The Energon Pub

Sabrblade wrote:But then they wouldn't be the iconic trio that they're known to be. It's tradition and almost universally demanded that the three be of the same form.

In all fairness, I really liked how Starscream & Thundercracker were two separate models in Cybertron.

Not sure if this has been asked before, so apologies if it has, but how have Hasbro been able to produce such a G1-accurate Whirl? My understanding is that they don't own the toyline in question (also responsible for Roadbuster, Jetfire, the Deluxe Insecticons) so wouldn't this infringe on the other manufacturer's IP? I mean, previous attempts at Whirl, Roadbuster and Jeftire have been much more vague. Has some sort of deal been struck?

I dunno, it's pretty damn similar IMO.

Banjo-Tron wrote:I dunno, it's pretty damn similar IMO.

I concur.

I don't think "similar" is enough to constitute an infringement of IP, especially if the toy is based on a design and character that Has/Tak and/or IDW own the rights to.

And if Bandai wanted to bring legal action, wouldn't they have to demonstrate that Has/Tak's toy is harming the sales of their IP?

GuyIncognito wrote:I don't think "similar" is enough to constitute an infringement of IP, especially if the toy is based on a design and character that Has/Tak and/or IDW own the rights to.

And if Bandai wanted to bring legal action, wouldn't they have to demonstrate that Has/Tak's toy is harming the sales of their IP?

I don't think Hasbro own the rights anymore, hence no reissues, ever. They leased the rights some years ago but now the figures are Bandai's. I guess it's akin to the stuff that FansProject et al do at the moment.

Regarding IP, I believe it has to be really and I mean *REALLY* similar (read: virtually identical) to hold up in court. Last I heard as long as there's a 30% difference between one item and another, that's sufficient and this is definitely well beyond 30% different IMO.

Banjo-Tron wrote:

GuyIncognito wrote:I don't think "similar" is enough to constitute an infringement of IP, especially if the toy is based on a design and character that Has/Tak and/or IDW own the rights to.

And if Bandai wanted to bring legal action, wouldn't they have to demonstrate that Has/Tak's toy is harming the sales of their IP?

I don't think Hasbro own the rights anymore, hence no reissues, ever. They leased the rights some years ago but now the figures are Bandai's. I guess it's akin to the stuff that FansProject et al do at the moment.

Hasbro made a Whirl figure for FoC, and the character appears in the IDW comics, so obviously they have the rights to the character. Are you saying Bandai owns that FOC figure and IDW is using the character without permission?

GuyIncognito wrote:

Banjo-Tron wrote:

GuyIncognito wrote:I don't think "similar" is enough to constitute an infringement of IP, especially if the toy is based on a design and character that Has/Tak and/or IDW own the rights to.

And if Bandai wanted to bring legal action, wouldn't they have to demonstrate that Has/Tak's toy is harming the sales of their IP?

I don't think Hasbro own the rights anymore, hence no reissues, ever. They leased the rights some years ago but now the figures are Bandai's. I guess it's akin to the stuff that FansProject et al do at the moment.

Hasbro made a Whirl figure for FoC, and the character appears in the IDW comics, so obviously they have the rights to the character. Are you saying Bandai owns that FOC figure and IDW is using the character without permission?

No no no... The character's overall physical design is based on work from Bandai back in G1, but the character itself is all Hasbro. While the character itself can't be contested, the design of the toys can. Knowing Hasbro, they made Gen. Whirl's design similar enough to G1 to be recognisable as such, but legally ambiguous enough to pose a good risk to Bandai should they want to pursue it. The resulting court case could take years, too long for any positive outcome to be worth it. Besides, with a new design for a new toy, US courts will most likely rule in favor of Hasbro, or the parties would at the very least settle.

In law, basing a design off of a pre-existing item is different from downright copying it. Don't know how that works for the comics tho, but you do not want to mess with lawyers of corporations.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

GuyIncognito wrote:

Banjo-Tron wrote:

GuyIncognito wrote:I don't think "similar" is enough to constitute an infringement of IP, especially if the toy is based on a design and character that Has/Tak and/or IDW own the rights to.

And if Bandai wanted to bring legal action, wouldn't they have to demonstrate that Has/Tak's toy is harming the sales of their IP?

I don't think Hasbro own the rights anymore, hence no reissues, ever. They leased the rights some years ago but now the figures are Bandai's. I guess it's akin to the stuff that FansProject et al do at the moment.

Hasbro made a Whirl figure for FoC, and the character appears in the IDW comics, so obviously they have the rights to the character. Are you saying Bandai owns that FOC figure and IDW is using the character without permission?

No no no... The character's overall physical design is based on work from Bandai back in G1, but the character itself is all Hasbro. While the character itself can't be contested, the design of the toys can. Knowing Hasbro, they made Gen. Whirl's design similar enough to G1 to be recognisable as such, but legally ambiguous enough to pose a good risk to Bandai should they want to pursue it. The resulting court case could take years, too long for any positive outcome to be worth it. Besides, with a new design for a new toy, US courts will most likely rule in favor of Hasbro, or the parties would at the very least settle.

