Another Asian Repro Co

[Cooper A-2]

IMHO
1) is the brand Good Wear Leather registered?
2) if so, it will need John a lot of legal investments in Korean lawyers and its justice system to enforce his claim and furthermore to prove and document that, he John and his original GW co. suffered losses or any other harm.
Maybe the Korean GW Co. will accept Johns request and paddle back ( I dont think so, since this would be a face loss...which is almost as bad as walking naked in a church on sunday morning).
Good luck and just remember how it went for Apple and Samsung...Billions of $$$$ for nothing. every party won in its respective country.
I work / worked in Korea since 1989 and face these things in other domaines on a daily base.
Happy New Year!

 

[a2jacketpatches]

I hardly think JC would entertain such. It will not affect him one way or the other.

 

[ButteMT61]

They go to 48, which is modern 46. I do have a size 50 GW, but he won't make 'em anymore.

Nah, I'm a modern 48 and my GW's are real 48's. Not sure why you say this, but JC makes a modern 48 for sure.

 

[Cooper A-2]

I hardly think JC would entertain such. It will not affect him one way or the other.

Fully agree with you.
With almost 16 months delivery time and a pricing 3x the Korean repro, JC will just smile at all this.
Just for my private curiosity is the Good Ware name registered?
Thanks and greetings from Paris en route to Incheon/Seoul-Korea

 

[ButteMT61]

FYI, one of the main reasons big companies like Apple et al file suits like these is to keep others from attempting to piggyback off of their IP, etc. Even if they lose - or know they might lose - they often file such suits. If they don't, then the number of violations grows as people/companies feel like they can just "borrow" at will...

 

[Cooper A-2]

Maybe, however, it did not help much ( except to fill-up the lawyers and justice systems bank accounts), since plenty of other new players in Asia and a few other countries dont see it that way, according to many articles in the specialized medias.

 

[ButteMT61]

Whatever the case, I try and will continue to do so to avoid buying from those that "borrow" instead of doing something of their own. I have an absolute bias towards certain regions - I won't lie about that. I've seen and experienced a lot of downside from theft in those areas and it's real as are the effects on people trying to make a living here.

 

[Superfluous]

The issue is not whether GW can, or should, enforce its trademark rights in Korea. Even if GW had filed an international trademark application, such that it possessed trademark protection in countries that participate in the Madrid Protocol, including Korea, the cost of enforcement is almost certainly too great in this particular instance to warrant the necessary expenditure.

The more interesting/debatable issue is the ethics and/or culpability of the underlying conduct by the Korean company. As others have pointed out, the Korean company may not have intended to use GW's name, and its reference to "Good Wear" may be an innocent act caused by a language barrier. Thats certainly possible, although I am not sold on this theory given the use of the same font and other circumstantial indicia of intent (I once litigated a trade dress lawsuit where duplicative font was a key component of the claim).

Ultimately, the focal inquiry is the likelihood of confusion. Would a potential buyer of a leather jacket be confused by the Korean company's reference to "Good Wear Leather" and associate the Korean company with JC's GW? Given that the two companies operate in the identical industry (leather jackets), both companies focus on reproductions of vintage leather jackets, both companies offer similar (but not identical) designs, both companies emphasize and utilize HH, and both companies emphasize and utilize vintage components, there is certainly the possibility of some confusion among consumers, and perhaps even significant confusion. On the other hand, playing Devils Advocate, the Korean company has a different company name, references "Good Wear" as something akin to a slogan/byline rather than the name of its company, and does not suggest any other connection to JC's GW. Thus, it is certainly possible that most consumers would not be confused and would not associate the Korean company with JC's GW. I suspect that none of us here would be confused. Of course, we are an educated group and, therefore, our lack of confusion is not particularly germane. Would John Q. Leather Jacket Buyer be confused? Hypothetically, if this dispute warranted costly litigation (it clearly does not), both sides would conduct surveys of leather jacket buyers, and empirical data would be generated regarding the likelihood of confusion.

Separate and distinct from legal culpability, if the Korean company is politely asked to cease and desist its reference to GW given the potential consumer confusion, ethical considerations would clearly mandate that the Korean company remove the GW references from its website. Upon being notified of the issue, the Koran company could no longer claim an innocent mistake. Therefore, continued reference to "Good Wear Leather" -- after receiving a polite explanation of the problem and request to desist -- would be exponentially more egregious and ethically contemptible.

Lastly, like several prior posters, I strongly condemn companies that intentionally violate intellectual property rights in order to wrongfully profit from the hard work and ingenuity of others. Likewise, I strongly disagree with those who, directly or indirectly, excuse such conduct. It is inexcusable. Meaningful intellectual property rights are a critically important component of research, development and advancement in all industries, not to mention expanding economies; and successful violations of intellectual property rights undermine these critically important goals, to everyone's detriment. Notwithstanding that music is readily available for free from countless websites, I buy all of my music through Amazon and thereby reward the artist for his/her commitment to his/her craft. IMHO, we all should reward those who create, and we should stridently reject parasites who wrongfully attempt to profit from the creative spirit of others. Stepping down from my soapbox . . . .

 

[Cooper A-2]

I work for a US Co. selling defence/navigational/aeronautical equipment , Asia is our biggest market.
Hope it stays this way.

