See this post.. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=403517&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1 would you say they are similar???
I asked a couple non-gearheads, here at work tonight, if they saw any similarites....they both said yes.... Unfortunately if you go to court, most likely you'll get a judge with no sense of humor and/or no interest in anything car-related...... I think it's cool, but I can't imagine you not saying to yourself at one time.....hhmmm I wonder if somebody is going to say something
Yeah, they're fairly similar. The real issue though is that So-Cal's legal goons are saying that you're using your logo to get people to buy your merchandise under the impression that what you're selling is So-Cal stuff. I actually saw this on TV once, some shady electronics store in Times Square was selling cheap VCRs and stuff that people thought were "Panasonic" but the name was actually "Panasoanic", in the same font and everything. The difference is that you would have to be really, REALLY dumb to somehow confuse So-Cal and So-Cheap. When I first signed up here at the HAMB and saw the logo, my exact thought was "heheh, 'So-Cheap', cool parody". IF you took it to court I bet you'd win, but you'd be out so much money in legal fees that it wouldn't be worth it. Bigger companies use their money and lawyers to bully everyone else into doing what they want, whether they have a case or not. They're banking on the idea that their targets won't have the money to defend themselves, and even if they do defend themselves and win, the corporation doesn't care because they have tons of money anyway, whereas the defendant might have just spent a year's worth of earnings trying to protect himself. From the letter they sent, they sure make it sound like Alex Xydias personally ordered it to be sent, and if he did he's one huge*****head as far as I'm concerned. If they keep pushing the issue instead of just dropping it, what I'd do is agree to their demands, then call up Mr. Xydias personally and tell him what an****hole he is.
If Alex belives he owns the right to use oval shapes , then Walt Disney fer sure will prove him wrong in court Dean Moon used "Cartoon-eyes" as his logo , and was not draged to court ( as far as I know (?) .Alex might have had a good case if your logo was Red & white , but he will loose big time if he tried to claim the rights to any use of 2-colour oval-shapes with a text in there somewhere ... My 2 cents ...
I do think the two logos are similiar, but why does So-Cal even care? I guess that is my biggest problem with the whole scenario. I doubt Mr. X has anything to do with this, it is probably just the corporate stiffs having nothing better to do.
The graphics are only part of the equation. The So-Cheap logo directly derives its 'meaning' from the SoCal logo. It would make NO sense (or it would loose it's 'bite') if it was not a direct 'revert****ociation' with the original. SoCal is a franchise and they have a responsability to protect their trademark. Running a SoCheap logo on your truck is benign, but selling SoCheap merchandise is risky. My 2 cents. WZRick
Again let me post this.It has been building momentum for years and It will not cease . Good luck . So-Cheap rocks! swaZZie http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11_2-515542.html
I wonder if after all the years so cal used that art work of the original advertisement IF THEY HAVE PROOF that they paid for and OWN that logo art themselves,OR if it is not still the property of the artist that did it for them?Something to think about-having them show proof of ownership.
[ QUOTE ] I wonder if after all the years so cal used that art work of the original advertisement IF THEY HAVE PROOF that they paid for and OWN that logo art themselves,OR if it is not still the property of the artist that did it for them?Something to think about-having them show proof of ownership. [/ QUOTE ] As was said above didn't Alex Xydias design the logo. I'm quite sure PC3g bought the rights to So-Cal (?) so I doubt Alex would have anything to do with it. But if he is the designer of the logo he more than likely retains some sort of copyright. You are playing around with a Registered Trademark so even if you do change to what you have it still infringes on their trademark as it visually links to the So-cal logo. Seeing how their a multi million dollar franchise\business they wouldn't be that stupid not to register it as a trademark, but if it isn't a trademark then..... it would be under copyright. Now if it were just copyrighted you could change it about 30 or 40% and avoid copyright. This is what a teacher Told me when I was studying Graphic Design at TAFE, That is how it is in Australia so it should be similar to the USA. (?) Good Luck with it all! p.s. Just checked the So-Cal website and it had SO-CAL Speed Shop® so it is a ® company. What about El-Cheapo (not trying to offend anyone).
What I still do not get is that part of the patent is the "oval" which is technically Ford's right?? I worked with a lawyer for a long time. His position always was if you can not spend a small fortune or what to take out a second mortgage defending it is best to lay low for awhile. Maybe lay low and go "trademark and patent" So-Cheap. I'll take an XL to help the fund.
Ford doesn't own OVALS. SO-CAL doesn't own OVALS. DISNEY doesn't own RAT ROD as suggested in the other post. Nor do they own red and white per Mickey Mouse as was also suggested. Ridiculous. But when you start combining like elements in a like manner, then you are asking for trouble.
I remember Ryan having an issue with everyone using the word HAMB CHOP or HAMB THIS as he didn't want to lose control of the name and everyone respects that. I think SO-CHEAP was a great idea and now is a good time to come up with another. I did notice that on the trademark registered that Mr. Midnight posted had only one Oval. maybe you should register the double oval. I still don't think the so-cheap will fly in double rectangles
You could always Skew the oval like what they did in the fifties & also put a perspective on the text so it looks like it fades in the distance. For example: kinda like the cloud, & this! Just a thought!
