HG and Robotech Debates

[EXO]

Alright, that stuff is just way off topic and off putting... gonna lock the thread soon.

[taksraven]

OK. Trying to steer this thread away from approaching doom.

Would it be even possible for them to say or use the name "Macross" in the Robotech LAM?

Taksraven

[azrael]

Would it be even possible for them to say or use the name "Macross" in the Robotech LAM?

Yeah. They have the trademark so they can use it.

[heishiromitsurugi]

Yeah. They have the trademark so they can use it.

But wouldn't that exclude the Japanese market? Sure, movies can have different names in different countries, but the opening titles and logos stay mostly the same.

[VFTF1]

Ok - here's a very on topic question from me

A while back, Seto explained that HG has the rights to merchandise from the Macross TV show, which includes the designs of the Destroids, while Big West owns the rights to the shows themselves. He explained this in the context of the Mechawarrior question, and whether or not the owners of Mechawarrior could license the destroids directly from BW. He explained that since video games fall under the merchandise category, then HG was the license holder for that.

So...here's my question:

For the sake of theoretical argument, let us say that the owners of the Mechawarrior video game make a Mechawarrior MOVIE. Let us also say that BW grants them a license for the Destroid designs to be used in the Mechawarriors movie.

Now...

The movie is made....with Destroid designs used in the Mechawarrior movie ...and .... then the owners of the Mechawarrior franchise decide to make TOYS based off the Mechawarrior movie... and one of them is of course based on the licensed design of the Destroid.

Now - the toy will be merchandise - but merchandise from the Mechawarriors movie, which designs were licensed by BW.... So in such a case - could Harmony Gold claim that the license to those designs belong to them?

Hardly. Because they are suddenly part of the Mechawarrior movie, not the video game (aka not principally merchandise, but principally a film property).

So... what then? Does this make sense?

And what does this suggest?

Pete

---------

MEMODOMINION2342355 SAYS I'LL BE BACK!

[TheLoneWolf]

For the sake of theoretical argument, let us say that the owners of the Mechawarrior video game make a Mechawarrior MOVIE. Let us also say that BW grants them a license for the Destroid designs to be used in the Mechawarriors movie.

Now...

The movie is made....with Destroid designs used in the Mechawarrior movie ...and .... then the owners of the Mechawarrior franchise decide to make TOYS based off the Mechawarrior movie... and one of them is of course based on the licensed design of the Destroid.

Now - the toy will be merchandise - but merchandise from the Mechawarriors movie, which designs were licensed by BW.... So in such a case - could Harmony Gold claim that the license to those designs belong to them?

Good question. Yes, Big West could license the Tomahawk likeness for use in a Mechwarror movie, but Catalyst Game Labs would not be able to sell Tomahawks from the movie. Merchandising rights are merchandising rights.

Think of the old Jetfire toy. As well all know, Hasbro was able to sell Jetfire toys in the USA under a license from Tatsunoko/Matsushiro. But just because Hasbro had a Jetfire/VF-1 toy under its belt, they still weren't legally allowed to include Jetfire's (or the VF-1's) likeness in the actual Transformers cartoon because Tatsunoko only had the merchandising rights.

MEMODOMINION2342355 SAYS I'LL BE BACK!

I hope that's not a promise.

[VFTF1]

Think of the old Jetfire toy. As well all know, Hasbro was able to sell Jetfire toys in the USA under a license from Tatsunoko/Matsushiro. But just because Hasbro had a Jetfire/VF-1 toy under its belt, they still weren't legally allowed to include Jetfire's (or the VF-1's) likeness in the actual Transformers cartoon because Tatsunoko only had the merchandising rights.

Actually, your example just seems to complicate things even further. How was it possible for Hasbro to sell Jetfire under license from Tatsunoko when it was clearly similar to a VF-1 for which supposedly HG had merchandising rights?

Answer: because according to Hasbro, the VF-1 look alike they were selling was supposed to represent the character Jetfire, who is owned by Hasbro, and therefore it's not "Robotech" merchandise.

In other words....

Let's say I opened a company in the USA and called it My Crap Movies. I then went ahead and made movies with a random white jet that turns into a random white robot.

Then BW magically sells me the merchandising rights and Yamato lends me the molds to the VF-1.

I then make Yamato VF-1s available in America in boxes which say "MY Crap Movies"

Likewise with Mechawarrior - they could sell the Destroids as merchandise based on the Mechawarrior movie (hypothetical) just like Hasbor sold a VF-1 by claiming it was based on a trademarked Transformer...

Or was that just a case of HG being asleep at the wheel?

Or maybe of HG not wanting to risk taking on Hasbro in a legal fight?

Because ... you know...it's easier to send C&D orders to smaller vendors and video game companies than to fight a court battle with Hasbro?

I dunno...

Either way it's all grasping at straws because usually when a cartoon or movie is successful, then even if there are legal liabilities along the road (and these days there almost always are), the company just treats these as sunk costs. The movies and toys still get made because the money made off of those is bigger than any law suit will ever cost...

In HG's case, I'm not sure the same can be said...

Pete

[TheLoneWolf]

Actually, your example just seems to complicate things even further. How was it possible for Hasbro to sell Jetfire under license from Tatsunoko when it was clearly similar to a VF-1 for which supposedly HG had merchandising rights?

It's not complicated. Hasbro cut their deal with Tatsunoko/Matsushiro for the 1/55 VF-1 before Harmony Gold did.

