Interesting Frost River Lucasfilm Lawsuit

[Arkansas Smith]

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/lucasf ... 13184.html

[IndianaJustin]

Yikes! There goes more potential profit. Or recouping of investment. Or adds to the loss.

[Herr Doktor]

Whoops! Disregard.

[fifthchamber]

I think that's entirely right to do...The Frost River backpack was a clear standout, and the fans jumped on it...But allowing an entirely different company to run with the branding? Seems to me, to be entirely the wrong thing to do here. Filson make decent gear, but none of it was used on the movie, and to allow them to slide in on another companies gear is just wrong..There's always a decent way to do things, and this isn't it....

[Charybdis]

Man, when it rains...it pours!

[Indy Magnoli]

Would be interested in seeing the ad.

[Indiana Jeff]

Me as well.

My bet is LFL/Filson will recut the ad removing the bit with the Frost River bag and the whole thing will be dismissed by the courts.

Otherwise it’s going to incumbent on Frost River to prove material harm. We might all be subpoenaed!

Though I would like to think Frost River can make the case that trademark was violated by the removal of their patch.

As well, it would be like if the Broccoli’s cut a deal with Chevy and did a Bond centric commercial. It’s not like someone is going to confuse a Chevy for an Aston Martin.

Mistaking one canvas pack for another is far more likely.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[fifthchamber]

https://www.filson.com/indiana-jones

I think this is the "ad" meant...It's not overt, but having a bag like that, in a company site like this? Does link the two somewhat...

[Indiana Jeff]

100% If the pack hadn’t already been identified I’d be scouring the Filson website to figure out which one was used in the movie. Poor form.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[fifthchamber]

100% If the pack hadn’t already been identified I’d be scouring the Filson website to figure out which one was used in the movie. Poor form.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Yeah eh? The handy links to the bags are close by too...It's a little unfair, and on the nose.....Nothing really, even close in the Filson website....(I had to look...LOL)

[Adirondack Jones]

Yikes that clip showing the backpack is SO quick ....seems like milliseconds....it seems Frost River will have a hard time showing any 'material damage'

[Adirondack Jones]

...on the other hand, the publicity of filing the lawsuit will point a lot of people to Frost River, so I guess they should take the win

[Indiana Jeff]

I wonder how much blowback Filson will get from people contacting them and asking for the same bag carried by Indiana Jones.

“Um. We have bags that are similar to what he carries, but not exact.”

“Oh, was the bag Indy uses a special prop piece made by you just for the movie?”

“How about I show you these really nice bags over here.”

The real shame is LFL would never let Frost River advertise the packs as an “Indiana Jones Pack,” but are OK with Filson misrepresenting their packs in the movie through this ad.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[TonyRush]

I’m still stuck on Frost River’s assertion that a studio has to “ask permission” to use a product in a film. LOL.

The interest runs the other way: companies PAY for studios to use their product in their films; the studios don’t ask permission.

And it’s a “trademark violation” to remove the branding? It literally happens all the time. How many times do you see laptops in films with no branding? Or cameras in which the “Canon” or “Nikon” has been obscured? All the time.

I think this is just an attempt by Frost River to grab some attention. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how many of their customer base reads The Hollywood Reporter.

[Michaelson]

True, but the story has been picked up by a lot more news agencies and it’s making the rounds.

Regards! M

[Castor Dioscuri]

That means this previously obscure part of Indy gear fandom has now gone mainstream!!!

Who wants to place bets we'll shortly see a price increase?

[Michaelson]

Oh, they’re WELL aware of our watching the films with microscopes now!

Regards!

[whipitgood]

I’m still stuck on Frost River’s assertion that a studio has to “ask permission” to use a product in a film. LOL.

The interest runs the other way: companies PAY for studios to use their product in their films; the studios don’t ask permission.

It’s only a problem if you defame their product. I don’t recall the bag falling apart at any point, so it performs its function as intended.

[Indy Magnoli]

I’m still stuck on Frost River’s assertion that a studio has to “ask permission” to use a product in a film. LOL.

I could be wrong, but I think it's pretty standard. We sold some sunglasses to a film company and they asked our permission to use them in the film (and this was just for background characters, I think... because I couldn't even spot them in the movie). So for a BIG production and a piece to be used pretty prominently in the film and advertising... yeah, they probably should have had Frost River sign something...

[Lightning]

Don't see why they would need permission if they removed the logo. Lucasfilm bought the bags and can do whatever they want with them. If you ask permission then you don't need to remove logos. Its not even legally required, just a CYA, just in case. In TV its mostly to avoid accidentally advertising a competitor of a sponsor.

[LNBright]

https://startribune.com/modern-day-davi ... 600292551/


“Quirky archeologist”?!

