Jump to content

SDCC 2013 Hasbro Exclusives: Jetfire Skystriker


Chet
 Share

Recommended Posts

You're looking at too many small things that don't matter.

All HG has to do to prove violation, is to show that it would confuse a consumer.

If you had both of the above on a store shelf, would it confuse the casual shopper.

it's obviously yes.

IP law is not just small things, it also covers marketplace confusion buy artistic representation.

You seem confused. HG does not own either the Bandai toy mold or the Hasbro Jetfire markings.

HG would have to prove that it infringes on their license to sell Macross merchandise. In other words, does it look too similar to a design from the Macross TV series. Is it similar enough to the VF-1S from the tv series for the court to side with HG? Or different enough for Hasbro to be in the clear?

Posting pics of the old Hasbro Jetfire is misleading. Comparing the markings with those of the old Jetfire is meaningless as Hasbro owns the Jetfire markings they created.

Or to turn it around on you, is this:

Jetfire-SDCC-2013-GIJOE-skystriker_13704

Nearly an exact copy of this?

VF-1S_Super_Valkyrie.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do? I thought Tatsunoko owns the markings since Jetfire's boxes have the Tatsunoko sticker on them.

Try reading that a little more carefully. I think then you'll understand where you went wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is HG so intent on bring legal action action the company that has been longtime partners with Takara Tomy, who currently own Tatsunoko?

Did they not know this?

This means little to businesses. Or I should say, partners are only defined by the contracts connecting them.

Takara made this guy with no issues.

In Japan, not in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't follow.

Hasbro owns the Jetfire markings they created.

Much of Jetfire's markings on the original toy and this G.I. Joe repaint were created by Hasbro for Jetfire. They bear little to no semblance to the original Macross markings.

Any mention of Bandai or Tatsunoko on the box would be due to the licensing of the original toy (Bandai owned the toy after Takatoku went belly up, and Tatsunoko had international merchandising rights to Macross, which they shared with Harmony Gold), not because Tatsunoko owned the Hasbro made markings. That would be like saying Big West owns the name "Robotech" because that's what HG slapped on Macross when they distributed it over here.

Even if Bandai came up with the alternate colour scheme and markings for Jetfire (highly unlikely) that would mean Bandai owned them, not Tatsunoko/HG. It's a huge stretch to suggest that Tatsunoko had any involvement whatsoever with the creation or ownership of the Jetfire markings as they would have had no involvement past approving the license to use the toy mold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that if the Hasbro one day bring back Jem ...

The HG will say that they copied the Janice Em XD

*Must con..tain... smart...ass *

That would be truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Must con..tain... smart...ass *

That would be truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

That opinion infringes on HG's intellectual property. You are ordered to recall your opinion, and destroy all existing references to said opinion.

Thanks!

-HG Legal Dept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see were this will head.

It might be that Hasbro come up with the complete history of HG and Sunrise and that fact that HG haven't stopped the distribution of any VF-1's from international shops to the rest of the world. Or that fact that other companies are manufacturing and selling the 100% accurate version of what they claim is their design. And the fact that the original markings were based on an official army will make it interesting.

I have seen bits of the Games Workshop vs the world with the Space Marine usage in books. And it crashed as the original use was created by people many years before they even thought of the concept. And the defending Lawyers showed heaps of research in the terms previous usage. and I would guess Hasbro will do the same to prove the pattern has been used before. And for all we know this might be the making or breaking of HG. But I bet one thing Hasbro will probably make sure that this is a very lengthy court case.

But it s not good to piss off big firms that could help you in the future. And since they are selling something that no one wants to buy and from what I have heard fans have not been impressed by there latest offering as most know now where RT came from. Some reviews as Amazon show that they haven't been impressed with this latest release.

that's my 2 cents worth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this won't be worth Hasbro's attention and that's what HG is banking on. It's a comic-con exclusive tiny run thing done with no expectation of huge profits. If HG wants to make it some legendary hard to get toy that will make it more talked about it doesn't really hurt Hasbro. They'll probably just say "Fine, we won't sell any more, but we're not giving you a penny unless you want to spend years in court." HG will say "Yay, we won!" Then everyone will think HG is run by idiots and Hasbro will enjoy the publicity of people talking about their cross-over toys and how bad they want Jetfire...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If hasbro settled to get them out of their hair, what happens to future jet/skyfire releases in its' original likeness?

They haven't ever re-released the original Jetfire, why do you think a "settlement" on an alledged rights infringement would change that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of Jetfire's markings on the original toy and this G.I. Joe repaint were created by Hasbro for Jetfire. They bear little to no semblance to the original Macross markings.

If Hasbro created Jetfire's design, then why did they leave the UN Spacy logo on Jetfire's wing?

I confess, I don't have any concrete proof either as to who created Jetfire's color scheme. But to me, the signs point to Matsushiro. Only the toy's actual manufacturer, Matsushiro, would know what kinds of color changes could be made to the toy without incurring too much more overhead. My guess is that Hasbro told Matsushiro, "Hey, we've got this new guy, Skyfire, who's red and white. Please make your VF-1 red and white too, wherever technically possible." After Matsushiro implemented the new color scheme, they would've had to send it to Tatsunoko for licensor approval (hence the Tatsunoko stickers). Next stop, US toy shelves.

There were some people on TFW2005 suggesting this is not about the Skystriker toy itself but the bio card included in the package that just straight up uses the original G1 Jetfire box art.

That would be absolutely hilarious. Have you got any pics of that bio card?

Edited by TheLoneWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Hasbro created Jetfire's design, then why did they leave the UN Spacy logo on Jetfire's wing?

You're misreading again. I specifically said Hasbro owns the markings that they, themselves, designed. I even quoted myself and bolded that part for you.

You'll notice the SDCC "Jetfire" doesn't have the UN Spacy logo on its wing.

Of course, if the lawsuit is regarding the box art from the original G1 toy which was included, then that's a whole other issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't ever re-released the original Jetfire, why do you think a "settlement" on an alledged rights infringement would change that?

"In its likeness" like classics Jetfire and any new molds and colors to resemble Jetfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll probably just say "Fine, we won't sell any more, but we're not giving you a penny unless you want to spend years in court." HG will say "Yay, we won!" Then everyone will think HG is run by idiots and Hasbro will enjoy the publicity of people talking about their cross-over toys and how bad they want Jetfire...

It's a possibility. If HG wants monetary compensation for this piece of plastic, Hasbro can say "See you in court".

The whole point of settle-out-of-court isn't that one side wins or loses. It's to avoid the scrutiny of the court and any after-effects. But we'll see if and how Hasbro responds to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the Osaka Macross Museum, Kawamori himself showed up and related a story about how he saw the SDCC Jetfire and was greatly amused by it. Tenjin elaborated on the lawsuit and other details.

Do go on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...