Harmony Gold eventually did cut a deal with Tatsunoko for merchandising rights, which is how that chubby non-transforming Super VF-1 got released in the 80's. But Harmony Gold was never able to get the 1/55 VF-1 since Matsushiro (and later Bandai) already made a deal with Hasbro.

Answer: because according to Hasbro, the VF-1 look alike they were selling was supposed to represent the character Jetfire, who is owned by Hasbro, and therefore it's not "Robotech" merchandise.

I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you trying to explain the color differences, the Jetfire/Skyfire relationship, or what?

Likewise with Mechawarrior - they could sell the Destroids as merchandise based on the Mechawarrior movie (hypothetical)

Going back to your original question.

If the Tomahawk were to appear in a Mechwarrior movie, you would see a Big West copyright on all the movie's marketing materials because the Tomahawk is the intellectual property of Big West. And since the Tomahawk is still Big West's IP, Catalyst Game Labs would not be able to sell Tomahawk movie toys. Catalyst could ask Big West for the Tomahawk's merchandising rights in the USA, but Big West would have to tell them that they gave away those rights to Tatsunoko back in 1982. Catalyst could go rogue and sell Destroid movie toys anyways, but Harmony Gold/Tatsunoko could easily file an injunction since they still have the Tomahawk's exclusive merchandising rights in the USA.

Edited September 29, 2009 by TheLoneWolf

[VFTF1]

Yeah, but in my fictional-hypothetical question, BW would just give those IP rights to Catalyst for the Mechawarrior movie.

The point here is simply that BW can give rights to Macross designs to companies in the USA for movies that are not named "Macross" but have some other names. HG only has merchandising rights to Macross, but it doesn't have IP rights to the designs and the films. If the designs from Macross were licensed to an American firm which made a movie or a tv series called "X = anything except "Macross" or "Robotech" then...technically that firm could then sell merchandise based on that film, licensed by BW...and that merchandise could theoretically be...say...Yamato valkyrie.

This is the fictional/hypothetical that I raise. And it is an open question.

As to Hasbro.... I did not know that they had that license prior to HG. That's strange. Didn't Robotech air prior to Transformers - or at the very least prior to the introduction of Jetfire? In any case - my only point with that is that I figured that HG couldn't touch Hasbro's Jetfire toy because it was sold as a toy representation of Jetfire and not of a a VF-1S from "Robotech/Macross"

I dunno...

I guess it's easier for me to post bodybuilders This stuff makes my brain hurt

Pete

[TheLoneWolf]

Yeah, but in my fictional-hypothetical question, BW would just give those IP rights to Catalyst for the Mechawarrior movie.

LOL! Now I see your point. That's a pretty amusing situation.

Yeah, I suppose Big West could go off their rocker and completely give away the Marcross intellectual property to Catalyst. But Big West's agreement with Tatsunoko would still have to be honored. It's just like Disney buying Marvel. Even though Disney now owns the IP to all of Marvel's characters, Disney can't make Wolverine toys if Marvel already had an exclusive agreement with company X to sell Wolverine toys.

[VFTF1]

LOL! Now I see your point. That's a pretty amusing situation.

Happy you see my point.

Now let's take it one step further then.

This basically means that Intellectual Property rights trump merchandising rights. This actually is logical. After all - merchandising rights relates only to merchandising, and merchandising relates only to merchandise which is based on something. The thing that merchandise is based on is the Intellectual Property.

If Big West retains the intellectual Property rights to Macross, then it can go about producing more Macross series and movies and licensing the merchandise for those series and movies.

Next hypothetical question:

Let's say Big West makes a new Macross series called...oh...I dunno..Macross Frontier, featuring new mecha and pilots and so forth and so on. However, this new series is thematically tied to the original Macross series, which itself is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Robotech.

Now...

How can Harmony Gold make the claim that Yamato can't sell Macross merchandise in the USA, when they actually don't have the merchandising rights to Macross, but to only that portion of Macross which falls under the general guise of Robotech - or the "first part" of Robotech, which happens to be Macross.

But the Macross which is a part of Robotech has nothing to do with the REAL Macross from Japan. Sure, the pictures are exactly the same, but the dialogue is completely different, and the plot - particularly if looked at via the novels and the remaining two segments of Robotech which themselves were originally completely different series - makes the show something totally different.

In fact - it's so different, that Harmony Gold can legitamitely claim to own the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS for...Robotech. Robotech - yes. Macross -no. Why? Because Robotech is something that they, for better or for worse, like it or not, thought up. Macross was just one of thre canvasses that they used to tell their story, and I would argue that what they got from Tats was the FOOTAGE but not Macross.

It's just like Hasbro with the Jetfire toy. They got the VF-1S mold. Yes. Fine. But did they get the VF-1S? NO.

Hasbro just got the mold - but they couldn't say "this is Roy Fokker's VF-1S. He's now part of the Transformers universe. They got the mold, which they treated as a "blank slate" and onto which they imprinted their own intellectual property - Transformers Jetfire.

Do you now see Hasbro suing Toynami for making Robotech Veritechs that look just like "their" G1 Jetfire? No. I realize this is partially because Hasbro has better things to do and partially because Hasbro likely no longer has the license for the VF-1 anyways (I think?) - but just as a hypothetical - would they be able to do it?

