Infringement? Who cares?

So browsing some one's thread about lighting in the noobie section, they posted up some links to Cowboy studio equipment on Amazon that was advertised as Strobist lighting kit.

The first thing I thought is that, Cowboy Studio equipment isn't something I'd put my name on, let alone a blog with such a huge reputation as Strobist. Apparently, I was right. I got this response from David Hobby.

First, I must mention that if you read the T&S on the blog, you see that Strobist is listed as his business name and is a federally registered trademark. This changes things as it's not just a term that can be lifted and used for anything. There's a discussion going on in the Strobist Flickr group with one certain person (troll? Maybe, maybe not) saying that anyone should be able to use the term however they choose. The problem with this is that people are using a well known name to sell equipment. That's equipment that the creator and holder of that trademark may not even want to touch with a 10' pole.

So who cares right? Once you establish a successful business and recognized name, you're not going to care if some one uses it to sell their business or products...or are you?

Village_Idiot wrote in post #11680082
So who cares right? Once you establish a successful business and recognized name, you're not going to care if some one uses it to sell their business or products...or are you?

I suspect that the makers of Coke, Kleenex, Frisbee, etc, and the shareholders of those corporations would disagree vehemently. Just because your business made $1M doesn't mean you don't want it to make $2M....

Dave

what they are doing is taking business away from Strobist. Say you're a well know photographer in your area, would you like someone using your name to gain business for themselves? You've just lost a potential customer. Now say that person does a terrible job and the client is very upset. That put a bad mark on your name.

I see both sides of the coin here. I can see it in relation to the Kleenex, Coke, etc branding as above, that once a certain term/ product is used enough, it becomes the colloquial term for something. I can also see how it could be damaging to someone's (or company's) reputation. I think in the interest of The Strobist, they should pursue this in court if necessary, simply because the other company is trying to leverage the name. I think the legal aspect of it would mostly pertain to the way in which the offending party is using the trademark.

someone selling crappy gear (or other product) with a known trademark name is detrimental to the company's rep, not so much their bottom line. In this case someone selling low quality equipment using the "strobist" name isn't necessarily "stealing" from David Hobby but, it could lessen his cred if people buy said equipment based on that and then it turns out to be low quality. Word gets around!

Damn right I'd care, and so do businesses I've worked with. A few years ago this moron stole my biography and was trying to pass it off as his own, he put my clients in his work history and they were not happy and told me to go after him for that. They did not want to be associated with him and I did not want to be associated with him, still don't! You want to use my name to further your own interests you better get permission, pay up, something!

Sam_M wrote in post #11680608
I see both sides of the coin here. I can see it in relation to the Kleenex, Coke, etc branding as above, that once a certain term/ product is used enough, it becomes the colloquial term for something. I can also see how it could be damaging to someone's (or company's) reputation. I think in the interest of The Strobist, they should pursue this in court if necessary, simply because the other company is trying to leverage the name. I think the legal aspect of it would mostly pertain to the way in which the offending party is using the trademark.

The problem is that in this case, the offender is selling something by using the name Strobist.

In parts of the country people may ask for a coke and expect any type of carbonated soda. That's fine, that's become common venacular. What people aren't doing is selling Coke flavored soda. That would be like you starting a soda company and selling Sam's Coca Cola. Then you be using a famous established brand to sell your product with their registered trademark.

Are they selling it as "... Strobist lighting kit", "... strobist lighting kit" or "Strobist lighting kit" with a capital because it's the start of a sentence/line/product name?

DazJW wrote in post #11684945
Are they selling it as "... Strobist lighting kit", "... strobist lighting kit" or "Strobist lighting kit" with a capital because it's the start of a sentence/line/product name?

Does it matter if they're using some one elses brand to sell their equipment?

http://www.amazon.com/​gp/product/B002DE3RYM/

The kit is for? Strobs.

Talk about cowboy saddling up on an amazon, with someone elses Saddle, without asking. In some parts, stealing a saddle is as bad as stealing a horse. A hanging offense, should they live through it.

By the time it's all said and done, many looking for a cheap fix, will have so much pot metal junk and blame Strobist for It. They'll think it was a strobist kit.

And people asked me why I ordered another case of shells. The way things are going, it won't be long and lowlifes will start coming to your house demanding what they think you owe them.

When the Thunder cracks, it's to late to step back.

Two things about that type of thievery really chaps my backside.

1- most people see it so often they just shrug it off as no big deal.

