Hatters beware! American hatter threatens to sue over matches behind the ribbon!

[Bob Roberts]

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?

 

[TheDane]

Just so yall know... I have ® Mojo Bone for The Lucky Fedora !

Damn! So do I

 

[Frunobulax]

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 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.

 

[TheDane]

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.

 

[ariahokas]

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)

 

[TheDane]

I think we would have to look at the trademark paperwork to narrow down exactly what it entails.

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 so

 

[KarlCrow]

liberal? Do you mean libertarian?

 

[Mustang Mike's Hats]

Wow.. Fouquet is a jerk. My wife, who is very artistically inclined, used to see what he was up to on Instagram occasionally. She stopped when he posted a shot of himself doing a "B.A." on an overpass here in L.A. and being proud of it. SMH.

 

[TheDane]

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 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.

 

[Bob Roberts]

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.

It sure ain't the Nike "swoosh."

 

[Bob Roberts]

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)

Very good and I don't believe the matchsticks are even permanently affixed to the property.

 

[Edward]

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.

Yes, he simply has to make it distinct enough from any other commercial product out there, along with various other issues. Trade mark law across
Europe has become significantly liberalised over the last twenty-five years or so; since the mid nineties, Coca Colave been able to register their bottle shape as an RTM, while Milka have been able to register the exact lilac colour associated with their packaging. Sounds are an option now - think the Intel four-note jingle; I suspect where Harley failed was that their engine sound simply isn't distinct enough to meet the TM requirements (ironically enough, as any time I hear an obnoxiously loud motorcycle on the road being revved at lights by some guy trying to drw attention to himself, nine times out of ten it's a Harley!).

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.

Pretty much - it needs to be distinctive enough that there will be no risk of confusion. If he were to let it slide and not enforce it, then it could become common enough that the mark wopuld be undermined.

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.

If it was as passing off case with an unregistered mark, it can certainly get messy. If it's a registered mark, however, it's a fairly easy thing.

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 can't get emotional about it, tbh.... if the end user wants to stick a match in their hat, there's little he can do about it, but I can't see why any hatmaker would want to be bothered.

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)

That would certainly be the direction it would have to go in Europe.

liberal? Do you mean libertarian?

I believe the word was being used in the classic, non-political form - liberal as opposed to strict internpretation of the law.

 

[Tonio]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDlwDp6N4vo/

• nickfouquetHappy to announce the matchstick on all hats has been approved by the USPTS "United States patented and trademark office" all color matchstick of the rainbow... If u know any imitation feel free to @ them... Then my bulldog attorney can slap em @cdischino ...Cause if u fake the funk ur nose will grow "George Clinton and the parliament funkadelic... #nickfouquet

 

[moontheloon]

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?

exactly ... I've never heard of this person or his hats and I've been putting matches in my ribbon for a long time

I stole if from some old Western movies my dad used to watch

is he going to sue the movie production studios as well now ?

 

[blueAZNmonkey]

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 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.

 

[KarlCrow]

I believe the word was being used in the classic, non-political form - liberal as opposed to strict internpretation of the law.

I was referring to

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.

rather than the comment some way before it using the word. I should have quoted the post.

allowing rights over such general attributes of property being more libertarian and less liberal.

 

[moontheloon]

I’ll be patiently awaiting my lawsuit. [emoji6]

These were taken some time ago

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blueAZNmonkey]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDlwDp6N4vo/

• ...Cause if u fake the funk ur nose will grow "George Clinton and the parliament funkadelic... #nickfouquet

What does this EVEN MEAN!?!?

 

[blueAZNmonkey]

I’ll be patiently awaiting my lawsuit. [emoji6]

These were taken some time ago

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blue-riginals will now feature matchsticks in varying ways.

 

[jlee562]

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.

Apparently it falls under "trade dess," which creates a brand identity .

I was very ineptly trying to search the trademarks, but could only find ones related to Fouquet's company name and logo.