licensing agreements?

[Evilbenny]

I saw this and was wondering if this is how to get around licensing agreements or is it something else?

http://www.hlj.com/product/tko2007?gclid=CIXVg4fBxb8CFRJk7Aod-gcAcQ

[Brett Barrow]

Proabably. That and 35th scale military guys aren't real picky about brands, so why even bother with the trouble and expense of licensing? They just want something with the right look. Meng also did the same with their 1/35th scale "Toyotas".

[sjordan2]

I don't quite get what you're asking.

Insofar as kits featuring trademarked brands are concerned, anyone marketing a trademarked product with that name, and without a licensing agreement, is going to get creamed by the company's legal department.

For example, here's a kit where the manufacturer paid the licensing fees.

Here's the same kit with the same tooling from a company that didn't license the name. This is a stretch and could still be vulnerable -- if Ferrari was aware of it. They've clamped down big-time on manufacturers of 1:1 fiberglass replica cars that didn't use the Ferrari name.

Edited July 14, 2014 by sjordan2

[martinfan5]

I don't quite get what you're asking.

Insofar as kits featuring trademarked brands are concerned, anyone marketing a trademarked product with that name, and without a licensing agreement, is going to get creamed by the company's legal department.

For example, here's a kit where the manufacturer paid the licensing fees.

Here's the same kit with the same tooling from a company that didn't license the name. This is a stretch and could still be vulnerable.

The European Classic version is so much cheaper though , and easier to find

Edited July 14, 2014 by martinfan5

[sjordan2]

I would guess that Ferrari is not at all aware of the no-name kit. They've clamped down big-time on manufacturers of 1:1 fiberglass replicas such as the car shown above (with a replica used in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," plus the Ostermeier 250 GTO replica). They roam eBay a lot, and have struck a deal where the Ferrari name cannot be used when selling a Daytona Spyder Miami Vice replica.

Edited July 14, 2014 by sjordan2

[jaymcminn]

I don't quite get what you're asking.

Insofar as kits featuring trademarked brands are concerned, anyone marketing a trademarked product with that name, and without a licensing agreement, is going to get creamed by the company's legal department.

For example, here's a kit where the manufacturer paid the licensing fees.

Here's the same kit with the same tooling from a company that didn't license the name. This is a stretch and could still be vulnerable.

Skip, Academy is definitely walking on thin ice with this one. They did remove any Ferrari scripts and badging from the kit except for the prancing horse in the grille. I had no problem paying 1/3 the price for a kit I would have replaced these items on anyway. If Academy can keep getting away with it, maybe we can get some of those other Italeri Ferraris back as well!

[Pete J.]

License fees are one of those things that you can do without if you are small enough and make few enough so as to not attract attention and are in the right country that doesn't honor trademark infringement agreements. This is why you will see this sort of thing pop up. Major manufactures who do stuff on a world wide basis have to be careful because if they get in trouble they can loose long term agreements or become persona non gratia to other major manufactures. As I recall Tamiya had a big hoorah with Chrysler for selling WWII light utility vehicles as "Jeeps" once Chrysler trademarked the name. After that they had a difficult time getting continuation license deals on other Jeep products. Getting around a trademark is a mine field at best.

[Scuderia]

Seems like Academy DO make licensed stuff now mostly in 1/43

But on a side-note as to not clutter the board with a second thread, has anyone built one of those 'European Classic Cars'? I'm intrigued lol

[Dave Van]

Lawsuit and China are a tough mix.......and when the company being sued is NOT using a trademark then you have to go after Trade dress......and my understanding that is super tough and costly in China,,,,,,if you understand.

So you sue them in Italy, win....but the court has no teeth in China so it's a moral victory......a costly one to boot.

[Evilbenny]

I was wondering about the legal aspect of kits like this. I know you have to have licensing agreements on most things lf you want to use a brand name or a trademarked name on a kit. Would you have to have a licensing agreement on something that represents a likeness of another product or would you have to modify your product slightly to avoid any infringement claims?

[Dave Van]

The 'look' is 'Trade Dress'.....

