tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3960693860670574156..comments2024-03-19T08:36:55.274+00:00Comments on The IPKat: From Batsman to Biscuit: family frets as Foundation flourishesVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40123257496261437842015-08-06T09:57:48.043+01:002015-08-06T09:57:48.043+01:00James Wagner's comments Highlight that tradema...James Wagner's comments Highlight that trademark registration was not the right way forward for Donald Bradman in 1992. By creating independent transferable trademark rights he acknowledged that his name could be used in trade. In fact, your story suggests that he wanted to do the exact opposite and prevent his name being used in trade. If the trademarks could be invalidated (descriptive - not distinctive of any trade origin) then at least the trust would not be able to license them and the family MIGHT (I know no Australian law) then have some sort of passing off right to prevent use in trade. More likely the result would be that all traders could allude to the name, but since none of them would have any exclusive right or any authority to do so, the value of saying this is a cricket bat or a cricket bat shaped biscuit that might appeal to Sir Donald Bradman is minimal and the focus might return to sponsorship by living individuals who know the risks they are taking.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53023935899957276162015-08-06T09:21:15.123+01:002015-08-06T09:21:15.123+01:00Following up Anon's comment to James Wagner, t...Following up Anon's comment to James Wagner, the trademark filing in a commercial area you are not entering will lead (in five years or so) to the inevitable invalidation of the mark. Maybe a very small scale business (e.g. tiny cricket bat shaped biscuits?) could justify its existence.The Grizzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04020705618163343995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29254666137904529582015-08-06T04:55:37.669+01:002015-08-06T04:55:37.669+01:00James Wagner,
Surely you are not suggesting filin...James Wagner,<br /><br />Surely you are not suggesting filing in areas of commerce one has no intention of entering....<br /><br />I hope you recognize the ethical landmine you have stepped on - how you step off shall be interesting....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77932185161309426142015-08-05T21:51:33.212+01:002015-08-05T21:51:33.212+01:00A visiting US attorney once observed that "Im...A visiting US attorney once observed that "Image Rights" are a feature of US State law, not Federal law. Hence the extent of rights varies from state to state. For some it is the lifetime of person only, for others the right is capable of being passed to descendants. No rights in a deceased person's image exist in Nevada, which is why Elvis impersonators can operate freely there without having to get permission from the Elvis's descendants. I seem to recall reading a post about this here in the last 12 months or so, but couldn't find it using the search function. Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33158334690915151232015-08-05T20:15:32.997+01:002015-08-05T20:15:32.997+01:00While setting up a trust or other means to control...While setting up a trust or other means to control the use of the name by descendants can work, the field specific nature of trademark rights may severely limit the ability to control the name, particularly where the individual didn't want to be associated with an area rather than simply wanted the benefits to flow to their family. <br /><br />Unless the trust specifically registers the mark for use in the areas that the individual didn't want to be licensed they will not have a trademark registration in that area. As such they are forced to rely on confusion or dilution across different fields of use, which can limit the scope of their rights. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com