-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
colekwok
Active Member
deeb7 said:
Yes, I guess a lot of people actually requested V.Hilt name tags for their ELC or Aero A-2 as well. This should not be a problem if it is done 'by request'. It also depends on where the jackets are sold. Honestly, if they want to tackle the copyright issues, how about raiding the Chinese replicas of the replicas?
colekwok said:
Any unauthorized use of Intellectual Property is infringement. If it is done for financial gain, the damages increase. Whether the IP owner(s) elect(s) to pursue the infringement is another matter. Since the IP of the McQueen estate is valuable, frequently sought after, and in use and paid for by McCoys with respect to specific military apparel, it's a fair guess the IP owner(s) would vigorously insert themselves between any who infringe their IP; otherwise, the value of the IP diminishes and McCoys would be quite justified in no longer paying for the license.
Making use of the Virgil Hilts name with respect to military apparel the average individual would recognize from "The Great Escape" is another matter. Unless owned by the McQueen estate and used specifically with anything readily recognized as specific to his film character and unique to the film, making use of "Hilts" is likely not going to create much fuss. The name was unique to a character in a film made long, long ago and the IP could be owned by the current owner of the film, the writer who created the name, some other entity, or no one. If the McQueen estate doesn't own the name, which is more likely the case, it would take a good deal of research to determine the current ownership of the name, and any claim to ownership is one that might be easily challenged. Also, even if the ownership can be readily established, the owners must typically have relatively recent use of the name in the manner they would be claiming infringement or there is no infringement. So, for example, if Hilts-marked A-2's the McCoys made received licensing from the owners of the Hilts name but the license was exclusively limited to wearing apparel and someone wanted to make Hilts-marked A-2's for GI Joe figures (with no use of the McQueen image), the micro-sized A-2's would not be an infringement if no toy-related licensing was active within the last few years, though the micro-sized A-2's should be duly licensed by the name owner or that owner would begin to lose claim to the named rights if the micro-sized A-2's went into production and sale unchecked.
Compare and contrast William Holden's Sefton character from "Stalag 17" to that of Hilts with respect to marketing a flying jacket. I'd bet you could produce a "Sefton" B-3 jacket (with no use of Holden's image, of course) and never hear a peep from anyone claiming IP infringement. Using Sefton or Hilts to market a flying jacket would be identical, and ownership of the names, if there even is any or if any is even known, would likely revert to the ownership of the respective films, though the McQueen estate seems much more aware of its IP value and is much more aggressive in policing the use of its IP vs. Holden's estate as it relates to a handful of films and images and names. So, it's possible the McQueen estate might rightly or wrongly claim ownership to Hilts; if they do own the name, it would be a very narrow ownership isolated only to very specific things related to the film character and almost certainly an ownership made in the last 15-20 years or so.
I used to interface with the legal dept. of a marketing firm I worked for that dealt with these exact types of issues every day, but I make no claim to being an IP attorney and offer no advice except as one who suggests you seek out specialized legal assistance when endeavoring to make use of what may be the IP of another.
Saunders
The Great Escape was a United Artists movie. Steve McQueen had a working relationship with United Artists. His Estate may or may not have an interest in the Great Escape, as it does in 'Bullitt'. If so there may be IP connection to the name Virgil Hilts.
Warner Brothers still owns the UA movie Bullitt. The Great Escape is probably still owned by MGM.
In the case of Bullitt that name is shared by the McQueen estate and studio. Just ask Ford Motor Company.
BKs label as it is is just a label with Steve McQueen printed on it. Attached to a jacket that may or may not change. Marketed with images from the movie and of Steve McQueen things begin to change and in that scenario I think some action would be taken.
Warner Brothers still owns the UA movie Bullitt. The Great Escape is probably still owned by MGM.
In the case of Bullitt that name is shared by the McQueen estate and studio. Just ask Ford Motor Company.
BKs label as it is is just a label with Steve McQueen printed on it. Attached to a jacket that may or may not change. Marketed with images from the movie and of Steve McQueen things begin to change and in that scenario I think some action would be taken.
m444uk
Active Member
There is someting with the McQueen name on that really is drool worthy....
http://www.metisse-motorcycles.com/technical.htm
Video link bottom left
http://www.metisse-motorcycles.com/default.htm
http://www.metisse-motorcycles.com/technical.htm
Video link bottom left
http://www.metisse-motorcycles.com/default.htm
RCSignals said:
Attached to a jacket would make a huge difference vs. just being a stand-alone label (and not for sale or trade to anyone). I have no doubt that the label referenced here would, when married to a jacket or other clothing, subject the manufacturer to legal exposure. If the goods were sold in the USA, the risk of legal exposure would be highly probable, and if sold in the EU, the risk of legal exposure would be all but guaranteed (see EU registered trademark # 005698352 under class 25 owned by son Chad and daughter Terry).
