tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5794661262746271635..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: News from ToytownVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88294451140246681222007-10-03T01:06:00.000+01:002007-10-03T01:06:00.000+01:00Niel, I think a court would so decide because "com...Niel, I think a court would so decide because "common-sense" would say that Joe Public wouldn't associate a miniaturied badge on a miniaturized model as serving a trademark function, whereas they would so associate a full-sized badge on a full-sized model - if indeed, they even recognized the full-sized model (replica) AS a model.<BR/><BR/>Regards, LukeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15574324023115676402007-10-02T17:43:00.000+01:002007-10-02T17:43:00.000+01:00Assuming a car manufacturer does own trade marks f...Assuming a car manufacturer does own trade marks for cars as well as toys (as I understood Opel did) the question is still whether putting a car badge on a replica toy car or toy replica car to ensure fidelity is use of a trade mark. And if it is not (as the Opel case decided), what is the position with putting a car badge on a replica full size car, assuming in all cases there are no other rights e.g. that the car is a replica of a classic model of the brand? My feeling is that the courts would frown on the latter but I have difficulty with the conceptual difference between the two scenarios.Niel Ackermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13561154281077944034noreply@blogger.com