The Energon Pub

News Credits: 5 · Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:17 pm

Remarkable.
Why can't it just be rated, "M" for mature? Just restrict the sale to children, like, I don't know, like cigarettes!?

When the hell did kids get in charge anyway? I know they're our future and everything but we're living in the present. (and the past for some.(hence the deco!))

Technically, MP Megatron was/is illegal in the US, yet I was able to get one without orange paint, glued florescent plug, or any plug for that matter.

In summary, I wasn't even that interested before the lame controversy. Just release the figure in the first deco.

News Credits: 462 · Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:22 pm

Convoy wrote:Remarkable.
Why can't it just be rated, "M" for mature? Just restrict the sale to children, like, I don't know, like cigarettes!?

Sadly, to the majority of the world, a toy is a toy no matter what kind of label is slapped on its box, or what kind of market it is sold to.

News Credits: 1 · Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:27 pm

Sabrblade wrote:It is disappointing to see how at this point there are still people who think Philip Morris USA is the main force behind this toy's inability to be sold to U.S. consumers, when it is actually a much greater force at work here: The United States government.

No joke, no crazy conspiracy theories; this toy cannot be sold to U.S. consumers not because of some IP infringement or something, but because doing so would be a U.S. Federal law violation.

Under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children.

While we fans know good and well that that's not the intention behind this figure's existence at all, no matter how much we may try to separate our hobby from being mere children's playthings and instead being "collectibles" for adults, the courts WILL consider this thing a "toy" and WILL consider its Marlboro-homaging deco as advertisement of tobacco-based goods on that which they consider to be a children's product.

As small-minded and ignorant as that sounds, the world we live in is still not yet ready to accept the reality of adults who buy and collect toys, as the concept is still fairly new and infantile in the grand scheme of things.

If this toy were to be sold to U.S. consumers, it is Philip Morris USA who would face federal charges for allowing their brand of tobacco goods to be advertised on a children's product, regardless of whether it would be their direct fault for making the toy or not. They would still be at fault for letting it happen, and the courts would most assuredly see that they suffer the consequences of TakaraTomy's actions.

If we put things into perspective, it really isn't Philip Morris USA's fault that TakaraTomy decided to make this toy, but it's their hide on the line here, not Takara.

Had Takara decided to not be so faithful to the real life car's deco in the first place, instead going the route of Hyperspeed Wheeljack by using a deco that gives off only the vaguest hint of the Marlboro chevron, then it is far less likely that Philip Morris USA would have made such a fuss over this toy in the first place since a deco like Hyperspeed Wheeljack's wouldn't be deemed by the U.S. federal courts as something that might be trying to advertise tobacco-based goods on a children's toy.

Even the changes that Takara made to the deco after the fact might have possibly let this toy come to America had they gone with that changed deco from the start. But since they didn't, and had instead begun with the Marlboro-accurate deco, the deco changes came too little too late for them to fix this toy's situation. As soon as word hit everyone's radar that this toy was meant to resemble the Marlboro-sponsored racecar, this toy was forever doomed to its current fate.

The only possible way this toy could be sold to U.S. consumers at this late in the game would be for its deco to be given an extreme, radical, drastic alteration to its deco to make it almost completely dissimilar to the look of the real life Marlboro racecar. Like, by getting rid of the entire amount of its red paint altogether, or something. But that simply isn't economically financially feasible for Takara to do at this point, what with the toy virtually ready and set to go on the Japanese market.

That's all well and good Sabrblade, and it was the impetus for this whole thing, but PM went well beyond due diligence, almost excessively. Look at the aftermath. We don't have a ban on selling to the US. We have what seems to be a complete stop on shipments ANYWHERE outside japan. We have effectively gone from an embargo on imports to the US to an almost global ban. There is no part of a scorched earth aftermath that doesn't indicate PM's efforts were in drastic excess of their legal obligations.