So - when a vendor in the USA wants to sell a Yamato Macross product from DYRL, they are not violating HG's merchandising rights, because HG owns merchandising rights to Robotech, a part of which is Macross. But Yamato DYRL valkyrie are not from Robotech. They are from Macross. Macross is a different entity altogether.

To contest that Macross is the same as Robotech, and therefore that a product which is meant to celebrate the Macross universe is an infringement of merchandising rights for a product meant to represent Robotech is messed up. Yamato is producing its' stuff under license from BW which holds the IP rights to Macross.

HG holds the IP rights to Robotech and the merchandising rights to Macross which is a part of Robotech and only IN THE CAPACITY TO WHICH IT IS A PART OF ROBOTECH.

I know this is kind of a shaky point to be making - but I get the feeling that I'm on to something and feel like Haruhi Master Detective Suzumiya - I must pursue my silly quest...

I just basically think that without Intellectual Property rights - merchandising rights don't mean very much. The only reason HG's merchandising rights mean anything is because they own the IP to ROBOTECH. Without Robotech as IP, they would only have the merchandising rights to a Japanese anime - which actually would be a far broader category.

I dunno...I'm tired. My brain hurts again. But the example with Mechawarrior the hypothetical movie got me thinking that there are way more holes in HG's legal argument than people allow for.

And that we've been so focused on demonstrating that they only own the merchandising right to Macross that we've kind of let slide the implication of this - namely that owning merchandising rights to something that you have no IP rights to means didly really, since the IP owner can just say that he sold you the merchandising right to one variation of the IP. Heck - in this case the IP owner didn't do anything - Tats just had broadcasting rights and HG acquired merchandising rights as part of its' package deal for broadcasting ...broadcasting what? Broadcasting MACROSS? No. Broadcasting ROBOTECH.

This is why they won't show us the contract guys.

It's because the contract can't possibly be about Macross.

Think about it. HG might have initially wanted to bring over Macross - but in Robotech Art 3 it says that due to how the TV syndication market in the US was structured - they couldn't - they needed more content - so they had to grab Southern Cross and Mospedea.

Now.. think more - did they grab these anime and sign contracts that said "we're going to be able to show Macross in the USA" and then "we're going to be able to show Southern Cross" and then "we're going to be able to show Mospedea?"

My guess (and I'm just guessing here) is NO. Why? Because since that's not what they did, and since Tats never sued them or complained that they were supposed to do something else - it appears that both parties agreed to the USE of the FOOTAGE from three different anime to construct one new cartoon show "tailored" to the American market.

That said - what's in the contract?

ROBOTECH.

Not Macross. Not Mospedea. Not Souther cross.

ROBOTECH.

The contract stipulates that the footage from these three anime can be used in the creation of ROBOTECH.

And this makes sense because if they were to just get the right to bring over Macross, then they would not be able to create Robotech because it would violate the IP of BW.

Huh?

Well - think about it this way...

Macross is its' own show. Just like..say...Star Wars is its' own movie.

What if I got Geroge Lucas' permission to use footage from Star Wars and dub over it, and combine it with dubbed over footage from two other unrelated shows - say...Star Trek and Alf (and to name the combination STAR TREKS OF AFLONSO). And I put together a story line linking all three of these seperate stories and got the rights to show this in my island nation of Koo Koo Cloudy Land. Question: do I therefore have international merchandising rights to Star Wars, Star Trek and Alf....or just to STAR TREKS OF ALFONSO?

I contend that the only way that such a contract could possibly be put together is to spell out in plane language that HG has the right to ROBOTECH, which is composed of these three anime to which TATS as a studio had the right to their FOOTAGE - and that's all.

And this is why HG won't show us the contract.

And this is also why HG likes sending out C&Ds but doesn't actually go to court with anybody unless it's somebody with a very small interest in the matter and not much money to pay for expensive lawyers.

See -HG flexes its' legal muscle very selectively. And anybody can write a C&D - but let's see them follow through and slog through court battles? Let's see them present the legal basis (the contract) upon which they make the claim.

It won't happen because the contract itself has to be about Robotech and not about Macorss. And the argument HG has kept on using when bullying on Yamato products and retailers selling those has been "oh - we own the merchandising rights to Macross."

Really?

No. They own the merchandising rights to ROBOTECH a part of which is Macross - but as clearly demonstrated by the Mechawarrior example I gave - BW owns the IP and can license the designs from Macross to anybody it wants to - license as a film/series property and not as "merchandise" per se. Now this ipso facto means that Harmony Gold DOESN'T own the merchandising rights to Macross - but only to Robotech.

If this isn't clear - I'll try to write it more clearly - because I know I'm kind of all over the place - But I hope somebody sees what I'm getting at?...

Pete

[taksraven]

Happy you see my point.

Now let's take it one step further then.

This basically means that Intellectual Property rights trump merchandising rights. This actually is logical. After all - merchandising rights relates only to merchandising, and merchandising relates only to merchandise which is based on something. The thing that merchandise is based on is the Intellectual Property.

If Big West retains the intellectual Property rights to Macross, then it can go about producing more Macross series and movies and licensing the merchandise for those series and movies.

Next hypothetical question:

Let's say Big West makes a new Macross series called...oh...I dunno..Macross Frontier, featuring new mecha and pilots and so forth and so on. However, this new series is thematically tied to the original Macross series, which itself is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Robotech.

Now...

