Hobbit Pub being sued

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by JoeD

all of which are trademarked (afaik). That said, it sounds like the company involved isn't playing the big bully and are willing to resolve the issue

When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year.

If the pub is offered something like that to allow them to keep using the theme then they'd be a little silly to turn it down. They are after all trying to use the success of Tolkien's books to further their own business.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17390623

That does seem reasonable enough. I hope it all works out over a pint, the way all silly disputes should.

[Rich_D]

It wasn't that long ago when Disney sued 3 daycare centers for having Disney characters painted on the walls.

News article

[MoodRing]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

This is just silly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17350103

Makes me want to boycott the movie, almost.

I used to go the The Hobbit pub in Southampton with freinds when I was at Uni there, Its a wonderful atmosphere pub with always a great bunch of people there! I was so so angry when I heard about this! I say boycott the films anyways they have made enough money!

Lets get this rolling guys round up the trops!

[whitearrow]

This isn't the fault of the movie's actual producers -- they are licensees themselves. They don't own the trademarks.

[bill_mchale]

No offense to the people who love this pub, but this seems like a pretty open and shut case of infringement to me. The notion that the landlady didn't know she was infringing suggests she either didn't do any research before she opened the pub, or she is being a bit disingenuous.

--
Bill

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

No offense to the people who love this pub, but this seems like a pretty open and shut case of infringement to me.

It's really not that open and shut. With regard to the name itself, this is trademark infringement, not copyright. Names can't be copyrighted. The fact that this pub has been operating for a long time without a problem is, in itself, a defense, as is the fact that no reasonable person is likely to think this pub is authorized by the Tolkien estate.

The purpose of trademark law isn't to protect content owners, but to prevent consumer confusion in the marketplace -- e.g., you shouldn't have to stare at three laundry detergents on the shelf to figure out which one is the real Tide. There's no honest argument that this is a danger here. Trademarks, unlike copyrights, also have to be rigorously monitored and enforced or they can be lost.

They would have to get rid of anything like pictures from the LotR films, though -- those are indeed copyright infringement.

[CallOfCth'reader]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17350103

It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu, and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card.

A letter from SZC asked it to remove all references to the characters.

So according to the report, all SZC has done is send a letter asking them to remove the references to characters, not change the pub name. It's especially understandable when they have a picture of Elijah Wood, presumably in hobbit persona, on their loyalty card!

Non-story, to be fair.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by MoodRing

I used to go the The Hobbit pub in Southampton with freinds when I was at Uni there, Its a wonderful atmosphere pub with always a great bunch of people there! I was so so angry when I heard about this! I say boycott the films anyways they have made enough money!

Lets get this rolling guys round up the trops!

If you had read the thread, you'd know that this has nothing to do with the movies or the filmmakers.

You're trying to punish the wrong people.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by khalleron

If you had read the thread, you'd know that this has nothing to do with the movies or the filmmakers.

You're trying to punish the wrong people.

And being asked to pay a nominal $100 a year isn't exactly onerous and people/companies do have to protect their trademarks etc or they can be deemed to have entered the public domain...

[ApK]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

That man can't sort anything out. Wasn't he the guy who made everyone else walk to Mordor, and then flew there himself?

HA! Did you see this:



As for "The Bobbitt," I think that guys would find a whole new appreciation for Gollum's anguished cries of "my Precious!"

ApK

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And being asked to pay a nominal $100 a year isn't exactly onerous and people/companies do have to protect their trademarks etc or they can be deemed to have entered the public domain...

Except that Middle-Earth Enterprises only made the $100 offer AFTER Stephen Fry and Ian McKellen publicized it, causing a large outcry (the FB page supporting the pub has over 50,000 members).

So this is more a story of celebrity and the Internet rallying around the little guy.

Which makes the cry to boycott the film even more wrong-headed.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Except that Middle-Earth Enterprises only made the $100 offer AFTER Stephen Fry and Ian McKellen publicized it, causing a large outcry (the FB page supporting the pub has over 50,000 members).

So this is more a story of celebrity and the Internet rallying around the little guy.

Which makes the cry to boycott the film even more wrong-headed.

I was working from this:

Quote:
When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year.

Where did you source that the offer was only made after Fry & McKellen et al caused an outcry??

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I was working from this:

Quote:
When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year.

Where did you source that the offer was only made after Fry & McKellen et al caused an outcry??

Here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...ght-resolution

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...ght-resolution

Thanks for the URL... it doesn't actually give the timeline of actions but does imply it by inference although the $100 offer is detailed before comments about celeb support... like a lot of Grauniad articles - a bit fluffy and open to interpretation...

[TrvlrsChick]

Hate to say it, but the copyright holders have a case. The pub may have been using the name since long before the movies, which... fine, they're grandfathered in. But using images from the movie? Yeah, that's not kosher, and I'm sure they knew better and were hoping to get away with it.