Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I originally heard about this news story on Chicago talk radio news station WBBM 780 last night that I thought might be of interest to Transformers fans regarding scenarios of Hasbro versus 3rd party companies.

Radio Flyer sues Michigan toy company over allegedly ripping off its two-seater red plastic wagon
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html

What caught my interest with the news story that I thought applied to us was the following blurb:

Beyond the patterned foldable seats, which allow two children to face each other, the packaging is “nearly identical” and “likely to cause consumers to confusingly believe the (American Plastic Toys) 2 in 1 Wagon is a Radio Flyer product,” the lawsuit alleges.

To the uninformed consumer (which might be casual fans or parents with kids), there are many things that apply to 3rd party products versus Hasbro and Takara Tomy's official Transformers that could fall in line with the statement above.

In addition, Radio Flyer alleges the Pathfinder Wagon, which sells for about $100 on the company’s website, is of higher quality, with a maximum weight capacity of 200 pounds, versus 84 pounds for the alleged knockoff. The Radio Flyer model also includes seat belts, which the APT version does not, “increasing the risk of injury to young children when riding in the wagon,” the lawsuit alleges.

The above text could also apply to the 3rd party products because those products do not have to pass child-safety laws, yet are sold alongside official Transformers products on various retailers websites such as Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Target.com and other online retailers.

The biggest difference I see between the Radio Flyer case and any case Hasbro could have with 3rd party companies is Radio Flyer is taking on a Michigan-based company whereas most 3rd party companies are based in Asia or (more specifically) China, which complicates the legal challenges due to international law.

I’ve always appreciated where 3rd party designers and fans are coming from but as someone who’s always appreciated artists and musicians and their intellectual property I just can’t understand how time and again 3rd party companies get away with essentially ripping off other people’s work. That’s not cool.

There’s never any originality just excessively complex and expensive combiner component one after another which look just like pre existing toys. This is just me personally but it’s always been a moral issue I haven’t been able to get over.

If 3rd party toys didn’t look just like or weren’t directly supposed to be versions of pre existing intellectual properties nobody would buy them in the first place. That’s why I really appreciate Siege and it providing fans with official versions of Refraktor and Jetfire and Omega which 3rd parties have mimicked for years.

I don’t want anyone to lose their jobs or food off their tables but if 3rd party designers are as brilliant and resourceful as some of their toy designs then they should be able to think their way out of the confining parameters of this industry of thinly disguised thievery.

The article mentions the knock off element, so wouldnt this be more similar to hasbro going against Chinese KO companies, like Wei Jiang?

Also, like you say, the geographical component is a big issue. China has different laws for intellectual copyright so its tougher.

This article proves that its possible to tackle them though: https://brickset.com/article/39608/lego ... n-in-china

This is what the court decided:

According to the decisions issued by the court, the four defendants, Shantou Meizhi Model Co., Ltd., et al, are liable for copying the 3-dimensional artworks of 18 LEGO sets, multiple LEGO Minifigures, as well as for carrying out unfair competition acts.

I find the 3 dimensional artwork description interesting. That can definitely apply to Transformers.

That’s fascinating I didn’t think of that depth of copyright. Very interested stuff.

Interesting I wonder if Hasbro would use this to just keep the 3P element on the fringes, basically warning them not to get too big for their britches

ZeroWolf wrote:Interesting I wonder if Hasbro would use this to just keep the 3P element on the fringes, basically warning them not to get too big for their britches

Comparing Radio Flyer vs. American Plastic Toys to Hasbro/TakaraTomy vs. Manufacturers infringing on the former's IP's ("Third Party" is technically a bit of a misnomer) is kinda comparing apples and oranges depending on what the latter make and how they're designing their product (i.e. what assets are used).

Bluntly speaking, IP-Infringing Companies can be split into two groups:

- Companies that make their own (overly complicated) designs, that may or may not be based on existing character looks.
- Companies that directly copy existing designs and patents, sometimes even up- or downscaling. In other words, their assets are taken from non-public domain sources, which is intellectual theft. Think true KO's and bootlegs here.

It's the second group that the article can be used towards the most effectively, and that Hasbro sees more as a threat. The other... not so much per se, at least not worth pursuing because such a case would weigh only on character designs, not on how the figures are made or which patents could potentially have been copied. Yes, character designs are trademarked or otherwise copyrighted, I get that. But it only takes some deviation to make it grey area thus harder to argue in court. That's how Hasbro gets away with their unlicensed vehicles Think of it this way: such a case could drag on and on, rendering any awarded damage moot if any.

william-james88 wrote:The article mentions the knock off element, so wouldnt this be more similar to hasbro going against Chinese KO companies, like Wei Jiang?

Also, like you say, the geographical component is a big issue. China has different laws for intellectual copyright so its tougher.

This article proves that its possible to tackle them though: https://brickset.com/article/39608/lego ... n-in-china

This is what the court decided:

According to the decisions issued by the court, the four defendants, Shantou Meizhi Model Co., Ltd., et al, are liable for copying the 3-dimensional artworks of 18 LEGO sets, multiple LEGO Minifigures, as well as for carrying out unfair competition acts.

I find the 3 dimensional artwork description interesting. That can definitely apply to Transformers.

The "building block" market is... interesting, not just because of the not-exactly-legit players involved, but also because the basic block patent is Public Domain now I believe. Lepin is a notorious copycat, deriving their sets not just from Lego, but even worse from custom builds that fans show off online. Plenty of YouTube videos on that. Good to see Lepin getting what was coming.

Let's not forget that Hasbro has already successfully won a case against Chinese bootlegs that they claimed was only the latest in a string with more to come. They even sent out a press release to highlight their fierce protection of their IP.

https://www.seibertron.com/transformers ... ina/42675/

Emerje