[Indiana Jeff]

That's an "interesting" description.

Frost River is asking for a minimum of $75,000. I can see Disney/LFL cutting them a check without blinking an eye. It would be worth the goodwill to say, "We didn't mean to cause any harm and are happy to support a small, American brand."

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[xmasters]

It seems that half the sites reporting this are missing the point of what the real core issue is. The 'without permission' stuff is just extra window dressing on FRs part. Disney used their product in a movie (not credited them) and awarded a promotional licence to a different company. Obviously that aint right, it's happened before in movies and it usually gets sorted out.

[TonyRush]

I just realized another reason why Frost River is likely a bit prickly: they sell their own version of Indy’s gas mask bag…but (of course) without coming out and claiming an affiliation:

https://frostriver.com/products/archaeologist-satchel

[backstagejack]

.......The 'without permission' stuff is just extra window dressing on FRs part. Disney used their product in a movie (not credited them) and awarded a promotional licence to a different company. Obviously that aint right, it's happened before in movies and it usually gets sorted out.

So I definitely get this..... but what's the difference between using..... a HJ hat but then selling a dorfman as the official hat?

Sure, HJ is getting more traffic as they supplied the hat..... so is Frost River..... but none will get as much traffic as the dorfman hats from the layman out there that just wants an "indiana jones hat".

I guess it comes down to it that Disney didn't inform them of its usage and then didn't have them sign anything in that regards.

They're taking advantage of it though with their....Legacy Collection and "Artifact Edition" which ironically shows the pack with its patch removed.

"For a limited time we will be offering our tried and true Geologist Pack without the leather oval patch, matching the pack that is featured in a lead role of a Hollywood film franchise. (Please note we will NOT accommodate any other special requests, nor will be offering to omit the patch on any other Frost River products.)"

https://frostriver.com/pages/carry-the- ... bead&_ss=r



This must be a little bit of an extra little twist of the knife with how much disney has already lost on this film, to now have to pay out more money.....however "small" the amount turns out to be.

[Indiana Jeff]

I think the difference is HJ openly advertises that they produced the hats for the Indiana Jones movies. My understanding is Frost River is forbidden from overtly saying it's their packs in the movie so their bag gets used, they're not allowed to acknowledge that and Filson is now using Indiana Jones to promote their products.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[backstagejack]

Ah, okay that makes sense. And Disney can't let them advertise it because of the Filson connection?

If that's the case, I definitely get the lawsuit.

I like that they're offering the bag sans the patch now.... even if it is temporary.

[Castor Dioscuri]

I just realized another reason why Frost River is likely a bit prickly: they sell their own version of Indy’s gas mask bag…but (of course) without coming out and claiming an affiliation:

https://frostriver.com/products/archaeologist-satchel

Oh god, I never thought I'd be drooling over a gas mask bag reproduction (why settle for a copy?), but this is a thing in beauty, even if only in construction!

An Indy bag in waxed canvas? What looks to be extra closures? And hopefully dividers with the 21st century lifestyle in mind? I'm definitely one! I also love that it actually looks pretty tasteful, considering the choice of materials, and wouldn't look out of place with an Ernest Alexander duffel...

[bearbeast]

I just realized another reason why Frost River is likely a bit prickly: they sell their own version of Indy’s gas mask bag…but (of course) without coming out and claiming an affiliation:

https://frostriver.com/products/archaeologist-satchel

Oh god, I never thought I'd be drooling over a gas mask bag reproduction (why settle for a copy?), but this is a thing in beauty, even if only in construction!

An Indy bag in waxed canvas? What looks to be extra closures? And hopefully dividers with the 21st century lifestyle in mind? I'm definitely one! I also love that it actually looks pretty tasteful, considering the choice of materials, and wouldn't look out of place with an Ernest Alexander duffel...

I like how they call it an archaeologist bag, when it's rather a grave robber bag...

[IndianaJustin]

I just realized another reason why Frost River is likely a bit prickly: they sell their own version of Indy’s gas mask bag…but (of course) without coming out and claiming an affiliation:

https://frostriver.com/products/archaeologist-satchel

Thanks for sharing this, I was looking for something like this 6 months ago and settled for a non-waxed version.

[TonyRush]

"For a limited time we will be offering our tried and true Geologist Pack without the leather oval patch, matching the pack that is featured in a lead role of a Hollywood film franchise. (Please note we will NOT accommodate any other special requests, nor will be offering to omit the patch on any other Frost River products.)"

https://frostriver.com/pages/carry-the- ... bead&_ss=r



This must be a little bit of an extra little twist of the knife with how much disney has already lost on this film, to now have to pay out more money.....however "small" the amount turns out to be.

