UPDATED ' NEW BLUE CITY SHIRTS ' PHOTOS

If the club try and go down the legal route how's that story going to go down in the press? I'd imagine the club would want nothing to do with these shirts!

I expect the same. Although I wouldn't want the guy creating these to risk getting in any trouble as I'd imagine it could prove costly

If the club try and go down the legal route how's that story going to go down in the press? I'd imagine the club would want nothing to do with these shirts!

Best publicity in the world,for the person and our BLUE

Why are people so against these shirts? They're blue and don't have Tan's badge. Also a hell of a lot cheaper than the official shirts. Just because there may or may not be a copyright issue, doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. The club aren't going to fine you and sentence you to a lifetime in jail for buying one.

Also a great chance for a bit of publicity

Why are people so against these shirts? They're blue and don't have Tan's badge. Also a hell of a lot cheaper than the official shirts. Just because there may or may not be a copyright issue, doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. The club aren't going to fine you and sentence you to a lifetime in jail for buying one.

Also a great chance for a bit of publicity

Spot on Jack

Why are people so against these shirts? They're blue and don't have Tan's badge. Also a hell of a lot cheaper than the official shirts. Just because there may or may not be a copyright issue, doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. The club aren't going to fine you and sentence you to a lifetime in jail for buying one.

Also a great chance for a bit of publicity

It's not the persons buying them I'm thinking of. Neither is it that I'm against them. I just don't think it is a wise idea, particularly as they have been described as replica shirts

Will def be getting 1 each for me and Alana

Pity that our team will not be wearing similar as the home kit.

Well done on infringing intellectual property rights.

Shhh James otherwise you might get labelled as being negative and against returning to blue

Or just being wrong

In fact you are wrong.

1. That logo is trademarked solely without text under class 25 - if used on an article of clothing without permission or license from the trademark owner they are liable to be sued in court - this is a civil issue.

2. Even if a trademark has lapsed or is not registered to begin with a company using a similar logo who can prove so can seek damages under what is known as passing off. As the logo of a bluebird is solely trademarked this is irrelevant.

3. The bluebird is also on the new badge so thus is part of an artistic work being trademarked and under examination by the IPO. Whether all or part of a trademarked work is used and causes damages to a business would be determined in a civil case where only a finding on the balance of probabilities would need to be established.

4. The term BLUEBIRDS is trademarked under class 26, badges, which low and behold is where the term is also used on this shirt again breaching trademark rights. The term Cardiff City is also textual trademarked as part of Cardiff City FC. In a case this would be considered, factoring in all similarities, to be done intentionally in the interests of business. This is trademarked under class 25, textiles and clothing.

5. As the bluebird is trademarked on its own and makes up part of the badge on this kit its also breaching criminal law and trading standards can even get involved. Now even if the bluebird wasn't trademarked Tan would have a very strong case under passing off.

To be successful in a passing off action, you must prove that:

the mark is yours
you have built up a reputation in the mark
you have been harmed in some way by the other person's use of the mark.

Tan could prove that the bluebird belonged to Cardiff City with ease as its been used for years to build up a reputation.

6. Logos may be protected under copyright as artistic works and many trade marks may therefore also be copyright works. Now, if the bluebird is an original work it may also be protected by copyright and as this T-shirt is being sold for profit in the interests of business as that's how it would be seen, it may even be secondary infringement which is a criminal offence. In the UK copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the rights holder.

So in short in a civil case its easy to see that the person manufacturing these shirts is in fact screwed in more ways than Katie Price can even dream of. The person in question would not have a leg to stand on due to civil cases being based on a balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt which is the case in criminal law.

Its also possible that Tan uses a solicitor to contact those responsible to demand they pay a license fee or he gets a percentage of the profits. I say Tan but it would be Cardiff City FC vs the person responsible as Cardiff City FC is incorporated and therefore is defined as a legal person in the eyes of the law and can sue/be sued.

