Notifications
Clear all
Forum 43
10
Posts
7
Users
24
Reactions
523
Views
Topic starter
02/10/2025 6:58 pm
....while everyone else on the planet is making them.
Idea #1: I just got my Stamp Heather Poly 1962 Cadillac and noticed something I had not seen before. The model box and base call it a "1962 Series 62 Convertible". Nowhere does it say Cadillac. I looked at a few others and same deal, though I didn't pull out Stamps going back to their separation from GLM to see if this has been true all along. Perhaps, using a 1963 Dodge as an example, he could just call the model a "1963 330 Sedan" without reference to 'Dodge'. We would all know what it is, just as we know these Cadillacs.
Idea #2: Set up a subsidiary in another country, perhaps in China along his present production line. Similar to Stamp, he could call it "5-Star Models" (I might worry about calling them "Pentastar Models"). Everything could be set up independently like GLM vs. Stamp.
Just my 2-cents worth. Of course, the tariff situation may make these ideas non-starters.
BTW, I try not to keep color variations on resin models. Not sure if I will keep this latest 1962, or sell my Neptune Blue one. They are both purty.
This topic was modified 7 months ago by Harv Goranson
02/10/2025 10:19 pm
Does Brooklin has a licence with Stellantis to make the 1955 Plymouth? What is written on the packaging?
Harv Goranson reacted
02/10/2025 10:22 pm
Ed Davis
Inverness, Illinois, USA
02/10/2025 10:28 pm
So, plain and simple, intellectual property is not respected. Or maybe there is a way to mention they use trademarks that are owned by other entities without explicit approval.There is no information about licensing on the package.
This post was modified 7 months ago by Richard Dube
02/10/2025 11:04 pm
Here an example........Matrix has no license on the 1937 Chrysler Towncar but they have this carefully worded disclaimer on their packaging.
03/10/2025 9:25 am
Maybe the fear of a law suit and being obstructed from marketing a Chryco based model after spending a small fortune having it produced is the issue?
Christopher Moroni reacted
03/10/2025 3:22 pm
Of course. Goldvarg models are based in the USA, making them more susceptible to litigation in US courts. Few automobile manufacturers are willing to have copyright suits litigated in foreign courts. This is why China often gets away with blatantly copying logos and designs.
John Kuvakas
Warrenton, VA
Christopher Moroni and Jack Dodds reacted
04/10/2025 3:46 pm
I believe it used to be unless you enforce and protect your product and name all along, copyrights can become invalid. I think I remember someone was trying to enforce and demand royalties from even regular people singing "Happy Birthday".
I also recall when one of my nieces hit a grand slam home run in high school, a few seconds of a song could briefly be heard in the background and the video of the home run had been posted on YouTube. The organization that now owns the song demanded the whole video be immediately be taken down or large royalty payments be paid if "permission" was granted.
I had already saved the grand slam video that had been posted and wrote the lawyers/organization to "go somewhere very warm".
The wonderful free publicity that comes with obtaining a replica of a loved automobile is worth FAR more than blind and mindless enforcement of sometimes dubious "enforecement" of old items.
Karl Schnelle and Ed Davis reacted
04/10/2025 7:06 pm
@michaeldetorrice I also agree with your first sentence.
Ed Davis
Inverness, Illinois, USA
06/10/2025 3:19 pm
I was in CVS yesterday, and I noticed the spinner with all the diecast cars/trucks had a few Chrysler models, specifically, the Dodge Viper and a Chrysler 300. None of them had any type of license sticker. However, the GM models had a sticker and when you photograph it, a website appears that indicates you have an officially licensed product. Subsequent actions with the same sticker just take you to the GM Logo products page.