​Copyright bullies suing small YouTube content creators over trademarked geometrical shapes

[fldujit]

A relatively small YouTube content creator I follow just uploaded a video about his ongoing legal troubles with a copyright law firm which I think sets a troubling precedent. In this case GPLama, an Australian content creator got sued for a vast amount of money by a German law firm over a design he used on his RedBubble online merch account. The design in question, a series of chevrons, is in my opinion very generic and not easily attached to any company, logo or product that I know of.

 

The troubling part of this story is that GPLama complied with a cease and desist and removed the alleged trademark infringing merch from his storefront, but is still being sued for unreasonable amounts of money by a company he's never heard of before halfway around the world. If this sort of practice is legal this means that big copyright law firms can easily prey on small content creators, leaving them with very little recourse. 

 

In his own words:

Quote

• Boesling IP started their proceedings against me PRIOR to informing me or RedBubble of their claimed IP ownership of the chevron artwork. 
• As soon as both RedBubble and then myself were made aware of the claim, the artwork was IMMEDIATELY REMOVED.
• Had the goal of Boesling IP representing Hummel been solely for the artwork to be removed, they had achieved that goal within HOURS of submitting their claim. 
• RedBubble offered to pay Boesling IP their requested 'fee' of over €3,000 'in good will'.
• To their credit, RedBubble attempted to have this matter resolved. However in doing so they also provided Boesling IP with my personal details allowing Boesling IP to file their suit against me directly. 
• Boesling IP continued to pursue me directly on behalf of their client, Hummel. 
• AT NO POINT DID I DISPUTE THEIR OWNERSHIP CLAIMS CHEVRON DESIGN. I AGREED TO THE CEASE AND DESIST AND DID NOT CHALLENGE BOESLING IP OR HUMMEL. 
• I submitted my responses to Baesling IP within hours of receiving their initial notification. I did NOT sign their provided declaration which required me to accept liability to pay them €3,000. RedBubble had already offered to pay it. If Boesling IP chose not to accept that payment, it again brings their intent into question. The artwork was removed, they didn't accept payment from RedBibble. What is it they want? 
• Boesling IP appears to have only submitted to the courts my refusal to sign their declaration. No part of my response was submitted to the court. How is that acceptable? 
• AT NO POINT DID I DISPUTE THEIR OWNERSHIP CLAIMS CHEVRON DESIGN. I AGREED TO THE CEASE AND DESIST AND DID NOT CHALLENGE BOESLING IP OR HUMMEL. 
• The court sided with Boesling IP and... here we are..... 

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0CAv6PGmCM

 

I'm sure LMG is big enough not to be bullied by copyright "trolls" but a lot of smaller creators don't have the means of hiring lawyers or the luxury of having their own merch platform and are at the mercy of platforms like RedBubble who will throw anyone under the bus without any second thought.

 

I wonder if there are online merch platforms who protect their partners from frivolous claims like this one and I'm hoping this practice will not become more widespread, preventing content creators from diversifying their revenue streams and increasing their dependence on YT algorithm (go floatplane!)

[BiotechBen]

Unionize? Lawyers are too expensive for each to have their own, but if a hundred were to band together, in theory it would be 1% of the cost to each of them?

[Herman Mcpootis]

32 minutes ago, fldujit said:

The design in question, a series of chevrons, is in my opinion very generic and not easily attached to any company, logo or product that I know of.

just about every armed forces in the world has at least some use of chevrons. In Singapore, Private First Class to Chief Warrant Officer ranks all have chevrons in their insignia. I'd imagine they'd be in a huge heap of trouble if they get this trademarked somehow.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, fldujit said:

If this sort of practice is legal this means that big copyright law firms can easily prey on small content creators, leaving them with very little recourse. 

Copyright vs trademark infringement is an important distinction.  Trademark you are often allowed lawyers fees.

 

Whether or not I agree if something like that should be trademarked, the fact is it's a registered trademark and he should have just accepted the cease and desist letter (instead of responding in a negative manor to them).  [i.e. he dug himself an even deeper grave by the email he had sent them]

 

As a note as well, he brings up RedBubble's privacy policy and says that they violated his privacy, but if it was a legal request (and not just a reporting) then they really didn't have that much choice.  It's similar to youtube's content ID.  The people don't get your information unless you dispute it...but if they pursue it through legal actions first then they can just get your information.

[Oshino Shinobu]

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Copyright vs trademark infringement is an important distinction.  Trademark you are often allowed lawyers fees.