Given that Tan is a man all about money this may be a route he takes although I'm going to go with Anni's and say for reputations sake solely he won't as he risks alienating even more people although he'd be well within his rights legally to pursue such.

So Roathie, before you go stating people are wrong get your facts right as you don't know everything and you're not the living and breathing wikipedia you think you are. Yes you know a lot but there are people who specialise in this sort of stuff and I can simply say that the person responsible for the manufacturing of these shirts, the person who is liable, would not have a leg to stand on in a civil dispute and if it came to criminal law they'd be in a tough position too.

A lot of counterfeits of all goods of all brands go around but a lot of companies don't sue as it'd look bad on them. A lot of them allow trading standards to deal with them so they haven't got to waste money on civil proceedings. Trading standards often do their job for them and often with much tougher criminal punishments.

I suspect Tan will not care. Its still Cardiff City being put out there and if he hated blue so much there'd be no blue shirt. As long as the club is red at home he will be content. Those who want red will buy red and those who don't were never going to be 'his' customers anyway due to their stance.

He will see this as marketing of the Cardiff City brand being done for him and when people look up online Cardiff City they will be taken to the official club store with HIS shirts on display. Some will buy one of them and others who oppose the rebrand will continue looking for that blue one.

Its a great idea in theory and with a few tweaks would not be breaching any IPR's but whether damages could still be claimed would be down to a court to decide.

Roathie, there is no doubt your football knowledge is great as is your knowledge of construction and the property market as I take it that's the game you are in but its quite transparent that you're clueless when it comes to things like this.

What are you trying to prove being argumentative and thinking you know every subject under the sun? If I don't know about a subject I don't talk about it such as cricket or tennis as I couldn't care less. I don't go out of my way to try and prove I'm a walking wikipedia. Stick to the stuff you know, football and club politics are two of them.

^ Great post! I just hope the creator of the shirt goes into this in full knowledge of the risks he is taking

Well done on infringing intellectual property rights.

Shhh James otherwise you might get labelled as being negative and against returning to blue

Or just being wrong

In fact you are wrong.

1. That logo is trademarked solely without text under class 25 - if used on an article of clothing without permission or license from the trademark owner they are liable to be sued in court - this is a civil issue.

2. Even if a trademark has lapsed or is not registered to begin with a company using a similar logo who can prove so can seek damages under what is known as passing off. As the logo of a bluebird is solely trademarked this is irrelevant.

3. The bluebird is also on the new badge so thus is part of an artistic work being trademarked and under examination by the IPO. Whether all or part of a trademarked work is used and causes damages to a business would be determined in a civil case where only a finding on the balance of probabilities would need to be established.

4. The term BLUEBIRDS is trademarked under class 26, badges, which low and behold is where the term is also used on this shirt again breaching trademark rights. The term Cardiff City is also textual trademarked as part of Cardiff City FC. In a case this would be considered, factoring in all similarities, to be done intentionally in the interests of business. This is trademarked under class 25, textiles and clothing.

5. As the bluebird is trademarked on its own and makes up part of the badge on this kit its also breaching criminal law and trading standards can even get involved. Now even if the bluebird wasn't trademarked Tan would have a very strong case under passing off.

To be successful in a passing off action, you must prove that:

the mark is yours
you have built up a reputation in the mark
you have been harmed in some way by the other person's use of the mark.

Tan could prove that the bluebird belonged to Cardiff City with ease as its been used for years to build up a reputation.

6. Logos may be protected under copyright as artistic works and many trade marks may therefore also be copyright works. Now, if the bluebird is an original work it may also be protected by copyright and as this T-shirt is being sold for profit in the interests of business as that's how it would be seen, it may even be secondary infringement which is a criminal offence. In the UK copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the rights holder.

So in short in a civil case its easy to see that the person manufacturing these shirts is in fact screwed in more ways than Katie Price can even dream of. The person in question would not have a leg to stand on due to civil cases being based on a balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt which is the case in criminal law.