How can Harmony Gold make the claim that Yamato can't sell Macross merchandise in the USA, when they actually don't have the merchandising rights to Macross, but to only that portion of Macross which falls under the general guise of Robotech - or the "first part" of Robotech, which happens to be Macross.

But the Macross which is a part of Robotech has nothing to do with the REAL Macross from Japan. Sure, the pictures are exactly the same, but the dialogue is completely different, and the plot - particularly if looked at via the novels and the remaining two segments of Robotech which themselves were originally completely different series - makes the show something totally different.

In fact - it's so different, that Harmony Gold can legitamitely claim to own the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS for...Robotech. Robotech - yes. Macross -no. Why? Because Robotech is something that they, for better or for worse, like it or not, thought up. Macross was just one of thre canvasses that they used to tell their story, and I would argue that what they got from Tats was the FOOTAGE but not Macross.

It's just like Hasbro with the Jetfire toy. They got the VF-1S mold. Yes. Fine. But did they get the VF-1S? NO.

Hasbro just got the mold - but they couldn't say "this is Roy Fokker's VF-1S. He's now part of the Transformers universe. They got the mold, which they treated as a "blank slate" and onto which they imprinted their own intellectual property - Transformers Jetfire.

Do you now see Hasbro suing Toynami for making Robotech Veritechs that look just like "their" G1 Jetfire? No. I realize this is partially because Hasbro has better things to do and partially because Hasbro likely no longer has the license for the VF-1 anyways (I think?) - but just as a hypothetical - would they be able to do it?

So - when a vendor in the USA wants to sell a Yamato Macross product from DYRL, they are not violating HG's merchandising rights, because HG owns merchandising rights to Robotech, a part of which is Macross. But Yamato DYRL valkyrie are not from Robotech. They are from Macross. Macross is a different entity altogether.

To contest that Macross is the same as Robotech, and therefore that a product which is meant to celebrate the Macross universe is an infringement of merchandising rights for a product meant to represent Robotech is messed up. Yamato is producing its' stuff under license from BW which holds the IP rights to Macross.

HG holds the IP rights to Robotech and the merchandising rights to Macross which is a part of Robotech and only IN THE CAPACITY TO WHICH IT IS A PART OF ROBOTECH.

I know this is kind of a shaky point to be making - but I get the feeling that I'm on to something and feel like Haruhi Master Detective Suzumiya - I must pursue my silly quest...

I just basically think that without Intellectual Property rights - merchandising rights don't mean very much. The only reason HG's merchandising rights mean anything is because they own the IP to ROBOTECH. Without Robotech as IP, they would only have the merchandising rights to a Japanese anime - which actually would be a far broader category.

I dunno...I'm tired. My brain hurts again. But the example with Mechawarrior the hypothetical movie got me thinking that there are way more holes in HG's legal argument than people allow for.

And that we've been so focused on demonstrating that they only own the merchandising right to Macross that we've kind of let slide the implication of this - namely that owning merchandising rights to something that you have no IP rights to means didly really, since the IP owner can just say that he sold you the merchandising right to one variation of the IP. Heck - in this case the IP owner didn't do anything - Tats just had broadcasting rights and HG acquired merchandising rights as part of its' package deal for broadcasting ...broadcasting what? Broadcasting MACROSS? No. Broadcasting ROBOTECH.

This is why they won't show us the contract guys.

It's because the contract can't possibly be about Macross.

Think about it. HG might have initially wanted to bring over Macross - but in Robotech Art 3 it says that due to how the TV syndication market in the US was structured - they couldn't - they needed more content - so they had to grab Southern Cross and Mospedea.

Now.. think more - did they grab these anime and sign contracts that said "we're going to be able to show Macross in the USA" and then "we're going to be able to show Southern Cross" and then "we're going to be able to show Mospedea?"

My guess (and I'm just guessing here) is NO. Why? Because since that's not what they did, and since Tats never sued them or complained that they were supposed to do something else - it appears that both parties agreed to the USE of the FOOTAGE from three different anime to construct one new cartoon show "tailored" to the American market.

That said - what's in the contract?

ROBOTECH.

Not Macross. Not Mospedea. Not Souther cross.

ROBOTECH.

The contract stipulates that the footage from these three anime can be used in the creation of ROBOTECH.

And this makes sense because if they were to just get the right to bring over Macross, then they would not be able to create Robotech because it would violate the IP of BW.

Huh?

Well - think about it this way...

Macross is its' own show. Just like..say...Star Wars is its' own movie.

What if I got Geroge Lucas' permission to use footage from Star Wars and dub over it, and combine it with dubbed over footage from two other unrelated shows - say...Star Trek and Alf (and to name the combination STAR TREKS OF AFLONSO). And I put together a story line linking all three of these seperate stories and got the rights to show this in my island nation of Koo Koo Cloudy Land. Question: do I therefore have international merchandising rights to Star Wars, Star Trek and Alf....or just to STAR TREKS OF ALFONSO?

I contend that the only way that such a contract could possibly be put together is to spell out in plane language that HG has the right to ROBOTECH, which is composed of these three anime to which TATS as a studio had the right to their FOOTAGE - and that's all.

And this is why HG won't show us the contract.

And this is also why HG likes sending out C&Ds but doesn't actually go to court with anybody unless it's somebody with a very small interest in the matter and not much money to pay for expensive lawyers.

