Are drawings of products trademark infringements?
Following up to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html
I fell off thread
Found this link:
http://www.crowleylaw.com/IPNews/IP018.htm
[quote]
The same lack of similarity was fatal to Stouffer?s claim for copyright
infringement of the cover illustration for her booklet, Larry Potter and
His Best Friend Lilly. While both Harry Potter and Larry Potter are
depicted as young boys with dark hair and eyeglasses, the court observed
that copyright law does not protect these generic elements. The court
found that the protectable elements in Stouffer?s illustrations ? Larry
Potter?s facial features, the shape and color of his eyeglasses, and the
style and color of his hair ? are not present in illustrations of Harry
Potter
[/quote]
It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are
"protectable." A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is
not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial
featurs, style and color of hair *clearly intending to be Harry
Potter* is a violation.
I said you'd have to contact a lawyer, because I'm not sure if the
Duracel batttery copying the color pattern and "plus" sign of
Duracel is infringement, but common sense tells me that's what
it's supposed to be.
It's not "insane" to be talking about it, but I don't think it's
as big a deal but that's just because people are inconsistent.
Why take the risk? It's clearly supposed to be "Duracel Battery"
not "Battery". A blue battery would be "battery."
This is a "Duracel battery." I still don't know if it's a violation
but it's certainly not open-and-shut case.
Google around some more you'll see legal cases have been built off
this sort of thing. If you were to put that image on a T-Shirt
with Calvin peeing on it you'd certainly get sued by Calvin's creator
and Duracel.
Reply to: