You mentioned that you are or were a lawyer, is that true or was it a joke?
If so, in which area did you specialize?
That's not a dig or nothing, I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I have no wish to argue with someone in their field of expertise.
That would be dumb!

Quote from: Mike Ratledge on April 23, 2014, 05:40:25 AM

Pretty simple, Bama.

I got a DMCA takedown notice from the right full owner with documentation.

Say what?

From UC:
"Jackson has provided notice on the A C Doyle Estate letterhead sufficient for enforcement that both his and their IP (Intellectual Property) rights are being infringed.

Thread locked pending legal process."

New to me is that this was an official DMCA notice. Its sort of curious in that I believe the law states only the Copyright holder or their agent can file a notice.

Jackson has subsequently stated that he doesn't care, and I believe him. I'm guessing that this was sort of a knee-jerk reaction.

But it does point-out the need to have multiple independent forums for discussing playing cards.

Designers may fail on their first attempt in KS, yet try again and be successful. What's the likelihood that she'll come back to UC to discuss her next project when the discussion of her first deck gets locked?

/bama

I'm confused as I saw this page:
http://tuckcase.com/2013/07/10/new-release-conjuring-arts-research-center-launches-the-expert-playing-card-co-debuts-global-titans/
My Exquisite Decks and Global Titan decks say on the tuck "Expert Playing Card Company".
My Legends 1st Edition tuck has multiple references to Lawrence Sullivan, but none to Legends Playing Card Co.

Legends and Exquisite cards have much the same smooth feel, while the Global Titans are much coarser -- and they are made in Shanghai, not Taiwan. So I'm guessing that the Aquila cards will feel like the Legends and Exquisite?

/bama

Don,
I totally agree. The House of Playing Cards Deck of Cards by "no reply design" is a blatant rip-off. Time will tell if the folks who own the copyright actually care. If they do then KS will pull the project and publish the DMCA takedown notice.
/bama

I think KS is probably covered by the DMCA, and so does little or no IP vetting. But I bet they take down projects quickly if served with a valid take-down notice.

For instance: https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/back-to-the-wild-inspired-by-where-the-wild-things

Cool! still waiting in California.

They could rescind a mark if prior art was not disclosed. This may happen if the registration is challenged.
I believe there is a plethora of prior art (usage before the first usage date in the application) out there for the use of Sherlock Holmes in just about every area imaginable. For instance, I have found Sherlock Holmes playing cards from decades ago.

Or, the USPTO (or some court) could find that at the time of registration the term Sherlock Holmes is merely descriptive or generic, and so not worthy of a trade or service mark.

This was not the case with "Bicycle", which (according the the results of my trademark search) USPCC registered in 1905, with declared first use for playing cards in 1885.

I think that this is a case of running a flag up the pole and seeing who will salute it -- as UC did.
My guess is it will be worth somebody's while to dispute it before it takes root, because it easier to stomp it now rather than in court five years down the road.

What reputable companies do if they find someone tarnishing their strongly held trademark is to send the other party a cease and desist letter -- or just call them up. And most of the time the offender just stops. I have been on the receiving end of one of these!

I have seen large companies just ignore similar trademark use, 'cause they don't have a strong case -- even when they had enough legal resources to bury the other guy. I've also had this happen to me.

Don,

I bet the trademark never gets to court. The registration is bullshit. If anyone cares to dispute it, the USPTO will rescind it.
And I bet Klinger disputes it.

/bama

Good question.
Marvel '60s comic characters are now mainstream, but Kirby, Ditko and those classic comics are still the coolest comic artists, and they raised the bar for everyone.

Anime/Manga/ComicCon are now mainstream, but Hayao Miyazaki is still cool.

I hope that Whispering Imps, Fed 52 and the like become mainstream and put out of business inferior decks!

But I'm not holding my breath...

What I state here is not a legal opinion (IANAL), just my personal opinion.

First: I'm a backer and supporter of JR's Sherlock Holmes^SM deck -- I can't wait to get mine!

I'm not impressed by the Sherlock Holmes Museum deck -- just not my style, and I doubt the quality will be there. But what seems to be clear is that all the art is original -- while I think I see Basil Rathbone's chin, I don't think this is a photoshop job, as was done more than once on an infamous set of KS card projects.

I'm deeply disappointed about how UC froze the page discussing the project.
I questioned Mike why he did so, and while I understand that no one wants to get involved in costly lawsuits, this has the flavor of BS and playing card politics.

As far as the trademark status goes, what I found in a trademark search is:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:13k1x7.2.14
Key points: 1. It's a service mark, not a trademark. 2. It will be filed for opposition on April 22, 2014. 3. Relevant Dates: FIRST USE: 20131009. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20131009.

As there are 1923 hits for a search of (SHERLOCK HOLMES) there are certainly other relevant hits. I have not looked at each result.

Even if this is upheld, it may well not prevent somebody selling something called "Sherlock Holmes Museum Playing Cards". You can see that somebody has a trademark on the word "Sherlock". Exact combination of words is extremely important, as is the usage context of the words.

I think there is a reason why this is still live on KS. I've been involved in Trademark/Service Marks disputes before. The law here is not simple at all. While first claim is very important, the rights you gain are very limited. And the claim for first use here is pretty sketchy.

Why I care: I deeply believe in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Frivolous IP claims are a plague and degrade our rights -- including creative rights. If you read the recent court judgement, and the numerous quotes from lawyers in the media, you may find the consensus is that folks have paid for book/movie rights in the recent past because its easier/cheaper than a court fight. But when the claims are challenged in courts that have not won.

Art is an important form of speech, one that we should all seek to protect. In this case I am defending someone whose artwork I don't really like because there is an important principle involved.

As always, I do not intend to insult anyone involved, nor claim malice. I believe that Mike, Jackson and Chao Yung Huang are all acting with the best of motives. Mike is trying to run a board, Jackson clearly thought he was gaining exclusive rights and Huang is just trying to fund his artistic efforts.

I think it would be best if we continue to discuss the merits of the project (both here and on UC), and not seek to kill the conversation based on disputed IP rights.

/bama

edit: I just realized that since there's now a service mark on SHERLOCK HOLMES it would be proper to add the SM to the first usage in my post.

Limited in the fact that there will only be 1000 distributed (can't say printed because you have to overprint to make sure you get the amount you desire). Who cares if he decides to sell them as singles, doubles or bricks -- or changes the mix as he reacts to what folks want most? Or if he sells most on KS or through his website? Or if he releases batches throughout the campaign?

The really interesting question is what he does with what's left over -- the Fed 52 black forcing deck was a great idea.