 

Whether or not I agree if something like that should be trademarked, the fact is it's a registered trademark and he should have just accepted the cease and desist letter (instead of responding in a negative manor to them).  [i.e. he dug himself an even deeper grave by the email he had sent them]

 

As a note as well, he brings up RedBubble's privacy policy and says that they violated his privacy, but if it was a legal request (and not just a reporting) then they really didn't have that much choice.  It's similar to youtube's content ID.  The people don't get your information unless you dispute it...but if they pursue it through legal actions first then they can just get your information.

But he did accept the cease and desist. They sent legal notice after the listing was taken down when he didn't contest it, his email was in response to that. 

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, fldujit said:

I'm sure LMG is big enough not to be bullied by copyright "trolls" but a lot of smaller creators don't have the means of hiring lawyers or the luxury of having their own merch platform and are at the mercy of platforms like RedBubble who will throw anyone under the bus without any second thought.

The fact this person has a youtube channel is irrelevant to this case. They are not targeting or bullying small youtubers, and they most likely don't know or care that he has a youtube channel. They are a clothing company who are targeting people selling clothing online who they believe are infringing on their logo. It appears the court system has already sided with the clothing company that he was indeed infringing on their IP.

 

 

The logo used by the youtuber for the clothes he was selling online

 

The logo from the Danish clothing company which is trademarked and protected

 

 

The claimant demonstrated to the court's satisfaction [...] that; (and I'm going to paraphrase a bit here to save going through a lengthy legal document)

• The claimant's chevron logo is fully protected by trade mark law [...]
• The claimant makes use of the trade mark [...]
• The defendant [...] sold and distributed articles of clothing in the European Union [bearing that protected logo] [...]
• The defendant refused to sign the cease and desist notice to acknowledge and agree to the notice [...]
• The German court has jurisdiction to rule over the matter [...]
• and that the claimant is entitled to relief from the defendant

The court ruling also goes on to say that there is a likelihood of confusion between the goods offered (they were both items of clothing) and the design was "highly similar" to the trademarked logo, which had been in use by the claimant for many years.

 

250,000 Euro seems excessive to me, but because the value of proceedings exceed 200 Euro he can appeal it.

 

It also probably doesn't help his case that he admits in the video that he made the design for the T shirt because he wanted to copy a design used by a bicycle company and have it on a shirt. "I just wanted a T shirt with the Kickr logo". May as well just use the defence of "I didn't steal their logo, I stole someone else's!"

Reading the email he sent to the legal company after their cease and desist it is basically "STOP BULLYING ME!!! I don't even know who you are so go away". He's also arguing that they have no right to sue him because the only course of action they have is through RedBubble's review system which they didn't follow. He seems to be under the impression that because he sold the items on RedBubble that excuses him from any legal responsibility or that the company suing him is unable to take the matter to court.

 

I really hope this guy hires a lawyer to dispute the decision or the value awarded on his behalf because it is obvious he has no idea what he's doing. With proper legal representation and counsel he could very likely get the penalty dropped to the actual damages caused, which could be argued to be the total value of the items sold (6 shirts, so probably only a few hundred Euro at most). Might even be able to appeal the original ruling.

 

 

But hey, most people are just going to read "small youtuber bullied by big company" and jump on the bandwagon without actually looking at it.

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

But he did accept the cease and desist. They sent legal notice after the listing was taken down when he didn't contest it, his email was in response to that. 

No he didn't, well the "warning letter" really is the more proper cease and desist (the other "cease and desist" was effectively RedBubble removing it and not disputing).  The "warning letter" is what I would actually consider the cease and desist (i.e. the stop this and agree not to do this again or you will be sued).

 

Either way his email response and the youtube video effectively has destroyed any argument he can make in court.  Had he brought it the notice letter to any lawyer and asked what he should do (after he admitted that he took the pattern from the web essentially) they would tell him to settle.

 

4 minutes ago, James Evens said:

Hummel (sport clothing and I think only sports clothing) is well known for that in trademarked symbol in Germany. Show a t-shirt with that on it in the right spot and portably everybody knowns it is from them.

 

This is just another case of old copyright laws written by large cooperation's clashing with everyday reality.

If it's a well known trademarked symbol in Germany then it's not really an "old copyright laws" that are "clashing with everyday reality".  If you sell things internationally you better well make sure that you aren't violating things like trademark.

 

Similar reason why my playstore App is only available in North America, and only EU when admob had the targeted ads option...because I didn't want to bother with knowing if I was in violation of anything.