News Credits: 462 · Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:42 pm

durroth wrote:That's all well and good Sabrblade, and it was the impetus for this whole thing, but PM went well beyond due diligence, almost excessively. Look at the aftermath. We don't have a ban on selling to the US. We have what seems to be a complete stop on shipments ANYWHERE outside japan. We have effectively gone from an embargo on imports to the US to an almost global ban. There is no part of a scorched earth aftermath that doesn't indicate PM's efforts were in drastic excess of their legal obligations.

The global embargo was more Hasbro's doing than PM since those non-U.S. Hasbro markets that tend to import Takara figures are imported by those foreign branches of Hasbro itself, like Hasbro Asia and Hasbro Australia. Hasbro's foreign branches' not carrying this figure is similar to BBTS's and other retailers' not carrying the figure. And while all of them can't sell it because of PM, PM can't let them sell it because of the federal laws prohibiting it.

If the non-U.S. markets were all handled by a different company than the American-based Hasbro, Inc., then it's possible that the figure could have been easier to get in those non-U.S. markets since a non-U.S. company not bound by U.S. laws wouldn't necessarily have to go along with the wishes of a U.S. tobacco company that doesn't want to get penalized (or even terminated) by the U.S. government. But as it is, both Hasbro and PM have to comply to the laws of their home nation. And even though Hasbro is a global company, since it is primarily an American company, its American regulation/operation influence spreads to the rest of its branches around the world.

News Credits: 60 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:29 am

Sabrblade posted

Under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product [b]even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children.

If that is the verbatim ruling, the more my thesis on selling would be most applicable.

Don't sell to children, even remotely. Check.

Again, I mentioned an overseas company selling a non transforming model of Lancia Malboro (well slightly modified patterns to be exact). (Same as Exhaust with modified decal/stamp graph)

Don't sell to children........process the transaction via Credit Card. The root of this all is selling to children is it not?

If the transaction is NOT at all sanctioned by Hasbro, well fine. They want to play safe, understandable but the way this is being handled borders to hysterically stupid.

News Credits: 332 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:22 am

I wonder if this will effect people trying to sell these on eBay from Japan to US buyers, and US based sellers who imported them from Japan.

News Credits: 3 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:24 am

Here's the email from RK. Of course I decided to keep my order!!! Hopefully I can pick up the coin off ebay if they somehow "disappear" from whatever warehouse is storing them now

News Credits: 10 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:48 am

Hmm...Sabrblade posits the laws regarding Tobacco product marketing is the real reason behind PM's argent pursuit of this matter, but it can't be ALL the reason - if it were the term "trademark infringement" would not have been used.

PM wasn't making a dime off of licensing of their "brand" via this toy. The quotes are there because Exhaust never specifically uses the Marlboro name, but heavily references the design.

News Credits: 3 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:05 am

There is an easy and simple fix for this, put an easy to remove sticker or vinyl cling on the figure over the red parts. If it's sold not looking like a PM 'infringing' product and the end user/buyer modifies it problem solved.

News Credits: 462 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:39 am

fenrir72 wrote:Sabrblade posted

Under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product [b]even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children.

If that is the verbatim ruling, the more my thesis on selling would be most applicable.

Don't sell to children, even remotely. Check.

Again, I mentioned an overseas company selling a non transforming model of Lancia Malboro (well slightly modified patterns to be exact). (Same as Exhaust with modified decal/stamp graph)

Don't sell to children........process the transaction via Credit Card. The root of this all is selling to children is it not?

If the transaction is NOT at all sanctioned by Hasbro, well fine. They want to play safe, understandable but the way this is being handled borders to hysterically stupid.

No, it isn't verbatim, but a paraphrasing on my part. But as far as the courts are concerned, any merchandise they deem to be a "toy" would be considered merchandise meant to be sold to children, regardless of who its intended demographic really is. Even if it's being sold to adults, they will come down on PM for letting it be sold, period, because it is perceived as merchandise meant for children.

Perhaps a better wording on my part would have been, it is illegal for any company to sell any merchandise to U.S. consumers if said merchandise is perceived to be children's merchandise that even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods.

News Credits: 1 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:12 am

Doesn't Repro Label save everything? Make a white figure and have Repro Labels make stickers.

Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:12 am

Sabrblade wrote:Under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children.

