crimesofparis said:

PennyPurple said:

People with tat's aren't making money off of the symbol. Sheila is, and the symbol is trademarked Lovejunky said:

How Dare she !

Off with her Hand !

[Edited 8/4/17 6:55am]

purplethunder3121 said:

There's better things to do than worry about this.

We are just discussing it.

The bottom line is, you have to wonder about "friends" and "exes" who do stuff like this, knowing that if Prince were alive he would not allow it. We all know he would shut it down and quick- even to his best friends--- The more I see how Manuela doesn't use his symbol or tell intimate details of their marriage, the more I like her, to be honest.

Superfan1984 said:

Superfan1984 said:

The bottom line is, you have to wonder about "friends" and "exes" who do stuff like this, knowing that if Prince were alive he would not allow it. We all know he would shut it down and quick- even to his best friends--- The more I see how Manuela doesn't use his symbol or tell intimate details of their marriage, the more I like her, to be honest.

No, she just built a school (that she claims he approved) and uses his name to raise money. Same end, just different means.

crimesofparis said:

laurarichardson said:

Let me make myself crystal clear placing the butterfly over the symbol does not confuse anyone with half a brain. If you looked at his inventory sheet he did it settle on one variations there are about a dozen that are trademarked Some good person has gone and posted a link that I believe will show the mistake is your thinking. I think the estate could spend time going after people who are using the symbol on t-shirts and posters.

Are you saying no one could reasonably confuse this with being a Prince shirt?

Oh it's grey, are there no other colours available?

I think people would confuse the butterfly and symbol as belonging to Prince if they were not a long time fan. Afterall, there is the butterfly scene in New Girl which millions of people watched (or at the very least 100s of thousands). I imagine quite a few of them were not Prince fans, but were fans of New Girl. If they saw this symbol in Target, Walmart, on ebay, or wherever, they would associate it with Prince and New Girl, and think the shirt is a play off that show. Regarding Mayte using the Prince symbol in her book, that was his legal name while they were together and so she is respecting him by using the name he claimed at that time. However, I think I'm really tired of people using Prince to make money. If they had tried any of this while he was here, they'd be getting C&Ds and they know it. And it's not just them using Prince to make money, but it is them taking advantage of Prince's fan base of whom many are still mourning the loss and wanting to snatch up anything Prince related, just to feel close to him again. These bands that are selling out shows, these protegees using Prince's symbol or name, know this and that is why they keep seeking out the Purple family. If they wanted to really celebrate Prince, they would be innovative, inventive, and would use their own music and maybe perform one or two songs by Prince instead of hanging on his coat-tails. They couldn't do any of this while he was alive, and if they had tried, even Prince's fanbase would have thrown a fit. But to do it now, not just once but over and over again, it has stopped being about Prince's legacy and started being about what they can make off Prince's legacy and by taking advantage of a mourning fanbase.

Totally agree Benni!

benni said:

I think people would confuse the butterfly and symbol as belonging to Prince if they were not a long time fan. Afterall, there is the butterfly scene in New Girl which millions of people watched (or at the very least 100s of thousands). I imagine quite a few of them were not Prince fans, but were fans of New Girl. If they saw this symbol in Target, Walmart, on ebay, or wherever, they would associate it with Prince and New Girl, and think the shirt is a play off that show. Regarding Mayte using the Prince symbol in her book, that was his legal name while they were together and so she is respecting him by using the name he claimed at that time. However, I think I'm really tired of people using Prince to make money. If they had tried any of this while he was here, they'd be getting C&Ds and they know it. And it's not just them using Prince to make money, but it is them taking advantage of Prince's fan base of whom many are still mourning the loss and wanting to snatch up anything Prince related, just to feel close to him again. These bands that are selling out shows, these protegees using Prince's symbol or name, know this and that is why they keep seeking out the Purple family. If they wanted to really celebrate Prince, they would be innovative, inventive, and would use their own music and maybe perform one or two songs by Prince instead of hanging on his coat-tails. They couldn't do any of this while he was alive, and if they had tried, even Prince's fanbase would have thrown a fit. But to do it now, not just once but over and over again, it has stopped being about Prince's legacy and started being about what they can make off Prince's legacy and by taking advantage of a mourning fanbase.

I so agree, Benni ...

