KODAK EVERYDAY® ORIGINAL Legal?

[Pere Casals]

inclined to agree that burying the disclaimer at the bottom while prominently and ambiguously featuring the other company's trademark in referring to your emulating product seems suspect.

Probably it's a technical question, in this case it seems abusive, but trade mark protection is complex. Probably they used Legal Advisory services for liability avoidance. Their web site looks well protected because they may be using the ® in the right places.

[faberryman]

And to top it off, the emulations for Kodak Everyday® Originals are only for Ektar, Gold and Tri-X.

[Pere Casals]

And to top it off, the emulations for Kodak Everyday® Originals are only for Ektar, Gold and Tri-X.

Yes... add $99 for Portra plus $99 more for Portra Pushed.

... while VSCO just discontinued today the desktop products https://shop.vsco.co/store?Action=Di...GB&SiteID=vsco
they will continue with mobile products, but PCs kaput.

[BrianShaw]

I'm out

Well, then... so am I.

[HMG]

I think the tricky question here is where's the line when your product is explicitly an emulator in some respects of the other product. I imagine there must be legal literature on that point.

After sleeping on it I am more inclined to agree that burying the disclaimer at the bottom while prominently and ambiguously featuring the other company's trademark in referring to your emulating product seems suspect.

I suspect they're on pretty solid ground with claiming "the look" of another product. I agree that the subtlety of their disclaimer is suspect.

But what I question most is their use of "Kodak Everyday". That would seem to violate Kodak's trademark. But I'm not an IP lawyer nor play one on TV.

[Pere Casals]

But what I question most is their use of "Kodak Everyday". That would seem to violate Kodak's trademark. But I'm not an IP lawyer nor play one on TV.

There they also are on solid ground, because "Kodak Everyday" is a paper brand itself, so they don't add Everyday to Kodak, but they claim the look of "Kodak Everyday ®". Note that they placed the ® after Everyday, not after Kodak !

This makes think that they studied very well the kodak branding and found that opportunity.

[faberryman]

Let's say you make a Oreo emulation cookie and called them Oreo® Originals. Think that would fly. If not, why would Kodak Everyday® Originals fly?

[Pere Casals]

If you sell cookies, it would not fly, if you sell T shirts with printed cookies perhaps it would fly.

[HMG]

There they also are on solid ground, because "Kodak Everyday" is a paper brand itself, so they don't add Everyday to Kodak, but they claim the look of "Kodak Everyday ®". Note that they placed the ® after Everyday, not after Kodak !

This makes think that they studied very well the kodak branding and found that opportunity.

That wasn't my impression. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that "Kodak Everyday" is what they are calling their product. But that would seem to be such a flagrant violation it's unlikely.

We'll know soon enough. Kodak's lawyers are likely to be all over this if it violates their trademarks.

[BrianShaw]

If it were mine I would quickly reame it “EK Mostdays”.