• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Selling Replica Oakleys..Legal or Not?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

tang91

Registered User
Wording is very important.

The reason some of these replica companies can remain in existance is because of wording. Several popular replica sites say things like, "Quality eyewear inspired by Oakley." Plus the word "Oakley" itself is not unique enough of a word to be infringing. It's like the word "sky". Skyy vodka had to add a "Y" to their name to be able to trademark it. Oakley can refer to a city, town, someone's name, etc., so saying their glasses are "inspired" by Oakley is too vague to be litigous. You just have to be careful which sites you purchase these items from. Check the wording very carefully to see if they are leading the buyer to assume that they are "imitation" Oakley Sunglasses or just sunglasses that are inspired by Oakley. Every idea was inspired by something else; it's only the extent of inspiration that differs. Look at food and beverage products. Stores can have there own brands that use the same ingredients, even similar labelling, and sell them for a reduced cost, and consumers are "eating" it up. (sorry about the pun.) Bottom line: if you feel like you are doing something illegal, you probably are, so just don't do it. (Unless you're a lawyer, then go ahead!) ;)
 


BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
Did you even bother to notice that this thread is SIX MONTHS old and the poster has never returned since receiving the CORRECT answer? :rolleyes:
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
Not only that, this has to be one of the biggest pieces of BS I've seen on these boards in a while, at least on the IP boards:

"Plus the word "Oakley" itself is not unique enough of a word to be infringing."
 

JETX

Senior Member
divgradcurl said:
Not only that, this has to be one of the biggest pieces of BS I've seen on these boards in a while, at least on the IP boards:

"Plus the word "Oakley" itself is not unique enough of a word to be infringing."
Yep, guess the guy probably claims that "Pentium" isn't copyrighted either!!
 

tang91

Registered User
BelizeBreeze said:
Did you even bother to notice that this thread is SIX MONTHS old
Wow, I'm sorry that bothers you so much...actually, no, I'm not. If I want to reply to a post that 6 months or 6 years old, I can, if I think it will help someone. So, unless you have something to add to the discussion, why don't you just stay out of it.
 

tang91

Registered User
JETX said:
Yep, guess the guy probably claims that "Pentium" isn't copyrighted either!!

Pentium was a word created by Intel to distinguish the fifth generation chip from the others. Since it caught on so well, they have simply been adding 1 each year. So, the word Pentium is copyrighted since it was created. The word Oakley, by itself, has been in existence long before the sunglass company started using it. Also, in response to that other idiot, the last post was only a month ago. I thought this was supposed to be intelligent discussion; guess it's just a bunch of junior high school kids looking for something to do with their free hand while they're waiting for pictures of Paris Hilton to download. My mistake.
 

tang91

Registered User
divgradcurl said:
Not only that, this has to be one of the biggest pieces of BS I've seen on these boards in a while, at least on the IP boards:

"Plus the word "Oakley" itself is not unique enough of a word to be infringing."
Well genius, why don't you go to the United States Patent and Trademark Office website and do a search for "Oakley". Then you can see how many other companies, persons and organization have been able to trademark that word. It's not like "microsoft", "coca-cola", "Pepsi" or "Jell-o", where those words were created and unique. Anyone can get a trademark on the word "oakley", therefore it's ambiguity creates a thin veil that the perpetrators can hide behind. Do some research next time before you mouth off about something.
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
The word Oakley, by itself, has been in existence long before the sunglass company started using it.
So has the word "Amazon." And the word "Ford." And the word "Target."

You don't have to "invent" a word in order to trademark the word. Amazon, Ford and Target all are trademarked, and if you tried to use them in your own business you would be sued for infringement. "Oakley" is no different. Go to www.uspto.gov and search around on the trademark database, and you will find that the overwhelming percentage of trademarks are issued for words that already existed -- it might be easier to obtain and defend a trademark based on a made-up word, but there is NO requirement that a word be invented in order to obtain trademark protections.

Oh, and to go back to your first post on this thread, "Skyy Vodka" almost certainly could have trademarked "Sky Vodka" if they wanted to -- they were likely just trying to be clever.

Oh, and since I am responding anyway, all of this you wrote:

Oakley can refer to a city, town, someone's name, etc., so saying their glasses are "inspired" by Oakley is too vague to be litigous. You just have to be careful which sites you purchase these items from. Check the wording very carefully to see if they are leading the buyer to assume that they are "imitation" Oakley Sunglasses or just sunglasses that are inspired by Oakley.
is so far off of the mark, to quote the physicist P.A.M. Dirac, it's "not even wrong."
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
Anyone can get a trademark on the word "oakley", therefore it's ambiguity creates a thin veil that the perpetrators can hide behind.
I give up. You win. Anyone reading this thread, please take tang91's advice.

If nothing else, it'll keep people like myself and other's on this board in business.
 

divgradcurl

Senior Member
I know I said I would give up, but I just couldn't:

Well genius, why don't you go to the United States Patent and Trademark Office website and do a search for "Oakley". Then you can see how many other companies, persons and organization have been able to trademark that word.
If you would look at more that just the list, you would see that EVERY mark associated with the term "Oakley" which is used to sell jewelry. eyeglasses, and similar products, is registered to the "Oakley" company.

There are other company's that use "Oakley" in their respective marks, but none are operating in the same trade space as the Oakley eyeglass company.

If you knew anything about trademarks -- and it's clear that you don't -- you would know that it is perfectly acceptable for a single mark to be used by many different companies -- as long as the useages of the mark don't overlap, that's okay, and it in no way affects the mark holder's ability to defend their mark.
 

me_again91

Registered User
hello again

Well, someone seems to have disabled my account. Yes, it's me, Tang91. But don't worry, this is my last post. I just wanted to say thanks for the fun arguing session. too bad it got so personal. but that's why we became lawyers, right? ATTN: divgradcurl--you have to read "The Inventor's Handbook" by Maurice Kanbar. He is the one who invented SKYY Vodka, and he explains how he got denied a trademark on the word "SKY" and had to add a Y, which was more catchy anyway. Go ahead, read it, that's all the evidence you need.
 

me_again91

Registered User
P.S. The only point I was ever trying to make was that some of the sunglass websites are legit, others aren't. (this is really my last post now...it's been fun!)
 

JETX

Senior Member
tang91 said:
Wow, I'm sorry that bothers you so much...actually, no, I'm not. If I want to reply to a post that 6 months or 6 years old, I can, if I think it will help someone. So, unless you have something to add to the discussion, why don't you just stay out of it.
Okay, so your post gives INCORRECT information, to a thread that is over SIX MONTHS old, yet you seem to somehow seem you need to argue your value to the forum..... what an idiot!!!
 

me_again91

Registered User
JETX = (_|_)

(i'll bet you didn't see that one coming. just trying to respond from your age level...i bet you haven't gotten any in awhile. i'm sensing a lot of pent up rage and frustration)
 

JETX

Senior Member
me_again91 said:
Well, someone seems to have disabled my account. Yes, it's me, Tang91. But don't worry, this is my last post. I just wanted to say thanks for the fun arguing session. too bad it got so personal. but that's why we became lawyers, right? ATTN: divgradcurl--you have to read "The Inventor's Handbook" by Maurice Kanbar. He is the one who invented SKYY Vodka, and he explains how he got denied a trademark on the word "SKY" and had to add a Y, which was more catchy anyway. Go ahead, read it, that's all the evidence you need.
Gee, and you can't even figure out that the reason he couldn't trademark 'sky' is that it is a common word, and not inherently distinctive.... and 'Oakley' isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top