VW Had US Customs Seize and Destroy a JDM Van for Looking Like the Classic Bus
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
[1] https://www.primoclassicsllc.com/vehicles/370/1996-subaru-sa...
There are many other differences, which for a van that apparently cost at most $9k seems unlikely to be accounted for as modifications. That said, $9k to buy and import a van from Japan? That's amazing.
All they had to do was take off the VW logo and ship it separately to go undetected by customs.
Barg chose a middle ground and petitioned VW and customs for a compromise. He
asked to be given access to the van to remove the VW badge, alter its paint,
restore its Subaru branding, and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
VW didn’t budge.
/sarcasm
I don’t don’t get the part about “authorized to wear”. Just matters if the logo itself was an authorized production.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
IANAL.
People do this all the time with quilts out of tshirts/sweatshirts. Seems fairly reasonable to me that you could re-assemble a shirt using previous shirts so long as you only make the claim that you're the manufactorer.
if you install windows onto a macbook you don't have to scratch out the apple logo.
More specific to this actual case, people have fake badges on their cars all the time. I'm not a car person so I can't spot them but just because somebody's SUV has a performance package badge doesn't mean it has anything else that was part of the performance package.
---
Re-badging seems to be a better term to search on but it only brings up random forums saying its legal but generally without any citation.
The fact that your shirt has a Nike logo means that you're claiming it's a Nike shirt. If you were to buy a shirt with an offensive statement on it, then get a Nike swoosh from a different shirt and sew it on, would you be surprised that Nike's upset?
> People do this all the time with quilts
Does Nike make quilts? There's your answer!
Don't necessarily agree on that. To go back to the article, the guy very clearly claimed it was a Subaru.
> If you were to buy a shirt with an offensive statement on it, then get a Nike swoosh from a different shirt and sew it on, would you be surprised that Nike's upset?
I wouldn't be surprised but I also don't think Nike has any standing to do anything about that. I could also just wear Nike clothing and start a youtube channel where I do fake beheadings and Nike probably wouldn't like that association either but again they wouldn't have standing.
I'm sure Underarmour didn't like the Patriot's coach's outfit but his clothes, his outfit (he cut the sleeves off rather jaggedly to intentionally look trashy).
> Does Nike make quilts? There's your answer!
So your argument is that you can use somebody's trademark as long as you're in a different business than they are?
I think the argument of not claiming you're that company is a much better one. The dude's not running a dealership where he's passing off Subarus as BMWs. He's just legally acquired individual components and assembled them into a frankenstein car. Short of some patent infringement for that assembly I don't see a problem.
I think also if you buy a computer case that came with an Intel Inside badging and you replace the CPU/Motherboard to be AMD then you don't have to scratch out all of the Intel badging. But you also can't sell it as an Intel system.
It's their trademarked logo on an item that they didn't approve its use on.
> So your argument is that you can use somebody's trademark as long as you're in a different business than they are?
It's not just my argument, it's the USPTO's: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/scope-protection
In the end, I have to say that I don't have a problem with what this guy did (well, using the VW logo was dumb!). But at the same time, CBP did exactly what they're expected to do and so did Volkswagen. I just don't understand why anyone is surprised by their behavior.
I'm pretty sure this is trademark infringement. That could pass for a real VW product, and could create confusion in the market. I don't think the Fair Use clause would apply here since the symbol is pretty clearly being used in the same way as a trademark (i.e. not as part of an art installation or something).
> if you install windows onto a macbook you don't have to scratch out the apple logo.
The hardware is still Apple, so you can still have the logo. The OS and hardware are two separate products. You can make modifications to a product with a trademark on it, you just can't add a trademarked logo to things. You'd also have to be selling it to infringe on the trademark.
> More specific to this actual case, people have fake badges on their cars all the time. I'm not a car person so I can't spot them but just because somebody's SUV has a performance package badge doesn't mean it has anything else that was part of the performance package.
To be guilty of federal trademark infringement, they'd have to meet one of these criteria:
1. advertising by the alleged infringer in more than one state;
2. interstate movement of goods bearing an infringing mark from manufacturer to seller;
3. sending a product to another state for the purpose of registering a trademark;
4. advertising in newspapers that have interstate distribution, on billboards near interstate highways, or on radio or television stations with an interstate broadcasting range.
IIUC, "In Commerce" is a statutory requirement and the guys van doesn't meet any of the 4. It's a personal van after all so I don't get why you see the fake badages on a SUV as any different than this van.
1. The dude isn't advertising. 2. The van is not being moved from manufacturer (Subaru) to seller. 3. The van is not being registered for a trademark 4. The dude isn't advertising.
A company’s copyright of a product should irrevocably end when they are no longer providing that product for sale. And not just a token amount, but in sufficient quantities such that any backlog of customers does not exceed 365 days of waiting to have their order fulfilled.
We do need to rethink what we're wasting before we act.