Most blatant copyright infringement you’ve ever seen

razorblunt

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Some of the beers in Aldi are good, they have a San Miguel rip off called San Paolo or something, and a Czech beer that looks just like Staropramen. And the Budweiser rip off called "Breyser" or something like that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was them

Carrilo —> estrella damm
Their Corona is identical
Rossini —> Peroni

Gregor Samsa

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Logo incorporating three letters. But the one on the loaf wrapper is not a copy of that logo. Anyway the bakery is around since 1920, so they could claim to have the right to use the three letters.

Of course you can have a trademark with 3 letters. Where did you get that from? I mean, I provided a link showing the actual trademark registrations of the BBC logos. There’s nothing to argue against here. Sure loads of trademarks have no letters at all. What would be so special about 3 letters?

landofthetree

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

Oasis. They are The Beatles in all but name.

The yellow pack Beatles.

blade1

Two chippers come to mind that sail close to the wind.
McDonals in Buttevant and SuperMa's in Ballyfermot :pac:

WesternZulu

Strumms wrote: »

O’Neills sportswear nicking the 3 stripes design and template from Adidas....

Adidas vs O'Neills is actually an interesting story.

Adidas took O'Neill's to court over this decades ago but it couldn't be proven who used the three stripes first.

It was ruled that O'Neill's could use three stripes in Ireland but not for any of their products sold abroad. So if you buy a GAA jersey with three stripes from abroad it'll have two stripes instead when delivered. They make soccer and rugby jersey's for many teams outside of Ireland but you'll never see any of them with the three stripes.

Adidas aren't happy as you can imagine and have tried different things throughout the years to get one over O'Neills. They made a Cork jersey in the 1970s and set up a proxy Irish manufacturing operation in the 1990s just to make Kerry's jersey to get around the rules that GAA gear has to be made in Ireland.

Muahahaha

Supermacs Pat McDonagh won his legal case against McDonalds who were suiing for copyright infringement, specifically for the burger named 'Mighty Mac' and the name 'Supermacs'. Part of his defence in court on 'Supermac' was that it was his nickname as a child. This was, as Pat explained, due to him being so good at GAA football when he was a kid that all the other kids named him 'Supermac'.

The guy is some chancer, I dont believe that story for one second.

dxhound2005

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Of course you can have a trademark with 3 letters. Where did you get that from? I mean, I provided a link showing the actual trademark registrations of the BBC logos. There’s nothing to argue against here. Sure loads of trademarks have no letters at all. What would be so special about 3 letters?

The American Broacasting Company, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation both have logos with the letters ABC. Two different designs. So there should be nothing stopping Buckley's Bakery Cappawhite from using the logo they put on their products. It has the letters BBC, but is not the same design as that of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Gregor Samsa

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The American Broacasting Company, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation both have logos with the letters ABC. Two different designs. So there should be nothing stopping Buckley's Bakery Cappawhite from using the logo they put on their products. It has the letters BBC, but is not the same design as that of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

So you say twice that 3 letters can’t be trademarked, then proceed to mention two 3 letter trademarks. The point - as you seem to be beginning to see - is that the trademark isn’t the letters themselves, it’s the design of the logo. And that’s what we’re talking about here. Doesn’t matter how many letters you have in the logo, or if the exact same letters are in someone else’s logo.

And the “BBC” logo that the bread company is using is identical to the registered broadcaster BBC logo (scroll down to the example) here: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/W00918771 except that the bread company have put it into a clipart scroll.

And the fact that the bakery have been around since 1920 has nothing to do with it. They’d have to be using that exact logo (not just the 3 letters) before the British Broadcasting Corporation were.

I get the feeling that you might have missed the BBC logo in the OP’s photo. I mean, if you layer the two in Photoshop (the bread company and the one in the link above) they’re identical. They’ve used the BBC logo on their packaging, it’s as plain as day.

Church on Tuesday

Guys that make screen accurate movie props for retail surely have to be in some kind of contravention of copyright?

dxhound2005

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

So you say twice that 3 letters can’t be trademarked, then proceed to mention two 3 letter trademarks. The point - as you seem to be beginning to see - is that the trademark isn’t the letters themselves, it’s the design of the logo. And that’s what we’re talking about here. Doesn’t matter how many letters you have in the logo, or if the exact same letters are in someone else’s logo.

