Clones with original manufacturer names

emrr said:

I've said it before, I got in 'trouble' with Quad Eight when racking some original Q8 modules for sale, they didn't like me reproducing the logo on the rack case.  They actually thought I was passing off counterfeits at first.  When I started that rack project, the name had not yet been bought and revived. 

Click to expand...

The case that put a precedence to this was actually in US. A company was modifying a gear box of another manufacturer and selling off as their product. They naturally lost.

kambo said:

sahib said:

weiss said:

...... But i don't think copying logo's and stuff is correct either (but for private use)......

Click to expand...

You will require permission even for private use. 

Click to expand...

you dont need permission for private use.

u can even show case it, in a private event.
u can even cover the whole wall with any logo u want, any name u want. any number of clones u want...
(i worked for this kind of projects many times)

u will need permission if u r going public...
if u have a commercial studio, thats public...
this forum is open to public too...

Click to expand...

Well, as it happens I spent over 30 years in design and manufacture too.

Permission to re-produce an intellectual property for personal use is granted by the owner of the property. Until you have it in writing from them you are not allowed to do it. THE END.

You copy an Apple or Microsoft product for your "private" use and, show it in a " private" event" and,  they find out and see where you end up.

You do not need to copy a Sony product for your "private" use , they already manufacture it for your "private" consumption.

Years ago, one of my clients got a prototype made of an object with Coca Cola brand on it. At that time they were already working with Coca Cola and the idea was that they would present it to Coca Cola. They sent a photograph of another object to Coca Cola for approval, but unfortunately the  object in question appeared in the background. Coca Cola asked them to destroy it immediately as they were not given permission for it. And the client did it at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds.

As I said, people are getting away with it because it is impossible to police every single person and not financially feasible.

sahib said:

Permission to re-produce an intellectual property for personal use is granted by the owner of the property. Until you have it in writing from them you are not allowed to do it. THE END.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if this is correct. Actually, I am sure it is correct but the devil is in the phrase 'intellectual property'. There are specific methods of protecting what you or a company considers to be intellectual property. There is no automatic protection, as there is for music for example; you have to register a design or patent a circuit. If you do not do this, then as soon as the product is on the market it is legally considered to be public domain. Anyone can copy it verbatim.  I was made painfully aware of this when I designed the Dragon 32 home computer for Mettoy back in the 80s. There was nothing patentable in it so we had to register the designs of the PCBs and the caseworks . A PCB can be a registered design, as can a logo or a front panel layout or a casework. However, if the circuit design is not embodied in a patent then you can make your own version of it and sell it.

And that is the situation in the UK as I understand it. It may well be different in other parts of the world.

Cheers

Ian

Sure.  I'm focusing more on the brand aspects.  There are plenty of intellectual property cases. 

ruffrecords said:

sahib said:

Permission to re-produce an intellectual property for personal use is granted by the owner of the property. Until you have it in writing from them you are not allowed to do it. THE END.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if this is correct. Actually, I am sure it is correct but the devil is in the phrase 'intellectual property'. There are specific methods of protecting what you or a company considers to be intellectual property. There is no automatic protection, as there is for music for example; you have to register a design or patent a circuit. If you do not do this, then as soon as the product is on the market it is legally considered to be public domain. Anyone can copy it verbatim.  I was made painfully aware of this when I designed the Dragon 32 home computer for Mettoy back in the 80s. There was nothing patentable in it so we had to register the designs of the PCBs and the caseworks . A PCB can be a registered design, as can a logo or a front panel layout or a casework. However, if the circuit design is not embodied in a patent then you can make your own version of it and sell it.

And that is the situation in the UK as I understand it. It may well be different in other parts of the world.

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

Hi Ian,

The issue in question is using a logo or a name. 

Believe me it is Black and White. You simply require the permission from the owner. Otherwise the law does not say "yes you can re-produce it for your own use".  You'll only realise that when you end up in court. 

As you know I am based in the UK but I also had a case in US.  I gave the example of Coca Cola. I have a whole load of CDs with every conceivable version of Coca Cola logos until that date.  I am not allowed to use them for personal use. That's that.  If I use and Coca Cola finds out they  can sue the pants of me.

However, even if you were using it commercially you may say that you were not aware and ask for a period of time to phase the use out.  But in the case of say, Coca Cola or NEVE, you can not say I was not aware  even for personal use.

emrr said:

Sure.  I'm focusing more on the brand aspects.  There are plenty of intellectual property cases.