See -HG flexes its' legal muscle very selectively. And anybody can write a C&D - but let's see them follow through and slog through court battles? Let's see them present the legal basis (the contract) upon which they make the claim.

It won't happen because the contract itself has to be about Robotech and not about Macorss. And the argument HG has kept on using when bullying on Yamato products and retailers selling those has been "oh - we own the merchandising rights to Macross."

Really?

No. They own the merchandising rights to ROBOTECH a part of which is Macross - but as clearly demonstrated by the Mechawarrior example I gave - BW owns the IP and can license the designs from Macross to anybody it wants to - license as a film/series property and not as "merchandise" per se. Now this ipso facto means that Harmony Gold DOESN'T own the merchandising rights to Macross - but only to Robotech.

If this isn't clear - I'll try to write it more clearly - because I know I'm kind of all over the place - But I hope somebody sees what I'm getting at?...

Pete

Fark. Bring back MEMO if we are going to go back to these Nordic saga's masquerading as posts! :P

Seriously though, I think regardless of whatever companies might try to do to get Macross released in your theoretical scenario's such as these, I bet that the HG Dalek would still send out cease & desist letters to all involved parties, even if HG was on shaky or really uncertain legal ground.

HG clearly has a policy that just the threat of legal action is normally enough for them to get their own way and "protect" their precious franchise.

The other problem is, would anybody go to this much trouble to get more Macross stuff released in the West? I doubt it.....

Taksraven

[azrael]

...too frakkin long to quote

I think someone needs sleep...

This is why they won't show us the contract guys.

It's because the contract can't possibly be about Macross.

Actually, companies don't have to show their contracts to anyone beyond the other party and/or representatives...unless you want to file a lawsuit, to which, then you might be able to see the contract...provided the court doesn't toss your claim out on the sidewalk. But otherwise, it's none of our business since we're not a party in that contract.

[Penguin]

That's a long and winding path, but I think I understand the point you're trying to make. While I agree that IP is more valuable than a simple merchandising right, I think you're assigning too much weight to IP's ability to trump the other.

How can Harmony Gold make the claim that Yamato can't sell Macross merchandise in the USA, when they actually don't have the merchandising rights to Macross, but to only that portion of Macross which falls under the general guise of Robotech - or the "first part" of Robotech, which happens to be Macross.

As I understand it, HG's rights would come down to two things:

1. They have merchandising rights to the designs featured in the footage of the original Macross series.

2. They trademarked the original Macross logo, and the name Macross as it applies to animated cartoon series delivered via a global computer network, television and satellite; prerecorded video cassettes and compact discs featuring music and animation from an animated cartoon series; computer game software based on an animated cartoon series; toy action figures; socks, footwear, shirts, sweatshirts, pajamas, warm-up suits, coats, shorts, gym shorts dresses, clothing belts, bandannas, sweaters, gloves, ear muffs, neckwear, ski wear, slacks, sun visors, suspenders, turtlenecks, vests, headwear, bathrobes, and beachwear.

So, if Yamato were to take the 1/60 Gamlin's VF-22S, remove the name "Macross" from any of the materials and replace the UN Spacy kite with something else (since that design is featured in the TV show), HG couldn't say boo as they don't have rights to Macross 7 designs and the toy wouldn't violate any of their trademarks or licensed designs.

But the Macross which is a part of Robotech has nothing to do with the REAL Macross from Japan. Sure, the pictures are exactly the same, but the dialogue is completely different, and the plot - particularly if looked at via the novels and the remaining two segments of Robotech which themselves were originally completely different series - makes the show something totally different.

True, but immaterial when it comes to the designs and trademarks.

I would argue that what they got from Tats was the FOOTAGE but not Macross.

Possibly. The story of the Robotech part of Macross is so derivative of the Macross story, HG's rights might need to cover reuse of those elements.

So - when a vendor in the USA wants to sell a Yamato Macross product from DYRL, they are not violating HG's merchandising rights, because HG owns merchandising rights to Robotech, a part of which is Macross. But Yamato DYRL valkyrie are not from Robotech. They are from Macross. Macross is a different entity altogether.

Well, DYRL uses the name Macross, which conflicts with HG's trademarks. So, that's a no-go there.

There is precedent for identical designs to be licenced to different companies, though.

I just basically think that without Intellectual Property rights - merchandising rights don't mean very much. The only reason HG's merchandising rights mean anything is because they own the IP to ROBOTECH. Without Robotech as IP, they would only have the merchandising rights to a Japanese anime - which actually would be a far broader category.

You're assigning too much power to the original IP, and too little to the merchandising rights. If Lucasfilm gave Hasbro exclusive North American rights to Star Wars toys, and then exclusive rights to Bandai to do the same in Japan, Hasbro would have every right to bar Bandai from selling their goods in North America. IP ownership has nothing to do with it. By the same token, due to the deal that was made with Tatsunoko, all those designs from the first Macross get to be HG's exclusively for merchandising. Doesn't matter who has the IP.

And that we've been so focused on demonstrating that they only own the merchandising right to Macross that we've kind of let slide the implication of this - namely that owning merchandising rights to something that you have no IP rights to means didly really, since the IP owner can just say that he sold you the merchandising right to one variation of the IP.

