Get advice to help you create your t-shirt graphics. Discuss t-shirt design software, special effect techniques, or other topics related to creating a t-shirt design on your computer. If you'd rather hire a graphic designer to do the work for you, please post in our Referrals and Recommendations section here.
I got somebody wanting their logo to look something like Nestle Crunch's logo. I dont want to infringe on their copywrite but still get the overall look of it. Does my design look like it would be safe enough to use? I havent showed it to the people wanting it yet.
1) It's trademark you have to worry about, not copyright (and certainly not copywrite!)
2) Yes, it could get them sued. If they were in the same field (confectionery) Nestle would almost certainly win. In different fields (as I would assume) it could go either way.
3) I would have just passed myself, but too late for that now. When a brief begins "copy this..." it's off to a bad start.
+1 to what Solmu said. If you print them, make sure you have your client sign a defend-and-hold-harmless agreement. (we actually have one in our standard contract to which every client has to agree)
I dunno there are a lot of shirts and companies out there that play on logos of other companies. I recently saw a shirt that said Cheaters with the patriot looking logo and text. As long as the text isnt trademarked then I think you would be ok. You are changing the words so they cant say that it is NESTLE CRUNCH. IMO
How similar do you think the words "Starbucks Coffee" and "Consumer Whore" are? And how did that one turn out?
Im not talking about NESTLE CRUNCH im talking about the actual FONT.
Kieron Dwyer's Consumer Whore graphic has the same lady in the middle but in an erotic manner. also she is holding a cup of coffee. The image and slogan are also an attack to Starbucks in a vulgar manner.
Im not talking about NESTLE CRUNCH im talking about the actual FONT.
Kieron Dwyer's Consumer Whore graphic has the same lady in the middle but in an erotic manner. also she is holding a cup of coffee. The image and slogan are also an attack to Starbucks in a vulgar manner.
Well, yeah, that's kinda the point. It parodied Starbucks. Parody is supposed to be protected.
However, the fair use exemption clearly never protected the type of work being discussed in this thread. The Supreme Court said that the exemption does not apply if the new work "has no critical bearing on
the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged
infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.”
The Nestle Crunch style logo was not intended as a parody of Nestle Crunch. It was simply to use the design element to "get attention and avoid the drudgery of working up something fresh." It's pretty clear that this is illegal.
Well, yeah, that's kinda the point. It parodied Starbucks. Parody is supposed to be protected.
However, the fair use exemption clearly never protected the type of work being discussed in this thread. The Supreme Court said that the exemption does not apply if the new work "has no critical bearing on
the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged
infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.”
The Nestle Crunch style logo was not intended as a parody of Nestle Crunch. It was simply to use the design element to "get attention and avoid the drudgery of working up something fresh." It's pretty clear that this is illegal.
So you are saying that Johnny Cupcakes shirts resembling Air Jordan and The boston celtics are illegal? and that they should be sued?
So you are saying that Johnny Cupcakes shirts resembling Air Jordan and The boston celtics are illegal? and that they should be sued?
Personally, I favor much more freedom with the use of trademarks than the law currently allows. I don't think Johnny Cupcakes should get sued and I don't think Kieron Dwyer should have been sued.
That doesn't mean that I pretend the law doesn't exist. What I presented was what the Supreme Court said, not me.
Maybe Johnny has some licensing deal or agreement. Or maybe he simply has tons of money, very good lawyers, and is willing to fight overreaching trademark claims. I have no idea, but I don't think either of these apply to Profit's situation.
So you are saying that Johnny Cupcakes shirts resembling Air Jordan and The boston celtics are illegal? and that they should be sued?
They're different situations. I think "avoid the drudgery of working up something fresh" is a perfect description for the design in this thread, whereas you could certainly argue that Johnny Cupcakes does present a "critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition" (that argument may or may not be won, but it's at the very least reasonable to present it).
"Should be sued" is a pretty complex thing to take on. My personal feeling is no. On the other hand, if I was Nike I'd be considering getting in while the going was good (that is, there's never been a better time for a corporation to sue someone smaller than them and win on might alone). On the other hand maybe they have better things to do than blow a million bucks on litigation.
Fonts are not trade mark. If you copy a trademark 100% or even 60% the same you will be sued. The two image on top are different. Name of the text and design. People are able to use color and different fonts. The only thing you can't use is the name style and logo. Before a company decides to go to court they will send you a letter saying that you are using their clients trade mark. If you don't stop of use than they will start legal action.
Why not just email Nestle and ask them. ?
Won't cost you a dime and saves you the headache of a civil action and maybe if they got issues they can tell you what to change to keep them from suing.
Personally I thought of Nestle when I saw the logo.
Is this safe? 