Click to expand...

Branding alone can easily get out of hand. In the UK there is  a large, long established bank called Lloyds. Many years ago, a friend of mine, whose surname is Lloyd, set up a technology consulting business and called it Lloyd Link. He got a shot across the bows from the bank's lawyers saying theirs was a well established name and his company could be confused with them. In the UK you have a legal right to name a business after your surname so basically he told them to poke off. He never heard from them again.

Cheers

Ian

Similar thing happened with a guy up here. He had a burger shop called MacDonald and Mac Donald's also tried to sue them.

I used to publish kit articles back in the '70s/'80s and the deal with Popular Electronics back then was that I must publish schematic, parts list, and PCB foil pattern so anyone who bought the magazine could copy my designs for free. It was still a good deal for me since I could sell hundreds to thousands of kits from one magazine cover article. Copying published "free use" material, like manufacturer's app notes is unrestricted, and expected. 

OTOH copying somebody's commercial design for resale (or perhaps commercial use), deprives that commercial design owner from revenue they would get from selling one more unit. Inferior performance copies is another form of damage. While I was at Peavey we routinely saw almost laughable counterfeit versions of Peavey products, mostly in poor regions of the world (China, South America, etc). As crappy as these counterfeits were, they were in the market and cost Peavey sales. 

My most frustrating rip-off was when one of my patented inventions at Peavey was copied by a major manufacturer, they even filed a patent of their own, and won (technically they didn't lose, when peavey sued them) in court.

I do not understand the attraction to clones or copies. If I am going to melt solder I am going to make my version of whatever better. If I can buy something  off the shelf that meets my needs, why kill brain cells and waste money to make just another.

From my years in the kit business I got to know a little bit about the mindset and motivation of kit builders. While some (a minority) were actually interested in learning and developing a new skill, and took pride in being able to say they built XYZ with their own hands. Many college students bought one of my kits to fulfill a course requirement (they had to alter a published design, and I would often include design equations in my articles  to make it easier for these college students to use my kits.) The vast majority built kits to get some equivalent functionality for less money than buying an assembled unit.

Over the decades I personally built more kits than I can remember, starting with A Lafayette SWR receiver as a teenager, Heathkit scope and sundry pieces of test equipment, etc. Even my first business computer was a Heathkit (DEC LSI-11/2).

Then was then and today with automated manufacturing I can buy assembled versions of most products for far less than the cost of parts to build one-off DIY. I am reminded of this by some of my oddball DIY projects, when I eventually purchase  commercial versions.

It is interesting to watch the mood of this group evolve about such subjects, while we are only hearing from the most vocal members. The ratio of truly unique projects to yet another XYZ variant is still quite modest.  In my judgement publishing a design on an internet forum like this is effectively giving it away, unless you have independently secured IP protection. . In IP law you must apply for formal protection within one year of any such publication.  In some regions you must protect before you publish.

Of course there is always a difference between what is legal and what is right. I hope most here are interested in doing right.

JR
 

Getting back to the grp aspect 
People see an  " easy "  way to  make money, or try ? with the power of legacy & existing advertising to hype them
sales increase ?
No co-incidence that group buys have faded away and the white market grows, at one time people would use the
group buy to springboard into a business, but they don't even need that or bother these days, no electronic altruism.
Although thank you to all the knowledgeable people who stay here and  generously help out. 
No one takes it as repugnant that people with businesses use prodigy as their free support line ?
Gyraf started it,  freely offering info & design in good spirit, [ thank you ] though as things grow & evolve there is no stopping it?
or it's part of what keeps the grp going ? - business growing from grp d.i.y.
perusha on the other hand has no morals or ethical thought of any kind and cares about no one but himself, he had even
managed to penetrate the " secret " members subsection and was part of releasing some of those taboo projects.

How can help?  Anything from Canada that is desirable as a grp buy ?  time to buy another T-shirt at least!

ruffrecords said:

sahib said:

Permission to re-produce an intellectual property for personal use is granted by the owner of the property. Until you have it in writing from them you are not allowed to do it. THE END.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if this is correct. Actually, I am sure it is correct but the devil is in the phrase 'intellectual property'. There are specific methods of protecting what you or a company considers to be intellectual property. There is no automatic protection, as there is for music for example; you have to register a design or patent a circuit. If you do not do this, then as soon as the product is on the market it is legally considered to be public domain. Anyone can copy it verbatim.  I was made painfully aware of this when I designed the Dragon 32 home computer for Mettoy back in the 80s. There was nothing patentable in it so we had to register the designs of the PCBs and the caseworks . A PCB can be a registered design, as can a logo or a front panel layout or a casework. However, if the circuit design is not embodied in a patent then you can make your own version of it and sell it.

