US Wings cease & desist?

gmarthe · Post by **gmarthe** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Did US Wings get a C&D letter from Lucasfilm? All the jackets are "Adventurer jackets" now. Aren't they getting a bit out of hand with all of this? I mean it's not like we're going to stop buying from a vendor because they call their products something different. There have always been disclaimers saying that the products have no affilitation with Lucasfilm. I think they kind of owe the quality vendors for keeping the Indy spirit alive all these years of inactivity. Just my opinion.

PyramidBlaster · Post by **PyramidBlaster** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:31 pm

Geez...You're right! This is getting ridiculous...TRULY ridiculous...

ortiz344 · Post by **ortiz344** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:13 pm

sure sounds like it...

"...these jackets are constructed from the very same batch of leather that was supplied to the studio to create the on-screen jackets worn by the star of the newest movie featuring that famous fedora-wearing archaeologist (which, for legal reasons, we can't name)."

Magnum Jones · Post by **Magnum Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:26 am

gmarthe wrote:Did US Wings get a C&D letter from Lucasfilm? All the jackets are "Adventurer jackets" now. Aren't they getting a bit out of hand with all of this? I mean it's not like we're going to stop buying from a vendor because they call their products something different. There have always been disclaimers saying that the products have no affilitation with Lucasfilm. I think they kind of owe the quality vendors for keeping the Indy spirit alive all these years of inactivity. Just my opinion.

I gotta agree, I think with the fan base and a few vendors who took the chance and started giving us fans true Indy gear help put "Indiana Jones where he is today." Lucasfilm will profit alot from these hard working vendors.

PyramidBlaster · Post by **PyramidBlaster** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:35 am

I know I won't be the only one who'll be glad when the LFL C&D machine takes a breather.

Someone recently said it regarding prop replicas: Either give us licensed replicas, or bug off! They will do neither, apparently.

It's like a man I knew years ago. I love Austin-Healey cars. He had a pristine one parked in his driveway, and I passed by it often. I began to notice he wasn't driving it. Being a kid, I knew I couldn't afford to buy it...But years passed, and the condition of the car deteriorated to the point where I had to say something. I knocked on his door and made him an offer. His response? 'Oh, no...I'm not selling it. Do you know how much those cars are worth?"

...That car was in pitiful shape the last time I saw it...If he'd just sold it (or garaged it) I wouldn't be having nightmares about it to this day...

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:08 am

Just remember, we can talk about this, we can also debate about this. We just need to be aware the LFL lawyer group does know of our existance and does read these threads. You can be honest, but watch inflammatory (sp?) posts and anything that could be considered libel. Carry on.

theinterchange · Post by **theinterchange** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:19 am

I can understand where they're coming from.. if there's a legitimate case against something like calling a jacket "The Indiana Jones Official Jacket" but it can get out of hand sometimes. See nice way to keep it between the ditches and say I agree with everyone, and I can see that if there is indeed true infringement they need to adjust some naming. I'm covering myself here. haha

[edit]

I just read over this post and it reminded me of the part in Shrek 3 where Pinnocio is asked where Shrek is. haha sorry had to add that.

WeeMadHamish · Post by **WeeMadHamish** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:24 am

Is it such a big deal that they had to change the name and description? They could have been ordered to stop selling the jacket altogether...

ztmario · Post by **ztmario** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:27 am

WeeMadHamish wrote:Is it such a big deal that they had to change the name and description? They could have been ordered to stop selling the jacket altogether...

I doubt they could have been ordered to do any such thing. it's their pattern, and I don't think LF can copyright what's basically an A2 without the elastic.

ortiz344 · Post by **ortiz344** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:36 am

I guess im not sure where infringement lies in some cases, calling something indiana jones vs indy to me are the same thing arent they? Almost like calling a lightsaber a lazersword even though they look exactly the same..

theinterchange · Post by **theinterchange** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:37 am

Does it hurt vendors like Magnoli when folks add Indy specific references in their product reviews on their sites? Didn't know if the LFL feelers went ape when they sensed something like that.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:14 am

Yes, US Wings has been calling these "Indy Jackets" for years now. Since they made them for ToD, and had product placement in the movie (as the Cooper jackets). They've always called these "Indy Jackets" without a problem. At least, as far as we are aware. Rest assured, at least the patterns are the same, they'll still be listed in our vendors, and in the history of the Indy Jacket.