Its also possible that Tan uses a solicitor to contact those responsible to demand they pay a license fee or he gets a percentage of the profits. I say Tan but it would be Cardiff City FC vs the person responsible as Cardiff City FC is incorporated and therefore is defined as a legal person in the eyes of the law and can sue/be sued.

Given that Tan is a man all about money this may be a route he takes although I'm going to go with Anni's and say for reputations sake solely he won't as he risks alienating even more people although he'd be well within his rights legally to pursue such.

So Roathie, before you go stating people are wrong get your facts right as you don't know everything and you're not the living and breathing wikipedia you think you are. Yes you know a lot but there are people who specialise in this sort of stuff and I can simply say that the person responsible for the manufacturing of these shirts, the person who is liable, would not have a leg to stand on in a civil dispute and if it came to criminal law they'd be in a tough position too.

A lot of counterfeits of all goods of all brands go around but a lot of companies don't sue as it'd look bad on them. A lot of them allow trading standards to deal with them so they haven't got to waste money on civil proceedings. Trading standards often do their job for them and often with much tougher criminal punishments.

I suspect Tan will not care. Its still Cardiff City being put out there and if he hated blue so much there'd be no blue shirt. As long as the club is red at home he will be content. Those who want red will buy red and those who don't were never going to be 'his' customers anyway due to their stance.

He will see this as marketing of the Cardiff City brand being done for him and when people look up online Cardiff City they will be taken to the official club store with HIS shirts on display. Some will buy one of them and others who oppose the rebrand will continue looking for that blue one.

Its a great idea in theory and with a few tweaks would not be breaching any IPR's but whether damages could still be claimed would be down to a court to decide.

Roathie, there is no doubt your football knowledge is great as is your knowledge of construction and the property market as I take it that's the game you are in but its quite transparent that you're clueless when it comes to things like this.

What are you trying to prove being argumentative and thinking you know every subject under the sun? If I don't know about a subject I don't talk about it such as cricket or tennis as I couldn't care less. I don't go out of my way to try and prove I'm a walking wikipedia. Stick to the stuff you know, football and club politics are two of them.

Im not wrong james, how can i be wrong - im quoting the club.

The club are the ones who will be taking out a lawsuit of they feel copyright has been breached. They told karl that if the bluebird is changed slightly then that is fine - it has been changed slightly.

The conversation stops there no matter how many things you can copy and paste

Roathie, slight alteration or not, a substantial amount of the works is still the same. I advise you to actually look up the law in regards to this.

As for Karl, if he was given permission for this purpose then its fine although I highly doubt he was. Also, permission granted to Karl by the rights holder is not permission granted to any other parties. Also, without evidence such as a written agreement it would be very hard to prove rights were granted in the first instance and again the club could easily pursue those liable.

I highly doubt the club gave Karl rights to use the trademark slightly altered for commercial purposes. I'll ask Karl the ins and outs of his agreement and whether its in writing. If so then he is covered as having rights to use the trademark. That does not mean other parties are.

As for nonsensical claim its copy and pasted, the only part there that is is the passing off section in quotes. This is stuff I learnt in uni and I unfortunately had the displeasure of having to learn about database rights and software licensing too. Its stuff I know from studying.

You seem to be under the crazy illusion that rights granted to one person are then applicable to all as long as they follow the same rules. This is simply not the case.

I don't believe for a second the club has granted anyone permission to use a trademark they own for commercial gain, unless of course they were getting a cut.

Roathie, slight alteration or not, a substantial amount of the works is still the same. I advise you to actually look up the law in regards to this.

As for Karl, if he was given permission for this purpose then its fine although I highly doubt he was. Also, permission granted to Karl by the rights holder is not permission granted to any other parties. Also, without evidence such as a written agreement it would be very hard to prove rights were granted in the first instance and again the club could easily pursue those liable.