And that is the situation in the UK as I understand it. It may well be different in other parts of the world.

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

My understanding is similar. You can copy write the drawing of the circuit(schematic) as a piece of art, as you can copy write the pcb layout again as art. But the actual circuit itself is free game too copy as long as you change layout ad redraw the circuit. It's usually been frowned upon by the pro audio industry to blatantly copy anothers designs for sale in the mass market but lately seems to have a go ahead. 

lets also not forget the most famous of infringements  ;D

McDowell's  vs McDonald's.

McDonald's had the golden arches
McDowell's  had the golden archs
McDonald's has the big mac while McDowell's  has the big mic both are 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, but unlike the big mac hamburger with sesame seeds in the bun the big mic does not have a sesame seed bun

sahib said:

Well, as it happens I spent over 30 years in design and manufacture too.

Click to expand...

good for you.

sahib said:

Permission to re-produce an intellectual property for personal use is granted by the owner of the property. Until you have it in writing from them you are not allowed to do it. THE END.

You copy an Apple or Microsoft product for your "private" use and, show it in a " private" event" and,  they find out and see where you end up.

Click to expand...

seems like you learnt nothing over the 30 years about IP...
sorry, but you are mixing apples and dinosaur eggs.  ;D

thats a physical copy.  not reproducing. do you have balls to reproduce windows code, or OSX code ?
no... you can only physically copy executed code... thats not reproduction...

sahib said:

You do not need to copy a Sony product for your "private" use , they already manufacture it for your "private" consumption.

Click to expand...

oh really. so i cant use sony product in an public event...  8)

sahib said:

Years ago, one of my clients got a prototype made of an object with Coca Cola brand on it. At that time they were already working with Coca Cola and the idea was that they would present it to Coca Cola. They sent a photograph of another object to Coca Cola for approval, but unfortunately the  object in question appeared in the background. Coca Cola asked them to destroy it immediately as they were not given permission for it. And the client did it at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds.

Click to expand...

i dont c any private use here...
i am gonna organize a private event, and i am gonna ask coca cola
before i paint my wall with cocacola logo... are you living in this planet  ;D

sahib said:

As I said, people are getting away with it because it is impossible to police every single person and not financially feasible.

Click to expand...

thats a very false statement...

ruffrecords said:

sahib said:

Permission to re-produce an intellectual property for personal use is granted by the owner of the property. Until you have it in writing from them you are not allowed to do it. THE END.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if this is correct. Actually, I am sure it is correct but the devil is in the phrase 'intellectual property'. There are specific methods of protecting what you or a company considers to be intellectual property. There is no automatic protection, as there is for music for example; you have to register a design or patent a circuit. If you do not do this, then as soon as the product is on the market it is legally considered to be public domain. Anyone can copy it verbatim.  I was made painfully aware of this when I designed the Dragon 32 home computer for Mettoy back in the 80s. There was nothing patentable in it so we had to register the designs of the PCBs and the caseworks . A PCB can be a registered design, as can a logo or a front panel layout or a casework. However, if the circuit design is not embodied in a patent then you can make your own version of it and sell it.

And that is the situation in the UK as I understand it. It may well be different in other parts of the world.

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

i agree with you. but,
once its public domain, its a public domain. that changes a lot of things...
if a manufacturer is so worried about getting cloned, then stay home with your family 

sahib said:

Hi Ian,

The issue in question is using a logo or a name. 

Believe me it is Black and White. You simply require the permission from the owner. Otherwise the law does not say "yes you can re-produce it for your own use". 

