Can you post kegs of beer to Australia? Lol

It's a pretty dumb idea to steal a logo so blatantly.

was hoping he had the lopsided e in the logo, cause i read that has a seperate trademark as well.

everything is trademarked, in every country in the world, if you want to mess around with a multibillion dollar global trademark dont use heineken - they kinda take it pretty seriously

and yes the smiling e is trademarked, as a font, in both the serif and sans serif versions - so he doesnt need to have the e.. if he is using the font then thats a nono as well

if he is using the font then thats a nono as well

how does serif and sans serif belong to heineken

I think in context to the logo

how does serif and sans serif belong to heineken

The smiling e and the heiny font belongs to heineken in sans serif and serif versions, not 'sans serif' itself.

Yeah, I have a trademarked logo in Australia and the US and it was ridiculous the lengths you have to go to to get it trademarked. You have to specify the font and then describe in an insanely detailed way any geometry. I just have two very simple opposing dashes and that took three quarters of an A4 page to describe before the trademark lawyer was happy. I'd hate to have to write the similar Heineken document!

sounds fun

Heck yes! We just helped a massive, billion dollar multinational corporation take down some tiny, insignificant skater making some s***ty little video for using a quite similar logo!

Well done everybody!!! Drinks all round!!!!

reso, make mine a vb, i dont like that faggy imported stuff

Careful spook or superform will get his lawyers

haha this is why it will get media attention.. ppl love a david vs goliath battle

I'm torn. Multinational possibly scaring a little guy ... but .. the guy's a skater and I generally don't like those no good kids.

I'm torn. Multinational possibly scaring a little guy

I gotta agree that big companies trying to hurt the little guy for small stupid stuff like a letter that might look similar even if a word is totally different but if someone steals an entire logo I say grind their balls into dust.

Skateboarding has a long history of appropriating cultural and commercial images, logos and brands and using them, often ironically, to represent companies individual pro skaters and so on.

By the looks of the video it is an amateur project that this guy has put together to represent local skateboarding; I highly doubt whether it is even a commercial project at all, let alone anything affiliated with an actual skate company that stands to profit from the use of your logo.

Good luck with your cease and desist order though.

so what?

Trademark owners are entitled to protect their marks from infringment.

Why is it even a discussion? It's exactly the same as someone taking your car without your permission and flogging it down the local 1/4 mile. It's something you own, and they are using it.

And thermite, nice avatar, you twit.

so what?

Trademark owners are entitled to protect their marks from infringment.

This, just because he's a little amateur filmmaker that stands to earn nothing (lets be optimistic) from this, he gets to associate himself with the brand, and the brand has no say in it?

Why is it even a discussion? It's exactly the same as someone taking your car without your permission and flogging it down the local 1/4 mile. It's something you own, and they are using it.

What? No it's not. Don't make me post the piracy vs theft image because this is pretty much it.

Yes it is. A mark is property. Owners of property have certain rights.* It's pretty simple.

If you don't consider marks should be afforded the status of property, take it up with your local member. Until such time, you're wrong.


edit: One of those rights is to alienate that property from all others, that is to say, to prevent others from using it.

I didn't say trademark infringment = theft on the basic definition level. However, both offend the rights of the owners. So, yes, they have the same effect.

Not sure if its been asked, but

Superform, How did you guys even find out about this guy using your logo?

It's exactly the same as someone taking your car without your permission and flogging it down the local 1/4 mile.

I didn't say trademark infringment = theft on the basic definition level

Umm.

Why is it even a discussion?

Because the guy is not as far as I can see using it for commercial gain or commercial purposes. It's for a stupid little homemade skate video that will get seen by *maybe* a handful of people. He has appropriated the image, he is not making beer and slapping Heineken stickers on it. Maybe Campbell's soup should sue Andy Warhol. After all, I'm pretty sure he didn't get permission to use their cans in his artwork.

Maybe they should, but that's a decision for them to make.

It's not for others to opine if they decide to or not.

fade you need to identify the difference between physical property and intellectual property. In this case, it is the abuse of intellectual trademarked property.

Your analogy is incorrect. It is not like stealing a car and flogging it. It's more like using your first and last name but having a different middle name while masquerading as you.

Learn to analogerise properly because if your analogy is incorrect or inaccurate it makes your argument all that much more less valid.