And the “BBC” logo that the bread company is using is identical to the registered broadcaster BBC logo (scroll down to the example) here: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/W00918771 except that the bread company have put it into a clipart scroll.

And the fact that the bakery have been around since 1920 has nothing to do with it. They’d have to be using that exact logo (not just the 3 letters) before the British Broadcasting Corporation were.

I get the feeling that you might have missed the BBC logo in the OP’s photo. I mean, if you layer the two in Photoshop (the bread company and the one in the link above) they’re identical. They’ve used the BBC logo on their packaging, it’s as plain as day.

The BBC have not kept to an exact logo. It looks like they are trying to freeze out everyone else by coming up with multiple designs.

https://www.logodesignlove.com/bbc-logo-design

Glaceon

I recently saw a video from the design company that created the current BBC logo. The main reason for changing it was that the parallelograms didn't render well on-screen with the SD resolutions of the time. It was also intended to reduce the number of logos used by the BBC, which it did at the time, but it has now crept up again with the likes of BBC Northern Ireland having their own logo separate to the main BBC identity.

Muahahaha

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I get the feeling that you might have missed the BBC logo in the OP’s photo. I mean, if you layer the two in Photoshop (the bread company and the one in the link above) they’re identical. They’ve used the BBC logo on their packaging, it’s as plain as day.

Soon as I saw the picture of the bread in the OP the BBC logo was recognisable, its an obvious copy of it because they have used the same font and type spacing. AFAIK a company can also invent a font and then copyright it too so whatever they write in that font is theirs, copying the font in any way is breaching copyright law.

The bakery has clearly copied the BBC logo, most likely in the hope that the BBC sue them and they get lots of free publicity before backing down. The Sun will be right behind the bakery for standing up to the big bad BBC, etc, etc

ElJaguar

As mentioned before Aldi with their imitation wines and beers.

mikhail

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Although if you want complete take-the p1ss, not one single f*ck given copyright infringement, nobody does it better than the chinese

Fake Apple Store in China even fools staff

I remember reading a few years ago that China had three official Apple stores nationwide. I passed four the next day.

Gregor Samsa

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The BBC have not kept to an exact logo. It looks like they are trying to freeze out everyone else by coming up with multiple designs.

https://www.logodesignlove.com/bbc-logo-design

Every big company changes their logo from time to time. Nothing about freezing anyone out of anything. It’s a simple brand refresh.

Gregor Samsa

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Guys that make screen accurate movie props for retail surely have to be in some kind of contravention of copyright?

On that note, there’s a whole series of standard prop brands that are made for the movie industry, so that they don’t have to deal with licensing real-life brands. You’ll. see them used across multiple movies.

Morley cigarettes is a well known one (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_(cigarette) ) but there’s all kinds of products:

https://www.theearlhayspress.com/food-packaging

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Supermacs Pat McDonagh won his legal case against McDonalds who were suiing for copyright infringement, specifically for the burger named 'Mighty Mac' and the name 'Supermacs'. Part of his defence in court on 'Supermac' was that it was his nickname as a child. This was, as Pat explained, due to him being so good at GAA football when he was a kid that all the other kids named him 'Supermac'.

The guy is some chancer, I dont believe that story for one second.

It was a big win for the small man, in this case supermacs is the small man. So many surnames start with MC or Mac that it's completely unfair for a huge corporation to have a stranglehold on it with deep pockets to ward off anyone who tries to use it.

Wibbs

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Although if you want complete take-the p1ss, not one single f*ck given copyright infringement, nobody does it better than the chinese

Fake Apple Store in China even fools staff

It's another one of the reasons I proactively try to not buy Chinese made goods. It's pretty much impossible with things like phones and computers, but outside of that stuff if there's an alternative made elsewhere I'm willing to pay more for that. The Chinese government aren't "a great bunch of lads", it's an Orwellian state with serious breaches of human rights in a few areas and blatant copyright infringment and a built in it seems rip off culture and not something I want to support.

bodhrandude

Andrew Lloyd Webber ripping off the riff to Pink Floyd's Echoes in his Phantom of the Opera.

Dennis Leary's No Cure for Cancer record ripped off a good chunk of Bill Hick's repertoire.