"Variation of the IP" is an interesting concept, and there are some precedents out there for similar things. Terminator, for example. Back in the 90s we had competing Terminator comics from Dark Horse and Marvel, since different companies owned the Terminator and T2 rights. Terminator was licensed to Dark Horse, and T2 to Marvel. Dark Horse could not reference anything from T2, since they only had the Terminator license. Marvel could only reference Terminator in so much as was referenced in T2. The Terminator designs and story elements that were shared between the two were usable by both companies (stylistic differences notwithstanding).

So, without the issue of the trademarks, there might be a precedent here. I don't know the gritty details of the Marvel/Dark Horse arrangement or how the copyrights worked in this case, so I could be completely off-base.

Perhaps, if someone were to license merchandising rights for Macross 7 designs in North America, they would have rights to Milia's VF-1. I'm not sure what legal recourse HG would have if they were to produce toys for that design. The design is obviously nearly identical to the one HG has rights to, but their rights extend from Macross TV footage only. You would have to obtain proper Macross 7 rights for North Armerica from the original holder. You can't just import Milia VF-1 toys from Japan and sell them in North America, violating HG's rights, unless you had legally been granted your own merchandising rights from the holder.

It is rendered moot by the trademarks though. The "Macross" name is an HG trademark for toys, and you couldn't release a toy featuring it without HG's approval. It would have to be named something else.

[Renato]

Perhaps, if someone were to license merchandising rights for Macross 7 designs in North America, they would have rights to Milia's VF-1. I'm not sure what legal recourse HG would have if they were to produce toys for that design. The design is obviously nearly identical to the one HG has rights to, but their rights extend from Macross TV footage only. You would have to obtain proper Macross 7 rights for North Armerica from the original holder. You can't just import Milia VF-1 toys from Japan and sell them in North America, violating HG's rights, unless you had legally been granted your own merchandising rights from the holder.

It is rendered moot by the trademarks though. The "Macross" name is an HG trademark for toys, and you couldn't release a toy featuring it without HG's approval. It would have to be named something else.

Does anyone remember Sunwards? Before Yamato USA came into being, Yamato set up a whole new proxy to distribute the 1/60 VF-1 Macross toys (the old ver.1's) after the whole Toycom fiasco. If I remember correctly, they got the merchandising rights directly from BigWest themselves and made a big deal about it, PLUS they did NOT ever advertise the products as "Macross", just "Transforming robot planes" or something, although they retained the VF-1S etc. designations, and the kite logo. They even advertised in Toyfare.

That ended up in the scrapper, though. Before the whole site and everything disappeared, I asked them by email if there was any issue with HG that was causing the delays, and they said yeah, HG blocked them.

So it looks like all/most of the loopholes we've been trying to find have already been acted upon and been shot down immediately by HG since 2000.

[Gubaba]

Does anyone remember Sunwards? Before Yamato USA came into being, Yamato set up a whole new proxy to distribute the 1/60 VF-1 Macross toys (the old ver.1's) after the whole Toycom fiasco. If I remember correctly, they got the merchandising rights directly from BigWest themselves and made a big deal about it, PLUS they did NOT ever advertise the products as "Macross", just "Transforming robot planes" or something, although they retained the VF-1S etc. designations, and the kite logo. They even advertised in Toyfare.

That ended up in the scrapper, though. Before the whole site and everything disappeared, I asked them by email if there was any issue with HG that was causing the delays, and they said yeah, HG blocked them.

So it looks like all/most of the loopholes we've been trying to find have already been acted upon and been shot down immediately by HG since 2000.

Y'know, in his memoirs, Bob Dylan is talking about the song "What Was It You Wanted?" (from the album Oh Mercy), and I can't remember the quote exactly, but he said something like the song was about people who are kind of soft and weak and passive and yet can really get in your way and cause a lot of hassles.

I nominate it to be HG's theme song.

[Einherjar]

Y'know, in his memoirs, Bob Dylan is talking about the song "What Was It You Wanted?" (from the album Oh Mercy), and I can't remember the quote exactly, but he said something like the song was about people who are kind of soft and weak and passive and yet can really get in your way and cause a lot of hassles.

I nominate it to be HG's theme song.

"Jaded" by Aerosmith fits too.

[TheLoneWolf]

So, if Yamato were to take the 1/60 Gamlin's VF-22S, remove the name "Macross" from any of the materials and replace the UN Spacy kite with something else (since that design is featured in the TV show), HG couldn't say boo as they don't have rights to Macross 7 designs and the toy wouldn't violate any of their trademarks or licensed designs.

Bullseye! Someone give that man a VF-22!

Mods, we've already answered these questions way back. Could one of you guys add my original post to the beginning of this thread? Or are we supposed to be retreading the same path?

[taksraven]

Bullseye! Someone give that man a VF-22!

Mods, we've already answered these questions way back. Could one of you guys add my original post to the beginning of this thread? Or are we supposed to be retreading the same path?

Maybe you could have your original post as your sig?? ;)

Taksraven

[Keith]

Going by the Shadow Chronicles bluray, and the complete and total lack of mention of so much of a hint of the word "Macross," in the special features, I'd wager that no, HG can not use the name "Macross" in new robotech productions. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Big West actually did launch some sort of legal action, or at the very least a cease and desist at HG after the whole Tatsunoko thing was resolved. While merch is obviously outside of that, HG's obvious fear of approaching anthing "Macross" on a video format tells an interesting tale.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Keith

[Seto Kaiba]

Going by the Shadow Chronicles bluray, and the complete and total lack of mention of so much of a hint of the word "Macross," in the special features, I'd wager that no, HG can not use the name "Macross" in new robotech productions.