P.S as Mr Incredible Vegetable pointed out, yeah you did.

I think there isn't a clear cut legal answer on this, it's really just how good your lawyers can bulls***. It's a pretty commonly done thing to parody logos. He isn't actually selling beer and putting a similar logo on it, or saying his skate s*** is sponsored by Heineken.

No, I didn't.

I wasn't refering to theft. I was referring to the use of a property without the owner's permission. If you read theft, you are mistaken. btw theft also entails an intention to permantly deprive the true owner of possession (from memory), so just taking it without permision isn't enough - which is all i was analogising to.

I don't deny it's a common element of both actions, that is, theft and trademark infringment.

No, I don't need to identify the different because physical property and intellectual property. Property is property. Certain property entails certain rights. As I have previously said, the ultimate of those rights to the alienate that property from all others.

It sounds like you don't recognise intellectual property as attaching the same rights as physical property. Luckily, the law does.

It's a pretty commonly done thing to parody logos

In that sense, it's a copyright issue. Satire is an exception to copyright. Hence parodying can occur legally.

What he has done is taken a mark.

I don't expect you to grasp the difference. Truth be told, lawyers who practice in this area struggle from time to time.

This seems quite a blatant rip off but I have heard of a couple of cases where a little guy cops a slightly silly cease and desist from a big guy. Mostly I think the little guy gets free publicity out of it all.

Don't know if any of you have heard of these examples but there was the Rock art brewery based in Vermont that made a beer they called the Vermonster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermonster_(beer)) and Monster Energy drinks didn't like it. In the end they reached an agreement and they were able to keep calling it the Vermonster.

Second example is a small ski company in the US called ON3P who made a ski called the Great Scott (the owner's name is Scott) and Scott USA didn't like it. They ended up changing the name of the ski to "The Cease and Desist".

I'm sure there are many other cases but it seems to me that its almost beneficial for this to happen to the little guy in the end.

Satire is an exception to copyright. Hence parodying can occur legally.

Satire or parody aren't explicit exceptions, they can be argued under fair use, just as any significant or meaningful change to the original work could. It still comes down to the case presented in court.

omfg - bush lawyers. Not explicit? I presume you mean express but anyway.

Let me help you:-

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 41A

A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of parody or satire.

So yes, if it's for satire or parody it's protected. Of course what is satire and parody comes down to submissions, but that goes the same as to whether a contract was supported by consideration or whether the bouncer assulted the patron.

My point is everything comes down to a case presented in court.

Think you'll find that is Australian law, fade.

Of course it is.

If you want to get into jurisdictional issues by my guest.

Where exactly does the an event occur on the web?

Applying the principles from Dow Jones v Gutnick, it's where it is downloaded.

So you and me, Australian law applies.

It sort of allows for forum shopping. You find the country with the laws that support you the most and commence there. This works well (we actually recommend it) with respect to multinational companies.

Yeah, I have a trademarked logo in Australia and the US and it was ridiculous the lengths you have to go to to get it trademarked. You have to specify the font and then describe in an insanely detailed way any geometry. I just have two very simple opposing dashes and that took three quarters of an A4 page to describe before the trademark lawyer was happy. I'd hate to have to write the similar Heineken document!

- -

/me waits for Pinky to after me with his lawyer friends !?!? :p

I wasn't refering to theft. I was referring to the use of a property without the owner's permission. If you read theft, you are mistaken. btw theft also entails an intention to permantly deprive the true owner of possession (from memory), so just taking it without permision isn't enough - which is all i was analogising to.

I don't deny it's a common element of both actions, that is, theft and trademark infringment.

No, I don't need to identify the different because physical property and intellectual property. Property is property. Certain property entails certain rights. As I have previously said, the ultimate of those rights to the alienate that property from all others.

It sounds like you don't recognise intellectual property as attaching the same rights as physical property. Luckily, the law does.

T
You should have used a better analogy then if you were NOT referring to theft. It's clear that your analogy is not the best as evident by both vegetable and I assuming the same thing.

I recognise that intellectual property and physical property as having different rights with some shared inbetween. If some took your car for a ride (note that this is still counted as theft) you would go to the police. But in this case, they're going through the court.

Your analogy was faulted, quit clinging to it.

I wish I could change my name to Mr Analogy.

Thermite: <3 you.