In law, basing a design off of a pre-existing item is different from downright copying it. Don't know how that works for the comics tho, but you do not want to mess with lawyers of corporations.

Agreed. This actually makes me hopeful of a more G1-esque Roadbuster than I would have thought possible. I still think Hasbro wouldn't be that brazen with Jetfire, given how ubiquitous and iconic the Valkyrie is. Can't wait to get hold of this whirl.

For the record guys, the legs can be positioned to look even more like the original Generation One toy.



And personally, this position looks better than the intended one. Even if there's a pair of black skis just kinda chilling there.

Are we sure it's Bandai? I thought something called ToyBox was responsible for things such as this. Like Omega Supreme, Shockwave, Sky Lynx, you get the idea.

Last I knew, the only Bandai offering in G1 was Jetfire. (Let me say that again...last I knew)

Autobot032 wrote:Are we sure it's Bandai? I thought something called ToyBox was responsible for things such as this. Like Omega Supreme, Shockwave, Sky Lynx, you get the idea.

Last I knew, the only Bandai offering in G1 was Jetfire. (Let me say that again...last I knew)

It was Takatoku toys but then acquired by Bandai - there is a good article form the TFWiki below.

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Takatoku_Toys

Autobot032 wrote:Are we sure it's Bandai? I thought something called ToyBox was responsible for things such as this. Like Omega Supreme, Shockwave, Sky Lynx, you get the idea.

Last I knew, the only Bandai offering in G1 was Jetfire. (Let me say that again...last I knew)

Here's the short list of "foreign molds":

Bandai/Takatoku Toys
Jetfire
Roadbuster
Whirl
Venom
Ransack (canceled in original line, saw first release in Transformers)
Barrage
Chop Shop

ToyBox (in an amazing coincidence, actually designs owned by TOMY thanks to outsourcing)
Omega Supreme
Sky Lynx

ToyCo
Shockwave

And in Italy:

Sunmayor Ookawa
Highway Patrol Robot (the basis for Action Master Treadshot)

So Bandai owns the rights to the design of the original G1 toy, and that's it? They don't have exclusive rights to the character or the name? If Has/Tak and IDW have the rights to the character and name, it would seem to me that Has/Tak is perfectly within their rights to make a toy based on their character and to have that toy RESEMBLE the original design. As long as they're not copying it, they're OK. It's a gray area, of course, but my guess is that having the rights to the character grants Has/Tak the right to make a toy that RESEMBLES the original design, since that's inherent to the character itself. (It would be like granting someone the rights to the Superman character without the costume and the superpowers.)

Also, if Bandai hasn't done anything with the design since G1, doesn't that factor into whether or not they can enforce trademark claims?

GuyIncognito wrote:So Bandai owns the rights to the design of the original G1 toy, and that's it? They don't have exclusive rights to the character or the name? If Has/Tak and IDW have the rights to the character and name, it would seem to me that Has/Tak is perfectly within their rights to make a toy based on their character and to have that toy RESEMBLE the original design. As long as they're not copying it, they're OK. It's a gray area, of course, but my guess is that having the rights to the character grants Has/Tak the right to make a toy that RESEMBLES the original design, since that's inherent to the character itself. (It would be like granting someone the rights to the Superman character without the costume and the superpowers.)

Also, if Bandai hasn't done anything with the design since G1, doesn't that factor into whether or not they can enforce trademark claims?

It kinda does, actually. Especially considering this: even though the toy is indirectly based on a design by Bandai and that statement is mainly based on conjecture, the toy is directly based on the design seen in the comic, and that can be seen a cold hard fact. I'll leave it up to the jury to decide which takes priority.
As for the comic studios, believe it or not, Bandai will take a big risk suing them as well. Even tho the designs are indirectly based on its property, the original art drawn of the characters is still property of Hasbro (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) based on licensing agreements made long ago. Therefore, it can be argued that the new design of Whirl is not based on the original toy at all despite the similarities, but in fact directly based on art drawn by studios contracted to Hasbro.
Simply put, Bandai would have no leg to stand on in court.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:Simply put, Bandai would have no leg to stand on in court.

That's my conclusion as well.

GuyIncognito wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:Simply put, Bandai would have no leg to stand on in court.

That's my conclusion as well.

And after some investigation, the explanation given can go for all toys that appeared in fiction at the time of licensing, which includes the Deluxe Insecticons and thus Chop Shop. The location of the fiction should not matter anymore (all "foreign" molds appeared mostly in Marvel UK, and scantly at that), as everything Hasbro is now regulated in one central location, with divisions for each region instead of separate companies.

As cool as it is that Hasbro's able to faithfully recreate "foreign molds", I'm disappointed Whirl doesn't resemble his MTMTE self (bar a few details which very well could've been added in last minute), since that's by far the most famous and popular version of him. Plus we're getting so many other bots based specifically of the series, it's strange getting an appropriate Swerve, Tailgate, Skids, etc. only for Whirl to be so wildly different. Granted the two Whirls are similar enough, it's not like it's shoehorning in a Movieverse design or one of those oddball Asia-Exclusive/GDO repaints from however long ago.