Hi,

I think the issue is that you would not be able to sell them as say – Colt hair bows, NFL hair bows and so on. Furthermore, I think that somewhere in the mass of laws, there is something about creating them and using them for personal use is ok but you can not sell them to make a profit. Of course, if you get the permission of the intellectual property rights owner to create & market them, than there is no problem.

Your Mickey Mouse bow is a problem for sure. They strictly enforce their rights.

I am unsure but your Sesame Street ones could also be an issue.

Overall, cute bows! :)

Below is tons of info for you – happy reading!

—

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognised—and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

—

Here is some info from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):

[URL removed]

Here is a good link to laws governing copyright and intellectual property [URL removed]

[URL removed]

Here is copyright [URL removed]

[URL removed]

Here is info on trademark [URL removed]

[URL removed]

Here is info on the Sherman [URL removed]

[URL removed]

Here’s info on the use of the [URL removed] Who Dat

[URL removed]

Here’s a good Q & A session on the topic which lawyers responded [URL removed]

[URL removed]

Supreme Court Strikes Blow to NFL’s Long-Standing Licensing Venture
by Matthew Massari

On May 24, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that may ultimately change the way pro sports teams and leagues can license team-owned intellectual property for merchandise and apparel items. The Supreme Court’s ruling in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League et al., case number 08-66, struck a significant blow to the long-standing joint venture between the National Football League (NFL) and its 32 member teams to license and market team-owned trademarks through a single entity. The case stems from a licensing agreement the NFL made with Reebok International Ltd. in 2000 to be the exclusive manufacturer and marketer of hats bearing NFL team trademarks.

The NFL is an unincorporated association of 32 separately owned professional football teams. Each team owns its own name, colors, logo, trademarks, and related intellectual property, each of which is distinctive and well known to millions of sports fans. Prior to 1963, the teams made their own arrangements for licensing their intellectual property and marketing trademarked items such as caps and jerseys. In 1963, the teams formed a separate legal entity – National Football League Properties (NFLP) – to develop, license, and market their intellectual property.

Between 1963 and 2000 NFLP granted non-exclusive licenses to a number of vendors to manufacture and sell team-labeled apparel. In December of 2000 the teams voted to authorize NFLP to grant Reebok an exclusive 10-year license to produce and sell trademarked headwear for all 32 teams. When NFLP failed to renew its license with headwear manufacturer American Needle, Inc., the apparel company filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the agreements between the NFL, its teams, NFLP, and Reebok violated Sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which, inter alia, makes “[e]very contract, combination…or, conspiracy, in restraint of trade” illegal.

In defense of the NFLP licensing venture and exclusive license deal with Reebok, the NFL and its teams argued that they were incapable of “conspiring” with respect to exploitation of intellectual property rights because the NFL and its 32 teams act as a “single entity” and, therefore, are immune from antitrust laws. Under antitrust laws, a “single entity” cannot conspire with itself, because more than one distinct entity needs to exist in order for there to be a conspiracy. For example, the Supreme Court has held that a parent corporation and its subsidiary are not capable of an illegal conspiracy under the Sherman Antitrust Act. See Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (1984) 467 U.S. 752. As an oversimplification of the issue, the Court needed to decide whether the NFL and its teams were a de facto “single entity,” akin to a parent/subsidiary relationship, or whether the NFL’s licensing venture actually joined together economic competitors causing a restraint of trade in the market for the teams’ intellectual property.

The Supreme Court’s inquiry was limited to the particular conduct at issue, licensing of teams’ intellectual property. The Supreme Court did not agree with the lower courts’ previous rulings in this context, which found that the NFL acted as a single entity for intellectual property licensing. Directly relevant to this issue, the Court found that the teams in fact compete in the market for intellectual [URL removed]

To a firm making hats, the Saints and the Colts are two potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks. When each NFL team licenses its intellectual property, it is not pursuing the “common interests of the whole” league but is instead pursuing interests of each corporation itself; teams are acting as separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests. Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that deprive the marketplace of independent decisionmaking and therefore of actual or potential competition.