I'm trying to find where they made this announcement. I don't see it on the page linked above. Does anyone have details on how to order this?

Tony

[TonyRush]

Disregard my previous question. I found it here:
https://frostriver.com/products/geologi ... ct-edition

It's in the "Description" section. You have to click the [+] sign to see it.

[marker2037]

Don't see why they would need permission if they removed the logo. Lucasfilm bought the bags and can do whatever they want with them. If you ask permission then you don't need to remove logos. Its not even legally required, just a CYA, just in case. In TV its mostly to avoid accidentally advertising a competitor of a sponsor.

This is the truth. Everyone seems to think that a production company "needs permission" to use a product, but that's not true. If they bought it, they own it and they can do whatever they like with it. As you state, the reason branding is blocked out on TV is due to advertising sponsors, but movies (mostly) don't have reasons to do that.

I'm sure the real reason the production team took off the patch was simply because they thought the bag looked better and more authentic without it, not because the audience would have been able to make out the tiny Frost River logo and that it was against copyright rules or anything like that.

Still, poor form from Filson and LucasFilm for trying to capitalize on another brand's product so I have no problem with why Frost River did what they did.

[Castor Dioscuri]

What Frost River is citing is the Lanham Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_ ... to%20occur.

It's not so much about Lucasfilm taking off the patch in the film that is the issue, as it is about them having the patch off and showing Frost River's backpacks in co-branded ads for Filson. Hence, consumer confusion.

[TonyRush]

What Frost River is citing is the Lanham Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_ ... to%20occur.

It's not so much about Lucasfilm taking off the patch in the film that is the issue, as it is about them having the patch off and showing Frost River's backpacks in co-branded ads for Filson. Hence, consumer confusion.

Hmm...I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV). But, my understanding is that the Landham Act refers to the protection of actual trademarks; not to the goods and services produced by companies who hold trademarks.

But, I can certainly understand Frost River being upset at seeing their product showing up in a competing company's video. I just don't think it's enough to cause "material harm" to their company or brand.

Plus, if they're really intending on fighting with Lucasfilm, I think they may have muddied the waters of their argument by selling an unbranded version of the bag in question on their own website. If I were the defendant's attorney, I would point out that the Frost River must not be too worried about the identity of the bag since they're more than willing to sell it themselves. But, again, that's just me.

Tony

[Castor Dioscuri]

What Frost River is citing is the Lanham Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_ ... to%20occur.

It's not so much about Lucasfilm taking off the patch in the film that is the issue, as it is about them having the patch off and showing Frost River's backpacks in co-branded ads for Filson. Hence, consumer confusion.

Hmm...I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV). But, my understanding is that the Landham Act refers to the protection of actual trademarks; not to the goods and services produced by companies who hold trademarks.

Excerpt from the filing:

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) prohibits a competitor from engaging in commercial advertising, marketing, or promotion that “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of” its own or a competitor's “goods, services, or commercial activities.” The Lanham Act also prohibits a competitor from making “any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact or false or misleading representation of fact which ...is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,connection, association ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of its own “goods, services, or commercial activities.”

...One of the Lanham Act’s main purposes is to prevent a competitor from misleading the public by placing their competitor’s work forward as its own. It is a remedial statute that is to be broadly applied and construed so asto effectuate its remedial purpose.

Section 43(a) specifically prohibits the use of false descriptions and false designations of origin when advertising or selling goods or services incommerce. The Lanham Act proscribes the reproduction of a work with a falsedescription or attribution as to its creator. Liability under Section 43(a) may arise for a false description or representation even though no trademark is involved. A false designation of origin claim is not limited to literal falsehoods, it also extends to false representations made by implication or innuendo.

Section 43(a) prohibits a practice termed as reverse passing off (also called reverse palming off) in which competitor “A” sells or promotes competitor“B’s” product under “A’s” name. Express reverse passing off occurs when one party obtains the product of a second party, removes the second party's name or trademarks, and then markets or promotes the product under its own name. Reverse passing off activities have been recognized as wrongful because they involve attempts to misappropriate or profit from another's talents and workmanship. The harm from reverse passing off is that the purchaser or viewer is deceived or misled into believing that the products or services come from a source other than the plaintiff. Reverse passing off involuntarily deprives the originator of the product ofthe advertising value of its name and the goodwill that otherwise would stem from public knowledge of the true source of the product.

Plus, if they're really intending on fighting with Lucasfilm, I think they may have muddied the waters of their argument by selling an unbranded version of the bag in question on their own website.

No argument there!

[TonyRush]

Castor, thanks for that additional information! It definitely clarifies.

Thanks!
Tony

[Castor Dioscuri]