A Broke Fan Owes $5,400 For Pokemon-Themed Party Posters

Jason Koebler writes: A fan has been ordered by a Washington judge to pay the Pokémon Company International $5,400 for copyright infringement after attempting to throw a Pokemon-themed party earlier this summer. Even though he canceled the free event, the Pokemon Company successfully sued Ramar Larkin Jones, for using an image of Pikachu to promote the Unofficial PAX Pokemon Kickoff Party.

Comments

If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[ldobehardcore]

If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans, I shudder to think of how they treat their enemies and competitors. What a fucking shitty thing to do. These people love Pokemon enough to have a big fun party kicking of PAX, and all Nintendo cares about is extracting it's fucking pound of flesh and in the process looking like a big, wobbly, flaccid dildo. In other words: Go fuck yourselves Nintendo, if you can't treat your fans well, then you deserve no fans. You bunch of litigious morons.

Re:If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[whoever57]

Hate to be a dick, but you DID charge admission using another company's IP.

Whoever posted that is a dick. According to the Gofundme page, he only charged $2, which was intended to cover the cost of prizes for the cosplay contest. No huge profit involved.

To the parent poster: you also are a dick, for posting this drivel, which misrepresents the situation.

Re:If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[Gryle]

The fan launched the GoFundMe page because the litigants are insisting on a lump-sum payment. From ArsTechnica "Jones even offered to pay the full $4,000 over the course of a year, but Pokémon's lawyers from the firm of Davis Wright Tremaine wouldn't budge on the deadline."

Re:If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[Gryle]

According to ArsTechnica, tickets were $2.00 each and covered the expenses. This wasn't a for-profit endeavor. Now, as Jones is an event organizer, he may have been using this party as something to add to his resume.

Re:If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[The Rizz]

"Defending your trademark" does not mean "suing anyone who doesn't pay you to use it". As long as there's no brand confusion being caused it doesn't need to be defended. As per the Wikipedia article: "It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential."

Arguably, you can even let infringement go in many larger instances as long as they're not believed to cause brand confusion. Look at Star Wars - George Lucas has allowed fan-made works to do a helluvalot that would get them sued by just about any other IP-based company out there. He's even commented on fan works, showing that he is quite aware of them. None of this permissiveness with his trademarks has ever led to him coming even close to losing the brand.

Re: If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[lpevey]

Truth of a statement is a valid legal defense against libel accusations in the U.S. And many other Western countries, but not in the UK. That is what the poster was referencing.

Re: If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans...

[KGIII]

My wife and I divorced and my kids came to live with me after they figured out that I had the coolest toys. My son was into these things. He was still fairly young at the time. For a while I had him convinced that they got the name for the show from that period when you sit on the toilet and aren't actually able to go. He was convinced it was a "peek-a-pooh."

Yes, yes he does sometimes abhor my very existence but I don't regret it one bit. I am still waiting for the right time. for my daughter to be around a few of her friends, so that I can ask her to explain what "twerking" is.

This is my parental obligation. They're both adults now but I still have my job to do. I can't wait until they have children. I'm going to buy them each a drum kit and spoil them beyond belief. That part is not my obligation. That part is purely revenge. If you have kids, you might understand.

Hahahahahahaha

[Jailbrekr]

Gotta catch them all!

Business

[darkain]

The big piece of information that always gets neglected in these articles is that they didn't sue because he was throwing a party, but because he runs a business which hosts party events and then used Pokémon to promote such an event. Here is the company's trashy Facebook page. "Fans" and "Businesses" are NOT the same thing. https://www.facebook.com/Rucku...

Re:Is it a good game?

[ruir]

What is it wrong with you? Boycott the bastards.

Re:Marketing 101

[TWX]

Hahahahaha!

Oh, wait... you're serious?

As long as there are MBAs looking how to squeeze the last dime out of every potential customer and there are lawyers concerned about the loss of trademark through failure to defend that trademark there will be these kinds of lawsuits.

Quite honestly, I'm amazed that armies of lawyers haven't descended upon ComiCons and other fandom gatherings to sue the shit out of all of the artists and merchants selling unlicensed comic book derivative works. You wander around the dealers' rooms at the big cons and there are booths upon booths of artists with their own takes on Phoenix or The Hulk or Supergirl or any other hot comic book character of the moment. Based on current law I'm amazed that the continued creation of these unlicensed derivative works hasn't given the trademark holders panic that they could lose control over their characters. Indeed, it appears that they already have lost control over them, it simply hasn't been declared through trial yet.

Given what lawyers cost, I'm really surprised that the judgement against him is as small as it is. From the lawyers' perspective this is chump-change even if it would bankrupt half the households in the country to suddenly owe $5400.