This label also creates a substantive conflict in the USA with Western Costume Co., a long-standing Hollywood costume house that is very much active. Can you imagine marketing anything that said "Coca-Cola Bottling Co." (that wasn't the property of that company) and not getting a letter in the mail from their lawyers? If you did do this, it would appear to the average individual that Coca-Cola or Western Costume was responsible for or endorsing the product, which they wouldn't be, and that's the happy news. In a worst scenario, they could make a claim for fraud and counterfeit goods. Whether intentional or not, such acts are potentially injurious to these companies and they would have the legal right to seek damages. Why bother making such labels at all? It's obvious that the manufacturer that aspires to use the McQueen name or Western Costume's name or Perry Sportswear's name, etc., sees some value in so doing, thus any entity that holds rightful claim to these names would react the same way you would if you found the person in line behind you had just slipped their hand in your wallet.
If the product is good it should sell on its own without the labels, and the manufacturer can always mention that the product is similar to or copied to resemble the one worn by Steve McQueen or supplied by Western Costume, etc. The labeling may be icing on the cake and help sell a few more units, but the potential downside of using such labels likely far outweighs any related cost benefit from use. On the other hand, if the labeling will totally sell the product or help sell a significant quantity vs. the same product without labeling, then purchasing a license would be the way to go. The license isn't just to benefit the IP owner but it also helps the manufacturer by protecting and elevating the exclusive nature of the manufacturer's efforts.
Saunders
A
Anonymous
Guest
We are untouchables!!! 
Guys, thanks for the comments. In theory it's correct. But in practice it's not the same.
First of all Coca-Cola or Western Costume have a major difference.
Coca cola sells its products to the general public, while WC does not. Just makes costumes for movies.
So there is no confict of interest or any fraud and counterfeit chances there.
I doubt that anybody from the general public (except the members of this and couple of other forums) know who WC is. (They don't see this brand at the mall).
Also, there isn't any large scale advertisement plan in the pipeline where you will see the jacket in the cover of TIME magazine, or on any billboards like the below
The owners of the IP rights will never know about its existence and if Bill Kelso sells 30 of these it will be a success whereas, I doubt that the IP onwers bother with such peanuts.
That said, the label shown previously was merely an example and the Steve McQueen name can be replaced with "Your Name" and "Great Escape" with "Whatever"
Thoughts?
Guys, thanks for the comments. In theory it's correct. But in practice it's not the same.
First of all Coca-Cola or Western Costume have a major difference.
Coca cola sells its products to the general public, while WC does not. Just makes costumes for movies.
So there is no confict of interest or any fraud and counterfeit chances there.
I doubt that anybody from the general public (except the members of this and couple of other forums) know who WC is. (They don't see this brand at the mall).
Also, there isn't any large scale advertisement plan in the pipeline where you will see the jacket in the cover of TIME magazine, or on any billboards like the below
The owners of the IP rights will never know about its existence and if Bill Kelso sells 30 of these it will be a success whereas, I doubt that the IP onwers bother with such peanuts.
That said, the label shown previously was merely an example and the Steve McQueen name can be replaced with "Your Name" and "Great Escape" with "Whatever"
Thoughts?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Then you will have to wait until early next year.
I pushed as much as possibly could to get it out before Christmas but couldn't.
So ask Santa to save something for later.
I pushed as much as possibly could to get it out before Christmas but couldn't.
So ask Santa to save something for later.
colekwok
Active Member
deeb7 said:
I guess so, since they actively track down people on public websites, both manually or electronically. There must be ways to circumvent this issue. I guess what PLATON is just sort of like made the plain jacket, then add the tags by 'private special requests'? He doesn't even advertise the Roughwear tag on his website anyway. If it is by request, then it should be ok since I can request ELC/Aero/Goodwear to put on a V.Hilt or McQueen tag for me if I want. Who knows how many Steve McQueen's are out there anyway.
asiamiles
Well-Known Member
I once had a Sun Surf (Toyo Enterprises) shirt pulled from eBay because it reproduced an original maker's shirt and someone said they held the rights for them in the US. Oddly, HPA were selling them from their website with seemingly no interference, and I wasn't in the US but...anyway, I simply relisted it without mentioning the original maker's name in the subject and it sold. I find such actions petty, pointless, and engendering nothing but ill-will.
asiamiles said:
Please let me preface my comments by saying that I ask this with no mean-spirited rancor intended; I'm just trying to get to the heart of the logic in this entire premise that it's okay to violate IP property rights as long as the rights belong to someone else and the IP is perceived as insignificant to the violator: If you invested time and money in a project, how would you feel if someone began using the fruits of your investment for their gain without paying you anything? Would it be okay if you worked at your job or business without being paid?
Saunders
