TF Views

Lucasfilm licensing division generally is more a hindrance to design than a help, constantly sending things back until they're done right.

Hmm, is that necessarily a bad thing? Then again, we all know what Lucas' definition of 'done right' is, heh.

Someone owns the trademark Jazz for a car, yet we have Autobot Jazz.

That's because it's for a car, and not a toy. Trademarks cover specific areas, as I understand it. I'd really rather not waste questions on legalities like this, the TF fandom has enough lawyers that we can find out anything we don't know with relative ease, I'm much more interested in what the design team have to say - not so much marketing or legal.

Well, marketing would help if we knew more about stuff like 'why the hell they can't just make box-shaped boxes.'

onslaught86 wrote:

Lucasfilm licensing division generally is more a hindrance to design than a help, constantly sending things back until they're done right.

Hmm, is that necessarily a bad thing? Then again, we all know what Lucas' definition of 'done right' is, heh.

Is it a bad thing? No, but it's not the "help" that it was made out to be here either, it slows the process down as much as it adds accuracy. That was my point, it's not a net gain for the SW brand to have LucasLicensing (that's the actual name of the division, it's its own company) hovering over them.

Someone owns the trademark Jazz for a car, yet we have Autobot Jazz.

That's because it's for a car, and not a toy. Trademarks cover specific areas, as I understand it. I'd really rather not waste questions on legalities like this, the TF fandom has enough lawyers that we can find out anything we don't know with relative ease, I'm much more interested in what the design team have to say - not so much marketing or legal.

Hasbro had "prior art" for that toy name as a car either way, but they didn't copyright or trademark the usage (some kinds of usage are not usable that way no matter what) at the time so it didn't get registered, and it'd be more trouble than they want to deal with to get it back. I'm not particularly interested in asking either, just making sure it was addressed.

Onslaught Six wrote:Well, marketing would help if we knew more about stuff like 'why the hell they can't just make box-shaped boxes.'

Box shaped boxes aren't exciting to customers.

JediTricks wrote:Hasbro had "prior art" for that toy name as a car either way, but they didn't copyright or trademark the usage (some kinds of usage are not usable that way no matter what) at the time so it didn't get registered, and it'd be more trouble than they want to deal with to get it back. I'm not particularly interested in asking either, just making sure it was addressed.

I don't buy that such a name could not have been trademarked in 1984, since Hasbro similarly nabbed names like Mirage and Prowl and subsequently strengthened them over the years.

Box shaped boxes aren't exciting to customers.

That's the line of bullshit they keep feeding me, but I've 'watched' people buy stuff in stores. They never go "Wow! That non-box-shaped box is so intriguing and exciting!"

I don't buy that such a name could not have been trademarked in 1984, since Hasbro similarly nabbed names like Mirage and Prowl and subsequently strengthened them over the years.

Uh. sure, they could've. But they had 'no' idea that their little toyline would turn into this franchise, and it would've been a waste of money to trademark a name unecessarily. They grabbed Soundwave as early as '85, since (If memory serves) there was pressure on the name from other companies. Mirage and Prowl..there's a reason there's so many Universe Prowls and so forth.

I'm not particularly interested in asking either, just making sure it was addressed.

Ah, cool cool.

Box shaped boxes aren't exciting to customers.

Funny thing about packaging, there's an absolute slew of work that goes into it. Has to hold the product, display the product, protect it during shipping and while on shelves, be sturdy and theft-proof, be eye-catching and interesting, cross-sell other products, fit into certain dimensions, and be easily assembled from a given net.. There must easily be as much work going into packaging than into many of the toys inside. Yet, sealed (And boxed display, and the anal type who keep everything like I do) collectors aside, it has served its purpose once the consumer removes the product from the packaging. Given a lot of current TF packaging is ugly and weirdly shaped, I question how it's exciting to, well, anyone.

They clearly put a lot of work into the movie packaging, for example, but then neglected variety, making it look like one giant red blob of a section in the stores. The Animated packaging is minimalist, but not exciting at all. Universe packaging, blerk, lots of work went into it too, but it's wrecked by colours and boxart, and far too busy to look good on display.

I really do miss box-shaped boxes.

onslaught86 wrote:Uh. sure, they could've. But they had 'no' idea that their little toyline would turn into this franchise, and it would've been a waste of money to trademark a name unecessarily. They grabbed Soundwave as early as '85, since (If memory serves) there was pressure on the name from other companies. Mirage and Prowl..there's a reason there's so many Universe Prowls and so forth.

JT was arguing that they couldn't be trademarked in 1984. I was saying they could.

They clearly put a lot of work into the movie packaging, for example, but then neglected variety, making it look like one giant red blob of a section in the stores. The Animated packaging is minimalist, but not exciting at all. Universe packaging, blerk, lots of work went into it too, but it's wrecked by colours and boxart, and far too busy to look good on display.

Incidentally, I squashed down Incinerator's box the other day and noticed how 'cool' the box looked when I did that. If it was Flat but still had that circular window to it, as it looks when you squash it down, then that'd have been 'cool.' As-is, it's boring.

Onslaught Six wrote:JT was arguing that they couldn't be trademarked in 1984. I was saying they could.

I didn't say they couldn't, you are reading into that things which aren't there. I said they didn't, and now it'd be more difficult to get them back because others are using them, so it's easier to not go through all that and risk losing anyway - you never know which way a judge might go with these things. And it's especially bad for G1 names since those toys were all stealing likenesses of other companies' vehicles anyway - at the time, nobody really cared, they didn't see the value or risk, now they do so it can make things sticky.

JediTricks wrote:

Onslaught Six wrote:JT was arguing that they couldn't be trademarked in 1984. I was saying they could.

I didn't say they couldn't, you are reading into that things which aren't there. I said they didn't, and now it'd be more difficult to get them back because others are using them, so it's easier to not go through all that and risk losing anyway - you never know which way a judge might go with these things. And it's especially bad for G1 names since those toys were all stealing likenesses of other companies' vehicles anyway - at the time, nobody really cared, they didn't see the value or risk, now they do so it can make things sticky.

JT, but earlier wrote:but they didn't copyright or trademark the usage (some kinds of usage are not usable that way no matter what)

That was what I was referring to. I was pointing out that names like Mirage and Prowl got trademarked, so names like Jazz and Hound could have been done so just the same.

Onslaught Six wrote:

JediTricks wrote:

Onslaught Six wrote:JT was arguing that they couldn't be trademarked in 1984. I was saying they could.

I didn't say they couldn't, you are reading into that things which aren't there. I said they didn't, and now it'd be more difficult to get them back because others are using them, so it's easier to not go through all that and risk losing anyway - you never know which way a judge might go with these things. And it's especially bad for G1 names since those toys were all stealing likenesses of other companies' vehicles anyway - at the time, nobody really cared, they didn't see the value or risk, now they do so it can make things sticky.

JT, but earlier wrote:but they didn't copyright or trademark the usage (some kinds of usage are not usable that way no matter what)

That was what I was referring to. I was pointing out that names like Mirage and Prowl got trademarked, so names like Jazz and Hound could have been done so just the same.

Ok, I see, but that's not about the era, those kinds of usable aren't trademarkable now just as they weren't then.

JediTricks wrote:Ok, I see, but that's not about the era, those kinds of usable aren't trademarkable now just as they weren't then.

No, that's my argument, that names like Hound and Jazz could have very well been trademarked if names like Prowl and Mirage were. Obviously they aren't 'now' and the only reason Hasbro has Prowl and Mirage is because they trademarked them, presumably in the 90s.