FFVII

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There's a certain poster in the Trump/Biden threads who quite often plagarises whole articles from sites. He changes/rewords small parts to make it look like his own work. When called out on this he will either totally ignore any posts mentioning it or disappear for a few days and come back as if nothing happened.

It's got to the point where you have to copy/paste parts of his rants into Google to see where he has stolen it from.

why bother? Just put on ignore.

AllGunsBlazing

The Apple brand already existed as a record label set up by the Beatles to release their own music and other artists they wanted to promote. They let Apple computers slide because they figured they would never be anything other than a computer manufacturing company.

theteal

Muahahaha wrote: »

Aldis 'Hoops' are pretty identical to Hula Hoops, same packaging, same shape and same flavour The only thing they are missing is the 'Hula'

Not sure that counts here as it's the same product made in the same factory. Just different packaging for the low cost retailer.

Muahahaha

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

On that note, there’s a whole series of standard prop brands that are made for the movie industry, so that they don’t have to deal with licensing real-life brands. You’ll. see them used across multiple movies.

Morley cigarettes is a well known one (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_(cigarette) ) but there’s all kinds of products:

https://www.theearlhayspress.com/food-packaging

The fictional Oceanic Airlines is a similar movie industry prop to avoid them advertising actual airlines in films. Oceanic Airlines has been used in loads of productions from Lost to Bridget Jones. It even had a full website with fake booking system for a while. Its the worlds most unlucky airline having been involved in several hijackings, lighting strikes and being shot down by a surface to air missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_Airlines#List_of_fictional_Oceanic_Airlines_flights

Gregor Samsa

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

The Apple brand already existed as a record label set up by the Beatles to release their own music and other artists they wanted to promote. They let Apple computers slide because they figured they would never be anything other than a computer manufacturing company.

Actually Apple Computer and Apple Corps (music company) had a long running legal battle over the trademarks. Apple Computer eventually agreed not to use their trademark on on "creative works whose principal content is music".

When they were developing the operating system “System 7” in the early 90s, they had an alert sound based on a short xylophone riff. Apple Computer’s legal department objected to the name of the sound on the grounds that it was “too musical”, and would therefore be in breach of the Apple Corps agreement. The engineers renamed the sound “Sosumi”, which they claimed was a Japanese word, and didn’t mention that it was pronounced “so sue me”. The legal team cleared the name of the sound.

The legal dispute dragged on until 2007, when Apple Computer (by then known as Apple Inc) came to a final agreement with Apple Corps which gave them control of all the disputed trademarks, but with some of them licensed back to Apple Corps.

As Apple Inc have since gone on to get directly involved in the music business through iTunes/Apple Music, and The Beatles music is available on it, the agreement has clearly lasted.

AllGunsBlazing

Seems incredible that the Beatles simply didn't use their substantial clout, and I'm sure no
shortage of lawyers, to steam roll Apple Computers back when it was still a fledgling company.

Gregor Samsa

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Seems incredible that the Beatles simply didn't use their substantial clout, and I'm sure no
shortage of lawyers, to steam roll Apple Computers back when it was still a fledgling company.

Well, in fairness Apple Computer kept paying Apple Corps to settle, with various agreed terms. The first settlement was in 1981 for $80,000. Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business (as if that was actually going to happen).

Then over the years Apple Computer would test the agreement with various actions, and a new agreement would be reached with money going to Apple Corps and more favourable terms for Apple Computer. One such agreement in 1991 saw $26.5 million go to Apple Corps. Apple Corps did try to get more money after that, but judges ruled that Apple’s activities (around iTunes) were already covered under the existing agreements. Eventually in 2007 they both came to a final agreement and ended all legal disputes.

Looking back in it now, $26.5 million is chump change for Apple Inc, but by 1991’s standards Apple Corps did quite well out of that deal.

Burt Renaults

Badly fukt wrote: »

It was a big win for the small man, in this case supermacs is the small man. So many surnames start with MC or Mac that it's completely unfair for a huge corporation to have a stranglehold on it with deep pockets to ward off anyone who tries to use it.

Back in the early 1990s, there was a fast-food restaurant in Bray called "SuperJack's". McDonagh forced them to change their name. I think they changed it to "FastJacks".

...Ghost...

Burt Renaults wrote: »

Back in the early 1990s, there was a fast-food restaurant in Bray called "SuperJack's". McDonagh forced them to change their name. I think they changed it to "FastJacks".

