Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Steve Jobs Figurine Maker Over Likeness
eldavojohn writes "Techdirt brings word that China-based MIC Gadget, the maker of a four inch 'SJ figurine,' is being sued by Apple to stop making the product. The fairly well detailed figurine went for $80 and the manufacturer offered updates as it quickly sold out of the first 300 and was subsequently sued before starting a second batch. The glasses, the black turtle neck, the salt and pepper beard, the blue jeans and the new balance sneakers — that is Steve Jobs' look and you don't even have to consider the smug look or the iPhone 4 in his hand while standing in a classic press event spotlight pose. So far, this notice for copyright infringement only exists for the 'SJ figurine' (no mention of Apple or Jobs in the store listing) but it appears other companies are allowing MIC Gadget some leeway with trademarks or perhaps they just haven't noticed yet. Could it be that Apple is just concerned that their followers are purchasing lead-painted false idols?"
In the People's Republic of China, rights of personality are established by statute. according to article 99 and 100 of the General Principle of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the right of name and the right of image are protected. It is prohibited to use other's image for commercial use without the person's consent.
Has Apple trademarked Jobs' image? Or is there some kind of international law that covers selling the likeness of someone without their permission?
I'm not being snarky, I genuinely don't know.
I had this same thought, and further, I'm pretty confident that there's no trademark issue here. Apple doesn't make figurines. The whole thing is a caricature and doesn't threaten the computer business in any way. Now, if Apple WERE in the action figure business, or had entered into a contract with someone who was, then we might have an issue of greater importance.
Look more closely at the base. It's the shape of the Apple logo. For sure, that's Apple's most important trademark. And trademarks have to be protected.
If you follow enough links, it shows a snippit of the C&D email they received:
The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this, is Apple making a competing figurine that they're losing sales on?
the figurine is sitting on a big perfectly Apple-logo-shaped stand, the device in the figurine's hand has an iPhone UI sticker, and again, Apple logo on its back.
Not suing is setting a precedent that you can sell, literally, Apple branded merchandise without Apple's involvement.
Allowing people to make Apple-like products and Steve Jobs-like products also means Apple is losing control over the message of what Apple says to people.
The only way to not say something wrong to people, is to never say anything, and as we know Apple is notoriously tight-lipped. If third parties shape Apple's brand and perception, they lose a huge advantage they have in the moment in terms of control.
Apple is an extremely valuable brand, and you surely realize if they let one company sell these, thousands will follow soon.
Of course, many other companies may choose to ignore it, but that is not a problem of "morality". It's a matter of choice: Apple have the right under law to avoid those figures being produced, and they're using their rights.
Not suing is setting a precedent that you can sell, literally, Apple branded merchandise without Apple's involvement.
But the same company is, literally, already doing that!
$ make available
Keep in mind Trademark rights carry an affirmative duty to police the mark. If you allow permissive, unrestricted commercial use of your marks by others, courts can later use that against you when you try and bring a legitimate trademark suit against a party that is really infringing, like making knockoff "iPud" music players or something.
So, what is the test to determine what a company needs to vigorously police against, versus what is non-infringing use? No one really knows. This is why companies go after anyone/everyone like they do. The court may end up saying, "There's not TM issue here, everyone go home." but you can't know that before you litigate. So, it is actually perfectly rational for them to sue. Even if their claims have no merit, they have satisfied their requirement to police the mark by challenging others' uses. When the real infringement occurs, they will be able to assert their rights and win.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
The essence of trademarks is that they cannot be used to impersonate a brand.
In most cases the specific industry involved is very important, but in some cases the infringing company can be in a completely different industry and still infringe.
For example, if some guy named George Apple starts a furniture business and decides to name it "Apple's Fine Furniture", then there isn't going to be any trademark infringement. It's obvious he doesn't care about Apple Inc's product image, he simply named the company after himself.
Now, if that same guy decides to make chairs that happen to look exactly like the Apple logo, then he is almost certainly guilty of trademark infringement. In that case, he is clearly trying to use Apple Inc's brand to boost his own sales.
This case would fall into the latter. The figurine maker is clearly trying to use Apple's brand to boost their own sales, and that violates trademark law. If it were just a guy on a platform in a turtle-neck holding a cell phone it would be no problem. But the Apple logo as the platform makes it clear they are attempting to profit off of Apple's brand name.
Likenesses of people are ok, as far as I am aware, but logos are not.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller