Le Québécois Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 Hi I saw this on my facebook wall. The Guardians are not happy! Interesting. What are your thoughts on this? https://www.facebook.com/CBS6News/posts/pfbid0icd8Ttdj8pcyHXKthiyiKvmzohDXzkQ5TiQCBvaa46yQKLxnR86hFEU1a2Y7j3Bkl Quote Le QUÉBÉCOIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PERRIN Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 The Guardians have no case here. No one is going to look at that logo and think "Is this random business two states away that I've never heard of affiliated with the baseball team?" even if they did, you can't claim copyright infringement on a simple design element like a block C. It's too simple to claim intellectual ownership of. Hate it when big name brands dunk on tiny local businesses like this just for a quick buck. 3 Quote Perrin Grubb | Aspiring Designer | NAFA Project ~ NFL Redesigns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjarvie Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 2 hours ago, PERRIN said: The Guardians have no case here. No one is going to look at that logo and think "Is this random business two states away that I've never heard of affiliated with the baseball team?" even if they did, you can't claim copyright infringement on a simple design element like a block C. It's too simple to claim intellectual ownership of. Hate it when big name brands dunk on tiny local businesses like this just for a quick buck. The Guardians do have a case here. I know people are going to hate this, but if they still own the trademark to their old "c", throwing a lighting bolt over the "c" can be construed as trademark infringement. Remember that in a court of law, it's not length of use ( the Indians win that one as they've used the block "c" as far back as the 80's), but whether a person who knows nothing about the team could confuse the two logos and therefore cause damage ($ or reputation). It sounds bad, but he is actually swimming an uphill stream on this and more than likely will have to change his logo. I get that the block "c" is generic, but if Cleveland still has the trademark to it and did not give it up when they changed to Guardians, they have rights. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattwillcox Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 funniest thing about this to me is that the pictures from the article show they are also very obviously ripping off the Flames logo... 3 Quote Portfolio Dribbble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 18 hours ago, mattwillcox said: funniest thing about this to me is that the pictures from the article show they are also very obviously ripping off the Flames logo... And the Braves logo is used on the side of the hat he's wearing, with Charged Up replacing Braves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis2051 Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 I see the Indians C, the Flames C, and the Braves logo. This guys gonna get sued bad... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBird34 Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 I spy what looks to be an Astro's logo in there too... I was thinking it was fine until you see all the other logos he has stolen 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Cunningham Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 I feel like the test here is whether it can be identified as what the rights-holder claims it is, and that was my first impression: Hey, that's the old Cleveland C with a lightning bolt on it. And while I know we talk about how, collectively, we on the boards notice things that people not plugged into our interests wouldn't notice. But MLB cap logos are an exception; that's arguably one of the most recognizable sets of logos out there. So many people would likely recognize it as the old Cleveland C. And then as you all pointed out, this guy is pretty obviously ripping off other marks as well. I'm not sure if he heard somewhere the old tale about "Well, if you change the logo 20%, then it can't be infringement" or whatever, or if he otherwise just thinks he's the smartest guy in the business and thought he could get away with it or what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 My immediate thoughts are that copyright laws are terrible for allowing such a generic block C logo to even be copyrighted and for giving credence to the Guardians to even entertain the idea that it encroaches on their C logo. Artists should put more work into logo design if they want a copyright instead of trying to rely on increasingly minimalist trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PERRIN Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 I didn't notice the other stolen logos until others pointed them out, so yeah this place is definitely worthy of a lawsuit. I don't think Cleveland of all teams has much of a case here though considering it doesn't quite look enough like their old block C to be confused. The other teams who got their logos blatantly stolen, on the other hand, can rightfully sue this place into oblivion. Cleveland has the least iconic logo of this bunch, and it's the only one that's been altered. I don't think altering a block C should warrant a copyright lawsuit due to its simplicity, but considering the other logos that got blatantly reused, I'll let it slide. 1 Quote Perrin Grubb | Aspiring Designer | NAFA Project ~ NFL Redesigns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky1324 Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 The block C we can see here is not subject to copyright, as it doesn't meet the "threshold of originality". It is, however, trademarked, so yes, Cleveland has a case here. In the article it states that they only reached out after Charged Up filed to trademark their logo, which features the old Cleveland block C. You can't use another trademarked logo without a license, even with the slight modifications they made. 1 Quote the user formerly known as cdclt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.