Hasbro going after fakies? Simba pony II?

[Aienhime]

So I was googling around looking for the Dutch MLP forum when I came across this:

http://www.ie-forum.nl/index.php?/Alle+rechtspraak/My+Little+Pony+beschermd+als+werk+van+toegepaste+kunst////31124/

It's in Dutch, but Google translate can help you out I hope, there's no English version.

In summary it's the verdict of a court case from earlier this year of Hasbro vs. Simba regarding a pony toy Simba has made (called "Simba pony II") which was too similar to MLP. The judge agreed, stating Simba neglected to make proper differences between their pony and the MLP brand so the consumers could get confused.


I was mildly surprised to find this, as I always thought Hasbro was pretty easy going on fakie makers, considering the huge amount of fakies out there, including many that are plain copies of MLP. Does anyone know what this Simba pony II looks like? Or has anyone else heard of such court cases recently?

[HawaiianRain]

Trans into English:

My Little Pony protected as a work of applied art

Hague Court January 22, 2013, LJN BY8716 (Simba Toys and Top team at Hasbro)

Uitpsraak also sent in by Paul Mazel and Alexandra van Beelen, TripAdvisor Lawyers & Notaries .

Intellectual property, application of substantive reciprocity-key art. 2 paragraph 7 Berne Convention, copyright employers, slavish imitation. Pony toys.

Hasbro cs specialize in the design, manufacture and marketing of games and toys, including toy pony figures series 'My Little Pony'. Hasbro cs oppose the marketing by the Simba Simba cs Pony II.

Copyright
Hasbro My Little Pony cs call for copyright protection in the Netherlands. Pursuant to Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Berne Convention Dutch law as lex loci protectionis apply. Sufficient condition that copyright protection in the U.S. in this regard is not excluded and that My Little Pony as a work of applied art in that country afforded copyright protection. This means that the material reciprocity-key (2 paragraph 7 of the Berne Convention) is not in the way that My Little Pony in the Netherlands, Dutch law, is regarded as a work of applied art. The Court considers that this object - My Little Pony - can be qualified as a "work of applied art" that qualifies for copyright protection (Article 1 in conjunction with Article 10 paragraph 1 sub 11 Copyright Act) under Dutch law. Employers Copyright Hasbro cs note that Simba cs to mention that on wikipedia directly behind the names of the creators of My Little Pony, stated that they worked for Hasbro. fails It is sufficient to assume that Hasbro Inc.. pursuant to Article 7 and / or 8 Copyright Act must be regarded as originally provided owner of the copyright in the Netherlands in respect of My Little Pony.


Breach
Of an unauthorized reproduction of copyright sense ('borrowing', Article 13 Copyright Act) occurs when a sufficient degree of similarity between the copyrighted work (My Little Pony) and the allegedly infringing work (Simba Pony II). The Court deems it sufficiently plausible that Toy Team in respect of Simba Pony II infringing acts performed in the Netherlands. Infringers By now in the Netherlands to catch due to copyright infringement or slavish imitation of the Simba Pony II of the market while this pony is allowed in the rest of Europe traded because Hasbro cs elsewhere (successfully) action against this pony, creates conflict with the fundamental principles of the European Union or Articles 34 and 35 TFEU. The court rejected this argument in terms of copyright by reference to Article 36 TFEU, which includes the protection of copyright. This leads to the conclusion that the Pony II Simba Simba cs infringe on the Hasbro Inc.. future copyright in the Netherlands in respect of My Little Pony. Slavish imitation by the high degree of similarity between Simba II and Pony My Little Pony (see paragraph 8.3), is to be feared. confusion for the public to preliminary opinion of the court Simba cs had that confusion can occur by using. Different design choices Simba cs therefore failed in their obligation to shaping Simba Pony II to do everything reasonably, without prejudice to the validity or usability of their product, possible and necessary to avoid prejudice by gender Simba Pony II and My Little Pony risk of confusion. Conclusion In the preliminary opinion of the court, the claims of Hasbro cs go (partly) assigned by the judge on the tort basis (to the extent that the court will the contested judgment in the principal action ratify). The claims on the basis of copyright are partly attributable (to the extent that the contested judgment, the court in the cross-appeal and destroy, giving judgment, the claims of Hasbro cs (partly) assign).








    Copyright
    6.5.6. Taken together, in the opinion of the court for the time being sufficiently been established that copyright protection in the United States in this regard is not excluded and that My Little Pony as a work of applied art in that country afforded copyright protection. This means that the material-reciprocity test in Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Berne Convention is not in the way that My Little Pony in the Netherlands, Dutch law, is regarded as a work of applied art.

    6.6. From the above it follows that taken together the My Little Pony in the Netherlands, under Dutch law, eligible for copyright protection as a work of applied art. To the extent succeeds incidental

     Employers Author Rech t
    cs 7.4 According to Simba, My Little Pony made ​​by three Americans, namely Bonnie Zacherle, Charles and Steve Muenchinger d'Aguanno. This shows, according to Simba cs, from the wikipedia website. Hasbro cs note that Simba cs fails to mention on this website, directly behind the names of these persons stated that they worked for Hasbro (while working for Hasbro ').

    Infringement
    8.3. In Simba Pony II are the aforementioned in paragraph 6.3 characteristic appearance of My Little Pony back. Simba Pony II is after all a pastel colored toy pony with a somewhat childish and chubby - not true - proportioning with rounded lines, long wavy, combing hair (mane and tail) in a different color with Glitter, legs from knee downwards slightly wider outlets , a slightly raised foreleg ("ready to play"), Glitter, and a friendly facial expression (large sparkling eyes). The differences where Simba et al have pointed out (especially in the pleadings at first instance under 3.13) are forward hands opinion of the court is irrelevant and not such that they provide a different, not corresponding with My Little Pony, overall impression. That Simba Pony II is always sold with a doll and My Little never Pony as Simba et al argue, is - what is more as it may - not relevant, the court unites with the judgment thereon, and the grounds on which the judgment rests, the judge in paragraph 4.9.1 of the contested judgment. The conclusion is that Simba Simba Pony II cs to My Little Pony Hasbro cs is derived and therefore constitutes infringement.

