Drift Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Hi Guys, I take it this will be the new tool B17-G? https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/eighth-air-force-resupply-set-1-72.html?___store=airfix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 yep, its the new tool, can tell by the cad image of the kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Posted March 23, 2017 Author Share Posted March 23, 2017 Good to know. Just ordered this kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossington 2 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Jesus Wept! Do we now need to put a "TM" next to the designation! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawzer Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Indeed. It seems airfix now own the trademark for a b17. Or maybe for boeing as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Pete Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I think it's Boeing that own the trademark, and Airfix probably have to pay them for the privilege Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 yp its boeing, the box carrier the boeing trademark as does the p-51, though not the name as not been trademarked unlike in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) Indeed, as the Airfix web page says: Boeing, Douglas, McDonnell Douglas, North American Aviation, A-4 Skyhawk, AH-64, Apache Longbow, B-17 Flying Fortress, B-25 Mitchell, C-47, DC-3, F-4 Phantom, P-51 Mustang their distinctive logos, product markings, and trade dress are all trademarks of The Boeing Company. GM General Motors Trademarks used under license to Hornby Hobbies Ltd Edited March 23, 2017 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 That's understandable for Airfix but do we have to bow down to these corporate scum here too? I say no! Rename the thread and give them the finger! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Work In Progress said: Indeed, as the Airfix web page says: Boeing, Douglas, McDonnell Douglas, North American Aviation, A-4 Skyhawk, AH-64, Apache Longbow, B-17 Flying Fortress, B-25 Mitchell, C-47, DC-3, F-4 Phantom, P-51 Mustang their distinctive logos, product markings, and trade dress are all trademarks of The Boeing Company. GM General Motors Trademarks used under license to Hornby Hobbies Ltd Infuriating, isn't it? Hundreds and thousands of Americans and personnel from Allied nations fought and died in these things -- paid for by the tax dollars of the American people, I might add -- and now some chump in a three piece suit can demand we pay for the mere privilege of using the name that the Army Air Force bestowed upon the aircraft. Sadly there's not a lot of political will to change this here, despite some attempts. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow113 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Has anyone been sued? Prolly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Maybe we should pull together collectively and do so. I nominate Mike as our leader 😇 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 5 hours ago, krow113 said: Has anyone been sued? Prolly not. Actually I've heard that some little companies have had gratuity demands / cease and desist letters from the legal departments of (mostly American, to be fair) corporations on subjects like this. I haven't heard of any going to court, but rather the little product bearing the name and/or resemblance disappears and the little company goes bust through lack of product or struggles to find something else to make and sell. In my view it's pure greed, but that's the culture. Rather than something to be milked for free money they could look at it as free brand awareness in letting kids and young adults get familiar with the company name and designations, but noooooo. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow113 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 ...ooooppppsssssss...! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossington 2 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Exactly! How did free brand awareness morph into something to "protect" and milk. And who loves a lawyer anyway? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malpaso Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I'm sure they could TM Boeing as their company name and Flying Fortress as I think their PR department coined that name. But surely not B-17 or P-51 as they are designated by the US Government? But it would be a brave company that took on a company that big... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 And they were surely on thin ice copyrighting Mustang as that name was originally applied by the Air Ministry/RAF. But it would be a brave company that took on a company that big... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I think it's as much an issue of it just not being worth the trouble. Even if a little model making company felt they had a strong legal case, why would they tie up all that money - assuming they could access it - over a model kit? I heard on another model forum that the US government was just as bad, having ideas about ALSO demanding gratuities for models of US military subjects or names. I don't know how far that got though - the subject went a bit quiet where I was reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Seahawk said: And they were surely on thin ice copyrighting Mustang as that name was originally applied by the Air Ministry/RAF. But it would be a brave company that took on a company that big... Copyright is not the issue. Trademarks are the issue. Their position is that they (or in this case a company they acquired outright) sold aeroplanes under the name Mustang. The question of who thought a name up isn't relevant to a trademark argument: it's simply who has the word and styling registered in what categories of product. Edited March 24, 2017 by Work In Progress 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) To which the answer is that they did not, at least initially, sell the aeroplanes under the name Mustang. They sold an aircraft which they called the NA-73, to which the customer applied the name Mustang. (Why have they not similarly trademarked the name Dakota: because it's not as catchy - or just not known to Boeing's corporate lawyers?) But I wouldn't bet my money on fighting that argument against a nest of well-funded weaselly corporate lawyers. I'm reminded of the old saying about wrestling with pigs in mud. Edited March 24, 2017 by Seahawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonM Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 18 minutes ago, Seahawk said: (Why have they not similarly trademarked the name Dakota: because it's not as catchy - or just not known to Boeing's corporate lawyers?) Possibly a US state might fight back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow113 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 There is one logo or corporate identity that has been 'stolen' so many times the lawyers and owners have given up trying to fight it. They eventually resigned themselves to the fact that the artwork is so recognizable that copying it actually helps their cause! Talk about full circle! Anyone care to guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 RAF pre-war roundel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow113 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 lol no. And hey Andrea arent these guys the last you would want to steal a trademarked image from? I've worked with trademarks and copyrights continuously , including the above image , for most of my life in signwork. I've never heard of anyone suing or being sued over artwork infringement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 17 hours ago, GordonM said: Possibly a US state might fight back? Why would a US State have trademarked its name in an aviation products category? And on what basis? Trademark rights come from actual use of the trademark in a product or service category. If you want to understand the basics have a look here, at least for US law, though at this level it is broadly similar with EU https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/trademark-patent-or-copyright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now