Probably an apt name chosen due to the frequency their patrons ran to the lavatory.

Specials today?
The Waterloo Burger

Wibbs

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Well, in fairness Apple Computer kept paying Apple Corps to settle, with various agreed terms. The first settlement was in 1981 for $80,000. Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business (as if that was actually going to happen).

Then over the years Apple Computer would test the agreement with various actions, and a new agreement would be reached with money going to Apple Corps and more favourable terms for Apple Computer. One such agreement in 1991 saw $26.5 million go to Apple Corps. Apple Corps did try to get more money after that, but judges ruled that Apple’s activities (around iTunes) were already covered under the existing agreements. Eventually in 2007 they both came to a final agreement and ended all legal disputes.

Back in the eraly 90's when Apple's engineers added different system sounds their legal eagles got jittery about some of them being too "musical" in case the Beatles lawyers jumped at it. One of the engineers reckoned they should call one sound "Letitbleep" as a dig at the Beatles Let it Be album/song, but in the end they came up with the name Sosumi and told the legal dept it was a Japanese musical instrument. They presented it in written form in case the lawyers noticed it sounded like So Sue Me. They didn't and it remained as a system sound on Apple computers until the latest operating system came out last year where for some reason it's been renamed sonumi.

EDIT, well like the gobsh1te I am I missed Gregor's early post, but I'll leave my embarrassment up for all to see.

Samuel T. Cogley

Getting various scanned books on Intellectual Property on a USB stick in an Intellectual Property module.

Gregor Samsa

Wibbs wrote: »

EDIT, well like the gobsh1te I am I missed Gregor's early post, but I'll leave my embarrassment up for all to see.

You’re grand, Wibbs - I don’t have copyright on the story

Duckworth_Luas

Look at this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la086T7fbRo

Gregor Samsa

Another Beatles related trademark dispute settled:

Ringo Starr drops trademark fight over Ring O sex toys

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57600967

Killinator

the beer revolu wrote: »

It's an ancient symbol and crops up in different civilisations.
Pretty sure it's both Greek and Indian, for example.

It's popped up here as well in it's original form. The Cathedral in Cobh has them in moasaics on the floor bear the entrance

https://twitter.com/carrigman/status/1150755485886361600?s=19

ofcork

Wibbs wrote: »

Back in the eraly 90's when Apple's engineers added different system sounds their legal eagles got jittery about some of them being too "musical" in case the Beatles lawyers jumped at it. One of the engineers reckoned they should call one sound "Letitbleep" as a dig at the Beatles Let it Be album/song, but in the end they came up with the name Sosumi and told the legal dept it was a Japanese musical instrument. They presented it in written form in case the lawyers noticed it sounded like So Sue Me. They didn't and it remained as a system sound on Apple computers until the latest operating system came out last year where for some reason it's been renamed sonumi.

EDIT, well like the gobsh1te I am I missed Gregor's early post, but I'll leave my embarrassment up for all to see.

Suzanne jackson better watch out!!

Capt'n Midnight

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

The Aldi and Lidl stuff that has the same coloured packaging as the leading branded stuff....

No one's going to confuse a Roar bar with a Lion bar.

Polar bears are Arctic. Literally a world away from the Antarctic (which means no bear) where penguins dwell.

Capt'n Midnight

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The BBC have not kept to an exact logo. It looks like they are trying to freeze out everyone else by coming up with multiple designs.

The BBC froze out the police by taking out a trademark in 1994 on a certain blue box.

martingriff

For Forks Sake wrote: »

I always have a wry smile anytime I pass this place out near Swords

https://goo.gl/maps/E33WJ9Bzj2kEYNSQA

While you may take a second look. Nothing wrong with it

martingriff

whisky_galore wrote: »

Main St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XdkrYYvoFCWrUehUA

Thats a cheeky one. Just as an aside do facebook have the thumbs up copyright. They must

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

The music on this anti-piracy* ad was pirated by the music rights organisation themselves who when they lost the court case still tried to deduct a 33% cut of the fine on the basis they had collected that money for the composer.

L1011

_Brian wrote: »

Let’s look at a serious clever but devious one that is intended to trick people when buying products.

