Lucasfilm Sues ‘Lightsaber Academy’ and ‘Jedi Club’ Over Trademark Infringement

Tarran wrote: If none of us, singly or as a group, nor the Temple as an entity, attempts (whether with any success or not) to make any monies for *whatever* purpose, but with any connection to the term "Jedi", then we've not overstepped any bounds, right?

This is false. Trademark and copyright infringement are still infringement even if you make no money.

steamboat28 wrote:

Tarran wrote: If none of us, singly or as a group, nor the Temple as an entity, attempts (whether with any success or not) to make any monies for *whatever* purpose, but with any connection to the term "Jedi", then we've not overstepped any bounds, right?

This is false. Trademark and copyright infringement are still infringement even if you make no money.

True.

steamboat28 wrote:

Tarran wrote: If none of us, singly or as a group, nor the Temple as an entity, attempts (whether with any success or not) to make any monies for *whatever* purpose, but with any connection to the term "Jedi", then we've not overstepped any bounds, right?

This is false. Trademark and copyright infringement are still infringement even if you make no money.

Thanks, Steam!

But uhm... I'm trying to understand the *how*... (on "Jediism" as well as on "Jedi", though it may make no difference)... is it because... damnit, I thought I had a thought for a second (LOL)... no, seriously - I mean, what you're saying seems to tell me that it is copyright infringement even for using "Jedi" in the name of a simple Facebook fan page! Isn't that a correct assessment? I mean, what are we to do? Are we not then, even now, actually-factually infringing upon copyright law even as I type/we read this??

We MUST be law-abiding... so what are we to do??

I find this very unnerving, very unsettling, and very-very-very uncool

P.S. ~ Lucasfilm Ltd. is still owned by George Lucas, yes? So it is HE who is doing the suing mentioned in this thread's title, not Disney, right?

EDIT; It seems that it *IS* Disney - TIME Magazine's website has this article; http://time.com/4536044/lucasfilm-sues-lightsaber-jedi-school/ , in which it states that "Disney’s Lucasfilm has sued a company that gives lessons in wielding lightsabers, arguing that it infringes on trademarks."

Well, pfpfthth

We MUST be law-abiding... so what are we to do??

To which Laws?

Trademarks can vary by country, which is why sometimes the same thing is called something else in a different market - the Trademark was already taken and they could not be bothered buying it. (So, and I have not looked these up, so I'm just giving a wild example - I could start James's Home Millinery Company, and call it Stetson in my country, but if I did the same in the USA I'd face legal action)

I mean, what you're saying seems to tell me that it is copyright infringement even for using "Jedi" in the name of a simple Facebook fan page!

You're only doing something "wrong" (and I use the term "wrong" loosely here) if you use the same terminology in the fields they have it protected for - the lists brother John provided)

It's not so much about the Intellectual Property of the concept, as use of the trademark in the fields they wish to do business... (as far as I can tell from the wording)

So, we can't have TotJO Skateboards. I'm not sure it's a huge issue :silly:

The use of it in fiction and prints is potentially more of an issue...



Swings and Roundabouts though - Lucasarts relies on its fans and consumers. Outside of any legitimate competition, it may be wary of frivolous litigation in order to avoid backlash and unpopular image.

P.S. ~ Lucasfilm Ltd. is still owned by George Lucas, yes? So it is HE who is doing the suing mentioned in this thread's title, not Disney, right?

I'm not sure what the intricacies of their arrangement are, but I believe he gave up the IP for everything Star Wars related wholesale, so he wouldn't really have a horse in the race when it comes to trademarks etc.

Well, I accidentally hit backspace and lost the rest of my post because the internet thought I wanted to go "back"

Thanks, computer.


This gist of it was "Disney are not necessarily the Bad Guys here - Old mate is making money by trading on their brand, and selling products that do the same.

Getting him to Stop is perfectly fair and reasonable.

Of course, you can never just "get someone to stop" in a legal case, you have to go the whole hog - So they're also making claim to any profit he has made through his business of trading on their name, and damages to their reputation that his businesses have caused - Slightly more of a dick move.

(Considering how much lawfully licensed disney, umm, crap, you can buy - I don't know if their claim of the defendant not meeting the "high standards" of their brand is legitimate....

But, you don't become a ninety-billion dollar company by being soft with how you manage your IP and trademarks....

