Topps Sues Leaf Over "Best Of" Product!

[Crash Davis]

If you think that Topps doesn't and shouldn't see leaf as a serious competitor then you don't know the industry.

Topps basically has two major revenue pies.

#1 big box retail, all hail the mighty walmart

2# distributor dollars, this is where leaf can seriously dig into profits. Orders by distributors are finite, and if they order more Leaf they will order less topps.

Chris - they also sell a boatload of candy. And the sheer amount of product they sell to Walmart, Target and other big retailers makes dwarfs the amount of product Leaf sells. You should know that.

Candy plus trading card orders from big retailers equals a lot more money than other card companies.

 

[cgilmo]

Re: Topps Sues Leaf Over "Best Of" Product!

Yea crash I realize that. But hobby is around a %20 niche at topps and a company that competes with them for such a large piece of their overall pie has to be taken seriously.

 

[autocut]

Ok, Classic/Scoreboard use to do this all the time with buybacks and I never heard them getting sued for it. Topps just trying to intimidate as these are cards from the secondary market. Just like they don't do anything about people stamping 1/1's on cards and selling them as 1/1's.

 

[jrinne]

Speaking of classic, I really would love to see another 4 sport product.

 

[KC37]

You guys clearly cannot appreciate nosterbor for what he is. I don't know what that is, but don't lose sleep over it. Always read everything he says, and then say: "anyway...."

Exactly - these guys have obviously never read his genius rantings in some of the political threads.

 

[RZimm11]

You guys clearly cannot appreciate nosterbor for what he is. I don't know what that is, but don't lose sleep over it. Always read everything he says, and then say: "anyway...."

Exactly - these guys have obviously never read his genius rantings in some of the political threads.

I've read some of his stuff. This was the first time I thought I could make out what he was saying, so I thought I'd try and translate for others. :lol:

 

[WoundedDuck]

What a great read. I absolutely love these threads. I would have liked to add comments along the way, but the time has passed. I have absolutely 0 legal knowledge, so even though I'm interested in how it turns out, I'll refrain from commenting on the law suit. I will add my 2 cents on a couple of things though.

I'm not really a Leaf lover or hater. Like a lot of people I was excited about Razor Sig Series and bought a few things. I liked what they were trying to do and the whole exclusivity thing. However, like a lot of people, I was upset when Razor metal came out and basically gave us the same thing, but cooler, essentially devaluing their previous product. If I'd have known, I would have waited and got the metal instead. It left me with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth for Razor and the new Leaf.

I haven't purchased anything else from the company since, but it's been kind of interesting to just watch and read on FCB. There have been many more products released by Razor and Leaf since Sig Series. Brian has been more than willing to come here and discuss his stuff, take criticism, and listen to suggestions. If I remember correctly, he's even admitted that knowing what he knows now, he may have done some things differently. You wouldn't get that from most companys. From what I've seen, this collector interaction has had a direct effect on the products that Leaf is producing. I'm not saying I'm blown away by everything coming out of Leaf, but some of the stuff the that's been released and some that's coming out shows that they are listening. That impresses me. I still haven't bought anything since Sig. Series, but at this point, it's not because I'm bitter and jaded, but simply because what they've released, isn't my thing. I sincerely hope that Brian and Leaf one day get the MLB license because with their effort to make what collectors are looking for, I think they could put out a great product. And if that day comes, I'll be buying.

I had my first chance to go to the National last week. I had a blast checking everything out. I never met Brian personally or shook his hand. However, I was there for the Joe Jackson cut give away and I saw how he and other Leaf guys interacted with collectors that stopped by their booth during my 2 day stay. They seemed genuinely excited about what they were doing in discussing the hobby and their stuff. Maybe they're just good salesmen, but they seemed to really give a $%@!. That's something you can't say for every company there.

I hope Leaf comes out ahead in this one. Again, not because I'm their biggest fan and not because I hate Topps, but I think Brian and Leaf are trying. It's already been said, but that provides good competition, which hopefully means better products from both Leaf and Topps for us collectors.

I'm sure some or most of that was incoherent, ignorant rambling, but hopefully there's a point in there somewhere.

Eric

 

[JoshHamilton]

This will be my first and last post in this thread. I have one thing to say to all you fools:

PING!

 

[PeteD]

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.

That would be like GM sueing their dealers.

 

[vwnut13]

How about when a car dealer advertises other car brands in their flyers.

 

[PeteD]

How about when a car dealer advertises other car brands in their flyers.

Most likely would be a trade-in, or used.

I've never seen a dealer flog another companies brand new product. I would think that's not part of their agreement, causing parent company to pull the dealers license.

