UD vs. Konami Lawsuit

It's time for the NHL and the PA to grant other companies a license. Companies that CARE about the products they produce.

I hated the exclusive from day one. It leaves the consumer no choice. It takes all accountability away from the manufacturer. In general, it sucks
 
jetsman said:
The only cases I can remember seeing full logos is on goalie masks, but if I recall correctly, those are considered art and it's kosher... right?
Click to expand...

I did see an interesting one on a H&P card yesterday -- a full-fledged Colorado Avalanche logo on the shoulder of a Lake Erie Monsters player.
 
I really hope that the NHL is seeing this all unfold and will finally wake up to the reality that the exclusive is a horrid idea. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction for ITG to get their license back, blunder after blunder by UD can't be ignore that much longer can it??
 
Let's not get In The Game into this debacle.

NHL logos on the jerseys of AHL team are ok to use as we do have an AHL license.

Let's stick to the matter at hand. Upper Deck after litigation with CMG over the use of legend baseball players, Upper Deck after litigation with Topps over the O Pee Chee designs, Upper Deck after litigation with Konami over counterfeiting is now taking on MLB.

That's the matter at hand. Don't know who I am cheering for in this one.

If Upper Deck prevails then what do the leagues have to license?

Brian Price
 
bprice said:
Let's not get In The Game into this debacle.

NHL logos on the jerseys of AHL team are ok to use as we do have an AHL license.

Let's stick to the matter at hand. Upper Deck after litigation with CMG over the use of legend baseball players, Upper Deck after litigation with Topps over the O Pee Chee designs, Upper Deck after litigation with Konami over counterfeiting is now taking on MLB.

That's the matter at hand. Don't know who I am cheering for in this one.

If Upper Deck prevails then what do the leagues have to license?

Brian Price
Click to expand...

Let see if I can explain this correctly using Dr. Price as an example. He has a license with the PHPA and the AHL. So he has consent of that league respectfully to use images from AHL games, materials, etc. I think what MLB is trying to say is you can use the MLBPA, but cant use the MLB properties like the logos whats on the jerseys?
 
DXFlyers said:
What I dont understand and I think MLB is at fault for not having clarity in their licensing. There are 2 separate licenses: MLB Properties and MLBPA. UD has the license for the MLBPA and said this product is not issued by MLB Properties.
Click to expand...

MLB has been extremely clear - UD does not have a license with them. Part of being a licensor is having the rights to reproduce team imagery, ie. logos.

So as a result, UD is in clear violation.

now what UD will probably respond with is that their interpretation was that the license was in effect until the end of 2009, meaning that these two 2009 series, produced for and in that year, still qualify as '09. It all depends on the month of expiry.

In hockey, for example, Pacific was able to create its 04-05 set because it was created in the summer of 04, not when the new licensing structure came into effect in September.
 
After the Komani settlement I have to wonder if there is any $$$$$ left even if MLB prevails. It could be a hollow victory for MLB.
 
cardz1976 said:
I really hope that the NHL is seeing this all unfold and will finally wake up to the reality that the exclusive is a horrid idea. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction for ITG to get their license back, blunder after blunder by UD can't be ignore that much longer can it??
Click to expand...

The way UD's business practices are unfolding and the exclusive are two separate issues.

UD's inability to abide by regulations set forth by MLB Properties and the legal implications of the Konami incident (along with other faults) speaks ill of the company, but does not speak ill of exclusivity.

Exclusivity's measure is solely about the bottom line - amount of income to the NHL and its PA. If overall purchase has decreased, then it can be argued that exclusivity has not worked.

So ultimately, all UD's dismantling does is give the NHL and the PA (who if i remember correctly are handling all licensing jointly, thus disallowing any sort of MLB/PA debacle that we have seen now with UD) reason to not re-up with them. That doesn't mean that they won't explore exclusivity with ITG, Topps, Panini or another company.
 
jetsman said:
MLB has been extremely clear - UD does not have a license with them. Part of being a licensor is having the rights to reproduce team imagery, ie. logos.
Click to expand...

They're actually pushing it further, calling the team's colours and uniforms as part of their properties... and they argued that vehemently with Donruss in 2008.
 
The most interesting part of the article to me was the line "Some believe the company is on the brink of bankruptcy."
Could MLB be pushing them off the cliff??
 
meatmancgy said:
They're actually pushing it further, calling the team's colours and uniforms as part of their properties... and they argued that vehemently with Donruss in 2008.
Click to expand...

Funny you bring that up Bruce, because of course we'll all recall that the 95-96 BAP set had those oddly-coloured uniforms for the Avs.
 
I have been saying they are hurting for money for awhile. If you estimate 75 million for this lawsuit then the 90+ million to the government then the 7+ million to the cali government thats now 172+ million dollars in the last 14 months. Thats a tough pill for any business to deal with. Especially after losing NBA and now MLB as well as the UFC set.
 
good for you Dr P.. im glad the renegade who started this stuff is getting a little come uppance so to speak!
 
I hate to say it but the settlement according to my sources is much, much less than you would have expected.

It seems that the trial to determine damages had started and Konami's lawyers were ill prepared and initiated settlement discussions.

Seems that the amount is minimal and that UD dodged a bomb.

I have also heard that some of the chain stores that bought the counterfeit packages are contemplating a law suit.

That's what I hear, I'm out in California right now visiting my grandchildren so I'm close to the action.

I also heard that MLB is off to court Monday morning.

Trying for an injunction? Who knows.

Brian Price
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
390,135
Messages
2,238,795
Members
4,169
Latest member
Misso
Back
Top