If you think about it. Wested calls their's a "Raider" jacket. Flightsuits calls their's an "Expedition." So US Wings calling theirs an "Adventure" jacket is really no different. WE all know what the above are based on, regardless what they are called.

gmarthe · Post by **gmarthe** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:14 am

Minnesota Jones wrote:Just remember, we can talk about this, we can also debate about this. We just need to be aware the LFL lawyer group does know of our existance and does read these threads. You can be honest, but watch inflammatory (sp?) posts and anything that could be considered libel. Carry on.

I'm definitely not trying to be inflammatory. I understand that Lucasfilm needs to protect it's assets and not let things run rampant and have everyone "making a buck" off of their intellectual property. I guess if they weren't so tight fisted with the Indy stuff we wouldn't have to go anywhere else. It's just a shame that many quality vendors have to go through the hassle of chaning names and/or product description of things that may have been available for years - and I'm sure the Lucasfilm people must havebeen aware of their existence before the new movie.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:15 am

Oh, that comment wasn't directly towards anyone. Just a reminder so this thread can stay on topic without getting anyone in trouble, that's all.

Chewing Wax · Post by **Chewing Wax** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:44 am

Minnesota Jones wrote:Oh, that comment wasn't directly towards anyone. Just a reminder so this thread can stay on topic without getting anyone in trouble, that's all.

Yeh. Watch out. Big Brother is monitoring you. Libel. Give me a break.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:51 am

Chewing Wax wrote:
Minnesota Jones wrote:Oh, that comment wasn't directly towards anyone. Just a reminder so this thread can stay on topic without getting anyone in trouble, that's all.
Yeh. Watch out. Big Brother is monitoring you. Libel. Give me a break.

Lawyers HAVE been called in the past from vendors regarding posts they considered libel. It's not something I just made up. So I'm not coming out of left field on this. The staff of this site have so far been able to keep the peace in a couple past events that almost turned very ugly because of member comments. We don't want to do it again. So take what I'm saying serious.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:58 am

Chewing Wax wrote:Yeh. Watch out. Big Brother is monitoring you. Libel. Give me a break.

As we're currently in the midst of another supposed possible law suit at this very moment, I suggest you drop the attitude and condescension NOW or find yourself on a little vacation.

St. Dumas · Post by **St. Dumas** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:21 am

Hey, it might not even have been LFL who issued the cease-and-desist. It could have been a licence holder.

SD

Chewing Wax · Post by **Chewing Wax** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:41 am

Mike wrote:
Chewing Wax wrote:Yeh. Watch out. Big Brother is monitoring you. Libel. Give me a break.
As we're currently in the midst of another supposed possible law suit at this very moment, I suggest you drop the attitude and condescension NOW or find yourself on a little vacation.

Supposed? What does that mean? What would I do without this website? Where would I go to read about another person thinking about buying a Wested but wondering what kind of leather he should get or how big the pockets should be? It's worse than CHINA in here. It really is.

Post by **COW Admin** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:15 pm

Chewing Wax just received a two week suspension for his comments in this thread. Attacks and attitude against the Staff are NOT, and will NEVER BE, tolerated, period.

Post by **COW Admin** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:53 pm

webhead73 wrote:Although I support Site Admin and their right to protect the staff of COW, I do not think Chewing Wax was being all that aggressive with his comment. Yes, maybe it was openly sarcastic but to attack CW publicly like that was a bit harsh. The top quote from Mike should have been given to CW in a PM and the rest of this ugliness could have been publicly avoided. Just my two cents...that is all.

We normally do not call people out directly like that with a suspension, but in this case, we did so as an example.

Chewing Wax wrote:Supposed? What does that mean? What would I do without this website? Where would I go to read about another person thinking about buying a Wested but wondering what kind of leather he should get or how big the pockets should be? It's worse than CHINA in here. It really is.

This is clearly a flippant attitude after Mike clearly told him to stop. He didn't stop. The Staff discussed this, and he got a suspension. It was posted to show people that we do mean business when a Staff Member asks someone to stop, especially in a thread concerning a "hot" topic such as C&D letters and making comments that libel isn't a threat to this site, which it clearly was stated it is. End of discussion.

theinterchange · Post by **theinterchange** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:14 pm

#

I would never want to be on the recieving end of a suspension! I can understand the desire to keep things between the ditches, and libel free! I'd hate to be the cause of a lawsuit against myself, COW, or any of the vendors here.

dr. tyree · Post by **dr. tyree** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:27 pm

The character's name is a trademark. End of story.