Click to expand...

now  you are mixing apples, and spring water.

logo and name is different thing... actual physical product is different thing.

surely u cant open a shop with macdonnald selling burgers...
thats a common sense...  if u are selling
cotton fabric, and named macdonnald, with totally different logo, thats a different case...
there are so many similar names in the market, but in different fields... 

i can open a shop called FedZeppelinEx... selling natural food. is Led Zeppelin gonna sue me ,
or Fed ex gonna sue me first ?  ;D ;D ;D

cloning is different case.

physical hard copy of digital product is different case.

what happened to apple/windows war re: using the windows...  they lost, i wonder why....
what happened to 4 campell can food picture...  i wonder why...

being public domain is different, being private is different...

let me enlighten  you a little...
if Rolling Stones comes to my private event, party, and they perform live for me,
they aint gonna get any royalty. not even a penny... if i my friend plays cover songs all night long,
none of the owners gonna get any royalty. not even a penny...

if i slap a Windows 7 logo on my bedroom wall, microsoft cant sue me.
if i clone a public domain circuit, and slap a logo on top, and use it in my bedroom, without making it public, original brand cant sue me... but, if u get record deal, and then keep talking about your clone, and brand, and making your bedroom studio public, then u r in trouble....

i can make backup purpose copies of my original windows 7 DVD. 
i cant clone the CD and install on 20 other computers...

IP is not what u think it is....

i am dealing with major companies, firms, show cases for living...
we are doing all this all under the law of IP. i have a iP lawyer, my clients have IP lawyers, as well as
business lawyers...  also, company i work for has a lawyer. we dotn put a nail on a wall without getting
clearance... that clearance is not from the brands, from the IP and business lawyers...

before u make comments on what i can, and what i cant, i suggest, get ur self a dedicated IP layer.
your regular lawyer, will make sure you are 100% trouble free.. once u have an specific IP lawyer
u may learn the reality is actually different....

I am not mixing anything with anything. But perhaps you are.

Just read Doug's first and subsequent posts. He is talking about the use of original brand names /logos.

You just enlighten yourself.

We are not talking about cutting out a logo and sticking on a bedroom wall.

We are talking about re-producing a logo.

For whatever purpose, you are not allowed to re-produce a registered mark or a logo without the consent of the owner. End of story.

u are totally making false statements...
i am the one who is doing all that work...
i am the one who is dealing with IP lawyers every single day.
i am the one who is dealing with huge clients, u cant even dream.
and u are claiming "end of story"
thats total bullsh*t comment... before sound like u know anything about IP law,
go freaking read some IP law. get proper advice,
u may be good on using 5532 in your designs...
stick with that...
end of story  8)

Wow - can we all just cool off and discuss things peacefully? No need to get angry.
I think there might be some confusion on what exactly is at issue.
IP vs trademark infringement. These are very different things when it comes to the law.
The subject of this thread (I think) is infringing on a trademark (logo, registered brand name that has been trademarked, etc...)  - specifically in the front panel design of a piece of equipment.

Sounds like at least one of you two are a lawyer.  ;D ;D ;D

Lots of heat and little light.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

Sounds like at least one of you two are a lawyer.  ;D ;D ;D

Lots of heat and little light.

JR

Click to expand...

;D ;D ;D

if you look at the famous "can food" pictures case :
when that picture published, known name immediately founded him self in a court room.
he had to go with settlement,  and current owner of those picture is charity or some organization...
and they have some sort of % split deal with the original artist.

if he never published those pictures,and kept them personal,  there would be no court case... even tho "can food" company
aware of the pictures, they could not do anything to  stop him, or make him destroy the pictures, for his personal use.  the min you make it public, things changes... simple is that...
  8)

oh, and let me add this famous statement ; " end of story "  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
really...

kambo said:

u are totally making false statements...
i am the one who is doing all that work...
i am the one who is dealing with IP lawyers every single day.
i am the one who is dealing with huge clients, u cant even dream.
and u are claiming "end of story"
thats total bullsh*t comment... before sound like u know anything about IP law,
go freaking read some IP law. get proper advice,
u may be good on using 5532 in your designs...
stick with that...
end of story  8)

Click to expand...

You are being obnoxious. It  does not fit into this forum's spirit.

You may well be working with huge clientele but how do you know I do not or did not? Just read one of my previous posts about Coca Cola. They did not send me that CD for my own personal use. So, don't make assumptions.

I am not making a false statement.  You can't even read what is in question here.

I'll say it again.

The issue is the use of a registered mark or a logo on a clone.

However, you insist that you do not need a permission to re-produce a mark or a logo for your own personal use, more to that, you can even showcase it in private events.

So, go and ask Disney that you are going to re-produce one of their marks for your own personal use, and to showcase in a private event. Then come back and tell us the answer you got.