[Art Anderson]

License fees are one of those things that you can do without if you are small enough and make few enough so as to not attract attention and are in the right country that doesn't honor trademark infringement agreements. This is why you will see this sort of thing pop up. Major manufactures who do stuff on a world wide basis have to be careful because if they get in trouble they can loose long term agreements or become persona non gratia to other major manufactures. As I recall Tamiya had a big hoorah with Chrysler for selling WWII light utility vehicles as "Jeeps" once Chrysler trademarked the name. After that they had a difficult time getting continuation license deals on other Jeep products. Getting around a trademark is a mine field at best.

Except that JEEP became a trademark and trade dress way back in 1948, when the US Supreme Court decided in favor of Willys-Overland's registration of the name and design features.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Lawsuit and China are a tough mix.......and when the company being sued is NOT using a trademark then you have to go after Trade dress......and my understanding that is super tough and costly in China,,,,,,if you understand.

So you sue them in Italy, win....but the court has no teeth in China so it's a moral victory......a costly one to boot.

However,

In the US, Ferrari's rights are recognized, and as such, their US agents can petition to have US Customs block unlicensed product.

Art

[Dave Van]

However,

In the US, Ferrari's rights are recognized, and as such, their US agents can petition to have US Customs block unlicensed product.

Art

Correct Art.........but when you are dealing with a manufacture based in China going after them is going to be costly. Ferrari might do it, if they find out before the kits are all in hobby shop shelves, but Mitsu may not and even if they did....the kits may be gone from the manufacture so the win will be more pride again. These unlicensed things coming into the US is a different thing. But even that a hard place to police. When an item comes in w/o any trademarks on it.....the folks checking millions of containers a year may not spend much time looking. Lots of gray out there.

If you want to see how hard it is for US customs to police it all....go to the wholesale district in downtown LA. All that stuff gets in somehow!

[fumi]

Correct Art.........but when you are dealing with a manufacture based in China going after them is going to be costly.

You might want to know that Academy is a Korean company.

[Dave Van]

You might want to know that Academy is a Korean company.

I wasn't really talking about just Academy exclusively......But Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia....Asia in general CAN be difficult to work in when trying to protect or enforce Trade Dress and Trademarks.

I had the opportunity to work with some folks in China. A great experience and some great people. But it was difficult at best and we were working toward a common goal......I can't imagine being at odds with all the barriers out there.

[clovis]

I read an interesting book a few years ago, written by an American who worked as an agent in China.

He says that in the US, a signed contract is a legally enforceable document, and you can get sued if you fail to execute it. In China, according to him, a signed legal contract is considered a "starting point of ideas." He adds that the Chinese, generally speaking, look at legal contracts as just a piece of paper with ink on them, and mean nothing to them.

The author went on to say that probably the biggest problem with manufacturing in China are the goods that are sold out the back door. This means that a Chinese manufacturer is churning out 40,000 units for their American buyer (who owns all of the tooling, dies, and intellectual properties), and then they are cranking out another 80,000 units to be sold out the back door, destined for the Chinese market, or even for export to another market.

I wonder if the "Classic European Sports Car" kit isn't the same kit, sold by a shady Chinese manufacturer????

[fumi]

I wasn't really talking about just Academy exclusively......But Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia....Asia in general CAN be difficult to work in when trying to protect or enforce Trade Dress and Trademarks.

Generally for items that are officially exported there should not be too many difficulties. The problem starts when the products are meant to be for domestic consumption only but "somehow" got leaked to the outside world. Hence the official classic Italian sports car kit made by a respectable model company, which was never supposed to be sold outside of Korea.

One side note for Academy. They started their business making clones of Tamiya kits in the 80's, down to the mistakes and wrong scale, and went on to become a respectable company on military subjects, like the ground breaking full detailed Tiger I kit in the 90's. That's why they never released that Israeli Centurion they promised every year in their catalog and modellers asked for every year back then. It was based on the inaccurate motorized Tamiya Cent from the 70's, just when they were ready to release it in the early 90's they have become respectable in the military modelling world, and they were not going to tarnish their reputation with that abomination of a kit.

I had the opportunity to work with some folks in China. A great experience and some great people. But it was difficult at best and we were working toward a common goal......I can't imagine being at odds with all the barriers out there.