    Slavish imitation
    12.4. Considering the high degree of similarity between Simba II and Pony My Little Pony (see paragraph 8.3 above), is to be feared. Confusion for the public to preliminary opinion of the court Simba cs had that confusion can occur by using different design choices, they had, as others have also undisputed Hasbro made ​​in design other roads can strike to save to My Little Pony away. Provisional opinion of the court are Simba cs therefore failed in their obligation to shaping Simba Pony II to do everything reasonably, without prejudice to the validity or usability of their product, possible and necessary to prevent prejudice resulting from equality of Simba Pony My Little Pony II and likelihood of confusion. That Simba Pony II with a doll is sold, is inadequate. Responsible plea II fails so.

    Conclusion
    14.1. Conclusion is that the provisional opinion of the court the claims of Hasbro cs go (partly) are assigned to the tort basis by the judge (to the extent the court will the contested judgment in the principal action ratify), and that the claims against the copyright partly attributable basis (to the extent that the contested judgment, the court in the cross-appeal and destroy, giving judgment, the claims of Hasbro cs (partly) assign).

[shabbychicdee]

woooow. going to stalk, love to see a pic

[PitterPatter]

Are there any pictures of what the Simba pony looks like? When I click the ink it shows two pictures are there but won't display them

Given how similar some of the other fakies are... I have a G3 fakie that if it weren't for a plugged tail I would *Swear* was MLP.... it's odd this one got the wrath of Hasbro.

[MoonShadow]

According to tvtropes, it was My Sweet Pony:

British convenience store Poundland stocks "My Lovely Pony", "Tommy the Train", "Little Explorer" and "Spider Power" merchandise. Amusingly, another My Little Pony ripoff is available, sold as My Lovely HORSE.

The German toy giant Simba introduced their own My Little Pony Shoddy Knockoff Product when the real deal had fallen into unimportance due to neglect by Hasbro. They copied the G3 molds, modified the printing and named the result "My Sweet Pony". Hasbro noticed and sued, and Simba had to apply a few more changes and re-release their small toy horses (not ponies) under the "Filly" brand. Unfortunately, Filly has become so popular among little girls in Germany who have never heard of My Little Pony that the fourth MLP generation would have ended up in obscurity, weren't it for the bronies.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShoddyKnockoffProduct

[lonewolf]

I think I found them:
http://www.busbjornen.se/leksaker/figurer/mlp/my-sweet-pony-25_0036

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


It's kind of surprising because to me there's no way to confuse them with an official MLP.

[thekozmicpig]

Well, you also have to factor in that this is a Dutch court which subscribes to Dutch laws.

Hasbro (or someone else) could have sued someone over knock-offs in the states YEARS ago (and someone probably did. I refuse to believe that there was never a lawsuit over a knock-off toy) and the court laughed it out or gave a ruling for the future making it impossible for this to happen in the U.S.

Hasbro's probably not fond of fakies, but they can't do squat. Dutch laws are different I guess.

[achab1984]

Um.....They do not look nothing like the Hasbro ponies. There are others out there that are almost right on.

[PitterPatter]

They make me think of Chap Mei ponies a bit.

But yeah, I agree with the fact they don't really look anything like MLP.

But that said, I have a couple of friends who know I collect and we met them at a big car boot once. They said, "oh, just down there a woman has loads of ponies, we looked at some but we don't know which ones you have or which ones are real so we left them." So there are people who wouldn't know, or know that they have particular stamps or styles

[scarletjul]

Interesting. . .

They don't look anything like current MLP, true but I could see them looking very vaguely like Sweetheart Sisters.

[majikarte]

It's so weird that they would go after this fakie, as opposed to ones that use stolen moulds or graphics or whatnot... yeah, it's a coloured horse with a hip tattoo but it's also fairly different, with the removable hooves. The name is kiiiinda close though.

[invaderhorizongreen]

This fake is nothing like the real deal I have seen far better bootlegs of real toys.

[PinkiePosh]

It's so weird that they would go after this fakie, as opposed to ones that use stolen moulds or graphics or whatnot... yeah, it's a coloured horse with a hip tattoo but it's also fairly different, with the removable hooves. The name is kiiiinda close though.

I agree, but maybe this company is making huge profit off of this fakie?

[Wardah]

It's so weird that they would go after this fakie, as opposed to ones that use stolen moulds or graphics or whatnot... yeah, it's a coloured horse with a hip tattoo but it's also fairly different, with the removable hooves. The name is kiiiinda close though.

I agree, but maybe this company is making huge profit off of this fakie?

I think it is because it is a Dutch company that was doing it. A lot of the other fakie makers are in China where they don't care about copyright law.

[lovesbabysquirmy]

It's so weird that they would go after this fakie, as opposed to ones that use stolen moulds or graphics or whatnot... yeah, it's a coloured horse with a hip tattoo but it's also fairly different, with the removable hooves. The name is kiiiinda close though.

I agree, but maybe this company is making huge profit off of this fakie?

I think it is because it is a Dutch company that was doing it. A lot of the other fakie makers are in China where they don't care about copyright law.

Yep!  They can't enforce the law in China.    Sadly this means they get away with it, while companies founded in other countries are able to be brought to court.  At least the positive side of this is that other countries RESPECT the laws that other countries have made, instead of just covering their ears and eyes and saying, "Well, it's not our law..."