 

[vwnut13]

How about when a car dealer advertises other car brands in their flyers.

Most likely would be a trade-in, or used.

I've never seen a dealer flog another companies brand new product. I would think that's not part of their agreement, causing parent company to pull the dealers license.

Well, these cards are "used" are they not?

They aren't coming from Topps. They were purchased from owners that no longer wanted them.

 

[nyc3]

ohh my, tmz really?

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/14/mickey-ma ... nts-anchor

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

ohh my, tmz really?

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/14/mickey-ma ... nts-anchor

I expect businesses to have connections with newspapers and online outlets, I wonder what connections Leaf has made with TMZ to make that story.

 

[George_Calfas]

Maybe our FCB lawyers can confirm or deny these comments.

I spoke to a friend who happens to practice this type of law in Ohio. He had a couple of thoughts 1). The burden of proof for "Damages" lies with Topps and that Topps would need to show how this sell sheet devalued the Topps Brand 2). The president has been set with similar products released in earlier years without litigation.

His comments were that this is a high dollar cease and desist a future actions.

 

[tonsofcommons]

This will be my first and last post in this thread. I have one thing to say to all you fools:

PING!

GOD I LOVE WOODEN BATS!

 

[sunojorel]

If you think that Topps doesn't and shouldn't see leaf as a serious competitor then you don't know the industry.

Topps basically has two major revenue pies.

#1 big box retail, all hail the mighty walmart

2# distributor dollars, this is where leaf can seriously dig into profits. Orders by distributors are finite, and if they order more Leaf they will order less topps.

Real competition for Topps when someone has to use their cards to be a competitor

I would recommend taking off the blinders.
Buyback products constitute less than 10% of our revenue.
ALI, Family Guy, FB Draft, Baseball Draft,MMA, Pete Rose Legacy, Vince Lombardi Collection, 2011 LEAF GOLF, 2011 Legends of Sport, Poker, POP CENTURY, US ARMY FB.... we have plenty of non-buyback products.

Bias makes even the moderately educated look stupid.
BG

+1 Brian

 

[sunojorel]

i have read all 9 pages. here i my thought on this. when i first saw Leaf 2010 i thought WOW! Donruss/Leaf was back. then i was looking at the product and saw no licensing whatsoever. what ticked me off was the bait and switch tactic. that logo they use is the very same as the 90 leaf product that came out on the 90 leaf cards right down to the color! look at a box of 90 leaf. Topps wins, Leaf is done big time. look at the logo on this 92 Leaf card. Topps will use this also to show that the Now Leaf just uses what ever means possible to sell product. Leaf/Donruss are no longer.Topps is still here so you can not infringe on a still copyrighted product.

Remember these cards? 1994 Sports Edition. they were sued by baseball and the players union for copy right infringement.gone in a heart beat!

BY BY LEAF!

This post is silly to me, what you need to realize is that Leaf's current ownership group i'm sure obtained the right to Leaf's goodwill and logo's in the acquisition of the "Leaf Brand Name". In layman's terms that means BG et all is using th eLeaf name and that exact logo because they are entitled to.

ooh and it's Bye Bye.....

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Aside from claiming these 1)cards are copyrighted and trademarked, 2) "Topps claims that they have licensed the exclusive rights to use the names, images and signatures for Mickey Mantle, Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper and Babe Ruth."

I'm not a lawyer but the article specifies the issues fairly clearly, the images and signatures issue also need to be resolved.

Maybe our FCB lawyers can confirm or deny these comments.

I spoke to a friend who happens to practice this type of law in Ohio. He had a couple of thoughts 1). The burden of proof for "Damages" lies with Topps and that Topps would need to show how this sell sheet devalued the Topps Brand 2). The president has been set with similar products released in earlier years without litigation.

His comments were that this is a high dollar cease and desist a future actions.

 

[cgilmo]

Aside from claiming these 1)cards are copyrighted and trademarked, 2) "Topps claims that they have licensed the exclusive rights to use the names, images and signatures for Mickey Mantle, Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper and Babe Ruth."

I'm not a lawyer but the article specifies the issues fairly clearly, the images and signatures issue also need to be resolved.

Maybe our FCB lawyers can confirm or deny these comments.

I spoke to a friend who happens to practice this type of law in Ohio. He had a couple of thoughts 1). The burden of proof for "Damages" lies with Topps and that Topps would need to show how this sell sheet devalued the Topps Brand 2). The president has been set with similar products released in earlier years without litigation.

His comments were that this is a high dollar cease and desist a future actions.

Ownership would take precedence. Topps owned that mantle card, they can use a scan of it if they want.