Entirely different cultures do make things difficult a lot of times. In my experience working with Japanese is even harder, when what they tell you may or may not be what they actually have in mind, and you are entirely on your own to decide which way it is. They will say things they think you would want to hear, and they expect you to be able to tell they don't really mean it, just like they do naturally day in and day out.

But back to the generic 1/35 boxy pickup trucks and SUVs for military dioramas: these companies consulted with their lawyers and made sure their kits are generic enough to not raise a problem, and no car company in their right mind would make a fuss over some model cars supposed to be used by insurgents and suicide bombers that may or may not resemble their products.

When Meng makes the F-350, they obtained a proper license from Ford.

[Pete J.]

Except that JEEP became a trademark and trade dress way back in 1948, when the US Supreme Court decided in favor of Willys-Overland's registration of the name and design features.

Art

Art, I believe your are correct for 1948 because that is when Willys-Overland started producing the civilian version and thus took the name and look out of the public domain in spite of the fact that the name "Jeep" should have been untrademarkable because is was a common term used by GI's to identify a light "general purpose"(abbreviate GP) vehicle.

Correct me if I am wrong, but such trademarks and trade dress do not apply to items manufactured under contract for the government. Those items are legally part of the public domain, and can be modeled without regard to trade mark rights as long as a trademarked name is not associated with them.

[Art Anderson]

Art, I believe your are correct for 1948 because that is when Willys-Overland started producing the civilian version and thus took the name and look out of the public domain in spite of the fact that the name "Jeep" should have been untrademarkable because is was a common term used by GI's to identify a light "general purpose"(abbreviate GP) vehicle.

Correct me if I am wrong, but such trademarks and trade dress do not apply to items manufactured under contract for the government. Those items are legally part of the public domain, and can be modeled without regard to trade mark rights as long as a trademarked name is not associated with them.

I think you are somewhat mistaken, with regard to things produced under contract for the US govenment, and particularly the military:

For starters, vehicles such as the Jeep, were NOT developed by the United States Army, but rather by civilian companies, in hopes of gaining contracts to produce them for sale to the Army.

The Jeep, as you may know, began as an RFQ (Request For Quotation) for a light reconaissance vehicle with off-road capabilities in 1940. Any and all comers were invited to submit their proposals, and of course, American Bantam, Willys Overland and Ford did just that, and went on to build prototypes that were tested by the Army's Transportation Corps at Ft. Holabird MD. The Bantam design was the one accepted, a small contract being let to them for a few hundred. Wtih war looming ever closer, the Army decided that Bantam was far too small, and too underfinanced to be a viable builder of truly large numbers of their successful vehicle, so the designs etc. were passed over to Willys, who produced them, with modifications, throughout the war with an even larger number built by Ford.

Thus, the design of the Jeep was done by civilian companies, not any agency of the government, and that is why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Willys' claim of trademark rights.

This is also true of the vast majority of military aircraft: Those almost always have been designed and engineered in the private sector, with of course input from the customer, the particular military branch(es) that were buying them--but again, the designs belong to the people and/or companies who designed and built them. In other words, NO different than GM, Ford, or Chrysler continuing to claim ownership of designs, patents and copyrights on all the 4dr sedans and/or SUV's, trucks and vans sold to the US Genveral Services Administration. As a result, don't go producing a model kit of any Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed, North American, or Northrop fighter or bomber, without seeking a license from whichever company owns those rights.

Art

[jaymcminn]

Seems like Academy DO make licensed stuff now mostly in 1/43

But on a side-note as to not clutter the board with a second thread, has anyone built one of those 'European Classic Cars'? I'm intrigued lol

Here's mine in all its Korean knock-off glory. Exactly the same as the Italeri kit for better and for worse- it took a lot of kitbashing and scratchbuilding as well as some aftermarket bits to make it look like this.

Edited July 16, 2014 by jaymcminn

[martinfan5]

God thats beautiful

[Harry P.]

Sure is, license or not!

[slusher]

I doubt any one knows, but makes me wonder how much the license fee would be on a Chevy, Ford or Chrysler series of kits...

[Dave Van]

I doubt any one knows, but makes me wonder how much the license fee would be on a Chevy, Ford or Chrysler series of kits...

Of 100 licensing deals there is 100 different fees. No two deals are exactly alike.....it varies with manufacture, who is in charge that week, their mood....etc....