JamesSand wrote:

We MUST be law-abiding... so what are we to do??

To which Laws?

Trademarks can vary by country, which is why sometimes the same thing is called something else in a different market - the Trademark was already taken and they could not be bothered buying it. (So, and I have not looked these up, so I'm just giving a wild example - I could start James's Home Millinery Company, and call it Stetson in my country, but if I did the same in the USA I'd face legal action)

To which? I'd argue that we shouldn't break any - but as far as copyright, I believe this particular case would be one of international copyright - so at least it would be an easier thing to nail down, I hope.

So, we can't have TotJO Skateboards. I'm not sure it's a huge issue :silly:

I dunno... I think we *could*, perhaps, if it was spelled just so ("TotJO")...
...or no, rather, if we just had our star emblem on it

Swings and Roundabouts though - Lucasarts relies on its fans and consumers. Outside of any legitimate competition, it may be wary of frivolous litigation in order to avoid backlash and unpopular image.

True...

JamesSand wrote:

P.S. ~ Lucasfilm Ltd. is still owned by George Lucas, yes? So it is HE who is doing the suing mentioned in this thread's title, not Disney, right?

I'm not sure what the intricacies of their arrangement are, but I believe he gave up the IP for everything Star Wars related wholesale, so he wouldn't really have a horse in the race when it comes to trademarks etc.

Well, he sold the Star Wars stuffs... I didn't think he'd sell his personal brand to make more films along with it all.

Well, I accidentally hit backspace and lost the rest of my post because the internet thought I wanted to go "back"

Thanks, computer.

Oh, I HATE it when that happens!! LOL

This gist of it was "Disney are not necessarily the Bad Guys here - Old mate is making money by trading on their brand, and selling products that do the same.

Shyeah! He was even trying to acquire a trademark on something which included an already trademarked term! The sodding gobshite... lol

Getting him to Stop is perfectly fair and reasonable.

Agreed.

Of course, you can never just "get someone to stop" in a legal case, you have to go the whole hog - So they're also making claim to any profit he has made through his business of trading on their name, and damages to their reputation that his businesses have caused - Slightly more of a dick move.

Myais...

(Considering how much lawfully licensed disney, umm, crap, you can buy - I don't know if their claim of the defendant not meeting the "high standards" of their brand is legitimate....

But, you don't become a ninety-billion dollar company by being soft with how you manage your IP and trademarks....

Right? Sheesh lol

Normally, in situations like this, the organization received a Cease and Desist letter. In the case of New York Jedi, I can attest that the proprietor has received several and has blithely ignored them all.

I am certain that if we had received such a notice, the discussion would be headed in a different direction.

Archon wrote: Normally, in situations like this, the organization received a Cease and Desist letter. In the case of New York Jedi, I can attest that the proprietor has received several and has blithely ignored them all.

I am certain that if we had received such a notice, the discussion would be headed in a different direction.

True, but - at great risk of jynxing things here - I'm fearful that it's just a matter of time.

I love our Temple.

May the Force be with us all

My apologies Tarran, I had not caught the difference. Thank you for pointing it out.

Br. John, I'll have to track it down, LucasFilms has a lot of information on the internet about them, lol.

Tarran wrote: ]

True, but - at great risk of jynxing things here - I'm fearful that it's just a matter of time.

I love our Temple.

May the Force be with us all

As do I, my friend. We can only change the moment, and fortunately at this moment we are not under fire.

Tarran wrote: I mean, what you're saying seems to tell me that it is copyright infringement even for using "Jedi" in the name of a simple Facebook fan page

Trademark, but potentially. It depends on how that term is used. Trademarks are given for a specific purpose. For example, using the term "droid" in regards to electronic devices is a breach of trademark, since LucasFilm Ltd. has really only licensed Motorola to use that in any non-sci-fi electronic setting. Moto didn't buy the trademark, but they're leasing it with permission.

On the other hand, using the word "droid" as a brand name for a loaf of bread would probably not cause any trouble, because I doubt that LucasFilm Ltd. registered a trademark for droid under "general baked goods."

