A clothing company says the studio used its signature backpacks in the sequel without permission and then passed off the products as a competitors’ product.
A clothing company says the studio used its signature backpacks in the sequel without permission and then passed off the products as a competitors’ product.
Making sure I understand…
They used Frost River backpacks in the movie, then did a co-branding campaign with Filson to sell look-a-likes.
Not sure enough people are going to buy a backpack seen in a movie to make any sort of difference…
I don’t think you have to prove loss sales for trademark disputes. Just a likelihood of confusion. And from the article:
I think they might actually have a case. Use of one of their bags used in a lookalike competitors marketing campaign without clearly showing that it’s theirs is probably infringement.
Lack of sales might be an argument to be made if we get to damages but I think this will probably be settled out of court for a nondisclosured amount. It’ll probably be cheaper for both parties that way.
Provided anyone actually watched the movie long enough to see the backpack.
Doomed to fail.
‘The lead wore our shoes!’ ‘Tom Cruise wore our underpants!’
No way this is actionable. It’s one thing if you have obviously recognisable products prominently onscreen, like a Pepsi can, but nobody’s going to spot your backpack, and not spotting it won’t cost you sales.
Until this article, I didn’t even realise he had a backpack at all (ooh, that’s probably the point).
Oh, it sounds like that’s not the issue. It’s that they’re using clips from the movie featuring the backpack in anoyher backpack company’s commercials.
This isn’t “you used our product without permission”, but “you’re using our product to directly market a competing product”.
Did you only read the headline? That may be surface take…however the movie filmed with one backpack…then in the marketing guff made deal with another backpack maker to be “Indiana Jones official backpack” with a knock-off. I can sort of see how that is infringing on the original brand a little.
Yeah, they’re going to get more press from the lawsuit than the movie.
I notice too, the pack in question is badged with a certain hat on their website as an “artifact edition”:
https://frostriver.com/products/geologist-pack
Ya, don’t think many people are dropping $300 on a retro backpack from a movie that bombed.
All the big movies are bombing, and this time they cant blame COVID. Indy Jones 5, Flash, that dumb looking Pixar film, etc. We are entering a new era where the audiences are smartened up and wont stand for the usual cliched, predictable nonsense, especially just more rehashed sequels. And on top of that, Hollywood actual workers are on strike. The executives are probably single-handedly supporting the vodka and cocaine markets.
This is a particularly amusing weekend to say this, given that two big movies, Barbie and Oppenheimer, are going to have a ridiculously successful run.
And neither are original properties either. Oppenheimer is a true story based in part on the book “American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer”, and Barbie is, of course, Barbie.
I thought Flash was surprisingly good! Like I didn’t even want to see it because it’s DC but I laughed my ass off the whole movie. Perhaps I’m in the minority.
It’s not really that anyone would buy it but more they stole the product and sold it through a different company. Tbh I buy one backpack a decade so I feel you, the backpack itself is a gimmick