Club Obi Wan

Indiana Jeff wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:30 pm 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

TonyRush wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:11 pm 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.

TonyRush wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:11 pmI’m still stuck on Frost River’s assertion that a studio has to “ask permission” to use a product in a film. LOL.

xmasters wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 7:23 pm .......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.

"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.)"

TonyRush wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:08 pm 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

Castor Dioscuri wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 5:28 am

TonyRush wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:08 pm 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...

TonyRush wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:08 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:11 pm

"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.

Lightning wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 8:24 pm 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.

Castor Dioscuri wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 5:38 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:27 pm

Castor Dioscuri wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 5:38 am 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.

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.

TonyRush wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:27 pm 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.