 

21 minutes ago, Spotty said:

250,000 Euro seems excessive to me, but because the value of proceedings exceed 200 Euro he can appeal it.

Just by how he is responding, I wouldn't be surprised if effectively they just awarded the NA equivalent to default action (when they don't show up in court).  I could be wrong though, I don't know how the court system works there.

 

24 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I really hope this guy hires a lawyer to dispute the decision or the value awarded on his behalf because it is obvious he has no idea what he's doing. With proper legal representation and counsel he could very likely get the penalty dropped to the actual damages caused, which could be argued to be the total value of the items sold (6 shirts, so probably only a few hundred Euro at most). Might even be able to appeal the original ruling.

Yes, exactly...although in Trademark at least in NA it's allowed court costs as well...actually given it's willful, I could see it being a multiple of actual damages and fees though.  Either way, having to fight it out in court is going to increase the cost by a lot now (because he has let it get to this point).

[LogicalDrm]

58 minutes ago, genisboy said:

Can anyone argue against my claim that this only really affects your average joe. Small income earners should be protected from such things. These laws are stiffling bussiness as you'd have to waste resources on law firms first for anything you do before you put those resources in your bussiness.

No. Laws apply, or should apply, same for all. If country has robust systems for small businesses, there are multiple ways to obtain guidance, learning and cheap law services. Like here there are several per-industry unions as well as larger nationwide unions for business owners. One benefit of being member is lawyer service who knows what kind of legal dealings one may encounter.

 

If you are ignorant or go by "doesn't apply to me" logic, then you only have one head to blame. A smart person covers their back and takes a look at how things are before doing anything. More so when your business and income is on the line.

[tkitch]

I wonder if they've sued the makers of F-Zero?

 

CHACHING! 

 

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, James Evens said:

That's the next thing which is totally out of control in the current system. The claimed damages aren't even close to what the actually damage is.

 

Do they?

With enough money you can (nearly) always buy your way out. Somebody will find a loophole.

Your argument being that if you aren't big, laws should not apply?

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, fldujit said:

If this sort of practice is legal this means that big copyright law firms can easily prey on small content creators, leaving them with very little recourse. 

Yes, copyright law abuse is rampant.

[LogicalDrm]

9 minutes ago, James Evens said:

The opposite.

Laws are used against the poor. They on the other hand can't afford to use them nearly equally.

For the rich they write laws and have money to get around them.

Still, you are quoting me arguing against making any exceptions.

[fldujit]

I appreciate the different perspectives, thank you all for that. I absolutely agree that the guy should hire a lawyer and that this video and his response are probably not helping his cause.

9 hours ago, Spotty said:

 

But hey, most people are just going to read "small youtuber bullied by big company" and jump on the bandwagon without actually looking at it.

There is definitely more to it and and I had overlooked some of the details, I also don't know a thing about any law so thank you for breaking it down. It's clearly not as simple as big corp bullying small average Joe (and I apologize for the inflammatory title). It still does feel like it took an excessive amplitude, but I understand a company needing to protect their IP. As someone said the 250k is probably the default penalty since he didn't show up in court. Regardless, that small mistake might end up costing him a great deal.

 

Looking forward, I'm not entirely sure how one would ensure they do not violate anybody's IP around the world. Would creators need to limit to their own country like wanderingfool said, or perhaps consult with IP lawyer when selling artwork? Maybe it's sufficient to do your due diligence before selling merchandise and hope no one claims trademark infringement, and if someone does then consult a lawyer?

[LogicalDrm]

30 minutes ago, genisboy said:

The rich get not even a slap on the wrist while the poor get their whole life turned upside down. @LogicalDrm @GDRRileyHow can a monetary fine be equally as just to someone who uses 3k to wipe his ass as to someone that has to work 5 months for it.

I live in different economic and political system. That's all I have to say about that without making this pointless argument.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 hour ago, genisboy said:

Exactly. A big company would just pay the 3k no questions asked. Your average joe will try to fight a 3k fine because to him it's alot of money and  in the process risk a 250k fine.

 

The rich get not even a slap on the wrist while the poor get their whole life turned upside down. @LogicalDrm @GDRRileyHow can a monetary fine be equally as just to someone who uses 3k to wipe his ass as to someone that has to work 5 months for it.

actually, some countries base fines and stuff on the daily income of a person to combat this.

