TPWW Forums

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   wrestling forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Couldnt WWE sue TNA over this? (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=51110)

Shaggy 09-14-2006 10:12 PM

Couldnt WWE sue TNA over this?
 
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5...sionlrghc2.jpg

https://secure15.nexternal.com/share...t=products.asp

That X-Division shirt was obviously designed to look like the DX shirt....

Volare 09-14-2006 10:17 PM

When Vince sees that....he'll try to slap a lawsuit on TNA faster than you can say Six Sides Sucks

The One 09-14-2006 10:19 PM

$50 says Vince might hear about the shirt, but will never actually look at the shirt in question...

But yeah law suites are comin!

Kalyx triaD 09-14-2006 10:25 PM

Why sue? It makes TNA look even more like the 'D Show' it is. They're just admitting the influence WWE (and DX for that matter) has on merch and public awareness. If Vince sues it would be a bonus for him, but I wouldn't bother. I'd laugh my ass to another PPV.

M-A-G 09-14-2006 10:46 PM

I sure hope so.

Boondock Saint 09-14-2006 11:22 PM

I thought it said Jew Generation X at first glance.

El Fangel 09-14-2006 11:25 PM

The answers are most likely and ummmm....most likely.
Now I know this has been done before but...


Chris FUCKING Daniels, and Sabin.









Destor 09-15-2006 12:35 AM

Parody

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destor
Parody

Legally, the makers of a parody still have to pay licensing rights, they just don't have to have permission.

Go figure.

Anyway, it's a stretch to say this actually infringes on established trademarks, and all Vince would do is give free publicity to TNA. I doubt anything'll come of this.

Destor 09-15-2006 12:45 AM

So SNL/Leno/etc. have to have rights to do the things they do? :?:

Petethegeekstreet 09-15-2006 05:36 AM

They could but like KK said, it would only benifit TNA really.

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destor
So SNL/Leno/etc. have to have rights to do the things they do? :?:

Last I knew, Leno wasn't marketing T-Shirts based on other people's intellectual properties.

Destor 09-15-2006 10:06 AM

So they own the letter X and the phrase "Two words..."

Dave Youell 09-15-2006 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destor
So they own the letter X and the phrase "Two words..."

Yes

I however still own the letter F and i'm not giving it back

TerranRich 09-15-2006 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight
Legally, the makers of a parody still have to pay licensing rights, they just don't have to have permission.

Go figure.

Anyway, it's a stretch to say this actually infringes on established trademarks, and all Vince would do is give free publicity to TNA. I doubt anything'll come of this.

Ooh, do I get to prove KK wrong? *prances with glee*

Quote:

Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her.
See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/11th/0112200opnv2.html
...and the Wikipedia article on Parody (with sources cited at bottom).

Nowhere does it say they had to pay licensing fees for their parody. And further research lends me to believe that no makers of parodies require to pay any kind of fee. It's covered under "Fair Use" in U.S. law.

Unless you were talking about UK law or some other law, in which case I haven't the faintest fucking clue. :)

Better Than You 09-15-2006 11:55 AM

OOOOh pwnd

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destor
So they own the letter X and the phrase "Two words..."

Only in the same sense that Pink Floyd own "Another Brick in the Wall."

That is, my single-celled friend, within the contexts of the shirt, it is easy enough to prove this infringes on already established intellectual property.

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerranRich
Ooh, do I get to prove KK wrong? *prances with glee*



See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/11th/0112200opnv2.html
...and the Wikipedia article on Parody (with sources cited at bottom).

Nowhere does it say they had to pay licensing fees for their parody. And further research lends me to believe that no makers of parodies require to pay any kind of fee. It's covered under "Fair Use" in U.S. law.

Unless you were talking about UK law or some other law, in which case I haven't the faintest fucking clue. :)

You didn't prove me wrong, you just said you didn't see any mention of royalties. Wake me up when you've actually PROVED it, instead of being a whiny little 'tard.

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 12:33 PM

Though interestingly enough, your links do prove that this is not guaranteed to be protected as an act of parody.

TerranRich 09-15-2006 01:32 PM

You can wake up now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by www.answers.com
Fair Use

In federal copyright law 17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq., refers to specific use of copyrighted materials without payment of royalties or which otherwise does not constitute an infringement of copyright; ...


Kane Knight 09-15-2006 02:23 PM

Ohhh...Answers.com. BRILLIANT. I didn't see that anywhere on the US actual web page. Hmmmm...

And even your own answer gives an "or" there. I don't know, this seems far from actual proof. Note that's a catch-all for fair use, not copyright specifically.

