Jump to content

USMC uniforms discontinued by ATF


Recommended Posts

USMC-RECON0321
I'm on the opposite side: I'm against government copywriting or trademarking anything produced with taxpayers dollars - it is all public property.

 

The EGA is earned not given!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Armed 2 tha Teeth

Technically it can also be purchased.

 

I am somewhat torn between Forum Support's view and the Armed Forces's rights to police and monitor marks which they have made recognizable, though Forum Support is correct to point out that they benefit greatly from tax payer dollars.

 

I think the idea is a decent one, maybe not as necessary as the Armed Forces believe it is but it is not suited for application to this niche market. This sort of regulation is bound to frustrate some people or maybe everyone in this case except for the branches themselves.

 

I'm curious if these regulations will actually be enforced, maybe we'll see a lack of USMC thongs, hoodies, and other merchandise being peddled online in the coming months and years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

post-8022-1334936869.jpg

 

Licensed...or not? Call me old-fashioned, but I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere!! :pinch:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a shop that provides repro and fantasy WWII PX shirts, and have been required to pull ALL USMC items and select Army items as well. It's not under copyright law, but under trademark infringement that these are protected. It is OK for private use but all commercial use of the EGA is strictly controlled, and the process that ATF speaks to is a major pain in the posterior.

 

It appears that the USMC has a team just committed to searching for this, because I've been shut down on two separate web sites for similar problems, so I won't touch Corps stuff. The Army is a bit more agreeable, but there are still hoops to jump through to use unit crests, SSI or DI graphics, and some units will NOT approve the use (Like 82nd & 101st) without major headaches to "protect" their logo.

 

I can see if the logo is used to defame a unit, but that is actually protected under freedom of speach law. It's the commercial profiting from the logo that crosses the line. The logo itself is in the public domain, but only for non-commercial use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a ton of issues here.

 

Here is another example of foreign items not having to follow the rules, while American makers an dealers are being stiffed for following the rules. The Asian grey market copies will never have the quality of USA designed and/or made but those items will freely make it over while US makers will be forced to not to sell and manufacture the items anymore. (yes I know ATF has items made in Asia but they are R&D here and manufactured to their tight specs in Asia.) Sadly this is typical modern USA manufacturing business model that is infecting all our manufacturing.

 

Yes I believe the film industry is getting to the point where they will have to ask to get a trademark clearance for films and TV if they are going to make a profit from it. Yes we can use fair use and such but really it comes down to a lawyer wanting to make his name working for the US Military to shut down projects and making it very hard to make to use such symbols.

 

Somewhere along the line some lawyer got in contact with the Military and told them how much money can be made. Believe me it's not going to stop with the EGA, anywhere they can make a buck they will. Who cares if the R&D isn't exactly like a WWII patch, this is the "Official" incorrect WWII 101st patch! Don't Like it? Trust me this is going to get more tangled as time goes on.

 

Instead of the Military searching for copy write and trademark infringements they should spend more time doing more Military things. Our Military shouldn't act like Nike or McDonalds!

 

If they really cared they wouldn't charge for the license but just give the product a thumbs up or not.

 

I really wonder who gave them the Hologram sticker idea.....that lawyer needs to be disbarred!

 

Sorry for my rant!

 

Leonardo

Link to post
Share on other sites
The logo itself is in the public domain, but only for non-commercial use.

There's no such condition.

 

It's either "public domain", in which case, any use is legal, or it's copyrighted with a free license for non-commercial usage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both the Army star logo and USAF logo on all sorts of merchandise from ball caps to tee-shirts. I'm pretty sure these are not "licensed"...in fact I have a USAF ball cap with just a generic maker's mark, no "Official Product" label. So are such items technically in breach of this law too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it now.....

 

"what did you do in the war?"

 

"I searched and destroyed copy write and trademark infringements!"

 

LF

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I talked with Gina Friday, and of the P42 trousers, they still, oddly, have the larger sizes...40-44 waist. At 24.99, you cannot do better!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The Powerpoint Commandos have taken over: more proof that the world - including the military - is increasingly run by lawyers.

 

It is quite sad really that it has come to this. Someone had mentioned this being something to keep the US military marks out of the hands of the bad guys: well just as with things like California's gun laws (and graffiti-inspired spray paint laws) the only ones with easy access are the bad guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused, so trademark law supersedes the Constitution? You know, "We the people", how can one stop the owner of a mark from using the mark? The U.S. Military 'belongs' to the U.S. government, which 'belongs' to the U.S. Citizenship. Seems to me that ipso facto, when you pay your taxes, you have in fact paid for the 'mark', along with everything that goes with it! There is a reason that military supplies are considered "Public Stores", We own it, and our elected officials administer it.

Sparrow

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused, so trademark law supersedes the Constitution? You know, "We the people", how can one stop the owner of a mark from using the mark? The U.S. Military 'belongs' to the U.S. government, which 'belongs' to the U.S. Citizenship. Seems to me that ipso facto, when you pay your taxes, you have in fact paid for the 'mark', along with everything that goes with it! There is a reason that military supplies are considered "Public Stores", We own it, and our elected officials administer it.

Sparrow

 

 

The problem is you have to get your lawyers (which you have to pay for) to challenge their lawyers (who are paid for by your tax dollars) and as with many things, you are out litigated from the start because of the astronomical cost of such a challenge.

 

That's why companies just stop producing the stuff: it's not like they are making enough money to justify hundreds of thousands in legal costs (which can be easy to spend in challenging the government all through the appeals process).

 

Sometimes you can get a Congressman to address this kind of silly BS, but the Pentagon's lobbying arm is much more influential than anyone from outside Washington.

 

But if anyone wants to print out a couple of photos and send them to your local Congressman and/or newspaper, here you go (be sure to emphasize that these are REPRODUCTIONS of WORLD WAR TWO uniforms that have not been worn in over half-a-century).

 

atfhbtshirt.jpg

 

atfhbt.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
collector

Not a reenactor, but got curious, now his stuff is licensed by Marine Corps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thefallenbuddha

I was in the vintage clothing section of Nagoya (Japan) yesterday, and I can tell you there are plenty of WW2 USMC Marine HBTs (and many other WW2 US military) replicas made here that are pretty authentic.

 

 

There are a ton of issues here.

Here is another example of foreign items not having to follow the rules, while American makers an dealers are being stiffed for following the rules. The Asian grey market copies will never have the quality of USA designed and/or made but those items will freely make it over while US makers will be forced to not to sell and manufacture the items anymore. (yes I know ATF has items made in Asia but they are R&D here and manufactured to their tight specs in Asia.) Sadly this is typical modern USA manufacturing business model that is infecting all our manufacturing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
uplandmod

The Japanese Market is a great exception, I was in Japan last month as well and always get a kick out of the items their vintage market produces. I have an American friend who reproduces these items for the Japanese Market and they are top reproduction. I travel to Japan every year as my Vacation, I can never have enough of the place! Japanese Products such as these are insular products the Japanese rarely export out of the country. One would be hard pressed to find these items outside of Japan at the volume one sees in Japan.

 

But it does go back to foreign markets, including Japan, do not need any kind of license to produce these items like American Manufactures.

The cheap reproductions I'm referring to are those that are made in China which bear no resemblance to the real item. Yes ATF items are made in China but they are to ATF's specs.

 

LF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.