There are tons of opinions at this Temple about religious use and educational use, but those apply to copyright not trademark. A trademark is like a brand name or a logo; if you use it, you're telling people you're associated with a thing. We are not associated with that thing (though we are inspired by it), so that could get a little tricky down the road if they swing at us.
[hr]

P.S. ~ Lucasfilm Ltd. is still owned by George Lucas, yes? So it is HE who is doing the suing mentioned in this thread's title, not Disney, right?

Let us remember a few key things:

1. Disney owns Star Wars.
2. Disney is the reason intellectual property law is so complex and ridiculous today.

Also, I'm going to say this one more time because it's really, really, really f***all important:
This case is about Trademarks, not Copyrights.

Why do I keep bringing that up, you ask?
Because copyright is the one with Fair Use. There is no fair use with Trademark. Period. Ever. Because it's intended to keep brands identities separated and cut down on competition, there cannot be any kind of fair use in a trademark case. The only times you can get away with using a trademark if you don't own it is if you are discussing it, or if it is a general word that has or had other meanings in general speech.

Tarran wrote: But uhm... I'm trying to understand the *how*... (on "Jediism" as well as on "Jedi", though it may make no difference)... is it because... damnit, I thought I had a thought for a second (LOL)... no, seriously - I mean, what you're saying seems to tell me that it is copyright infringement even for using "Jedi" in the name of a simple Facebook fan page! Isn't that a correct assessment? I mean, what are we to do? Are we not then, even now, actually-factually infringing upon copyright law even as I type/we read this??

We MUST be law-abiding... so what are we to do??

I find this very unnerving, very unsettling, and very-very-very uncool

ok, Steamboat has pointed out the differences with copywrite and trademark...

But, I want to address this point of Tarran's...

Life "is"...

You say "we must be law-abiding"...

I am... I abide the 'spirit' of the law', I have to adhere to 'natures laws' (poetic license here you pedantic folks!!) and basically try to do what I feel is right... Hopefully, the law and I agree more than we disagree (says the elected official, lol)

I have no trouble running a red light to get to the emergency room for an emergency, yet, I stop like a law-abiding citizen when I am not in an emergency.. And, even when I break the law, I try to be as careful as possible, to only go as far as I need to, and I am prepared to face the consequences...

So, I am not making a statement as to whether we are 'legal' or not, I am simply saying, that I hope I am, Im comfortable if I am breaking the law, and will do as I need to should my actions be challenged...

That make sense?

We have had people quit being Jedi because of a stance, or action we have had/taken, and to point to the fiction (for some, this is old hat for me), QuiGon nudged those dice to win Anakin, ObiWon lied to the autorites about the droids they were looking for, as well as he Luke and Han damaged government property when they rescued Leia... Not to mention all the other times they did that... lol...

Ive condoned actions that might seem un-jedi to some, but, I did not do it for myself, but rather for the greater good...

This is always on my mind...

Disney purchased 100% of George Lucas's interest in LucasFilms. It is a separate corporation but it's 100% owned by Disney.

We are not using 'Jedi' or 'Jedi Order' under a theory of fair use. We're using it for a purposes not covered under LucasFilms trademarks. I cannot prove it. Nobody can prove that we're violating it either. The only way to do that is have it go to court and have a judgment. Then there's an appeal and that ruling would be the final say unless the Supreme Court took up the matter. Then they would have the final say. Until that day comes anything anyone says is an opinion and a guess. I do not believe we are in violation of any trademarks because what we are and what we do are not covered under any trademark. There are also First Amendment constitutional issues but that can never be tested unless it's brought to court.

Does anyone think LucasFilms attorneys and TPTB (The Powers That Be) don't know about us? It costs a few dollars to send a certified letter to me. My name and address are public record for anyone who want's to file a lawsuit against The Order or send an official letter.

Them not doing so is not permission at all. They could send a letter tomorrow or years from now. But as of the time I write this they have not.

We should also consider why these particular entities were targeted for infringing on trademarks and how it compares to our use. It could be argued that Disney would be likely to create a "Lightsaber Academy" as part of the new Star Wars attractions at Disneyland or create a "Jedi" themed cantina/night club at any one of their resorts. This would put them at odds with the existing groups who would be competing with them in a similar trade, so they have chosen to sue them. The question for the court becomes whether or not these uses would be protected under the current trademarks owned by Disney or not. If so, Disney will win.