It could be way worse; they could be going after "trade dress," like when Colt started suing everyone who was making a gun that looked "too much" like the Peacemaker. (this was when Colt was still interested in making guns itself)

We , the true fans, (including the vendors who are fans) will work around it.

Luke Warmwater · Post by **Luke Warmwater** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:38 pm

I'm willing to bet it's Paramount, not Lucasfilm, that caused US Wings to change things. They've come down pretty hard on anyone who tries to make Trek stuff sans license.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:39 pm

I even remember when Harley Davidson Motorcycles wanted to patent the familiar "rumble" of the exhaust of their cycles. I don't remember if they were able to or not...

Clothing is a tough one. I believe you can reverse engineer something, like a jacket. But if the name is trademarked, like you said, you can't use that without permission (and probably licensing fees too).

Bowie · Post by **Bowie** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:43 pm

Hey MJ, H&D was not able to patent their famous rumble. I remember hearing that whatever court level it went to, that a sound can not be patented.

bobjones · Post by **bobjones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:04 pm

Sit tight people, there are several patent and intellectual property bills both before congress and the Supreme Court right now, and the way the wind is blowing, the laws are going to be weakened significantly.

The nonsense that happened with RIM, as well as the "Disney" copyright extension law that passed a few years back, are not going to stand, and the public pressure on Congress to revoke some of these laws and rulings is huge.

As for legal representation of Lucasfilm or other vendors threatening COW members for their comments here regarding their opinions on product, good luck. There is already significant precedent for internet board forums to be considered as purely speculation and hearsay, and it seems like the vendors are trying to frighten posters and the admins with their lawyers, who should know better.

If they really thought they could get the public to cease commenting on either a publically sold vendor's product, or on Lucasfilm's/Paramount's actions with regards to how they are treating the public or its products, good luck. Don't be "COWed" (pun intended, just too easy not to use

) by their suits, if you don't believe me, go ask EFF, they will say the same thing.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:13 pm

bobjones wrote:As for legal representation of Lucasfilm or other vendors threatening COW members for their comments here regarding their opinions on product, good luck.

Opinions on product are fine. Where libel comes in is say I buy a jacket from Vendor X. I don't like it. I return it. I post I don't like it. That's fine. But I post "I don't like it. But I'm sure my shoddy jacket with it's poor construction will go right back on the shelf to be sold again to some other sucker..." - that's libel, as it could hurt/damage their business and their reputation. And cases like that HAVE happened on this site in the past.

An opinion is an opinion. A false statement about someone/something is something else. That's where we have to step in.

Bruce Wayne · Post by **Bruce Wayne** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:18 pm

bobjones wrote:Sit tight people, there are several patent and intellectual property bills both before congress and the Supreme Court right now, and the way the wind is blowing, the laws are going to be weakened significantly.

The nonsense that happened with RIM, as well as the "Disney" copyright extension law that passed a few years back, are not going to stand, and the public pressure on Congress to revoke some of these laws and rulings is huge.

As for legal representation of Lucasfilm or other vendors threatening COW members for their comments here regarding their opinions on product, good luck. There is already significant precedent for internet board forums to be considered as purely speculation and hearsay, and it seems like the vendors are trying to frighten posters and the admins with their lawyers, who should know better.

If they really thought they could get the public to cease commenting on either a publically sold vendor's product, or on Lucasfilm's/Paramount's actions with regards to how they are treating the public or its products, good luck. Don't be "COWed" (pun intended, just too easy not to use ) by their suits, if you don't believe me, go ask EFF, they will say the same thing.

just out of couristy, you have any links to these bills?
also, what does EFF stand for?
thanx!!!
Charlie

WeeMadHamish · Post by **WeeMadHamish** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:23 pm

Ahh... freedom to say whatever you want... and get sued for it. I love our society!

also, what does EFF stand for?

Electronic Frontier Foundation. They are one of the primary driving organizations for maintaining the right to free speech on the Internet.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm

Well.... that's why I always liked that quote by Doc Brown in BTTF part 2:

"The justice system works much faster here in the future, now that they've abolished all lawyers."

No disrepect for the members who are lawyers in our midst!

coronado3 · Post by **coronado3** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:26 pm

You know, I really like the sound of the "adventuerer" jacket better anyway! Doesn't sound quite as cheesy as "Indy Jacket". Maybe if I were from Indianapolis....

C3

WeeMadHamish · Post by **WeeMadHamish** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:34 pm

"Indy jacket" always makes me think it should have numbers and racing stripes anyway.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:47 pm

Off topic, if you go to eBay and type in "Indy Lego Sets" for example, you get racing car lego sets...

