T-Shirt Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
as they should according to trademark law...

which states that trademark holders must challenge unauthorized uses of a mark or that mark may lose its protected status.

perhaps if you have your own trademark some day you will understand how that works.

The mask designer merely had to request permission from the mark holder and come to an agreement, which evidently did not occur.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Re: as they should according to trademark law...

which states that trademark holders must challenge unauthorized uses of a mark or that mark may lose its protected status.

perhaps if you have your own trademark some day you will understand how that works.

The mask designer merely had to request permission from the mark holder and come to an agreement, which evidently did not occur.
Maybe. But if reports are accurate the mask is to honor the city's movie industry and not for "commercial purposes". And Jonathan Bernier has been wearing the "Hollywood" mask for the past 2 seasons.

But until now I also thought that the Hollywood name is fair game to all.
The word "Hollywood" isn't trademarked. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, however, owns "certain trademark rights for usage of the sign or its likeness for commercial purposes."
If they threatened to sue "Wellywood" I wonder what's the story behind "Bollywood"

A good thing about this, based on reports, is that the Chamber of Commerce is simply asking Bernier to stop using it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
But if reports are accurate the mask is to honor the city's movie industry and not for "commercial purposes".
How about any merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc) that feature a player photo of Bernier with his mask on? Wouldn't that be commercial?

Granted, it's not Bernier's intended purpose to profit off the Hollywood sign. But the domino effect is that it does get used on officially licensed merchandise (and probably unlicensed merchandise as well).

When licensed merchandise is sold, a variety of companies (NHL, LA Kings, Reebok, etc) profit. Why should the IP owners of the Hollywood sign just stand off to the side and watch these other companies profit when their property is used on some of this merchandise? Shouldn't they be able to get their cut of the royalties?

I don't necessarily believe Bernier should be responsible for that. But I guess it's their way of handling it at this point.


ABrandWithNoName.com
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
I am not questioning the legality because if I happen to have some "trademark rights" over hollywood (whatever that means) I would also protect my legal rights. But if I am the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, I would not mind people making money off the hollywood name. I'd be happy for the free advertisement or free exposure. If Bernier's "helmet" become very popular I'd even propose honoring Bernier as a honorary resident and hand him a key to hollywood"

But I am specifically replying to the following

which states that trademark holders must challenge unauthorized uses of a mark or that mark may lose its protected status.

perhaps if you have your own trademark some day you will understand how that works.

The mask designer merely had to request permission from the mark holder and come to an agreement, which evidently did not occur.
Which is why I ask why 2 seasons? If it takes that long to exercise a right one couldn't fault another for thinking that no rights are being violated although that's a speculation. Nevertheless, that is a possible reason why the "merely had to" did not happen.

With regards to the ripple or domino effect, I would guess that those who commercialize the "merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc) that feature a player photo of Bernier with his mask on" should be responsible. And the copyright owner of a photo being the photographer and not the subject, shouldn't it (in the same vein) the photographer or editor be responsibility for copyright violations, specifically the "for profit" part? If this is an issue why not threaten legal action against the photographer and papers as well?

For example,

Had the words been "Hollywood" instead of NYC, who's responsible?

But what is the difference if some famous person had his picture taken with the "Hollywood" sign as backdrop and someone later printed that image on t-shirts, posters, etc.? And two seasons before exercising a right would make one think they're not so certain about their rights.

So what about bollywood? Any info or guesses?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Just a misunderstanding.Jonathan Bernier can use Hollywood mask

According to Sovich, whose company also represents brands like Ford, Cold Stone Creamery and Motorola, the entire thing – in part – was a misunderstanding on their side. ... The Chamber has no objection to the use of it in that nature (referring to Bernier’s use on his mask)...that we apologize for the inconvenience of the original letter. The Chamber has no objection to the use. He can continue to use it that way...after getting more information, it appears it’s only being used on this one individual’s helmet…if we would have known that, a letter would not have gone out…
http://mayorsmanor.com/2012/03/bernier-cleared-to-use-hollywood-sign/

Rmails, letters, twitter, Kelly Hrudey and "nobody seems to be happy with how this is playing out" may have been a factor.
http://mayorsmanor.com/2012/03/kelly-hrudey-not-happy-about-bernier-vs-hollywood/
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top