I highly doubt the club gave Karl rights to use the trademark slightly altered for commercial purposes. I'll ask Karl the ins and outs of his agreement and whether its in writing. If so then he is covered as having rights to use the trademark. That does not mean other parties are.

As for nonsensical claim its copy and pasted, the only part there that is is the passing off section in quotes. This is stuff I learnt in uni and I unfortunately had the displeasure of having to learn about database rights and software licensing too. Its stuff I know from studying.

You seem to be under the crazy illusion that rights granted to one person are then applicable to all as long as they follow the same rules. This is simply not the case.

I don't believe for a second the club has granted anyone permission to use a trademark they own for commercial gain, unless of course they were getting a cut.

This thread is about the shirt, it then evolved into "for the makers benefit, what about copyright?" - as ive said a repeated amount of times, when asked by karl (who undertook a similar project) "what needs to be done to not infringe on your copyright" he was told to alter the badge slightly to which he did. It was not permission to use the trademark but instructions from the club as to what they see as not infringing it. The copyright law is interpretation and not hard and fast, the likeness is a threshold that is different in any adjudicating party, none more so the owner of the copyright themselves.

If you want a topic about copyright or indeed would like to coach the club on the subject of copyright (if you dont feel they have been adequately informed) then you are welcome to. My involvement in this thread is to make it clear as far the the club is concerned, which is the most important thing remember (A third party cannot sue on the owners behalf) - it doesnt infringe the copyright.

Thats all there is to it.

Roathie, slight alteration or not, a substantial amount of the works is still the same. I advise you to actually look up the law in regards to this.

As for Karl, if he was given permission for this purpose then its fine although I highly doubt he was. Also, permission granted to Karl by the rights holder is not permission granted to any other parties. Also, without evidence such as a written agreement it would be very hard to prove rights were granted in the first instance and again the club could easily pursue those liable.

I highly doubt the club gave Karl rights to use the trademark slightly altered for commercial purposes. I'll ask Karl the ins and outs of his agreement and whether its in writing. If so then he is covered as having rights to use the trademark. That does not mean other parties are.

As for nonsensical claim its copy and pasted, the only part there that is is the passing off section in quotes. This is stuff I learnt in uni and I unfortunately had the displeasure of having to learn about database rights and software licensing too. Its stuff I know from studying.

You seem to be under the crazy illusion that rights granted to one person are then applicable to all as long as they follow the same rules. This is simply not the case.

I don't believe for a second the club has granted anyone permission to use a trademark they own for commercial gain, unless of course they were getting a cut.

This thread is about the shirt, it then evolved into "for the makers benefit, what about copyright?" - as ive said a repeated amount of times, when asked by karl (who undertook a similar project) "what needs to be done to not infringe on your copyright" he was told to alter the badge slightly to which he did. It was not permission to use the trademark but instructions from the club as to what they see as not infringing it. The copyright law is interpretation and not hard and fast, the likeness is a threshold that is different in any adjudicating party, none more so the owner of the copyright themselves.

If you want a topic about copyright or indeed would like to coach the club on the subject of copyright (if you dont feel they have been adequately informed) then you are welcome to. My involvement in this thread is to make it clear as far the the club is concerned, which is the most important thing remember (A third party cannot sue on the owners behalf) - it doesnt infringe the copyright.

Thats all there is to it.

No it's not. Green Arrow is spot on in what he says and has done a very good job in setting out the position - I just hope those producing the shirt have given more thought to it than you appear to.

For the large majority of my time working as a Trade Mark Examiner in the Patent Office, part of my job was to look for similar marks that might be raised as formal objections to an application for a new trade mark. I would have, rightly, got a bollocking from my bosses if I had decided that the bluebird design as represented on the shirt featured in this thread did not infringe the club's rights when used on identical goods to those covered by their Class 25 (clothing) registration.

The situation has been simplified now and, as you say, the onus is now on the holder of the trade mark to instigate action against a trader that they believe is infringing on their goodwill and/or misrepresenting them.