JerseyJones · Post by **JerseyJones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:42 pm

Hello folks

As a vendor and a lawyer let me try to help here on the state of the law.

TRADEMARK

Indiana Jones is a registered trademark of LFL. That meaning that there is a value inherent in the use of that name which was created by Mssers. Lucas and Speilberg to describe their adventurer character from the 1930's. As long as they use the mark, which they do, they own it and can and really must police its use in order for the mark to remain theirs.

Trademark protection is available for words, names, symbols, or devices that are capable of distinguishing the owner's goods or services from the goods or services of others. A trademark that merely describes a class of goods rather than distinguishing the trademark owner's goods from goods provided by others is not protectible.

EXAMPLE / The word "corn flakes" is not protectible as a trademark for cereal because that term describes a type of cereal that is sold by a number of cereal manufacturers rather than distinguishing one cereal manufacturer's goods. However, someone other than Kellogs cannot sell "Kelloggs' Corn Flakes" but they seem to be able to say, "compare ours to Kelloggs!"

The bottom line: as a commercial trademark, the name Indiana Jones or its derivative "Indy" is not the vendors to use, with the very minimal borderline exception of use a descriptive adjective in relation to a product. Think of the perfume clones you see " in the spirit of "Cool Water" etc., which is why the more informed vendors will typically say "inspired by...." as opposed to "just like...." or "the same as....." in relation to an unlicensed clone or similar to the licensed product.

The idea is that no one wants their legitimately created product/trademark confused with another thing, which is unlicensed. You do not want to end up competing for market share with yourself !

COPYRIGHT

First of all, you do not "copyright" a thing like a trademark. You can copyright say a movie script in which the name of the trademarked thing (i.e. Indiana Jones) occurs. Generally, Copyrights require originality in expression to be valid.

From a copyright perspective, the idea of the 1930's adventurer is not protectable (most likely) because it is too generic. But as you get more specific with details and work your way up to the character's name the idea becomes less abstract and more specific, thus the widely used "levels of abstraction" test.

SUMMARY

At the end of the discussion, we as vendors have to be very mindful of our advertising. To out and out use a trademarked name or derivative of one as a name for a product is inadvisable if you do not possess a license to do so.

And to be clear, its not just big companies that can enforce this. If someone started selling a "Camptowns" hat, I would have recourse on behalf of my company Camptown Hats LLC. to make them cease and desist.

This list is by no means comprehensive. I spent 2 years in law school on studying intellectual property and I still don't know a 1/3 of what there is to know about the intricacies of the business-law synergy that drives IP. I try my darndest to be mindful of it in all that I do.

I am not saying US Wings did anything good or bad, it just seems to me that it was not the most legally efficient way to have advertised their jacket.

My .02,

Jersey

DISCLAIMER

The above legal information is provided here on this open forum for informational purposes ONLY. It is NOT intended to create any attorney client relationship with the posting party Kenneth A. Spassione Jr., Esq. or the Davidson Legal Group, LLC. with any party or entity and shall not be construed to do so. The information provided is also NOT legal advice and should not be construed as such. You use this information at your own risk. Should you require any further assistance, please consult your own attorney in your local jurisdiction.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:49 pm

Thanks Jersey! I edited my post above where I said Copywrited to Trademarked. I think a lot of us forget the differences of those, or don't even know what the differences are.

gladd96 · Post by **gladd96** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:56 pm

US copyright law is a bit screwy IMO.

The thing you have to consider in these maters is that a company has the responsibility to take consitant actions in protecting there intelectual properties. When a company doesn't excercise their protection consistantly they expose the strength of there copyrights to being weakened. When it comes to legal matters, there is no room for personalizing actions taken.

My opinion is that the intelectual property holder should be allowed to manage their property in whatever manor they see fit. Sadly currently US law doesn't seem to favor inconsitant protection.

I would like to see the US legal system changed to a more common sense sense type approach to liabilty... i.e. coffee is hot so you should be responsible for checking the temprature for yourself and be unable to file suit against someone for not taking responsibility for your stupidity. And what's up with VT settling with the families of the shooting victims? I don't see how there should have been a legitimate case against them... why doesn't the law exclusively blame the party actually responsible. It's absolutley ludicrous the way US liability seems to have more to do with your bank account than your actual responsibility. Sadly lawyers win while the rest of us lose.