The good old CE mark people rely upon to show goods meet their European standards and so are safe. But the Chinese authorities ripped it off and put a China Export logo on goods.

https://images.app.goo.gl/NiFqEMYkEuDYmrHh9

Really think this is the worst as it covers so much trade, tricks people and has potentially safety implications as products likely meet no appropriate standards at all.

This isn't true. There is no such thing as a "China Export logo", there are just fraudsters slapping a CE mark on stuff that isn't CE approved.

Grab All Association

L1011 wrote: »

This isn't true. There is no such thing as a "China Export logo", there are just fraudsters slapping a CE mark on stuff that isn't CE approved.

They’ve hijacked the CE Mark and put China Expert directly under it. Some silly attempt to stop fake goods from been seized I guess.

L1011

Grab All Association wrote: »

They’ve hijacked the CE Mark and put China Expert directly under it. Some silly attempt to stop fake goods from been seized I guess.

No, that hasn't happened either. None of this exists.

The whole "china export" thing appears to have been made up by someone online not able to understand that fraudsters do fraud.

kenmc

Yet this says different:
https://support.ce-check.eu/hc/en-us/articles/360008642600-How-To-Distinguish-A-Real-CE-Mark-From-A-Fake-Chinese-Export-Mark

There are two "ce" logos. One,the European conformance mark, and another similar one with slightly different spacing, which is similar, and almost certainly put on a product to infer at a glance that the product meets European regulations\certifications\qualifications.

It doesn't illegally use the European conformance CE logo, as that would be akin to putting gucci on a product that is not made by gucci,rather one which is similar enough to cause confusion.

YFlyer

Big black crust?

Gregor Samsa

kenmc wrote: »

There are two "ce" logos. One,the European conformance mark, and another similar one with slightly different spacing, which is similar, and almost certainly put on a product to infer at a glance that the product meets European regulations\certifications\qualifications.

This is true, and no-one disputes that. There are Chinese manufacturers, distributors an exporters using a "CE" symbol that is close to, but not exactly the same as, the European CE compliance symbol. And they're doing this to fool unsuspecting consumers into thinking the product in question has legitimate CE certification.

But no-one in China has ever claimed that it's a "China Export" symbol. They haven't created an official program over there using a similar logo. The "China Export" term is a backronym that was applied to it by Western observers after the fraudulent symbol started to be used, but it doesn't mean that anyone who actually puts the symbol on products is claiming that this is what the letters mean.

Here's the European Commission's statement on it:

"The Commission is aware that there exists the misconception attributing CE marking the meaning ‘Chinese export’. The Commission is not aware of the existence of a ‘China export mark’ but considers that the mark the Honourable Member refers to constitute the CE marking as foreseen in the European legislation without, however, respecting the dimensions and proportions prescribed therein."

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-6-2007-5938-ASW_EN.html?redirect

Starfix model kits.

As night follows day "Starfix" don't give a flying f00k about the hobby

https://modelingmadness.com/review/axis/luft/fordhams109.htm

Avon8

Muahahaha wrote: »

Supermacs Pat McDonagh won his legal case against McDonalds who were suiing for copyright infringement, specifically for the burger named 'Mighty Mac' and the name 'Supermacs'. Part of his defence in court on 'Supermac' was that it was his nickname as a child. This was, as Pat explained, due to him being so good at GAA football when he was a kid that all the other kids named him 'Supermac'.

The guy is some chancer, I dont believe that story for one second.

Having had sporadic dealings with him I can say with 100% certainty that he was ripping nothing off. The clue is in his name ffs. I'd actually be fairly certain he had no idea what McDonalds even was when he started his small town chipper. McDonalds had opened one a solitary restaurant in Dublin round the same time

McDonalds have tried to bully Supermacs outside of Ireland repeatedly by stopping them opening up in the UK, Australia etc because of the Mac at the end of the name. As if they have complete ownership of the letters MC and its variations. I'd say financially he regrets fighting them on either case but he's won both

Wheety

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

The music on this anti-piracy* ad was pirated by the music rights organisation themselves who when they lost the court case still tried to deduct a 33% cut of the fine on the basis they had collected that money for the composer.

So that's the video they ripped the p*ss out of on The IT Crowd

Montage of Feck

martingriff wrote: »

Thats a cheeky one. Just as an aside do facebook have the thumbs up copyright. They must

What's in a Zuckerberger?