News Credits: 462 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:16 am

Rated X wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:Under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children.

Comic books aren't considered children's merhandise anymore.

Nor are PG-13 movies.

And that thing on Human Alliance Jazz's packaging isn't advertising anything.

News Credits: 241 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:21 am

sol magnus wrote:Hmm...Sabrblade posits the laws regarding Tobacco product marketing is the real reason behind PM's argent pursuit of this matter, but it can't be ALL the reason - if it were the term "trademark infringement" would not have been used.

PM wasn't making a dime off of licensing of their "brand" via this toy. The quotes are there because Exhaust never specifically uses the Marlboro name, but heavily references the design.

One reason is used to cover up the other. The change in design may have made the trademark infringement itself practically moot, but the other claim still stands.

To make a long story short, the major problem is the US legislation regarding merchandise referencing tobacco products. All Phillip Morris is doing is acting upon it by trying to eliminate any possible lead to the company via Exhaust (first citing "trademark infringement" to get TakaraTomy to radically change the design and remove the connection). Given he's directly based on the Diaclone figure that bares the Marlboro marks, which is part of its appeal to the hardcore fans, that'll be hard to do.

Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:27 am

This topic is so funny to me because right now on eBay, anyone can actually already buy this. However, they are obviously KO's, but they are KO's of an unreleased toy. If the real version does not get released, it's no worry, due to the overwhelming availability of this toy already, albiet in an unfortunate and unscrupulous form.

News Credits: 462 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am

For the sake of pedantic semantic clarity, I've gone back and edited several of my posts to change the words "products" and "items" to "merchandise", in order to better understand what kinds of products these laws refer to. Films and comic books aren't in the same category as the courts wouldn't outright consider either of them (especially a movie like AOE) to be primarily meant for children, like they would for toys.

News Credits: 10 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:36 am

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:
sol magnus wrote:Hmm...Sabrblade posits the laws regarding Tobacco product marketing is the real reason behind PM's argent pursuit of this matter, but it can't be ALL the reason - if it were the term "trademark infringement" would not have been used.

PM wasn't making a dime off of licensing of their "brand" via this toy. The quotes are there because Exhaust never specifically uses the Marlboro name, but heavily references the design.

One reason is used to cover up the other. The change in design may have made the trademark infringement itself practically moot, but the other claim still stands.

To make a long story short, the major problem is the US legislation regarding merchandise referencing tobacco products. All Phillip Morris is doing is acting upon it by trying to eliminate any possible lead to the company via Exhaust (first citing "trademark infringement" to get TakaraTomy to radically change the design and remove the connection). Given he's directly based on the Diaclone figure that bares the Marlboro marks, which is part of its appeal to the hardcore fans, that'll be hard to do.

Oh, I'm well aware they are using one legal bit to enforce another, but my point is that isn't just about "marketing cigarettes to kids". For one thing, it is only enforceable against companies in the US. Yet, Phillip Morris is also pursuing this worldwide. Additionally, if the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement governs certain types of marketing in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, then okay - no Exhaust marketed and sold - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No where in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement is there any type or form of concession for sales and marketing overseas (which is evident since Takara did not outright cancel the product). Why a Kapow Toys or Robotkingdom or whomever would have to abide by an American law where they do not directly market their products is unclear to me.

If, as an American I purchase this product out of the United States and have it imported, then the only person at risk for "legal trouble" is me - as I am in possession of an item that could be construed as marketing tobbaco products to a minor. The origin country is under no such limitation...so they go the Trademark violation route. Why? to stop 200 or so of these from reaching American shores? Really? That is nothing, monetarily speaking. No - Takara did not get permission to use their trademark dress, thus they aren't getting paid in the markets where they have no ability to stop the sale of the merchandise in question.

It's the only thing that really makes any sense.

BTW- JelZe, your join date is my birthdate (when I was 31). :lol:

Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:37 am

Sabrblade wrote:
Rated X wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:Under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children.

Comic books aren't considered children's products anymore.

Nor are PG-13 movies.

And that thing on Human Alliance Jazz's packaging isn't advertising anything.

