Approaches to Legal Protection

 
Hall/Perdue
 
Avatar
 
 
Hall/Perdue
Total Posts:  179
Joined  16-12-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2007 06:32
 

What exactly constitutes interstate trade?

I live in Toledo, which is on the border of Ohio and Michigan.  Nearly every local establishment does business in both states.  Several come to mind that use CoA as their Logo.

 

Could a person establish a very small firm that does business in two states, and have a legitimate claim to trademark protection for a CoA?

 

It is my understanding that an auto transmission repair shop could register a CoA as its trademark, but a gourmet food distributor could also register the same CoA as a trademark since it is in a different industry.  Is this understanding correct?

 

It is also my understanding that if a firm wishes to have universal protection for its trademark, it must pay additional fees to protect the trademark in several industries.  Therefore, protecting Mickey Mouse as a trademark, is a very expensive endeavor.  Is this understanding correct?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 January 2007 14:09
 

Trademarks are also registered by the states, usually the secretary of state’s office.  So you can have and register a trademark whether or not you’re engaged in interstate commerce, as long as you’re engaged in (and use the mark in) commerce of some kind.  It’s only the federal Patent and Trademark Office that requires interstate involvement.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
08 January 2007 15:59
 

Registration of copyright or trademark or whatever, does IMO serve a useful purpose even given the limitations of relying on it for legal protection.  That is. it does create a legal (permanent governmental) record that you used thus & such arms at a given point in time.  Whether or not we ever get enforceable legal protection, the registration is conclusive as to prior use in asserting a "moral" or "good manners" deterrent to later duplication by others.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
12 March 2009 22:21
 

This thread is very old, and I hope as a new participant of the forum I am not committing a faux paus in reviving it however, I am personally fascinated by the issue and thought to pose an additional question.

Literary works are protected by copyright law, yes?  A haiku poem is very short (much like a blazon), not well understood (much like a blazon), and a form of literary art (concievably like a blazon).

 

Could one have legal recourse if another claimed ownership of such a work as a haiku?  I mean, you cannot stop someone from reading your haiku in public (and why would you want to, it would be an honor), however, you might have some grounds for stopping an individual from claiming to be the creator and owner of that haiku.  I’ts "intellectual property" (I think they call it) right?

 

If the answer is yes then, perhaps a blazon could be considered in the same light?  Recording a blazon (perhaps along with an image of the emblazonment) at their city/county courthouse would be sufficient at the least to have a legal copy to prove date of authorship?  Maybe even create the blazon as a published work?

 

I may be misled, but it appears to me that the blazon is what is important as being owned, not some artists rendering of the emblazonment.  In fact, claiming ownership of someone else’s art in itself as being a creation of your own would be incorrect.  You only own the idea (which is expressed by the blazon), not the rendering of that idea right?  You can even own the canvas and dried paints which the artist has sold you, but you may not claim that you were the artist?

 

I don’t know, just trying to see if I can approach this from a different angle so as to gain perspective.  I do apologize for my tendancy to ramble-type a bit.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 March 2009 22:49
 

Jeffrey (or do you prefer JB?) -

First, welcome to the group.  No faux pas at all in reopening this perennial topic.

 

Rather than rambling on, let me refer you to our page on armorial registrations, http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Domestic#toc4

 

Unlike a haiku, a blazon is not a creative work, merely the technical description of a creative work.  As you’ll see, there are also other drawbacks to copyright as a means of protecting an armorial design.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
13 March 2009 00:06
 

Thankyou for linking me Mister McMillan!

This explains very well (and was one of the few portions of the site I had overlooked as yet).

 

(also, Jeff, Jeffrey, JB, or even "hey you with the funny head" are all gratiously appreciated forms of address, thankyou! =-D )

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
13 March 2009 08:44
 

Joseph McMillan;67328 wrote:

Unlike a haiku, a blazon is not a creative work, merely the technical description of a creative work.

Oh well well well, and an emblazonment is a mere technical graphic representation of the same creative work smile

I accept your remark as pragmatically justified but essentially - excuse me - I do not find it essentially true. Indeed the "basic creative work" is to design arms, that is, to create a heraldic concept, the rest being its verbal or non-verbal "incarnation".

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
13 March 2009 09:20
 

The key to copyright is the protection of creativity. That is why a telephone book cannot be copyrighted as facts are not subject to protection and placing them in alphabetic order is not creative.

A blazon is, ideally, an accurate description of the arms but not creative itself. An emblazonment, however, can be creative as any other picture drawn from a verbal description.

 

Besides, "protection" of arms means preventing use by others, not so much preventing truthful depictions as "Arms of X"

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
13 March 2009 16:32
 

Jay Bohn;67353 wrote:

A blazon is, ideally, an accurate description of the arms but not creative itself. An emblazonment, however, can be creative as any other picture drawn from a verbal description.

This is as correct as leaving no conceptual space for protection of the non-pictorial heraldic creativity.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
13 March 2009 19:38
 

I am not an artist. When I design arms the creative component is the blason. As far as that goes any number of artists can then emblazon it in their own particular way. Each emblazonment is a creative work and each can be protected. Why cannot my unique composition of a blazon be considered a creative work . (I appreciate that someone else could develop a different equivalent blazon. I appreciate that there are other problems with copyright for arms.)

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
13 March 2009 21:32
 

George Lucki;67373 wrote:

I am not an artist. When I design arms the creative component is the blason. As far as that goes any number of artists can then emblazon it in their own particular way. Each emblazonment is a creative work and each can be protected. Why cannot my unique composition of a blazon be considered a creative work . (I appreciate that someone else could develop a different equivalent blazon. I appreciate that there are other problems with copyright for arms.)


Mister Lucki, I have been contemplating that very question myself.  At the moment, I’m deferring to the notion that technically, it could be argued that the blazon is indeed viewable as a creative work, however, technical arguments aside, the spirit of the blazon seems more and more through this thread to indicate the medieval version of a classification system (such like the naming of species in the wild).  To carry the analogy, once a new species is named, everyone may use the same name to identify that critter, however, the honor and intent of the name of that critter reflects the person who discovered and named it.  Again, sort of looking for analogies to help myself get a handle on both the pragmatic aspects as well as the ideal.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
14 March 2009 11:39
 

But of course any unique armorial design that I create in blazon are not an existing species newly found in the wild but a new creation. I am not suggesting that all drawings of arms consistent with the blazon are thereby protected but the the blason itself sought be a creative work capable of protection (not that this is at all a good way of protecting arms).

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2009 05:03
 

Mister Lucki,

Indeed, the ideal would be that the actual blazon would be protectable.  Unfortunately, it seems that the blazon is more of a "middle-man" representing a slippery concept which is the actual heart of the creative source.

 

The rendered emblazonment is a product of the blazon, which is a product of the "concept" of the emblazonment, that is, the identity invoking composition.  It is seemingly a dragon chasing it’s tail.

 

If one could convince a large enough audience of enthusiasts, that blazoning IS the concept which the creativity issues from, I suppose maybe the ideal might be achieved.

 

For what it’s worth, you have my vote anyhow! :D