The Court further found that although NFL teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate, profit-maximizing entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned. “While common interests in the NFL brand partially unite the economic interests of the parent firms,” the Court found that “the teams still have distinct, potentially competing interests” and that each of the teams is a substantial, independently owned, and independently managed business whose general corporate actions are guided or determined by separate corporate consciousnesses, and that their objectives are not common since the teams compete with one another, not only on the playing field, but to attract fans for gate receipts and for contracts with managerial and playing personnel.

The broad potential implications of the Court’s ruling in this case have already been widely speculated in legal and sports industry circles. As for the intellectual property licensing implications, the Court’s ruling means that the 32 NFL teams’ joint venture to license and market teams’ individually owned intellectual property through a single entity may not be a viable business model much longer. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower courts to decide whether the licensing venture and corresponding restraint of trade is reasonable, such that it actually promotes competition rather than suppresses it.

Matt Massari is a corporate and intellectual property transactions attorney at Weintraub Genshlea Chediak and represents various clients in the sports, media and entertainment industries.

[URL removed]

I sell bottlecap jewlery and Yes you can get into ig trouble selling them with any type of team image. Most are copywrited. Disney is the worst when it comes to going after you. Not long ago I had a pair of earrings that I added the Jack Daniels logo to and they sent me a letter telling me to remove them or else. You need to read up on copywright laws to get more info.

Since the bottle cap has the Purdue logo , you are merely using an existing item,and not in trouble.
If you are applying a Purdue logo to an item that did not originally have one on it , then you are.
William.

I have also been informed that if you are using an existing item that has already been put out on the market for sale by the original company, you can remake it into anything you want.

Cute little hair bows. I don’t know what a korker is, though. I’ve never even heard of that word. Might want to add the color and hair bow to your titles so people can find them. People looking for a red hair bow would not find them. I hope you’ll use more keywords in your titles. JMHO Hoping you sell lots of them, as they really are adorable.

I also didn’t know what a korker is?
Thanks for asking.

Korker bows are the bows with the ribbon tightly curled. Thank you all for your help! I think I’m still going to make them for my daughter and not sell them

I thought they were Corkers with a “C” anyway, I know what you’re talking about! :) They look like a package wrapped with curling ribbon – except they go on a little girl’s head.

No, it is “Korker” with the “K.” I use them for my dolls all the time and love them. Does this mean you’re taking them away?

Anyway, as a writer who has to be somewhat aware of what’s showing up and where, I can tell you that the internet is a jungle and impossible to totally police. There’s simply too much intellectual material being put out to protect it all from anyone willing to take it and run.

Disney is the BEST at protecting their intellectual – and in all ways – rights. There’s a bar here that featured a large “Winnie the Pooh” sign about the name “Poh’s.” A letter from the Disney Corp. ended that little ploy, and in this instance, it was really an inappropriate use of their intellectual property – promoting a bar.

But when you consider that it’s the lifeblood of companies, they have the right to protect their property. You don’t want to see something you originated showing up as having helped secure someone else’s Fortune 500 dream, either!

And the laws are so convoluted, particularly when you start digging into cyberspace, for you can only protect a copyright for so many years, trademarks have more money behind them, therefore tend to have more bite if they go after a violation. Even drugs are only free from generic cloning for 7 years after coming on the market.

There’s a lot of great stuff out there in the Public Domain, though, that’s free to use as you please. Maybe you can find other subjects for your bows that will be just as attractive, but not in danger of any ownership violations.

(Now going to check out the Korkers!)

IT’s CALLED RECYCLING…LOL

AND IT IS PERFECTLY FINE TO RECYCLE AND TURN ORIGINAL ITEMS INTO ART!

It is not ok…to paint or recreate the logo and sell it as if it is the original logo item.

It is ok to paint all you want for your own personal use.

When it comes to fabric your only suppose to craft things for the home if it is licensed. But I have seen so many Craft fairs with licensed fabric and even on ebay…licensed fabric crafted items that I really don’t think they have the time to go after small business crafters.
Only the BIG COMPANIES..that may purchase their fabrics and mass produce.

So…don’t be afraid to get creative..that is my thought on it all.

You will only get a warning first if you end up making millions…
but what are the chances of that…on Bonanzle..lol

From my reading as long as you dont use their brand names, it’s alright because its not your item and not theirs