Bob Roberts
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 11,201
- Location
- milford ct
Something seems amiss. The matchstick/toothpick/playing card is a fashion accessory add on. Its not his logo. How can one patent/trademark/copyright such a thing?
Damn! So do IJust so yall know... I have ® Mojo Bone for The Lucky Fedora !
Something seems amiss. The matchstick/toothpick/playing card is a fashion accessory add on. Its not his logo. How can one patent/trademark/copyright such a thing?
I believe the difference to be, that matchsticks, toothpicks and playing cards have been used by the hat wearers. If you can convince the trademark registration organisations, that you are the first hatter to make and sell hats with those accessories already in place, you can register it as your trademark. I'm just not absolutely sure, he was the first to do so. Another issue is whether you're the kind of person that would exploit such a possibility or not.Something seems amiss. The matchstick/toothpick/playing card is a fashion accessory add on. Its not his logo. How can one patent/trademark/copyright such a thing?
I absolutely agree, Fruno. I personally haven't seen it (yet), but I'm pretty curious to see the details. I live only 10 minutes walk from his shop, so I'll probably pay him a visit within a week or soI think we would have to look at the trademark paperwork to narrow down exactly what it entails.
I believe, his lawyer is already on the case. Hornskov's business is a very small one, and it's probably a matter of economics whether it's a feasible route to take. I'm pretty sure, that "The Boy Named Sue" (yes, a pun) has much greater muscles when it comes to a court-room struggle.Living just across the bridge from Hornskov in Sweden, I'd be curious to see what a Danish lawyer would say about this takedown
It sure ain't the Nike "swoosh."I think we would have to look at the trademark paperwork to narrow down exactly what it entails.
I have no dog in this fight, but if Mr. Fouquet has successfully petitioned to have his tradmark recognized, he is in his legal rights to defend that trademark (which undoubtedly covers other commercial hatters copying it, not individual wearers from applying their own mark on a hat). In fact, he must, or he will lose his right by neglect.
Whether we think it's silly or not, the law is on his side, apparently.
I remember a couple of decades ago, Harley-Davidson attempted to trademark their "signature" engine sound. Their application was rejected.
Sent directly from my mind to yours.
Very good and I don't believe the matchsticks are even permanently affixed to the property.Living just across the bridge from Hornskov in Sweden, I'd be curious to see what a Danish lawyer would say about this takedown. I know that the EU and Nordic countries in general aren't quite as liberal when it comes to who can sue who for what. It sounds like it would be an expensive and impractical endeavor on Nick's part.
I just think it's incredibly sad for the already struggling community of hatters. It's even scarier to think that the trademark offices of the world figured that it was a good idea to allow this kind of trademark. I think it should obviously be challenged and appealed.
And Nick's ridiculous, almost "non-compete/antitrust" behavior needs to be called out.
I think the case could be made that this is overreaching and abuse of Nick's trademark rights. Here is a small excerpt for how a court would judge if it is in fact infringement:
1. Strength of the mark
(average Dane has no clue who Nick is, visa-versa)
2. Proximity of the goods
(an ocean many miles)
3. Similarity of the marks
(not logos or specific patterns, matches are all different, them being vintage)
4. Evidence of actual confusion
(very hard to prove)
5. Marketing channels used
(Instagram, might be an argument)
6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark
(HK has a very specific reason)
8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines
(unsure)
I think we would have to look at the trademark paperwork to narrow down exactly what it entails.
I have no dog in this fight, but if Mr. Fouquet has successfully petitioned to have his tradmark recognized, he is in his legal rights to defend that trademark (which undoubtedly covers other commercial hatters copying it, not individual wearers from applying their own mark on a hat). In fact, he must, or he will lose his right by neglect.
Whether we think it's silly or not, the law is on his side, apparently.
I remember a couple of decades ago, Harley-Davidson attempted to trademark their "signature" engine sound. Their application was rejected.
Sent directly from my mind to yours.
I believe the difference to be, that matchsticks, toothpicks and playing cards have been used by the hat wearers. If you can convince the trademark registration organisations, that you are the first hatter to make and sell hats with those accessories already in place, you can register it as your trademark. I'm just not absolutely sure, he was the first to do so. Another issue is whether you're the kind of person that would exploit such a possibility or not.
Living just across the bridge from Hornskov in Sweden, I'd be curious to see what a Danish lawyer would say about this takedown. I know that the EU and Nordic countries in general aren't quite as liberal when it comes to who can sue who for what. It sounds like it would be an expensive and impractical endeavor on Nick's part.
I just think it's incredibly sad for the already struggling community of hatters. It's even scarier to think that the trademark offices of the world figured that it was a good idea to allow this kind of trademark. I think it should obviously be challenged and appealed.
I think the case could be made that this is overreaching and abuse of Nick's trademark rights. Here is a small excerpt for how a court would judge if it is in fact infringement:
1. Strength of the mark
(average Dane has no clue who Nick is, visa-versa)
2. Proximity of the goods
(an ocean many miles)
3. Similarity of the marks
(not logos or specific patterns, matches are all different, them being vintage)
4. Evidence of actual confusion
(very hard to prove)
5. Marketing channels used
(Instagram, might be an argument)
6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark
(HK has a very specific reason)
8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines
(unsure)
liberal? Do you mean libertarian?
exactly ... I've never heard of this person or his hats and I've been putting matches in my ribbon for a long timeSomething seems amiss. The matchstick/toothpick/playing card is a fashion accessory add on. Its not his logo. How can one patent/trademark/copyright such a thing?
Something seems amiss. The matchstick/toothpick/playing card is a fashion accessory add on. Its not his logo. How can one patent/trademark/copyright such a thing?
I was referring toI believe the word was being used in the classic, non-political form - liberal as opposed to strict internpretation of the law.
rather than the comment some way before it using the word. I should have quoted the post.I know that the EU and Nordic countries in general aren't quite as liberal when it comes to who can sue who for what.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BDlwDp6N4vo/
- ...Cause if u fake the funk ur nose will grow "George Clinton and the parliament funkadelic... #nickfouquet
I’ll be patiently awaiting my lawsuit. [emoji6]
These were taken some time ago
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe he can legally trademark the matchstick look by categorizing his hats as works of art, rather than clothing accessories - as if each hat is a wearable sculpture with the matchstick as the signature of the artist. I'm no expert in the legalities, of course. But I'm an artist, and I am very familiar with the dirty tricks artists do to "protect their intellectual property." It's a really horrible move.