Legally, they SHOULD be able to... they own the trademark on the name in the US.

My guess would be that they're avoiding anything that could potentially provoke Big West into taking legal action against them. If they lose the "Macross" name trademark, they lose their sandbagged wall keeping the rest of Macross out of the United States.

[Keith]

Legally, they SHOULD be able to... they own the trademark on the name in the US.

My guess would be that they're avoiding anything that could potentially provoke Big West into taking legal action against them. If they lose the "Macross" name trademark, they lose their sandbagged wall keeping the rest of Macross out of the United States.

Well, to put it even more simply, owning the trademark to the name, and using the intellectual property that Big West has been proven to own are two entirely different things. What HG seems to believe is a Mexican standoff, is little moret han a failed attempt at blackmail.

-HG:"We own the trademark to the name Macross, so we're going to stop you from releasing anything in the U.S."

-BW: "Oh yeah? Well just try using that name, or anything else belonging to Macross, and we'll bury you so deep that Jules Verne couldn't find you!"

[Moly_Sigang]

Going by the Shadow Chronicles bluray, and the complete and total lack of mention of so much of a hint of the word "Macross," in the special features, I'd wager that no, HG can not use the name "Macross" in new robotech productions. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Big West actually did launch some sort of legal action, or at the very least a cease and desist at HG after the whole Tatsunoko thing was resolved. While merch is obviously outside of that, HG's obvious fear of approaching anthing "Macross" on a video format tells an interesting tale.

HG trademarked the word 'Macross' because it's the title of the first saga and is mentioned predominantly in that saga. But what's in 'Macross Saga' stays in 'Macross Saga' and HG can't mention any element from Macross in new productions.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Moly_Sigang

[VFTF1]

HG trademarked the word 'Macross' because it's the title of the first saga and is mentioned predominantly in that saga. But what's in 'Macross Saga' stays in 'Macross Saga' and HG can't mention any element from Macross in new productions.

If that's true, and HG doesn't have the right to use the word "Macross" in any new production, then it follows that HG doesn't have the right to bar Yamato from using the word "Macross" on their Valkyries if they want to sell them in the USA.

Why?

Because Yamato's "Macross" is NOT "The Macross Saga" from Robotech - it's the real Macross - the original Macross - Macross which to this day is still being made and whose IP is still owned by BW who licensed Macross to Yamato and Bandai and other companies to produce merchandise.

Ergo HG is all washed up. They have no case.

If the trademark ONLY applies to merchandise from the "Macross Saga" portion of Robotech - then that's what it applies to -only that. Not to Macross (Japanese), which is what Yamato explicitly produces merchandise for.

To my mind, HG have no case for their C&Ds then - except maybe relying on scaring people into avoiding legal fees and hoping for lazy judges who can't be assed to research this entire situation.

Pete

[Keith]

If that's true, and HG doesn't have the right to use the word "Macross" in any new production, then it follows that HG doesn't have the right to bar Yamato from using the word "Macross" on their Valkyries if they want to sell them in the USA.

Why?

Because Yamato's "Macross" is NOT "The Macross Saga" from Robotech - it's the real Macross - the original Macross - Macross which to this day is still being made and whose IP is still owned by BW who licensed Macross to Yamato and Bandai and other companies to produce merchandise.

Ergo HG is all washed up. They have no case.

If the trademark ONLY applies to merchandise from the "Macross Saga" portion of Robotech - then that's what it applies to -only that. Not to Macross (Japanese), which is what Yamato explicitly produces merchandise for.

To my mind, HG have no case for their C&Ds then - except maybe relying on scaring people into avoiding legal fees and hoping for lazy judges who can't be assed to research this entire situation.

Pete

Well, they have rights to a piece of the action for Macross TV & Macross DYRL merch, yes. But not a damn sent of any other Macross mech, including FB 2012, Plus, 7, Frontier, Zero, & II. As for the rest, use, it is just a feeble tool used for scarring companies out of the U.S. market. HG's tantrum stemming from BW being too smart to waste time with them.

[azrael]

If that's true, and HG doesn't have the right to use the word "Macross" in any new production, then it follows that HG doesn't have the right to bar Yamato from using the word "Macross" on their Valkyries if they want to sell them in the USA.

Why?

Because Yamato's "Macross" is NOT "The Macross Saga" from Robotech - it's the real Macross - the original Macross - Macross which to this day is still being made and whose IP is still owned by BW who licensed Macross to Yamato and Bandai and other companies to produce merchandise.

Ergo HG is all washed up. They have no case.

Again, I think your assigning too much to IP rights, or I should say, "copyright", as "trademark" is also intellectual property.

(If links do not work, you must manually search for it here: linky)

HG's US trademark on Macross goods

HG's US trademark on Macross toys (renewal)

HG's US trademark on Macross media

HG's US trademark on Macross media distribution

HG's US trademark on Macross printed media and toys

What Are Patents, Trademarks, Servicemarks, and Copyrights?

If the trademark ONLY applies to merchandise from the "Macross Saga" portion of Robotech - then that's what it applies to -only that. Not to Macross (Japanese), which is what Yamato explicitly produces merchandise for.

Unfortunately, it doesn't just apply to merchandise from "Macross Saga". It applies to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross.

