[majorvices]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/nola-brewing-sued-mechahopzilla-beer-20212791?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2F

[MDixon]

I thought the last one was BS, but others didn't.





In this case, I can at least see the similarity between the can image and the movie image.

[redbeerman]

They may have a case here, mostly due to the image/name combination other than the name alone.

[reverseapachemaster]

I don't think the brewery can even make a serious argument that they weren't ripping off Mecha Godzilla for that.

[Jimmy K]

Yeah, NOLA is clearly trying to benefit from the Godzilla name. He says he never heard of Toho, which means he never researched the trademark. Toho owns both Godzilla and MechaGodzilla. It's kind of a parody though - and an awesome one too. I wonder if it would qualify as fair use - probably expensive to find out.

[erockrph]

Looks like Mothra Marzen and Rodan Bock might not be coming out any time soon.

If MechaGojira was shooting a spray of hops out of his mouth then maybe they could play up the parody angle...

[klickitat jim]

But Hoptimus Prime? No problem

[majorvices]

You guys are missing the point. It's a parody. Parodies are allowed and defensible in court. The other logo was a blatant rip off.

[klickitat jim]

Ah, got it.

[MDixon]

The other logo was a blatant rip off.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I never saw it that way and never would. I'd hang a jury.

[narvin]

I don't know if fair use parody would apply when it's for-profit advertising for a product.  Ten seconds on wikipedia, which is about the extent of my legal background, found this:

"In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[22] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense."

[klickitat jim]

So applied to this... are they selling parody, or selling beer?

[majorvices]

Well, you are running the risk for litigation anytime you use incorporate other intellectual property into your own profit making scheme. That's for certain. Where it gets murky is where its a parody or not. If a judge looks at your design and thinks they are close enough to be mistaken, then you are in trouble. In this case, no judge is going to think that the Japanese movie firm is sponsoring or manufacturing this beer. It gets a little trickier if you are profiting from another's intellectual property. Obviously you can't use Lucas characters in any of your branding without getting in a s***world of hurt, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Jarhno]

I don't know if fair use parody would apply when it's for-profit advertising for a product.  Ten seconds on wikipedia, which is about the extent of my legal background, found this:

"In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[22] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense."

That's the most efficient use of 10 seconds on wikipedia I've ever seen. I get trapped on that website for hours.