Author Topic: CCI vs. SLCC II  (Read 3445 times)

Offline hikanteki

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 999
  • Liked: 198
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #75 on: November 18, 2017, 11:53:48 pm »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think part of what might be urging CCI on is that SLCC/their parties actually filed to have CCI's trademark cancelled AND accused them of fraudulently obtaining the copyright CCI already holds. So basically they're claiming that CCI, knowingly I believe, lied to USPTO to get it.

If that's found true, it's punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both; though I'm not in the field so I have no idea how frequently that actually happens even if there is fraud found. Even if it's not taken that far often, it wouldn't be good for CCI regardless.

So that could be further pushing CCI to keep pursuing it, giving in on the big trial case would look bad in regard to the trademark dispute.

Ehh, this never would have happened if CCI didn’t sue SLCC to begin with. While I actually don’t agree with SLCC suing them over this, ultimately CCI brought it upon themselves by making the original lawsuit about the name.
SDCC 2007, 2012-2014, 2016-2018 | ECCC 2012-2018 | WC 2010-2011, 2016 | RCCC 2015 | SVCC 2016-2018 | DCC 2016 | SWC 2015 | Fanime 2010-2018


Offline Iris_aya

  • Supporter
  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Posts: 830
  • Liked: 306
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #76 on: November 19, 2017, 11:25:31 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ehh, this never would have happened if CCI didn’t sue SLCC to begin with. While I actually don’t agree with SLCC suing them over this, ultimately CCI brought it upon themselves by making the original lawsuit about the name.

And one can easily argue that SLCC brought the consequences of drawn out attorney's fees on themselves by drawing attention regarding the advertising. Maybe they didn't intend to potentially impact on CCI. But while intent does matter in law, impact/damages can be equally, if not more, important. I think it is reasonably understandable that it's not a great idea to decide to advertise like that.

However, you obviously disagree about the impact of that and whether the advertising was harmless. However, people were obviously mislead as a few people mentioned being confused, no doubt many others were as this forum is an extremely small portion of the people who go to SDCC, whether with badges or not. But we can talk in circles all day so this'll probably be the last of my comments on the matter, unless someone asks me about it. So agree to disagree I guess, as silly as it sounds.

I'll just be keeping an eye on the case. It's fairly frequently, and will be moreso now that trial is starting after Thanksgiving, in the news in SD. So I'll be on the lookout for it ^^
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 05:36:27 pm by Iris_aya »

Offline marcia29

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 772
  • Liked: 250
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #77 on: November 19, 2017, 04:24:33 pm »
I fully appreciate this discussion, as it has clarified many things about this case for me.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 01:23:17 pm by marcia29 »

Offline alyssa

  • Administrator
  • Stan Lee's Hospitality Suite
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 17394
  • Liked: 3615
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #78 on: December 01, 2017, 01:05:04 pm »
great write up on bleedingcool

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Opening Statements in Salt Lake Comic Con vs San Diego Comic-Con, as Rose City Comic-Con Does a Deal

Posted by Rich Johnston December 1, 2017 0 Comments

This week saw opening statements in the trademark court battle between San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake ComicCon over the ComicCon trademark.

Callie Bjurstrom, attorney for San Diego Comic-Con told jurors that Salt Lake Comic Con hijacked the Comic-Con trademark. That it “remained a small, intimate comic convention for decades” and that it wasn’t until the early 2000s that “the secret was out: Comics were cool........
Donations gratefully accepted. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login,
Our Twitters @FoCCBlog @friendsofcci
Please don't PM me about Hotels or Badges, you'll get a better/faster answer by posting in a thread

Offline AzT

  • Supporter
  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 1095
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #79 on: December 01, 2017, 06:02:53 pm »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
great write up on bleedingcool

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login-rose-city-deal/

So that explains this:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
Don't miss out on the early Fast Pass sale for @RoseCityCC Will you be attending #RCCC next year?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"[He] was to tell that story once, to one person only, and much later in his life." - Fred Saberhagen

Offline alyssa

  • Administrator
  • Stan Lee's Hospitality Suite
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 17394
  • Liked: 3615
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #80 on: December 01, 2017, 07:08:14 pm »
List of con's accepting cci