The Show Off 09-15-2006 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Youell
Yes

I however still own the letter F and i'm not giving it back

F YOU!!

Damnit.

Hands Dave 20 bucks.

TerranRich 09-15-2006 05:12 PM

Oy vey. The TNA shirt doesn't even use specific logos. They may have copied the STYLE, but that's far from infringement. They DO own their X-Division logo, I'm sure.

Disturbed316 09-15-2006 05:22 PM

TNA needs to just stop being a bunch of fags by constantly taking shots at Vince and WWE, and concentrate on their own product.

It shows they are desperate and they look pathetic. Having their guys say "Oooh I used to wrestle for Vince and he was a bastard, but I love TNA, I want to fuck the management in the ass. TNA RULESSS!! WWE SUX!!!"

Seriously, I wish TNA would just either die or stop acting so pathetic and childish.

Jaton 09-15-2006 06:52 PM

I can't believe no one has pointed out that idiotic fucking look on Sabins face.

Kalyx triaD 09-15-2006 06:57 PM

Sabin looks like an idiot.

Volare 09-15-2006 06:59 PM

Dunno...he could be just looking normal...which to us, he looks like an idiot

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerranRich
Oy vey. The TNA shirt doesn't even use specific logos.

You don't need specific logos. You can get sued for the wrong word in the wrong FONT.

It seems stypid, but it's law.

FourFifty 09-15-2006 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerranRich
Oy vey

Dude, my people say that, not you. I want 20 bucks on behalf of the Jewish community.

Kane Knight 09-15-2006 08:10 PM

I think it's parody. First you'll have to prove it's not protected speech.

Crippla 09-15-2006 11:18 PM

I doubt WWE would win a lawsuit if they file one for this.

Kane Knight 09-16-2006 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanadianCrippla
I doubt WWE would win a lawsuit if they file one for this.

Sometimes it's not about winning.

M-A-G 09-16-2006 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disturbed316
TNA needs to just stop being a bunch of fags by constantly taking shots at Vince and WWE, and concentrate on their own product.

It shows they are desperate and they look pathetic. Having their guys say "Oooh I used to wrestle for Vince and he was a bastard, but I love TNA, I want to fuck the management in the ass. TNA RULESSS!! WWE SUX!!!"

Seriously, I wish TNA would just either die or stop acting so pathetic and childish.

Best....post....ever....

...so far.

M-A-G 09-16-2006 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight
Sometimes it's not about winning.

IT'S ABOUT BEING NUMBER 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shadow 09-16-2006 08:01 AM

It's really hard to sue yourself.

But if Vince wants to I guess he can.

Mr. Nerfect 09-16-2006 08:49 AM

I think TNA could get away with this. I mean, couldn't Marvel sue the WWE for using DX, claiming they own X-Men, and thus people would get confused?

Maybe if the shirt more specifically played off the DX concept, and was green and black or had the quote "I've got two words for ya'...No Limits!". The shirt doesn't directly play off DX's success, and even if the WWE did draw the connection, it is more media attention for TNA, something the WWE doesn't want. They could probably argue it away, anyway. If a Cola company puts a red label on its brand, would Coca Cola be able to sue?

Kane Knight 09-16-2006 10:31 AM

Decent example: The makers of Zoom were sued by Marvel for infringment upon The Fantastic Four. What's better, they said the books "Zoom's Academy" or whatever didn't qualify as infringement.

Trademark infringement is a touchy thing. On the one hand, you can lose a suit for a passing similarity. On the other, you can get away with borderline plagiarism. Another example, more of the latter, is the Captain America rip-off that was made by a former captain America writer. I don't remember the name, but the character was dressed similar to captain America, and carried a shield with a SSB motif. A judge in this case ruled that it was okay, provided the character never threw the shield.

However, a Darkwing Duck episode was pulled because it played on Spider-Man (Radioactive Spider).

But long story short: No. In the case of Trademark law, it's all about market confusion. Marvel would have to prove that DX and the X-Men were within the same market and were similar enough to draw some form of endorsement, detract from business, or cause some form of similar "market confusion" effect.

The two are not similar enough for someone to draw that conclusion reasonably. A shirt with a big green X and "Two Words?" Yeah, this would be a lot easier to argue in court.

Destor 09-16-2006 10:41 AM

Big RED x ;)

Hanso Amore 09-16-2006 10:45 AM

When I am elected high Chanchellor of Earth, this will not be a problem.

Vote for Hanso 2078

"A vote for me, is a vote against the parasitic aliens that destroyed our way of life"

YOUR Hero 09-16-2006 10:51 AM

If 'Vince' thought he could sue and win, he still might not simply because he'd be giving TNA publicity.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®