Some buisness was fined a 100000$ speeding ticket because of the dayfines

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, genisboy said:

Can anyone argue against my claim that this only really affects your average joe. Small income earners should be protected from such things. These laws are stiffling bussiness as you'd have to waste resources on law firms first for anything you do before you put those resources in your bussiness.

No, no they shouldn't be protected.  There is a reason why most of the laws have things like will-full vs unwill-full when comparing trademark infringement...where if you unknowingly violated the trademark the penalties are a lot smaller.  The fact is he decided to sell things internationally, and it's up to him to do at least enough due diligence to try to not be in violation of things.  As someone mentioned, that is a popular and iconic clothing brand in Germany (and that the shirt could easily be thought of being sold by them if you just showed the picture of the shirt).  To bring a more extreme case, it's like me selling cattle for slaughter and then selling/shipping it to someone in India...like it or not that's against the law.  As I've said, I've limited my passive income because I don't want to deal with the GDPR.  If I wanted to, I could flip the switch and make a decent amount more money but I don't...because I know I'd likely be violating the GDPR somehow (and I don't want to bother figuring it all out).

 

The fact is, selling internationally you have to be really cognoscente of what you are doing...and if you "copy a pattern" that you saw everywhere online then you deserve what is coming to you.  He could have likely easily hired a trademark search lawyer for under a few thousand before selling internationally.  Yes, for $700-$3000 for a trademark search, it can be a bit expensive for smaller businesses but that is the fact of life...just like renting out commercial space, which is crazy expensive.  Running businesses take a decent amount of initial capital.

 

6 hours ago, genisboy said:

if your logo is copyrighted somewhere

Trademark, why do people keep saying copyright.  This is not a copyright case.  This is a trademark case....massively different, and massively different standards between the two.  Copyright, if you created the same thing in absence of a knowledge then you can likely successfully argue the content isn't copyrightable.  Trademark you can't.  Also, this is Germany we are talking about, the 19th most populated country...ahead of France.

 

2 hours ago, fldujit said:

Would creators need to limit to their own country like wanderingfool said, or perhaps consult with IP lawyer when selling artwork

Well it would depend.  If you are going with more simple kind of artwork and selling internationally then yea, you would be wanting to consult with an IP lawyer (at least in terms of merchandise).  If it's actually artwork, then it's less likely to be trademarked.  An example being in this case the trademark is linked to apparel.  If whatever you are doing is a lot more unique, then it's less likely that you will be violating a trademark though.  Either way, you could probably hire a lawyer to at least do initial checks maybe even under a thousand.

 

2 hours ago, genisboy said:

Exactly. A big company would just pay the 3k no questions asked. Your average joe will try to fight a 3k fine because to him it's alot of money and  in the process risk a 250k fine.

The average joe should also know when to contact a lawyer, because for like a $50 fee this guy probably could have been told to accept the payment.  The only reason I suspect that it's now a 250k fee is because he decided to be arrogant and decline their offer (and I assume not show up in court) getting a default judgement against him.

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, genisboy said:

Is a little arrogance really enough bad karma to justify bankrupting a person? Sure he was arrogant. But this is way out of proportion. 

It's not really out of proportion.  He created merchandise where he literally admitted to copying, he then proceeded to insult and refuse signing of responsibility of the legal demand letter, and then I'm assuming he didn't go to the courts (because the $250k really seems like it would be the default judgement).  At any stage of this had he even tried contacting a lawyer they would have raised red flags.

 

Again, he could have probably spent like $50 on a quick lawyer fee and get the answer immediately that he should pay the demand letter because he is legally in the wrong.  The fact is, some of the penalties are in place to prevent people from just violating trademarks and not just using the "oh I'm just a small guy" way to protect yourself.

[GDRRiley]

3 hours ago, genisboy said:

Exactly. A big company would just pay the 3k no questions asked. Your average joe will try to fight a 3k fine because to him it's alot of money and  in the process risk a 250k fine.

 

The rich get not even a slap on the wrist while the poor get their whole life turned upside down. @LogicalDrm @GDRRileyHow can a monetary fine be equally as just to someone who uses 3k to wipe his ass as to someone that has to work 5 months for it.

why was I tagged?

 

this isn't a SLAP lawsuit so that doesn't matter here

this could be a case for a small claims count given one side is a small business/channel

monetary fines could be moved to a percentage of your income but thats not a prefect system ether

 

I've not read enough of this case to comment more.

[TetraSky]

that is probably the most basic of design... how is that even trademarkable. Then again, a stupid apple is trademarked, so who knows what goes on in those trademark offices.