Minnesota Jones · Post by **Minnesota Jones** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:17 pm

Same with the C&D for our propmakers. Sadly, it's a double edged sword there as well. Leaving names out, you have ones making fantastic stuff, and ones making, well.... crud. Since none are licensed, LFL has to go after all of them, regardless of their quality, or lack thereof, to protect their trademarks and copyrights. All it takes it a bad prop to taint the waters. With a license, you have pay for it, but it get's the LFL approval to make. But even that isn't a guanantee for the fans. With all the Master Replicas and Sideshows out there, you also have "official" fedoras by Dorfman Pacific or the old Stetsons. Again, it's a double edged sword.

gmarthe · Post by **gmarthe** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:44 pm

Bowie wrote:Hey MJ, H&D was not able to patent their famous rumble. I remember hearing that whatever court level it went to, that a sound can not be patented.

I'm not saying you are wrong but didn't Lucas sue Dr. Dre (the rapper) 7-8 years ago for using the THX sound on his CD? Not sure if me won or not though. On a side note I really wasn't trying to stir the pot or get anyone in trouble with my opening so - sorry Chewing Wax.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:45 pm

That was his own call and doing, so don't you feel bad about anything.

Regards! Michaelson

Vivli · Post by **Vivli** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:04 pm

I was wondering about this sort of thing the other day when I read this news article;

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertai ... 22&sp=true

about Lucasfilm sueing someone selling replica stormtrooper costumes. Apparently, he made the original, but Lucasfilm feel since they own the copyright on the character, he doesn't have any right to sell the costume. Or that's the general gist of it.

The obvious reason this caught my attention is because it seems similar to what a lot of our favourite vendors do. Is it possible US Wings are just responding to the threat of this happening to them? After all, it sounds strikingly familiar to the fact that both US Wings and Wested made the original jackets for the film, like this guy made the original armour for the stormtroopers, but is now not allowed to sell replicas.

It's a really worrying thought that Lucasfilm might crack down on this kind of thing, although I admit I don't know law very well at all, so the case above might be completely different from what our favourite companies do.

I just thought I'd mention it because it seems like a similar scenario, and I'd hate to see any of our favourite jacket makers get in trouble, especially when they all provide us fans with really quality products. (I only own a Wested myself, but I've seen enough threads here to know US Wings to do a top job too!).

Bruce Wayne · Post by **Bruce Wayne** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:17 pm

just a whip crackin thin air (shot inthe dark), has anyone actually called U.S. Wings & asked them about this. i am planning on calling tomorrow about an order of hawaiian shirts i ordered & will ask this. maybe this didn't get a c & d. maybe they are just playing it safe...

ztmario · Post by **ztmario** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:22 pm

Vivli wrote:I was wondering about this sort of thing the other day when I read this news article;

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertai ... 22&sp=true

about Lucasfilm sueing someone selling replica stormtrooper costumes. Apparently, he made the original, but Lucasfilm feel since they own the copyright on the character, he doesn't have any right to sell the costume. Or that's the general gist of it.

The obvious reason this caught my attention is because it seems similar to what a lot of our favourite vendors do. Is it possible US Wings are just responding to the threat of this happening to them? After all, it sounds strikingly familiar to the fact that both US Wings and Wested made the original jackets for the film, like this guy made the original armour for the stormtroopers, but is now not allowed to sell replicas.

It's a really worrying thought that Lucasfilm might crack down on this kind of thing, although I admit I don't know law very well at all, so the case above might be completely different from what our favourite companies do.

I just thought I'd mention it because it seems like a similar scenario, and I'd hate to see any of our favourite jacket makers get in trouble, especially when they all provide us fans with really quality products. (I only own a Wested myself, but I've seen enough threads here to know US Wings to do a top job too!).

I would think that our saving grace is the fact that all of the gear is so general. I mean, there's really no part of the outfit that can be trademarked.. a brown fedora? custom A2? pleated pants? holsters? web belts?? not to say that LF hasn't TRIED to trademark the raiders pinch

, but what can they really do besides tell people to stop saying "Indiana Jones". from what I gather, it's not easy to legally claim a "look". just look at all the custom batman costumes for sale out there.. they seem to be perfectly legal as long as they don't include the emblem. same thing with superman and countless other iconic images. maybe the stormtrooper thing is different because it's so specifically identifiable? kind of like darth vader's helmet would be. I really don't know much about this, but I think it's pretty obvious that as long as vendors stay away from certain noun usage, it's IMPOSSIBLE to stop them from selling the products we buy. I mean, the gear is mostly made up of real world stuff!! you can't take an MK VII gas mask bag and put it on your fictional character and then say that you own the rights to it....