PennyPurple said:

laurarichardson said:

MoDrawersMoDrawers said:

She clearly has got an authorization for using it, imo. Let's face, Prince, the brand, is a money making machine.

MoDrawersMoDrawers said:

laurarichardson said:

Because the other people are using an exact copy of the symbol which has been trademarked. There is a variation on Sheila's symbol that I think would hold up if the estate to her to court. The other people are also promoting their shirts all over the Internet which could interfer with the official shirts the estate has out.

No, this would not hold up in court. I'm a trademark specialist and I have been working with trademarks for over 10 years so I'm confident in my assessment. Do you think someone adding a butterfly to the Nike swoosh mark would be Ok? That's exactly what's happening here. The estate or family or whomever is in charge would have a case and they would win but they've chosen not to. But yes, the average customer would see the items as "confusingly similar" and the trademark owner would win and recover damages.

That is your opinion I would imagine a court would have to make that decision. Just like Sheila would have to get a decison from a court on her personal belongings that she cannot get out of Paisley Park.

laurarichardson said:

MoDrawersMoDrawers said:

laurarichardson said: No, this would not hold up in court. I'm a trademark specialist and I have been working with trademarks for over 10 years so I'm confident in my assessment. Do you think someone adding a butterfly to the Nike swoosh mark would be Ok? That's exactly what's happening here. The estate or family or whomever is in charge would have a case and they would win but they've chosen not to. But yes, the average customer would see the items as "confusingly similar" and the trademark owner would win and recover damages.

That is your opinion I would imagine a court would have to make that decision. Just like Sheila would have to get a decison from a court on her personal belongings that she cannot get out of Paisley Park.

Yep...that's my opinion which I stated above. But I also stated my assessment was based on YEARS of experience so I am confident my "opinion" holds much more weight than your brief research. I also said the estate/family hasn't chosen to stop her use of their intellectual property. It's a moot point until either side takes legal action.

MMJas said:

She clearly has got an authorization for using it, imo. Let's face, Prince, the brand, is a money making machine.

Not necessarily.

MoDrawersMoDrawers said:

laurarichardson said:

That is your opinion I would imagine a court would have to make that decision. Just like Sheila would have to get a decison from a court on her personal belongings that she cannot get out of Paisley Park.

Yep...that's my opinion which I stated above. But I also stated my assessment was based on YEARS of experience so I am confident my "opinion" holds much more weight than your brief research. I also said the estate/family hasn't chosen to stop her use of their intellectual property. It's a moot point until either side takes legal action.

So your years of study make you a judge? Your opinion is just that an opinion.

laurarichardson said:

crimesofparis said:

laurarichardson said:

So your years of study make you a judge? Your opinion is just that an opinion.

Years of study is the difference between an expert opinion regarding a complex field vs. the opinion of someone who does not have years of study or experience. Same could be said about pretty much anything, especially legal matters.

Your years of study means you have an opinion that could be wrong just like anyone else.

I am sure years ago Donald Trump's lawyer believed he had a case when Trump sued a game manufacter over a card game called Trump card only to lose the case.

It is about what you can prove not what you think is right.

laurarichardson said:

Your years of study means you have an opinion that could be wrong just like anyone else.

I am sure years ago Donald Trump's lawyer believed he had a case when Trump sued a game manufacter over a card game called Trump card only to lose the case.

It is about what you can prove not what you think is right.

Trump's lawyer did not necessarily think they had a winnable case. Big guys sue little guys all the time for things that wouldn't hold up in court in hopes that the little guy won't waste the legal resources (aka time and money) fighting it, and will instead opt to pay a licensing fee or a royalty to the big guy.

.

Read up on patent trolls. It's very similar.

.

Plus, in the example you brought up, the name "Trump," being also a common verb that is regularly used in conjunction with cards, makes it a weak case. A "trump card" is such common vernacular, you can't trademark that. If you wanted to build an apartment complex and call it "Trump Apts," well, then you're probably on the losing side of a trademark infringement case.

.

However, this is the Prince symbol. There is nothing else that it could possibly be associated with, other than Prince, the artist. It's not also this thing you see everywhere, like a peace sign or a smiley face. And there's certainly no other reason Sheila is using it other than because it is associated with Prince.

crimesofparis said:

laurarichardson said:

Your years of study means you have an opinion that could be wrong just like anyone else.

