| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
leafy sea dragon
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 7163
Location: Another Kingdom
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:28 pm
|
 |
|
|
Wow, I didn't realize how complicated the whole affair is. (Just that it was an example of multiple companies using the same name if they happened to come up with the same one.) Thanks for the detailed description of what actually happened though. Has anything changed now that Inbev, a European company, owns American Budweiser?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Polycell
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 4623
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 6:48 pm
|
|
|
| ChromeEagle wrote: | However, I'm intrigued by cases such as this one (Second image) from New Game!. A few firearms, particularly Ahagon's very-obviously-modeled-after-an FN Five-seveN, are never labeled or mentioned as such. But unlike with "WcDonald's" or "7-Twelve", the creators don't go out of their way to distinguish it from the real-world counterpart. Perhaps it's just because they don't have to? |
Gun designs and names are just as subject to trademark claims(I believe it was Counter Strike, but at least one game was forced to change the models and rename the guns by litigious manufacturers; any game that uses them these days paid out the nose for the rights). Not worrying too much about the design works in this case since there's nobody to sue them in Japan(whereas almost everybody is either based or has a licensee in the US); that nobody is shot with a clearly identified gun helps, too.It's not unusual for the Japanese branch of companies to be given a good deal of latitude(if not made an independent company in its own right). This is probably just a case of the Japan branch doing something the main company didn't care for(which is my main theory behind the Ro-Kyu-Bu license buyback: Warner Brother discovered what Warner Brothers Japan had created and demanded they keep it from ever hitting shelves anywhere else).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
peno
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 349
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:08 pm
|
|
|
| leafy sea dragon wrote: | | Wow, I didn't realize how complicated the whole affair is. (Just that it was an example of multiple companies using the same name if they happened to come up with the same one.) Thanks for the detailed description of what actually happened though. Has anything changed now that Inbev, a European company, owns American Budweiser? |
AFAIK nothing changed after the merger between AB and InBev. The thing is, however, ABI already lost most of their cases anyway, so there's nothing much they could do anyway. The last attempt to turn the tables was the acquisition of that other Czech brewery, but even that lead them nowhere so far. The question is, however, where the dispute will go now, after the acquisition of SabMiller by ABI, which EU only admitted on the premise that ABI will sell most of their European activities as that may further complicated the situation for ABI.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Top Gun
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 4659
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:00 pm
|
|
|
| BluExocet wrote: | | My absolute favorite example of brand name swapping is a Snickers bar labeled " Snackies" in BTOOOM.
I mean, it works out so well: " Hungry? Grab a Snackies!" |
Oh jeez, how did I forget about Eureka and Gidget snacking on "Smickers" bars during an episode of Eureka seveN? 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