[Penguin]

Bullseye! Someone give that man a VF-22!

Already got one, but thanks.

If the trademark ONLY applies to merchandise from the "Macross Saga" portion of Robotech - then that's what it applies to -only that. Not to Macross (Japanese), which is what Yamato explicitly produces merchandise for.

Trademarks don't work that way. HG's trademark is Macross when applied to toys, full stop. All toys. Any toys. HG can only legally license toys based on the original series designs, but the trademark isn't that specific. Any toy that attempts to bear the name "Macross" would violate their trademark, regardless of whether HG has any legal right to that design. They've locked up the name totally. By the same token, I couldn't produce completely unique toys and label them "Star Trek" without violating that trademark, even if my toys had nothing to do with that franchise and Paramount had no rights to those designs.

Bandai could rename "Macross Frontier" to "Space Colony Expedition Frontier" and market the VF-25 variants, since they are unique designs that don't carry any of the logos from the original series. The HG trademark also doesn't extend to, say, jams and jellies, from what I read. So, you could legally trademark and license Macross Frontier strawberry jam with a smiling Sheryl on the jar without violating their trademark.

Edit: Or, like, what Azrael said...

Edited September 30, 2009 by Penguin

[VFTF1]

Well poopy.

Pete

You Can Always Count on Him for a Well Reasoned, Intelligent Retort Such as the Above

[Moly_Sigang]

Even though we already know what rights Tatsunoko and Big West has to the SDF Macross TV series, there's still a lot of missing pieces to this legal train wreck. And that's the contract between Big West and Tatsunoko which was agreed upon by the two companies sometime in '81.

[buffalostyle]

Oh, what a tangled web this whole thing is...which is too bad. We may never get a domestic release of Frontier because of it...

Edited September 30, 2009 by buffalostyle

[Freiflug88]

Going by the Shadow Chronicles bluray, and the complete and total lack of mention of so much of a hint of the word "Macross," in the special features, I'd wager that no, HG can not use the name "Macross" in new robotech productions. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Big West actually did launch some sort of legal action, or at the very least a cease and desist at HG after the whole Tatsunoko thing was resolved. While merch is obviously outside of that, HG's obvious fear of approaching anthing "Macross" on a video format tells an interesting tale.

By special features do you mean that "ROBOTECH: BIRTH OF A SEQUEL" video where Tommy Yune and other cast and crew talk about making Shadow Chronicles right? There isn't any legal issue about HG uttering the word "Macross" or any of the other two original series names its just that HG don't want to mention any of them and bring any attention to them especially when they are trying to renew Robotech as their own franchise. Its no different then when you are on a date and never mention any of your ex's names. Its not cause your afraid of getting sued, but rather you just know its a bad idea to bring attention to your ex's to a new date.

Even though we already know what rights Tatsunoko and Big West has to the SDF Macross TV series, there's still a lot of missing pieces to this legal train wreck. And that's the contract between Big West and Tatsunoko which was agreed upon by the two companies sometime in '81.

Does it really matter? The Japanese Supreme Court upheld Big West's and Tatsunoko's most recent SDF Macross contract after they agreed to add 10 more episodes. They didn't change anything and neither can us hardcore fans. Finding the original contract in all its confusing legal glory will just open a can of worms and turn every vocal Macross and Robotech fan into a legal expert who claims to have miraculously found some incredible loophole that no one has ever noticed in 25 years that shows that their favorite Macross flavor is owned completely by company x and not y.

[VFTF1]

Its no different then when you are on a date and never mention any of your ex's names. Its not cause your afraid of getting sued, but rather you just know its a bad idea to bring attention to your ex's to a new date.

So that's why my relationships never last! ....

Pete

[taksraven]

......... and we'll bury you so deep that Jules Verne couldn't find you!"

LOL!!!! :lol:

Taksraven

[Jasonc]

(in the words of Darth Vader) Feel the hatred rise up, then you will truly know the power of the dark side. All it seems is that HG is not gonna change any of the status regarding Macross, and right or wrong, they are really only hurting the fans of Robotech and Macross. They are trying so hard to relinquish the chains they're under of Macross, yet, refuse to let any of it go. They want to create Macross free shows, but the fact is, without it, they have no story. They won't grow at all until they give up Macross completely. What's sad is that they'll still find a way to stick it to Macross fans, as well as their own fans. It's really too bad.

[Einherjar]

(in the words of Darth Vader) Feel the hatred rise up, then you will truly know the power of the dark side. All it seems is that HG is not gonna change any of the status regarding Macross, and right or wrong, they are really only hurting the fans of Robotech and Macross. They are trying so hard to relinquish the chains they're under of Macross, yet, refuse to let any of it go. They want to create Macross free shows, but the fact is, without it, they have no story. They won't grow at all until they give up Macross completely. What's sad is that they'll still find a way to stick it to Macross fans, as well as their own fans. It's really too bad.

What's even sadder is that Robotech fans are willing to accept this situation for the long term. They're clinging to the hope that for all the BS drama that goes around, something good is coming to them eventually. And they''ve shown they'll wait for just about anything. After raising people's expectations for years now I think fans deserve something. They started it. Besides us, HG owes them so much for what goes around these days while they plan for some revival. They promote this second coming with gangbusters and crap and all you get is a direct to video movie. Oh, they also have a Hollywood movie in progress, but look how long they've been waiting to get just a script done.