 

Also, this

[wanderingfool2]

10 hours ago, genisboy said:

How is being a bit impolite (I read the mail) and 6 clothing sales with the logo  justification to rip someones life apart. Sounds pretty NAZI to me. 

He literally had to do everything wrong in order to get him to this point.  It's pure idiocy of him not going to a lawyer and essentially letting it get to the $250k point...because guess what, if you ignore legal requests against you they don't magically go away.  The laws are in place to prevent counter-feiters.  If he didn't want to have a $250k judgement then he should either have fought it on court or have just accepted the settlement offer

 

*edit, fixed my spelling and grammar...wrote this is way to much of a rush

[Mark Kaine]

22 hours ago, Spotty said:

The logo from the Danish clothing company which is trademarked and protected

Thats the issue here, something like that should never get a trademark,  this is utterly hilarious. Its not unique or original at all. 

 

 

[Spotty]

17 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Thats the issue here, something like that should never get a trademark,  this is utterly hilarious. Its not unique or original at all.

It's not just a chevron, but a series of chevron's with the points arranged in a vertical row with a repeating pattern. The EU trademark office thought that was distinctive enough to allow a trademark on it. Yeah, it seems like a super simple logo design to just have a row of chevrons, but good luck challenging that if they have already been granted the trademark and have been using it extensively for years. There's some other things that are also pretty simple that are also trademarked, like the McDonald's "Golden arches" M. You could argue that "It's just a letter" all you want but if you start up a restaurant and use a giant yellow M as your logo expect to get sued.

 

It's also worth mentioning that with trademarks the application is important. A trademark granted for a company that makes skateboards might not apply if it is used by an IT consulting company because there would be a low expectation customers would confuse the two products/brands based on the logo.

 

There's plenty of logos and designs you can make with chevrons. All of these would have been fine to use (assuming they're not already trademarked by someone else). It just happens that he used their exact logo just rotated 180 degrees, and used it in the same application (clothing), and sold it in the same market (Germany).

Spoiler

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Yeah, it seems like a super simple logo design to just have a row of chevrons, but good luck challenging that if they have already been granted the trademark and have been using it extensively for years.

I've also noticed that logo seems to be exactly the same just reversed, I wonder what would have happened if it was two chevrons more, or less... or just a different size / dimensions (that seems to be 1:1 too) like with "addidas stripes" 3 is a trademark,  2 or 4 is absolutely an OK...

I still question if something like this should be able to be trademarked, it just seems too generic, something like the apple logo or indeed the McDonald's logo are more distinctive,  less generic,  you could easily make similar ones that aren't exactly the same , which then would probably still get you in trouble,  but at least those things seem less generic and have some effort put into them. I'm just saying I think basic shapes should not be allowed for a trademark,  they apparently are currently,  but i think its wrong. 

 

[The_russian]

I'm not sure why this guy is claiming Redbubble violated his privacy by providing the law firm with his details.

 

In the video, he shows the email he sent the law firm which quotes communication received from Redbubble. The quote from Redbubble was

"Please note that in most circumstances we will inform the complainant that you have provided a counter notice, as well as provide the complainant with a copy of your counter notice, which will include your personal contact information." 

 

He then says,

"At the time of writing that email, that was in the Terms of Service of redbubble.com. They will not provide my personal details to the complainant unless I dispute the claim. I did not dispute the claim, I accepted it and moved on. Redbubble have overstepped the mark and violated my privacy right here in doing this." 

 

Redbubble did not say they will provide the law firm with his contact info only if he provides a counter claim and under no other circumstances, they said that if a counter notice is filed, they will provide the law firm with the counter notice which will include his contact info.

 

He also mentions that was in the ToS at the time of writing the email. I used the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine to look at Redbubble's User Agreement and Privacy Policy at the time the email was sent (as far as I can tell the applicable parts did not change since then but checked to make sure), and didn't find anything close to what he said. Here is what it actually says: 

Quote

In case third-parties address Redbubble with the allegation that content submitted by you onto the Marketplace infringes applicable law, intellectual property rights of the third party (including without limitation, copyrights and ancillary copyrights, patents, trademarks, company symbols, work titles, or designs) or any other rights of the third party (including without limitation, the general right of privacy and the right of one’s own image), we are entitled pursuant to our user agreement (cf. under https://www.redbubble.com/agreement) to provide the third party with your name, address and/or information relating to the content which has been objected, in order to enable the third party to claim such rights vis-à-vis you directly.