Palm Springs Comic Con
New jersey Expo
Rose City Comic Con

Donations gratefully accepted. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login,
Our Twitters @FoCCBlog @friendsofcci
Please don't PM me about Hotels or Badges, you'll get a better/faster answer by posting in a thread

Offline marcia29

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 772
  • Liked: 250
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #81 on: December 02, 2017, 06:12:39 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
List of con's accepting cci

Palm Springs Comic Con
New jersey Expo
Rose City Comic Con

I looked at a couple of the websites for the cons, trying to see if they are also non-profit (like CCI) but couldn't easily locate that info. I see that New Jersey Expo is owned by Mad Events, which owns Long Beach Comic Con, among others, so... it looks like they are for-profit?

Offline cabler30

  • Gaming Lounge
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2017
  • Posts: 333
  • Liked: 19
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #82 on: December 02, 2017, 01:17:04 pm »
I might be wrong, but if they are for profit then tickets to event would be alot and maybe more then other cons.

Offline riotgirl77

  • Gaming Lounge
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 284
  • Liked: 55
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #83 on: December 05, 2017, 12:53:22 am »
Very interesting....and Dan Farr (of SLCC...one of co-owners) takes the stand tomorrow

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Are These Emails a Smoking Gun for Salt Lake Comic Con in Battle with San Diego Comic-Con?

Quote
Last week saw the opening arguments in the court case between San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake Comic Con over the “Comic Con” trademark being watched by all sorts of people. Most of whom run conventions with the words “Comic Con” in the headline in some form or other. We managed to give a summary last week, but a few more details have escaped, at least from the San Diego Comic-Con side that illustrate some of their case against Salt Lake. You can read much of it on Salt Lake Comic Con’s own site, but there are more details that emerged last week.

Such as the citing of 2013 e-mail from the organisers of Salt Lake, Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenburg, appearing to trade on the San Diego mark, saying:

    I wanted to follow up to discuss our opportunity this week to leverage the
    San Diego Comic Con to help people relate more to our event.

    —
    I just feel the more we can leverage San Diego to boost our brand here the
    better.

    —-

    It may be a good time to get us on the news again to discuss
    the show so they associate us with San Diego.

They seem to be treating this as some kind of smoking gun, proving their case. And stating further that:

    Defendants further spoke freely and openly of their plan to “hijack” the SDCC brand as they ventured onto the comic convention scene, a brand that was created through SDCC’s decades-long use of and investment in its COMIC-CON marks. Mr. Brandenburg went so far as to admit that “hijacking the Comic Con brand” was part of Defendants’ “magic formula.”  According to Mr. Brandenburg, the word hijack means “taking something and using it for your own purposes.”

Much of the other charges and details can be read in the ICV2 summary, but this seems to be a new tack, with correspondence as evidence. As well as citing the use of a Salt Lake Comic Con-plastered car to drive around San Diego during the show, they also bring up confusion that came their way.

    Further instances of confusion manifested during and after Defendants’ Salt Lake Comic Con convention held in September 2014. SDCC received several phone calls from persons who attended (or attempted to attend) Defendants’ convention complaining about their abysmal experience. (Id.) SDCC also received numerous emails from disenchanted patrons complaining about Defendants’ convention and asking for refunds. One consumer urged SDCC to “do everything you can have to have Salt Lake Comic Con separate themselves and their version of business from yours. I bought tickets believing it was the original, as did many others.” Another chastised SDCC because “I waited in your Salt Lake comic con line for almost 3 hours tonight, and never even got in the door! What the Hell!! I sent messages to your Salt Lake City personnel and it appears as if nobody here cares!” Yet others asked SDCC for a refund due to their poor experience at the Salt Lake Comic Con convention.”

A tactic designed not only to demonstrate confusion in the marketplace but having a side benefit of quoting a few people saying how terrible their experience of Salt Lake Comic Con was. Tricky…

Offline marcia29

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 772
  • Liked: 250
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #84 on: December 05, 2017, 03:12:26 am »
New light for me, for sure.  Looks like SLCC can stop blinking their innocent baby eyes now. Thank you You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for this update!