Of course, it might be that the club have looked at the shirt being produced here and decided they won't start proceedings, but, if they did decide to, then everything I learned in two decades of working in the intellectual property field tells me that they would win if the dispute was taken to arbitration - furthermore, a defence of "we thought it was okay because they had given someone else permission to use a slightly amended version of the mark" would be laughed out of court.

Roathie, slight alteration or not, a substantial amount of the works is still the same. I advise you to actually look up the law in regards to this.

As for Karl, if he was given permission for this purpose then its fine although I highly doubt he was. Also, permission granted to Karl by the rights holder is not permission granted to any other parties. Also, without evidence such as a written agreement it would be very hard to prove rights were granted in the first instance and again the club could easily pursue those liable.

I highly doubt the club gave Karl rights to use the trademark slightly altered for commercial purposes. I'll ask Karl the ins and outs of his agreement and whether its in writing. If so then he is covered as having rights to use the trademark. That does not mean other parties are.

As for nonsensical claim its copy and pasted, the only part there that is is the passing off section in quotes. This is stuff I learnt in uni and I unfortunately had the displeasure of having to learn about database rights and software licensing too. Its stuff I know from studying.

You seem to be under the crazy illusion that rights granted to one person are then applicable to all as long as they follow the same rules. This is simply not the case.

I don't believe for a second the club has granted anyone permission to use a trademark they own for commercial gain, unless of course they were getting a cut.

This thread is about the shirt, it then evolved into "for the makers benefit, what about copyright?" - as ive said a repeated amount of times, when asked by karl (who undertook a similar project) "what needs to be done to not infringe on your copyright" he was told to alter the badge slightly to which he did. It was not permission to use the trademark but instructions from the club as to what they see as not infringing it. The copyright law is interpretation and not hard and fast, the likeness is a threshold that is different in any adjudicating party, none more so the owner of the copyright themselves.

If you want a topic about copyright or indeed would like to coach the club on the subject of copyright (if you dont feel they have been adequately informed) then you are welcome to. My involvement in this thread is to make it clear as far the the club is concerned, which is the most important thing remember (A third party cannot sue on the owners behalf) - it doesnt infringe the copyright.

Thats all there is to it.

No it's not. Green Arrow is spot on in what he says and has done a very good job in setting out the position - I just hope those producing the shirt have given more thought to it than you appear to.

For the large majority of my time working as a Trade Mark Examiner in the Patent Office, part of my job was to look for similar marks that might be raised as formal objections to an application for a new trade mark. I would have, rightly, got a bollocking from my bosses if I had decided that the bluebird design as represented on the shirt featured in this thread did not infringe the club's rights when used on identical goods to those covered by their Class 25 (clothing) registration.

The situation has been simplified now and, as you say, the onus is now on the holder of the trade mark to instigate action against a trader that they believe is infringing on their goodwill and/or misrepresenting them.

Of course, it might be that the club have looked at the shirt being produced here and decided they won't start proceedings, but, if they did decide to, then everything I learned in two decades of working in the intellectual property field tells me that they would win if the dispute was taken to arbitration - furthermore, a defence of "we thought it was okay because they had given someone else permission to use a slightly amended version of the mark" would be laughed out of court.

Of course thats all there is to it, as i said - this thread is not about copyright law, it is about copyright law specific to this case as third parties cannot sue on behalf of the club.

Ive said time and time again the club have stated, when asked about their copyright threshold, if the bird is slightly altered then its fine. The bird HAS been slightly altered - so its fine.

It seems some have tried to bring up copyright ad a way to discredit or not give praise to the idea, when its been made clear the club do not see it as a copyright infringement the thread has turned into a "i know more about copyright than you".

You can quote every text from the copyright handbook 101 and explain it to the "nth" degree - but it makes no difference as copyright law is based on perception and each case is different, what looks the same to one doesnt to another. In
THIS case we know the clubs stance on the bluebird copyright from historical experience.