I'm not a graphic artist but I have had some experience with trademark issues. Clearly, you have to distance yourself from the emotional issue of the attorney's letter to you. So-Cal has a certain amount of recognizable equity built into their logo. Your logo dilutes that equity and So-Cal has every right asking you to cease and desist. Sorry, but that's the law.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You obviously designed your logo as a goof on theirs, and I don't think you'll find anyone on here that will have a problem with that. I don't think it makes much sense to go back after the fact and try to argue that the logos weren't supposed to look similar. I said this in the other post, but why not take this as an opportunity to come up with your own logo? The name is still cool...and we KNOW that they don't own the word "so"
This has the potential to be a very good thing for you, Phil. If you design a completely different logo, and if it is clever enough, most of the people here will buy the hell out of it and you could actually make money out of this, sort of a "support your local HAMBer so he doesn't get sued" kind of thing. But what clever name?...
poor So-Cal.....talk about missing the point. satires, parodies and japes very often serve to elevate the prestige and nearly always widen the popularity of the original design. too bad SoCal doesn't really get this- all the neat/goofy/funny spinoffs are adding to SoCal's recognizability. they're pennywise and pound foolish and come across as just another faceless bunch of corpora-turds that let busy little lawyers carry their water, instead of joining in the fun, and by doing so increase their popularity and present themselves as an outfit that can take a joke. as the petulant little girl said- whaaaatever.
U.S. Copyright Law is pretty clear. It includes the right to make "derivative works". So,while you haven't copied their design exactly, the similarities between the two designs are close enough for them to be able to make a pretty good case. And,I suspect,they can afford more lawyers than you can. Frame the letter,hang it on the wall,and then come up with another idea.
Yes, there are similarities, but it does not matter - it is a PARODY! Which means you were INTENTIONALLY trying to make it look like the original in order to make a STATEMENT - which is covered by law as part of the american way so we can all poke fun at each other. It would be VERY different if you just owned a speed shop and used it as your logo so you could ride their coattail and there was nothing even remotely funny about it - then that WOULD be a rip-off. A parody is a completely different thing. And for what its worth... intersecting ovals of various sorts are all-the-rage in logo design lately. Every other damn logo created in the last few years have included them - think ESPN - you'll see them everywhere. But its not about that. Its the obvious combination of elements.
This is the telling statement / flaw in the logic of the letter that the So-Called lawyer sent you: "Our client is concerned....that your use of the SO-CHEAP logo is likely to cause confusion with the SO-CAL SPEED SHOP mark and logo.....Your use of the SO-CHEAP mark and logo is likely to lead the public to believe that your products are license by, sponsored by, or otherwise affiliated with SO_CAL which is not true." The flaw in that logic is that any pea brain would be able to tell right away that you are making fun of their logo/shop/intity (a paraody) and that it is therefore abviously NOT a product licensed by So-Cal. If he is a real lawyer, he is a*****ty one. I think the letter was just typed up by someone in their office.
Hey, you made a decision to SPOOF the SO-CAL logo. Are you really surprised that they are calling you on it? They (SO-CAL) are a large company with lawyers, you've got to figure they would do just as they did. Right, wrong or indifferent. You are very talented, make your own deal.
[ QUOTE ] poor So-Cal.....talk about missing the point. satires, parodies and japes very often serve to elevate the prestige and nearly always widen the popularity of the original design. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, and that's exactly why I think you should change your logo, not 'cause they pressured you but 'cause you're too good. I mean should a hack like me throw together a car and put on a "company logo" like So-What it'd be funny, but you've outgrown that I feel. You should have a logo that's being copied or parodied instead of is a copy or parody.
I don't mean a*****, but if you can't see what you have ripped off and why you are being contacted by a lawyer, you must not be too keen to modern day america. You parody a company and sell shirts, you're gonna get sued or threatened. You are making money off their name, logo, and reputation. Without Socal Speedshop and their logo, you wouldn't be selling shirts would you. A parody in essence IS a ripoff. You have to get permission for these types of things. The other thread has too many details and small facts to jumble over. Take a look at the big picture and you'll see. I don't care how many shirts you haven't sold. The bottom line is you are selling them. If you weren't making a dime off the shirts and giving them away to friends, you wouldn't be in this prediciment. Seriously, I don't understand why you or anyone else has to argue about it. Its a blatent ripoff and they asked you to stop. Give it up. You won't, can't and shouldn't win. Regardless of what all of you think about Socal Speedshop, they have the right to protect their image, business and name. Any arguments AGAINST them would be unamerican. Go back and read the weezner post. Stop selling the shirts and merchandise, thats your problem right there.
I think it's an effective parody. It HAS to be recognizable to be a parody. I've always believed that Mad Magazine did all the heavy lifting regarding the legal parameters of a spoof. As others have said: if you get into a******** contest with them, only the lawyers win. Redesigning the logo defeats the fun being made. So-Cheap ain't funny without the parody. So, it looks like you can't sell them. But I don't think barter is regulated by this law, what'd want to trade for an XL? PS, if you walk away now and never sell another, the lawyer doesn't get any more work and although most of us here can't afford their*****, So-Cal gets identified as a corporate shark that doesn't support trad style builders and the always sought after smart****ed yout's. PPS, I am a graphic artist and I like the piece. It has a good beat and you can laugh at it. I'd give it a 70, Mr. Clark. <font color="red"> </font>
The Jalopy Journal