Offline AzT

  • Supporter
  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 1095
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #85 on: December 05, 2017, 07:35:23 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
In the trial over ownership of the term “Comic-Con," San Diego Comic Convention, the organization that runs San Diego Comic-Con, rested its case against Dan Farr Productions, which runs Salt Lake Comic Con, on Friday.  Monday morning, attorneys representing Dan Farr Productions filed a motion requesting the judge’s ruling that San Diego Comic Convention had not met its burden of persuasion to show that there was likelihood of confusion between the two show’s marks, or harm to the San Diego brands.

Among the exhibits supporting the motion was a document in which a $9.62 million price tag was estimated for a marketing campaign for San Diego to “repair the significant ‘brand erosion’” the show has argued it suffered.

Pre-trial jockeying was fierce, with one issue going to the Court of Appeals for resolution (see “Salt Lake Wins on Gag Order”), so this latest filing by Dan Farr Productions is par for the course.  The trial is expected to end this week. 
"[He] was to tell that story once, to one person only, and much later in his life." - Fred Saberhagen

Offline alyssa

  • Administrator
  • Stan Lee's Hospitality Suite
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 17394
  • Liked: 3615
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #86 on: December 05, 2017, 07:41:00 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I looked at a couple of the websites for the cons, trying to see if they are also non-profit (like CCI) but couldn't easily locate that info. I see that New Jersey Expo is owned by Mad Events, which owns Long Beach Comic Con, among others, so... it looks like they are for-profit?

Personally i wouldn't necessary base all credibility of a con on if it was non-profit. there area a lot of con's that are put on by for-profit companies but mount a production worth going to. Reed Pop comes to mind of course

from what i gather Long beach CC and Rose city are both well rounded con's with a long history of producing true comic con's. disclaimer- i have not atteneded either

To my mind the email's reported in the bleeding cool article are huge.... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thanks You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for pointing them out to us!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 07:43:37 am by alyssa »
Donations gratefully accepted. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login,
Our Twitters @FoCCBlog @friendsofcci
Please don't PM me about Hotels or Badges, you'll get a better/faster answer by posting in a thread

Offline marcia29

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 772
  • Liked: 250
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #87 on: December 05, 2017, 07:47:46 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login - I don't connect profit or non-profit status with legitimacy of a convention, and support both kinds.  I was wondering if that status affects the decision CCI makes as far as them offering 'official' recognition.  I do think, for me,  it may muddy the waters if CCI aligns with for-profit conventions.  Why?  I am not really sure...it just feels a bit odd.

Offline alyssa

  • Administrator
  • Stan Lee's Hospitality Suite
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 17394
  • Liked: 3615
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #88 on: December 05, 2017, 08:21:56 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login - I don't connect profit or non-profit status with legitimacy of a convention, and support both kinds.  I was wondering if that status affects the decision CCI makes as far as them offering 'official' recognition.  I do think, for me,  it may muddy the waters if CCI aligns with for-profit conventions.  Why?  I am not really sure...it just feels a bit odd.
I see(feel) your point LOL
The tipping point for me has been the 'feel' of the for-profit conventions. it is possible to be a for profit and still put on a show that's doesn't treat the attendees as cattle

I tend to think the for/non profit status isn't a consideration in CCI's matrix. I think cci uses more of a generalized approach- like 'does this con promote our mission statement.
Donations gratefully accepted. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login,
Our Twitters @FoCCBlog @friendsofcci
Please don't PM me about Hotels or Badges, you'll get a better/faster answer by posting in a thread

Offline marcia29

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 772
  • Liked: 250
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #89 on: December 05, 2017, 08:46:09 am »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see(feel) your point LOL
The tipping point for me has been the 'feel' of the for-profit conventions. it is possible to be a for profit and still put on a show that's doesn't treat the attendees as cattle

I tend to think the for/non profit status isn't a consideration in CCI's matrix. I think cci uses more of a generalized approach- like 'does this con promote our mission statement.

Yes! You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  - I like that way of thinking about it.