing the point that Topps isn't objecting to the content, they're objecting to the use of their trademarks to sell this product. There's a high likelihood that there are issues relating to people potentially thinking this is a Topps release, or done with the consent/assistance of Topps.

So how come Topps isn't suing blowout/Dave and Adams, FCB and anyone else for advertising Topps products on their websites? They show pics of the boxes and sometimes singles, no? There is a HUGE difference when you SELL a product MEANT for resale. Topps sells a product made specifically for RESALE, so to go after people for trying to resell is laughable.

D&A/Blowout are not selling a Topps product as their own release. Leaf is selling a Leaf product that is heavily based on Topps' already-issued cards. It's not "We are selling an unopened for of 2011 Topps Heritage" or "We sell all Topps singles", it's "This is a Leaf product, with the Leaf name, filled with Topps cards". That's nothing closely related to a retailer buying from a distributer and selling a product.

 

[coltsnsox07]

Hey BG, what about this product,

this is a box cover, not a sell sheet!

Did you guys see what I posted on page one? How can a product that has this as their box cover not be worse?

 

[bballstar029]

What is in the boxes is irrelevant, why do people keep talking about the Topps cards. The suit deals with the sell sheet and the sell sheet only. Whether you agree with Leaf's practices or not, or dislike their products is irrelevant. The suit involves the marketing material only.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

That doesn't mean they still don't hold a trademark on them. Chevy can't use a song in a commercial to sell their cars without permission of the copyright holders, so why should Leaf be able to use Topps' copyright in advertising to sell their product? Some people seem to be missing the point that Topps isn't objecting to the content, they're objecting to the use of their trademarks to sell this product. There's a high likelihood that there are issues relating to people potentially thinking this is a Topps release, or done with the consent/assistance of Topps.

So how come Topps isn't suing blowout/Dave and Adams, FCB and anyone else for advertising Topps products on their websites? They show pics of the boxes and sometimes singles, no? There is a HUGE difference when you SELL a product MEANT for resale. Topps sells a product made specifically for RESALE, so to go after people for trying to resell is laughable.

D&A/Blowout are not selling a Topps product as their own release. Leaf is selling a Leaf product that is heavily based on Topps' already-issued cards. It's not "We are selling an unopened for of 2011 Topps Heritage" or "We sell all Topps singles", it's "This is a Leaf product, with the Leaf name, filled with Topps cards". That's nothing closely related to a retailer buying from a distributer and selling a product.

Millions of people sell Topps singles online and in card shops. This isn't copyright infringement. This case is about the advertising, so it's a different matter. I still don't think Topps has leg to stand on.

 

[FortyFour]

I would love to see Topps' argument as to why this affects their bottom line. Are they still selling 1952 packs/boxes/cases. lol What damages could they possibly seek when all these products have been out of their hands for years to decades. FAIL.

lol if they own it then they own it for ever.

Its not like because Topps wasnt using it someone else can.

No they don't....
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

Thanks wiki.

 

[sportscardtheory]

You're right Metal was a great concept that has never been done bef...

Topps does have a case, and I for one hope they win. Those other people that are using their trademarks to repackage stuff could be sued but aren't due to how small of a market share they would be attempting to take.

Leaf on the other hand is a manufactuer (kind of) and is a direct competitor stealing topps trademarks. All this super limited repackaged stuff, they're operating a lottery/raffle and the attorney general should be cracking down on them.

:lol: You should no longer be allowed to sell your cards online for saying this stuff.

Who are you, card collecting's mom.

 

[Halonut]

Hey BG, what about this product,

this is a box cover, not a sell sheet!

Did you guys see what I posted on page one? How can a product that has this as their box cover not be worse?

The problem here is as someone stated before, Leaf is (albeit small at the present time) a competitor to Topps since they are in the business of card manufacturing. I am sure Topps wouldn't have had a problem with the best of series, if it weren't for the fact that the proceeds could be used to fuel future Leaf brands (BB/FB Metal Draft) and individual contracts (Ichiro).