Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    I think the only issue here, which seems to have been addressed, is use of trademark.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,313

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    use of trademark.
    In fact trade mark is: © TM 2019. Mastin Labs Inc.

    There is a disclaimer:

    "The film names and lines listed are the brands and trademarks of their respective holders. None of the film companies on this page endorse or sponsor Mastin Labs or any other content contained on this page, nor are any of the film companies affiliated with Mastin Labs."

    And they use extensively ® and TM marks indicating that those are not owned brands but brands of other companies.

    Perhaps a company may metion other brands in own literature if they specify ®, so telling they are mentioning a product/brand of another company, and this would be legal.

    So I guess using ® is the key to make it legal. Also it can be interesting to know in which real country the company operates...
    Last edited by Pere Casals; 1-Mar-2019 at 03:58.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Carterville, Il
    Posts
    279

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    Cases in the mind of lawyers are not empathic reality nor do they remotely consider justice, but just platforms that profit.
    I have to admit that my view of attorneys was influenced by dealing with corrupt ones involved in representing clients in Social Security Disability cases. Eric Conn is the most egregious example, bilking the government out of over one half billion dollars. That being said, some of my good friends are attorneys. I'm sure Kodak has had some competent ones over the years.

  4. #24
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    12,476

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    The KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL co has not placed the TM properly right in their name.

    They are are selling a product by using IP and Branding from well known entities. This is not Fair Use, nor Educational. I doubt the seller has authorisation and he is watching this thread.

    His website is changing slightly he moved the Kodak TM next to Kodak.

    Perhaps they are out of reach legally.

    Purchasers of known illegal items are complicit.

    The $99 is a hustle and he wants $99 for each emulation.

    Making Adobe CC seem cheap!
    sin eater

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,313

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Moe View Post
    The KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL co has not placed the TM properly right in their name.
    I guess they use the "Kodak Everyday" trade mark from kodak paper, so KODAK EVERYDAY® is correct

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	$_86.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	99.6 KB 
ID:	188234

  6. #26
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    12,476

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    I'm out
    sin eater

  7. #27
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    7,073

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    Use of an (unlicensed) trademark as a marketing strategy for your own product is likely illegal, regardless of statements that you don't own it. I imagine if he has not licensed the use of such, he will be getting the C&D letter soon.

    Also his example looks bad. I don't get the preset craze. One can make LR presets in just a few clicks. Most of them are basic contrast and saturation adjustments.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,313

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Moe View Post
    Making Adobe CC seem cheap!


    ___

    Anyway, if a Pro (who is bored with the digital look) can push forward his career with that simple tool then it's really cheap !

    May be those emulations may make some Pros try real film. Me a bare film amateur I've been recently asked by some digital Pros about film... I perceive a growing curiosity about film. I find this is nice.

  9. #29
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,208

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    Use of an (unlicensed) trademark as a marketing strategy for your own product is likely illegal, regardless of statements that you don't own it.
    Not sure that's true.
    ______________________

    15 U.S. Code § 1115. Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses

    ...

    (b) Incontestability; defenses

    ...Such conclusive evidence of the right to use the registered mark shall be subject to proof of infringement as defined in section 1114 of this title, and shall be subject to the following defenses or defects:

    ...

    (4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin...


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1115
    ____________________________

    In context of the rest of that provision, it sure looks like it's OK to refer to someone else's trademark as part of a description of the attributes of your own product or service, so long as it's clear that you're not claiming the trademark as your own. IOW, it's a defense against a charge of infringement if the supposedly infringing use is not "as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business" but rather "fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods and services of such party".

    It's certainly common to see promotional materials that make comparisons to other companies' trademarked products, while acknowledging the other company's ownership of the trademark.

    As always, IANAL and this is not legal advice. Do not rely on this without consulting a patent/IP attorney if you have decisions to make where this matters.

  10. #30
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    7,073

    Re: KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

    You're right Oren, I completely misspoke. It's not marketing, the issue is the usage of Kodak in his product's name, right? That seems to be beyond just descriptive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business,
    IANAL as well of course. Copyright interests me though.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •