Forum - View topic

NEWS: FCC uses Doraemon on Site

Tezuka was an artist and Shogakukkan is a corporate entity. The real creators of Doraemon split a long time ago, and one of them passed away. So the only one speaking against the FCC is Shogakukkan, while manga artists and Tezuka's family were the ones complaining about Disney.

I'd say "no". But once again, even if that did happen, Shogakukkan's bottom line wouldn't be hurt by the confusion, and might in fact be helped.

Does KFC sue everytime someone puts a Col. Sanders in the background of a comedy anime? Does McDonalds sue every time they put a misshapen "M" in the background of an anime? These happen a lot in anime. The words are slightly edited, but they're still made to resemble the franchise trademarks.

In writing novels. the law recognizes something called "accidental infringement."

This applies to cases where different people may create similar things completely independent from each other because they have similar ideas. This only applies to copyright, not trademarks. Trademark law does not care whether the marks were derived independently, or whether it was for profit. Its main concern is whether or not the marks are similar enough that it may cause confusion in the marketplace. While one may argue that since Doraemon is not published in the U.S., there is no market confusion. But Doraemon *may* be published/licensed here, therefore companies must protect their trademarks internationally.

Which brings us back to the original question of the debate (still unproven): Is Broadband an infringement on Doremon?

As caretakers of the Doraemon image, they are obligated to protect the property.

Trademark law does not care whether the marks were derived independently, or whether it was for profit. Its main concern is whether or not the marks are similar enough that it may cause confusion in the marketplace. While one may argue that since Doraemon is not published in the U.S., there is no market confusion. But Doraemon *may* be published/licensed here, therefore companies must protect their trademarks internationally.

Assuming to be true something that needs to be proved.

So all arguments against are based on the fallacy that it's not infringing? Or maybe we shouldn't discuss any legal subjects at all until they have been decided at court?

No, I'm saying that a good portion of the posters are presuming that the similarities are a deliberate theft of Doremon, when that is the issue needing to be proved.

Just because it is a corporation doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it only because of financial considerations. As caretakers of the Doraemon image, they are obligated to protect the property.

Trademarks are lost when not protected, so there's more than monetary concerns at stake.

Parody laws also do not apply to trademark laws. You cannot parody a trademark *for use as a trademark*. This is why Kieron Dwyer can use the Consumer Whore logo as a parody in his comics and probably get away with it, but was promptly sued by Starbucks when he put that parody logo on t-shirts and mugs.

This applies to cases where different people may create similar things completely independent from each other because they have similar ideas. This only applies to copyright, not trademarks. Trademark law does not care whether the marks were derived independently, or whether it was for profit. Its main concern is whether or not the marks are similar enough that it may cause confusion in the marketplace.

After say, 10 years, Shogakukkan decides to bring Doraemon to the U.S., they may actually be prevented from using Doraemon's image as a logo on merchandise by the FCC! Far-fetched, but not impossible.

Ok Trademark Law...

First off, it is necessary to see if the Doraemon image is Trademarked in the US or Internationally through the Madrid Protocol. I did not conduct a search of US Trademarks, but a search of the Madrid Protocol Database shows that Shogakukan holds International Trademarks on the name Doraemon, and an image of the name Doraemon, but not an actual image of Doraemon.

Secondly, to claim Trademark infringement, several factors must be proved. The main one being a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services. In other words, to confuse people into thinking goods or services are being delivered from the company being infringed upon, instead of the company that is illegally using the mark.

# the similarity in the overall impression created by the two marks (including the marks' look, phonetic similarities, and underlying meanings);
# the similarities of the goods and services involved (including an examination of the marketing channels for the goods);
# the strength of the plaintiff's mark;
# any evidence of actual confusion by consumers;
# the intent of the defendant in adopting its mark;
# the physical proximity of the goods in the retail marketplace;
# the degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer; and
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines.

If anything, they could have a case of Trademark Dilution, but even then they have an affirmative defense if they claim a parody, in which case the court would decide if it was or not.

Trademarks do not have to be registered, just as copyrights do not have to be registered. As members of WIPO, Japanese patents and trademarks are enforced in the U.S., and vice versa.

This also includes usage of a trademarked icon as a mascot to promote an organization or business. Therefore it is not necessary for both to offer the same goods for trademark infringement to happen.

Yes, and as long as any one of these are true, a claim can be made for trademark infringement. Doraemon is an extremely strong brand in Japan. And obviously the marks are similar enough that this is a news item both her in anime circles, and more broadly in Japan.

It is specifically stated on the Madrid Protocol site of the WIPO that a trademark MUST be registered to be enforced. A de fac

The standard of proof for Trademark infringment IS likelihood-of-confusion, and I somehow doubt that is provable in this case.

And those are factors that are taken into account, however the other factors are also taken into account. Saying the marks are similar enough mean nothing, you must prove it in court. Companies sue other companies and other people all the the time even though they have either no or shoddy legal ground to stand on.

In any case, the stupid thing looks nothing like Doraemon, except that they are both cats that are standing up.

It does not mean they do not have the trademark, nor that the trademark is unenforceable without it (i.e. injunctions may still be granted by the court.)