I guess that would make comic books "adult products" then. Might as well make Archie the new poster boy for the Colorado legalization movement. :lol:

You got me on the movie. But seeing as how it's the flagship of a Hasbro franchise, it makes them look like a bunch of hypocrites over this Marlboor thing. Hasbro technically does own Takara, right ?

On the sideswipe packaging, it is advertising something....its advertising smoking in general.

You quoted "it is illegal for any company to sell any product to U.S. consumers if said product even remotely gives off the slightest minuscule impression of advertising tobacco-based goods to children".

A fictional cigarette advertisement on a children's toy box is ok, but an altered red bow tie on the hood of a car is not ? Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won. Is this even the same Hasbro legal department that shut down KO toys and scared the crap out of Chimungmung ? I think not...

News Credits: 462 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:40 am

Rated X wrote:Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won.

I think you mean TakaraTomy, not Hasbro, since this toy is all Takara's doing.

News Credits: 122 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:00 am

Sabrblade wrote:
Rated X wrote:Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won.
I think you mean TakaraTomy, not Hasbro, since this toy is all Takara's doing.

Also, people are conflating cigarettes as a product category with Philip Morris the specific brand of cigarettes.

News Credits: 241 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:01 am

Sabrblade wrote:
Rated X wrote:Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won.
I think you mean TakaraTomy, not Hasbro, since this toy is all Takara's doing.

The only reason why Hasbro is mentioned is because two of its branches (Australia and Asia) import TakaraTomy products on a regular basis for their own territories.

Also, Hasbro itself did not get warned by Phillip Morris, it's basically any store that can potential sell merchandise to customers in the U.S., or rather where the U.S. is the main target market. I don't know how far the law stretches, but it's safe to assume that any company or store with links to the U.S. (Hasbro Asia included) is a potential target.

I should investigate how European law deals with this matter, but I can tell you this: here in the Netherlands and Belgium we used to have chocolates in the shape of cigarettes back in the day. Emphasis on "used to have" as I haven't seen any in ages.

Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:02 am

Sabrblade wrote:
Rated X wrote:Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won.
I think you mean TakaraTomy, not Hasbro, since this toy is all Takara's doing.

Who legally owns the MP Wheeljack mold ? If there was a dispute between Hasbro and Takara/Tomy, who would wint rights to that mold (or any mold) in court ?

I was under the assumption that Hasbro runs the show and "allows" Takara/Tomy to do their thing. (Hence Hasbro Asia Divison and the molds being stored in China, not Japan) Correct me if Im wrong.

News Credits: 241 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:05 am

Rated X wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
Rated X wrote:Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won.
I think you mean TakaraTomy, not Hasbro, since this toy is all Takara's doing.

Who legally owns the MP Wheeljack mold ? If there was a dispute between Hasbro and Takara/Tomy, who would wint rights to that mold (or any mold) in court ?

I was under the assumption that Hasbro runs the show and "allows" Takara/Tomy to do their thing. (Hence Hasbro Asia Divison and the molds being stored in China, not Japan) Correct me if Im wrong.

It's the other way around: TakaraTomy owns the brand now and licenses it to Hasbro, hence the "Manufactured under license from TOMY Company, ltd."

News Credits: 462 · Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:07 am

Rated X wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
Rated X wrote:Hasbro's big bad leagal department turned into a bunch of pu**ys. They should have taken Phill Morris to court, for sure they would have won.
I think you mean TakaraTomy, not Hasbro, since this toy is all Takara's doing.

Who legally owns the MP Wheeljack mold ? If there was a dispute between Hasbro and Takara/Tomy, who would wint rights to that mold (or any mold) in court ?

I was under the assumption that Hasbro runs the show and "allows" Takara/Tomy to do their thing. (Hence Hasbro Asia Divison and the molds being stored in China, not Japan) Correct me if Im wrong.

The Masterpiece line is all Takara's baby, as it was Takara's idea. Hasbro's fine with Takara making it, but it's all Takara whose behind that particular line.

Hasbro's only ever made one MP mold on their own, that which being the Targtmaster Offshoot figure that came with Hasbro's release of the MP Rodimus mold.