And that really IS all there is to it.

Ive said time and time again the club have stated, when asked about their copyright threshold, if the bird is slightly altered then its fine. The bird HAS been slightly altered - so its fine.

No its not. A substantial amount of the work in question is the same. Also, if its secondary infringement the police could pursue it themselves as that's criminal law. It'd then have sod all to do with the club.

If you think a slight alteration makes it okay then more fool you. You evidently don't have a clue.

I couldn't give a shit about the clubs position as the club is owned by a loon called Tan and its stance could change on a whim to suit this guys pathetic ego.

Ive said time and time again the club have stated, when asked about their copyright threshold, if the bird is slightly altered then its fine. The bird HAS been slightly altered - so its fine.

No its not. A substantial amount of the work in question is the same. Also, if its secondary infringement the police could pursue it themselves as that's criminal law. It'd then have sod all to do with the club.

If you think a slight alteration makes it okay then more fool you. You evidently don't have a clue.

I couldn't give a shit about the clubs position as the club is owned by a loon called Tan and its stance could change on a whim to suit this guys pathetic ego.

Then we wholeheartedly disagree.

Id be more than willing to make a wager that Thomas wont be sued by the club, and that is because they made their threshold perfectly clear.

Ive said time and time again the club have stated, when asked about their copyright threshold, if the bird is slightly altered then its fine. The bird HAS been slightly altered - so its fine.

No its not. A substantial amount of the work in question is the same. Also, if its secondary infringement the police could pursue it themselves as that's criminal law. It'd then have sod all to do with the club.

If you think a slight alteration makes it okay then more fool you. You evidently don't have a clue.

I couldn't give a shit about the clubs position as the club is owned by a loon called Tan and its stance could change on a whim to suit this guys pathetic ego.

Then we wholeheartedly disagree.

Id be more than willing to make a wager that Thomas wont be sued by the club, and that is because they made their threshold perfectly clear.

I've already said he won't be myself Roathie. Do you selectively read or are you purposely going out of your way now to appear stupid? He won't be sued by the club IMO because it would as I have already said be bad for their image. Whether the police get notified or whatever in terms of breaching secondary infringement is another thing entirely and with Tan it would not surprise me one bit if this sly route was taken once this shirt gains media coverage and he is aware of it.

Also, did Tan himself give Karl permission because if not what if Tan wants to sue as the clubs owner and fund proceedings to prove a point? (I still doubt he will). The problem is we have a nut job as our owner and he can what he likes when he likes.

I doubt he will bother but it wouldn't surprise me with Tan as he is a massive knob and a shrewd businessman who didn't get to where he is by being soft when it comes to business issues.

Also, you fail to respond to my point about criminal law where the club doesn't have to be involved as it would go through the CPS as opposed to a civil dispute.

Now whilst I think it's great what Thomas has done in terms of what It means and so on I also want to make a fellow bluebird aware of said risks. My aim is not to belittle but to make people aware.

Myself, if we had a sensible owner like Kenwright at the helm with written permission I'd do it but when Tan is concerned I would not bother as the guy is a loon who has no respect for anyone other than himself or those that arse lick him.

Ive said time and time again the club have stated, when asked about their copyright threshold, if the bird is slightly altered then its fine. The bird HAS been slightly altered - so its fine.

No its not. A substantial amount of the work in question is the same. Also, if its secondary infringement the police could pursue it themselves as that's criminal law. It'd then have sod all to do with the club.

If you think a slight alteration makes it okay then more fool you. You evidently don't have a clue.

I couldn't give a shit about the clubs position as the club is owned by a loon called Tan and its stance could change on a whim to suit this guys pathetic ego.

Then we wholeheartedly disagree.

Id be more than willing to make a wager that Thomas wont be sued by the club, and that is because they made their threshold perfectly clear.