The same situation could apply to our name someday. If Disney decides to include a "Jedi Temple" in the Star Wars attraction currently being built at Disneyland, they might become much more interested in our use of the trademark. If they never have a good use for "Jedi" Order or Temple, they may not ever care that we borrowed a trademarked term because our website won't be competing with them or hurt their ability to still effectively exploit and monetize the "Jedi" trademark in other ways.

Ultimately, the owner of the trademark gets to decide how strongly they wish to protect it and from whom.

An amusement park Jedi Temple and a real Jedi Temple are extremely different things. If we were talking about James Bond as compared to a real MI6 agent or House MD compared to a real doctor would anyone be confused?

Jestor wrote:

Tarran wrote: We MUST be law-abiding... so what are we to do??

I find this very unnerving, very unsettling, and very-very-very uncool

ok, Steamboat has pointed out the differences with copywrite and trademark...

Yes, I flubbed. It comes from typing, while exhausted both physically and mentally, late at night after work, and a bit stressed by this news - my bad lol

You say "we must be law-abiding"...

Yes, I understand and fully agree with your points, of course I'd wondered if I should have elaborated... I suppose I mean that we must refrain from infringing upon the rights of others - not so much in some hyper-technical sense which would harm utterly no-one in any way, shape, form, or fashion, but... I would include setting a bad example to others as harm.

Now, in precisely what we do and how, including what we are NOT doing with our derivative of a trademarked term ("Jediism"), I truthfully don't think we are setting any. That is, we are NOT; making a profit; harming/distorting an image; inserting apocryphal material; altering or influencing any course of business; etc. - so far, therefore I feel I'm morally violating no-one.

And now,...

steamboat28 wrote:

Tarran wrote: I mean, what you're saying seems to tell me that it is copyright infringement even for using "Jedi" in the name of a simple Facebook fan page

Trademark, but potentially. It depends on how that term is used. Trademarks are given for a specific purpose. For example, using the term "droid" in regards to electronic devices is a breach of trademark, since LucasFilm Ltd. has really only licensed Motorola to use that in any non-sci-fi electronic setting. Moto didn't buy the trademark, but they're leasing it with permission.

On the other hand, using the word "droid" as a brand name for a loaf of bread would probably not cause any trouble, because I doubt that LucasFilm Ltd. registered a trademark for droid under "general baked goods."

I see.

I can see how nauseating headaches can come from the type of lawyer language this can easily fling into... this is precisely why I dropped demonology decades ago lol

Okay, you raise two points which seem interesting...

There are tons of opinions at this Temple about religious use and educational use, but those apply to copyright not trademark. A trademark is like a brand name or a logo; if you use it, you're telling people you're associated with a thing. We are not associated with that thing (though we are inspired by it), so that could get a little tricky down the road if they swing at us.

And...

The only times you can get away with using a trademark if you don't own it is if you are discussing it, or if it is a general word that has or had other meanings in general speech.

Now it seems that we sort of cover not being associated per se (though inspired), by stating on the front page that we are not the Jedi from the movies, as they are fictional characters in a literary universe. And yet, while we are inspired by the film's, and the Jedi therein, a gi-hugic part of what we do here is discussing them. And hey, is it not within our rights as appreciators of such inspirational art? Even to the point of our living out our homage to the artist for the inspiration given? Perhaps we need to nail down just what *are* the rights of the inspired, the patron, the influenced learner, and all else that one might apply to anyone in our humble and sincere position.

I've discussed trademark issues with several attorneys and in their (off the record unpaid) opinions we are not infringing. Without a court judgment it's a guess and an opinion. Nothing more - nothing less.

Since we are a bona fide religious order there are First Amendment issues which are superior to any law or any regulation. Again the only way to know for sure is to have it decided in a court of law.

Br. John wrote: An amusement park Jedi Temple and a real Jedi Temple are extremely different things. If we were talking about James Bond as compared to a real MI6 agent or House MD compared to a real doctor would anyone be confused?

Very true, Br. John. You raise a fair point. We are not trying to benefit commercially or creating confusion among consumers about whether this Temple is associated with Disney or Star Wars in any way, so I would hope that Disney would see it this way as well.

She'll be right mate!!!! But if push comes to shove then perhaps 'Jediism' gets around it... the study/path/pursuit of something rather then pretending to be something would seem to step around it in another way perhaps.