2- by the time all is changed, the damage is done. People purchase that cheap junk thinking it was a true " Strobist Kit " will end up with a sour taste and never look for something along the Strobist Kit line again. That shoots future sales and referrals all to he¡¡ !

THIEFS by another name are still Low Life Scum Suckers.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #11684958
Does it matter if they're using some one elses brand to sell their equipment?

http://www.amazon.com/​gp/product/B002DE3RYM/

Yes, yes it does. It's illegal. What if I opened up a resturant selling hamburgers and called it's McDonalds? But then I sold the crappiest burgers imaginable(ok...might be a bad example as the real burgers are terrible to begin with). I am essentially stealing from McDonalds by using their wholy owned intellectual property.

On a side note, my father got me the Cowboy Studios dual lightstand kit and the radio poppers. Not actually terrible worthless junk. It does the job of holding up my stobes and the radios actually seem to work. For now. But, it's also something I won't cry about if it gets destroyed in a shoot.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #11680082
So browsing some one's thread about lighting in the noobie section, they posted up some links to Cowboy studio equipment on Amazon that was advertised as Strobist lighting kit.

The first thing I thought is that, Cowboy Studio equipment isn't something I'd put my name on, let alone a blog with such a huge reputation as Strobist. Apparently, I was right. I got this response from David Hobby.



First, I must mention that if you read the T&S on the blog, you see that Strobist is listed as his business name and is a federally registered trademark. This changes things as it's not just a term that can be lifted and used for anything. There's a discussion going on in the Strobist Flickr group with one certain person (troll? Maybe, maybe not) saying that anyone should be able to use the term however they choose. The problem with this is that people are using a well known name to sell equipment. That's equipment that the creator and holder of that trademark may not even want to touch with a 10' pole.

So who cares right? Once you establish a successful business and recognized name, you're not going to care if some one uses it to sell their business or products...or are you?

Would CocaCola care if you used their name to sell soda? Damn right they would.

Strobist definitely cares. I think he even uses the same attorney that I do.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #11684958
Does it matter if they're using some one elses brand to sell their equipment?

Strobist is a noun meaning someone who uses shoe mounted flashes off-camera.
The manner in which they use the word matters an awful lot as it's the difference between them trying to sell stuff using the Strobist name or describing a kit as being for strobists (morally I mean, not necessarily legally). There are tonnes of Flickr groups for strobists from different locations, website articles talking about equipment suitable for strobists and eBay listings for items described as being for use by strobists that all use the term 'strobist'. None of these are claiming any relation to the Strobist website, they're using the term that's in circulation.

It being in the product title makes it more awkward to see which way they're going as the first letter of each word is capitalised, and they don't use the term again in the description.
Personally I think they've probably perfectly innocently used what they consider to be the correct noun for the group of people they're aiming the product at rather than claiming they're related to Strobist.

DazJW wrote in post #11685466
Strobist is a noun meaning someone who uses shoe mounted flashes off-camera.

Strobist isn't in the dictionary, and no, the urban dictionary doesn't count. Even if it were, it doesn't negate the fact that Strobist is a registered trademark. Google is a verb, but good luck using their name to promote your own search service. In a lot of places in America "Coke" is synonymous with "soda", but good luck launching your own brand of soft drinks called "Daz Coke".

A trademark entering into the public lexicon doesn't kill the trademark. Technically, whenever we type "frisbee", we should be typing "Frisbee (tm)". Yeah, nobody outside of people who follow the AP stylebook do that, but thems the rules. Just because a bunch of people call themselves strobists doesn't mean that it's okay to use that word, a registered trademark, to sell a product. Describing an item as being "used by strobists" may very well constitute trademark infringement. It's up to a court to decide, should Mr. Hobby decide to take it that far.

I get the feeling they're going to learn a very expensive lesson, one way or another, in the near future. Mr. Hobby is required by law to vigorously defend his trademark in order to keep it valid. Once you stop defending a trademark (such as "Corn Flakes"), it goes into the public domain.

It could be pure gold, until I see they use underhanded, backstabbing, BS and at that point to me it just turned to junk.

I've always had a distaste towards someone,crawling up the backside of someone else, climbing to the top.

Someone who cannot climb there own ladder, or properly ask for a helping hand ( and if refused still stay on there ladder ) has little regard for others. I have no regard for them or anything from them.


They cry fair game, until you put a boot in there arse and then they cry foul ( they wont let me lie, cheat and steal my way up ) and want you to pay them damages, for them stealing something that's not there's.