For even more info contact Paul on Facebook or email & tel: Old_Skool_Paul@yahoo.co.uk 07809 290846

I called him and warned him a bunch of internet gaming nerds were all over him, he seemed genuinely fearful.

You should have used a better analogy then if you were NOT referring to theft. It's clear that your analogy is not the best as evident by both vegetable and I assuming the same thing.

Perhaps I assumed people could distinguish taking property without permission (a civil action, perhaps) from stealing (a crime). Nonetheless, in future I'll be sure to point out each element at a fifth grade level.

I recognise that intellectual property and physical property as having different rights with some shared inbetween.
If some took your car for a ride (note that this is still counted as theft) you would go to the police. But in this case, they're going through the court.

Well you could call the police, but it wouldn't be theft. It mightbe unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Refer s4808A of the Code.

You'll note that theft has an element of permanent deprivation or damage, wheras the latter does not.

In any event, trademark infringement is a civil action. You sue. If someone did steal you car you don't have to call the police. You could sue them in conversion, a civil action for trespass to property.

Stop comparing criminal and civil actions.

Your analogy was faulted, quit clinging to it.

You didn't get it. Any copyright lawyer would.

I wish I could change my name to Mr Analogy.

Only if those analogies are simple and you can articulate and appreciate the individual elements of each.

I give up. I concede every point I have ever made.

I think in this case it's pretty blatant and the retarded kid should stop using the logo.

He hasn't designed a similar logo from scratch, he's just stolen someone else's and put his name over it.

what a deads***

I give up. I concede every point I have ever made.

Probably for the best, really.

I love it how there are so many experts in law on qgl.

I love it how there are so many experts in law on qgl.

I'm also a neurosurgeon and part-time apiculturist, please don't leave out those qualifications.

I'm guessing a lot of people here work in jobs where this is important to know. I've been trained in copyright s*** 3 times.

Hahaha @ your avatar, thermite.

thermite can i get your email address pls

Yeah give it to him thermite, I hear the punishment is fair and just, correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe the Heineken® company will force you to drink from their range of boutique beers and ciders such as Primus®, Birra Moretti®, Sagres® , Cruzcampo®, Foster’s®, Strongbow®, Bulmer®, Newcastle Brown Ale®, Zywiec®, Ochota®, Kingfisher®, Tiger®, Star®, Dos Equis®, Tecate® and Sol®.
Until you can drink no more.

that doesnt sound so bad.

I love it how there are so many experts in law on qgl.
I'm also a neurosurgeon and part-time apiculturist, please don't leave out those qualifications.

I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist

Ahh the good old "huge corporation annihilates someone" legal process.

A couple of years ago when NGL was still running, there was a buy/sell section on the forums called Trading Post.

We got a cease and desist letter from Sensis threatening to sue for copyright, passing off etc as they owned the copyright to the words "The Trading Post" for their newspaper.

FFS it was a small web forum for computer gaming events.

I wrote back to them saying I will change it, and next time how about just asking before spending thousands of dollars on lawyers. People can be reasonable.

this thread need more Heiny photochops

http://krydolf.com/Logo/heineken_logo_parody.jpg-for-web-LARGE.jpg

found this yesterday, lols
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1999/tshirta.png

it has a whole 222 views on youtube

........

whats sad about this is that the op couldnt do his own work and poor saps did it for him for nothing.

whats sad about this is that the op couldnt do his own work and poor saps did it for him for nothing.

I hear the beers are in the mail, right superform?

the thing is.... someone here is his father!!!!!!!!

lolz

i mean really..... his father.....

look I was drunk, it was the summer of '69 .. everyone was doing it

it never ceases to amaze me how small a world it is

hi oldskoolpauls dad

who is it?

Or he just made that up after he found his name here?

my guess is it was thermite who emailed him saying.. dont tell em who i am.. just say it was ur dad.. kekek

omg who's the father?

also he is changing all his logos..

luke, I am your father.

sif Darth Vader was a Wookie.

http://a.imageshack.us/img830/5919/wookie.gif

Hahah if someone really is his father that would be damn classic. I vote for him being Corrupt's illegitimate love child who was delivered via water birth at home in fluoridated mains water.

you got something against fluoridated septic tank water or something?

THIS IS A CONSPIRACY! (<3 faceman)