I am sure years ago Donald Trump's lawyer believed he had a case when Trump sued a game manufacter over a card game called Trump card only to lose the case.

It is about what you can prove not what you think is right.

Trump's lawyer did not necessarily think they had a winnable case. Big guys sue little guys all the time for things that wouldn't hold up in court in hopes that the little guy won't waste the legal resources (aka time and money) fighting it, and will instead opt to pay a licensing fee or a royalty to the big guy.

.

Read up on patent trolls. It's very similar.

.

Plus, in the example you brought up, the name "Trump," being also a common verb that is regularly used in conjunction with cards, makes it a weak case. A "trump card" is such common vernacular, you can't trademark that. If you wanted to build an apartment complex and call it "Trump Apts," well, then you're probably on the losing side of a trademark infringement case.

.

However, this is the Prince symbol. There is nothing else that it could possibly be associated with, other than Prince, the artist. It's not also this thing you see everywhere, like a peace sign or a smiley face. And there's certainly no other reason Sheila is using it other than because it is associated with Prince.

'Tis true.

crimesofparis said:

laurarichardson said:

Your years of study means you have an opinion that could be wrong just like anyone else.

I am sure years ago Donald Trump's lawyer believed he had a case when Trump sued a game manufacter over a card game called Trump card only to lose the case.

It is about what you can prove not what you think is right.

Trump's lawyer did not necessarily think they had a winnable case. Big guys sue little guys all the time for things that wouldn't hold up in court in hopes that the little guy won't waste the legal resources (aka time and money) fighting it, and will instead opt to pay a licensing fee or a royalty to the big guy.

.

Read up on patent trolls. It's very similar.

.

Plus, in the example you brought up, the name "Trump," being also a common verb that is regularly used in conjunction with cards, makes it a weak case. A "trump card" is such common vernacular, you can't trademark that. If you wanted to build an apartment complex and call it "Trump Apts," well, then you're probably on the losing side of a trademark infringement case.

.

However, this is the Prince symbol. There is nothing else that it could possibly be associated with, other than Prince, the artist. It's not also this thing you see everywhere, like a peace sign or a smiley face. And there's certainly no other reason Sheila is using it other than because it is associated with Prince.

Till you what legal eagle. Why don't you contact the estate about this because I suspect if they are too clueless to go after numorous people on Facebook peddling open rip offs of the symbol I am sure they are not going to bother Mrs. E least they look like idiots.

crimesofparis said:

laurarichardson said:

So your years of study make you a judge? Your opinion is just that an opinion.

Years of study is the difference between an expert opinion regarding a complex field vs. the opinion of someone who does not have years of study or experience. Same could be said about pretty much anything, especially legal matters.

But you are not a judge and therefore not a decision maker.

laurarichardson said:

Till you what legal eagle. Why don't you contact the estate about this because I suspect if they are too clueless to go after numorous people on Facebook peddling open rip offs of the symbol I am sure they are not going to bother Mrs. E least they look like idiots.

Yeah, they'd look like jerks, but they'd be right. The cost of being right isn't always worth it.

.

But I don't really care on a personal level. As far as I'm concerned, let living people who are still actively creating art make their money. That goes for Sheila and it goes for The Revolution, and whoever. Copyright and trademark laws are insane, and it's all Disney's fault.

.

I don't care much about keeping Prince's family wealthy. I really only care that his estate drives enough income to keep Paisley Park owned by the estate and hopefully do a lot of good in their community, and, of course, keep Prince's legacy alive, which isn't cheap.

.

I only commented because I saw a straight-up wrong statement about trademark law and wanted to make it clear that adding a clip art butterfly to someone else's trademark doesn't nullify the trademark.

.

She is 100% using his trademark to make money. And I bet she sells more shirts than The Revolution. And concert tickets. But it's still probably not THAT MUCH MONEY. She probably makes more money on other kinds of investments that she has (hopefully) made over the years than she probably currently does touring and selling merch. It's a hard living, especially now. I almost never fault an artist for what she does to make income -- except when it comes to stealing someone else's art and a few other things.

.

For what it would cost the estate (both the cost of lawyers and the cost of making enemies with arguably Prince's most famous protege), it's just not worth it to put a C&D on her.

years of training, knowledge, experience and qualifications means nothing as this is the org, where idiocracy and ignorance rule over the truth. ye who searches for the facts is wasting thy time on here