 

[Grayland]

The whole idea of reproduction jackets is a slippery slope IMO. They all "borrow" - that is the idea, they aren't doing anything original. JC perfectly copies vintage jackets, down to the tag and we wait almost 2 years to get our hands on one of his "copies". The idea of taking someone's company name (although I'm not sure that is what happened here) is a bit more bothersome, but I don't concern myself with someone copying a copy of an original.

 

[Cooper A-2]

Did not Aero have a problem with some of his staff stealing or copying models / patterns and reproducing them und a different brand but using the same jackets , I saw a thread on this somewhere here a few months back.
The "borrower" of the patterns , here not of the trade mark, surely did a lot of harm to Aero I guess and he is/was not Asian as far as I can recall.
Copying is forging and is unethical for sure, but unfortunately it happens and it belongs to the prospect to select or to refuse...I refuse all kind of copies and fakes and repros...regardless who produces them.

 

[Superfluous]

The whole idea of reproduction jackets is a slippery slope IMO. They all "borrow" - that is the idea, they aren't doing anything original. JC perfectly copies vintage jackets, down to the tag and we wait almost 2 years to get our hands on one of his "copies". The idea of taking someone's company name (although I'm not sure that is what happened here) is a bit more bothersome, but I don't concern myself with someone copying a copy of an original.

I think we are all in agreement that replication of vintage jackets offered by companies that are no longer in business, and no longer profiting from their original creativeness, is fair game (and legal). It is an entirely different issue when a company inserts the name of an active competitor into its marketing materials, so as to suggest an affiliation with the competitor.

 

[Rudie]

Anybody who knows John Chapman's small niche market company is educated enough not to confuse it with a Korean company named Master Film Mfg Co., even if said Korean company uses a catch phrase clumsily translated by Google to "Manufacturers Of Classic Good Wear Leather Jacket Company". The majority who have never heard of Good Wear can't confuse both companies, anyway. I mean, get real. It's not like they stole his patterns or something.

 

[Grayland]

We've taken one of the finest original 1920s jackets we've seen in many decades (click on the Original Black Jacket in bar above, which is very similar to jacket "E" in the 1927 Sears Catalogue, also pictured). We've unashamedly replicated every detail although we've tidied up the uneven gaps between the buttonholes on the original.

This is from the Aero website in regards to them "copying" a vintage jacket from another maker. This is the slippery slope I spoke of.

I have several Aero jackets and mean no disrespect towards them, but companies that specialize in reproduction jackets are in the business of copying.

 

[Cooper A-2]

Fully agree!

 

[ButteMT61]

I work for a US Co. selling defence/navigational/aeronautical equipment , Asia is our biggest market.
Hope it stays this way.

We'd never have guessed...

 

[Blackadder]

When I posted the link, I did not even catch the mentioning of "Good Wear". I saw the name Master Film and then I just looked at the jackets. Here almost all of us will immediately make the connection to Mr Chapman's company. In Asia and for the general public, the name Good Wear is likely to be associated with Goodwear USA (Master Film does make Sweaters etc) which has a more significant presence in Japan and Asia.
Leaving aside the intention of Master Film, it is kind of difficult to prove wrongdoings if only a handful of people in Korea has ever heard of Mr Chapman's company.

 

[handymike]

MF (Master Film NOT Mister Freedom) should show pictures of the backs of the jackets.

 

[ButteMT61]

...Leaving aside the intention of Master Film, it is kind of difficult to prove wrongdoings if only a handful of people in Korea has ever heard of Mr Chapman's company.

I find that hard to swallow. GW make jackets for films. GW makes mil repop jackets of the era. they make mil repops for films.

Those people would have to do some research on said jackets and for GW not to come up this day and age would shock me.
The line on the site says "Good Wear Leather Jacket Company" - not good wearing leather jackets or anything remotely believable.

Me believing that there is an unlikely chance this will effect GW in a tangible manner has nothing to do with how much I hate this ***t. Many industries have been gutted by the blatant copying/theft of American (and others, but I live here) products. Film, music, tech to name but a few. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it makes me angry, as is obvious.

 

[A-1]

When I was in Korea, the "made in Korea“ stuff was mostly really good quality. Wasn’t into repro stuff back then though. Musical instruments made in Korea are still quite nice for the price tag.

I think I saw the ‚good wear‘ quote on other labels before as well. Can’t remember where. It seems like a pretty ordinary thing to write in there. Yet, the resemblance of the GW label (shown by SF) is significant and conspicuous. A lot of them seem to be inspired by the Golden Bear labels (I don’t know who was first though).

When I was in Korea some years ago, I stayed in Seoul, and everything was inspired by the US. Everyone played baseball and all. Very interesting indeed. The Koreans added their own flavour though, like the Japanese do with their repro stuff.

To me it’s far more interesting to see Korean stuff in Korea. I mean the US classics are the mainstream fashion all over the world. Hardly ever will you have Japanese or Korean or South African or Hollandish styles that make it as big so you can make money with it.

To me it’s quite boring to have people from all over the world making the same styles. But it’s the same in fashion like it is in music. When you know something, meaning listen to or see something that sounds or looks similar to what you already know, you’re more likely to like it than when it’s something completely new to your ears or eyes.

Sorry for the big bla!