 

This processing is necessary for the performance of our contract.

Quote

We may access, preserve, and disclose your Personal Data if we believe doing so is required or appropriate to: (a) comply with law enforcement requests and legal process, such as a court order or subpoena; (b) respond to your requests; or (c) protect your, our, or others’ rights, property, or safety. For the avoidance of doubt, the disclosure of your Personal Data may occur if you post any objectionable content on or through the Website.

 

So if a third-party contacts Redbubble with an allegation that content on their marketplace infringes on the third-parties' rights, Redbubble is entitled to provide the third-parties with your contact info. No mention of having to file a counter claim before contact info is sent. 

 

I'm also not sure why he is so surprised that Redbubble complied with the law firm and "threw him under the bus" instead of offering him "protection". What does he expect them to do? So if someone uses Redbubble to try to sell shirts with a big ol' Nike logo on the front of them, Redbubble is supposed to fight tooth-and-nail the Nike lawyers that are going to come after them? No, they are going to basically forward the issue onto the person who uploaded the design. They wouldn't be in business very long otherwise. That would be similar to using copyrighted music in a YouTube video, then wondering why YouTube didn't offer you "protection" when a copyright claim is made. 

 

I don't really feel like giving my thoughts on the whole trademark aspect of all this right now, I just don't understand why he is, to use his own words, trying to throw Redbubble under the bus.

[Spotty]

13 hours ago, fldujit said:

It still does feel like it took an excessive amplitude, but I understand a company needing to protect their IP. As someone said the 250k is probably the default penalty since he didn't show up in court. Regardless, that small mistake might end up costing him a great deal.

 

Looking forward, I'm not entirely sure how one would ensure they do not violate anybody's IP around the world. Would creators need to limit to their own country like wanderingfool said, or perhaps consult with IP lawyer when selling artwork? Maybe it's sufficient to do your due diligence before selling merchandise and hope no one claims trademark infringement, and if someone does then consult a lawyer?

A 250,000 Euro penalty for selling a couple of shirts is excessive. It honestly really shouldn't have got as far as it did but the truth is it got as far as it did because he did absolutely nothing to mitigate it or protect himself legally. He most likely wasn't aware of the severity of the situation or the possible outcomes.

 

If he wants to make merch then create unique designs that are relevant to his brand. If it was a shirt that just had text saying "GPLama Cycling" on it then it wouldn't be an issue. Do not copy the designs and logos of other companies. If you are creating a design or logo then you can perform a trademark search to see if there are any similar designs. He should only sell it in regions where he knows he is able to sell it. All of this wouldn't be worth it for him to make $10 profit from selling a couple of shirts, so really he just shouldn't bother at all. I'm not sure if he had other designs that were more relevant to his channel that his audience bought to provide a little additional income, but if a shirt like this isn't selling for 4 years just pull it down.

 

Probably the best thing he could do would be avoid RedBubble altogether. They're known for knock-off and counterfeit clothing and merchandise. All you have to do is search "Linus Tech Tips" on RedBubble to see all the knock off LTT merch. RedBubble makes it too easy to sell counterfeit merchandise & clothing, and clothing brands know this and will eventually find and go after the people selling them.

 

@fldujit I don't follow GPLama but if in a few months time he posts an update to the situation can you come back and update us here in the thread? It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I've also noticed that logo seems to be exactly the same just reversed, I wonder what would have happened if it was two chevrons more, or less... or just a different size / dimensions (that seems to be 1:1 too) like with "addidas stripes" 3 is a trademark,  2 or 4 is absolutely an OK...

I still question if something like this should be able to be trademarked, it just seems too generic, something like the apple logo or indeed the McDonald's logo are more distinctive,  less generic,  you could easily make similar ones that aren't exactly the same , which then would probably still get you in trouble,  but at least those things seem less generic and have some effort put into them. I'm just saying I think basic shapes should not be allowed for a trademark,  they apparently are currently,  but i think its wrong.

The Adidas logo is a good example of a logo that is super simple but also very recognisable. If you see those three white stripes on sportswear you will immediately think of the adidas brand, so they need a way to protect that logo to protect their brand.

Sony has the circle, square, triangle, X trademarked and they're extremely basic shapes. But I would also argue they need to have them trademarked to prevent another games console manufacturer using them on their branding to piggyback off of Sony's success and marketing.

 

Intellectual Property laws are pretty messy. At least trademark laws seem easier to understand than copyright. "Someone else uses that logo? You can't use it."