Ray Ban demands Rand quit selling their glasses on his site

[Matt Collins]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ray-ban-bans-rand-pauls-ray-bans-over-brand-ban/

 

[presence]

marketing fail on their behalf

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

• 
• Win4Ever • 2 hours ago
• Ray-BanGhazi?
• Reply
• 
  • Anne Mckinney-page Win4Ever • 2 hours ago
  • And you have won the Net for the day

 

[65fastback2+2]

I'm gonna laugh when he puts them back up.

If a company is buying them, customizing them and then supplying them to Rand for sale, then Ray Ban doesnt have jack squat in the argument. The only thing Rand cant do without their consent is use their official logo in the advertising of them.

Purchasing items for resale has ZERO bearing on the claim ray ban is making.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Butthurt.

 

[65fastback2+2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

 

[Natural Citizen]

I spend like ten bucks for shades.

 

[Matt Collins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Well, the question becomes what their beef is... is it trademark or copyright infringement? Is it a trade / pricing / wholesale distribution sort of law?


It would be interesting to see the actual complaint

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm gonna laugh when he puts them back up.

If a company is buying them, customizing them and then supplying them to Rand for sale, then Ray Ban doesnt have jack squat in the argument. The only thing Rand cant do without their consent is use their official logo in the advertising of them.

Purchasing items for resale has ZERO bearing on the claim ray ban is making.

It depends... they probably have a copyright / trademark claim. They might also have a claim on sales distribution or price setting.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Well, the question becomes what their beef is... is it trademark or copyright infringement? Is it a trade / pricing / wholesale distribution sort of law?


It would be interesting to see the actual complaint

It depends... they probably have a copyright / trademark claim. They might also have a claim on sales distribution or price setting.

Most trademark claims go like this:

Please cease using our trademark or we are going to sue you for $XXXXX.

Then you have to decide if its too expensive to fight back or not. In this case, it doesnt make sense spending tens of thousands of dollars on a lawyer to fight back....easier to just remove the items.

This is how most people respond.

They would only have a claim if Rand is buying them direct from Ray Ban and signed an agreement with them.

Again, I am betting he bought then through another outlet before having them customized...which means Ray Ban has no claim...though they can still file one and waste your money on lawyers and court.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Utterly irrelevant. Ray-Ban was not objecting to the sale; the objection was to rebranding them with Rand Paul's name.

Here is the relevant law in brief: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trademark_infringement

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

...

They would only have a claim if Rand is buying them direct from Ray Ban and signed an agreement with them.

LOL. Source?

 

[muh_roads]

Those are going to be rare now.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Utterly irrelevant. Ray-Ban was not objecting to the sale; the objection was to rebranding them with Rand Paul's name.

Here is the relevant law in brief: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trademark_infringement

completely relevant...here:

The first-sale doctrine is a legal concept playing an important role in U.S. copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

Please note "enables reselling of trademarked products AFTER the trademark holder put the products to market".

e.g. I can buy a Ford Truck, paint Fasty Signs down the side and resell it as a brand new Ford F150.

The only way I WOULDNT be allowed to do this, is if I signed the agreement saying I wouldnt when I purchased them from ford. If I purchased them from say, my local ford dealer, I am free to modifying and market and resell them as I wish.

You dont think Dr. Dre beats would come after rand FARRRR before ray ban if it was lawfully sound? Bingo.

Ray Ban is merely flexing their muscles in hopes that Rand wont spend time or money fighting it. Period.

 

[65fastback2+2]

this would actually more specifically fall under derivative works which is also protected

The first sale doctrine only limits the distribution rights of copyright holders. This principle sometimes clashes with the holder's other rights, such as the right reproduction and derivative work rights. For example, in Lee v. A.R.T, the defendant bought plaintiff's artworks in the form of notecards and then mounted them on ceramic tiles, covering the artworks with transparent epoxy resin. Despite plaintiff's assertion of violation of his right to prepare derivative works, the 7th Circuit held that the derivative work right was not violated and that defendant's sale of the tiles was protected under the first sale doctrine.

The Rand Paul Ray Ban's were explicitly derivative works as well.

more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

 

[specsaregood]

marketing fail on their behalf

indeed; because what sunglass company wouldn't want one of the best known opthamologists in the country pitchin their product? I look forward to a competitor coming in and gladly having Randal sell branded versions of their sunglasses.

 

[philipped]

RAY BAN AINT TRYNA GET MONEY?

 

[William Tell]

How hard is it for a campaign to not do dumb crap like this? I realize this isn't a big deal, but when I saw how they were marketing the sunglasses I wondered if it would be an issue. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see this coming. This is the sort of dumb distraction a campaign should try to avoid.

 

[Dr.3D]

So now those Rand glasses are going to be collectors items. LOL

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't agree with it, but I'd think they have a stronger case with Rand being a public figure. Could get into a legal gray area if they claim he's misrepresenting himself as a spokesman, or something like that.

But as was mentioned above, this kind of thing is more about neither side wanting to settle it with a legal battle. They're using their leverage, because they're a bunch of dicks who'd rather make a barely publicized petty political point than take free advertising, apparently.