ztmario · Post by **ztmario** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 pm

bruce wayne wrote:just a whip crackin thin air (shot inthe dark), has anyone actually called U.S. Wings & asked them about this. i am planning on calling tomorrow about an order of hawaiian shirts i ordered & will ask this. maybe this didn't get a c & d. maybe they are just playing it safe...

let us know what you find out, but I'd say it's a safe bet they got the order. I think that they were already "playing it safe" with all that legal red text they added to the description of all their jackets. they were probably targeted first because they do the most business off of the Indy likeness of any other vendor (not a fact, but I think probably right). I'm knocking on wood, but it's probably only a matter of time before they get around to Indyjacket.com and all the references to dr. jones on todd's page.

WeeMadHamish · Post by **WeeMadHamish** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:09 pm

Vivli wrote:about Lucasfilm sueing someone selling replica stormtrooper costumes. Apparently, he made the original, but Lucasfilm feel since they own the copyright on the character, he doesn't have any right to sell the costume. Or that's the general gist of it.

I believe there is some contention over whether he actually created the costumes or simply had a hand in their construction. It's a heated topic on the Replica Prop Forum.

I just thought I'd mention it because it seems like a similar scenario, and I'd hate to see any of our favourite jacket makers get in trouble, especially when they all provide us fans with really quality products. (I only own a Wested myself, but I've seen enough threads here to know US Wings to do a top job too!).

I think the difference is this: The Stormtrooper costume is an iconic design immediately recognizable as belonging to the Star Wars universe (LFL's IP) and ONLY to the Star Wars universe. "Indy" gear, on the other hand, has a basis in real-world design and is in itself not as inherently iconic until you put it all together. It's just a jacket, until you put it together with the hat and the whip. They're clothes, and not as immediately recognizable as the white armor.

LFL has a responsibility to protect not only itself, but its licensees, from illicit use of its intellectual property. If they choose to overlook a violation of their IP for whatever reason, it sets a precedent that can cause them all sorts of legal problems when a real challenge to their property arises.

It's surprising, though, that this would be an issue for US Wings, since they /were/ a licensee at some point, weren't they?

Magnum Jones · Post by **Magnum Jones** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:05 am

Minnesota Jones wrote:I even remember when Harley Davidson Motorcycles wanted to patent the familiar "rumble" of the exhaust of their cycles. I don't remember if they were able to or not...

Clothing is a tough one. I believe you can reverse engineer something, like a jacket. But if the name is trademarked, like you said, you can't use that without permission (and probably licensing fees too).

I can understand the name trade mark. You can own a name. It would be like me saying "I'm going to open my new restaurant called Mcdonalds and serve my new soft drink called Coca Cola."

Clothing would be hard, I have heard also you can't patent a scent, like perfume. Who will be the first to come out with Indy.............or Adventure cologne

Vivli · Post by **Vivli** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:48 am

WeeMadHamish wrote: I think the difference is this: The Stormtrooper costume is an iconic design immediately recognizable as belonging to the Star Wars universe (LFL's IP) and ONLY to the Star Wars universe. "Indy" gear, on the other hand, has a basis in real-world design and is in itself not as inherently iconic until you put it all together. It's just a jacket, until you put it together with the hat and the whip. They're clothes, and not as immediately recognizable as the white armor.

LFL has a responsibility to protect not only itself, but its licensees, from illicit use of its intellectual property. If they choose to overlook a violation of their IP for whatever reason, it sets a precedent that can cause them all sorts of legal problems when a real challenge to their property arises.

It's surprising, though, that this would be an issue for US Wings, since they /were/ a licensee at some point, weren't they?

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Although I suppose now US Wings have lost the licence, it means that they're pretty much in the same boat as any other vendor, and so can't use the name.

Would it be a problem for Peter at Wested too though? I mean, he uses the copyrighted name in a sense, writing on his website that he made the Indy jackets specifically etc. I only ask 'cause I'd hate to see Peter get in trouble, since he's such an amazing guy and works so hard on creating these replicas for us.

I mean, I know I'm probably being a bit paranoid, but if US Wings had to stop using it and they were an licensee at one point, I can imagine the same thing happening to Wested.

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:24 am

It came directly from LFL.

Regards! Michaelson

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:17 am

So THAT'S where you disappeared to!

Good to see you back!!!

Regards! Michaelson

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:52 pm

Yep!

Regards! Michaelson

US Wings cease & desist?

US Wings cease & desist?

Re: US Wings cease & desist?