I've already said he won't be myself Roathie. Do you selectively read or are you purposely going out of your way now to appear stupid? He won't be sued by the club IMO because it would as I have already said be bad for their image. Whether the police get notified or whatever in terms of breaching secondary infringement is another thing entirely and with Tan it would not surprise me one bit if this sly route was taken once this shirt gains media coverage and he is aware of it.

Also, did Tan himself give Karl permission because if not what if Tan wants to sue as the clubs owner and fund proceedings to prove a point? (I still doubt he will). The problem is we have a nut job as our owner and he can what he likes when he likes.

I doubt he will bother but it wouldn't surprise me with Tan as he is a massive knob and a shrewd businessman who didn't get to where he is by being soft when it comes to business issues.

Also, you fail to respond to my point about criminal law where the club doesn't have to be involved as it would go through the CPS as opposed to a civil dispute.

Now whilst I think it's great what Thomas has done in terms of what It means and so on I also want to make a fellow bluebird aware of said risks. My aim is not to belittle but to make people aware.

Myself, if we had a sensible owner like Kenwright at the helm with written permission I'd do it but when Tan is concerned I would not bother as the guy is a loon who has no respect for anyone other than himself or those that arse lick him.

Im not coming across as stupid at all James. If you think hes fine and i think he is fine then we are in complete agreement. I dont think the police would get involved either and would also place a bet on that

It seems people are using this thread to massage their egos rather than respond to the point in hand, which of course is copyright issues between the club and Thomas C. There is next to no chance of any proceedings be that from the club or Tan, lots of scaremongering and discrediting going on, pretty much guaranteed when someone shows a bit of entrepreneurial-ship. Even had a guy on the other thread saying "is he paying taxes on those"

A PM asking whether the copyright is fine would have sufficed. People love a drama and a bandwagon.

Ive said time and time again the club have stated, when asked about their copyright threshold, if the bird is slightly altered then its fine. The bird HAS been slightly altered - so its fine.

No its not. A substantial amount of the work in question is the same. Also, if its secondary infringement the police could pursue it themselves as that's criminal law. It'd then have sod all to do with the club.

If you think a slight alteration makes it okay then more fool you. You evidently don't have a clue.

I couldn't give a shit about the clubs position as the club is owned by a loon called Tan and its stance could change on a whim to suit this guys pathetic ego.

Then we wholeheartedly disagree.

Id be more than willing to make a wager that Thomas wont be sued by the club, and that is because they made their threshold perfectly clear.

I've already said he won't be myself Roathie. Do you selectively read or are you purposely going out of your way now to appear stupid? He won't be sued by the club IMO because it would as I have already said be bad for their image. Whether the police get notified or whatever in terms of breaching secondary infringement is another thing entirely and with Tan it would not surprise me one bit if this sly route was taken once this shirt gains media coverage and he is aware of it.

Also, did Tan himself give Karl permission because if not what if Tan wants to sue as the clubs owner and fund proceedings to prove a point? (I still doubt he will). The problem is we have a nut job as our owner and he can what he likes when he likes.

I doubt he will bother but it wouldn't surprise me with Tan as he is a massive knob and a shrewd businessman who didn't get to where he is by being soft when it comes to business issues.

Also, you fail to respond to my point about criminal law where the club doesn't have to be involved as it would go through the CPS as opposed to a civil dispute.

Now whilst I think it's great what Thomas has done in terms of what It means and so on I also want to make a fellow bluebird aware of said risks. My aim is not to belittle but to make people aware.

Myself, if we had a sensible owner like Kenwright at the helm with written permission I'd do it but when Tan is concerned I would not bother as the guy is a loon who has no respect for anyone other than himself or those that arse lick him.

Im not coming across as stupid at all James. If you think hes fine and i think he is fine then we are in complete agreement. I dont think the police would get involved either and would also place a bet on that

It seems people are using this thread to massage their egos rather than respond to the point in hand, which of course is copyright issues between the club and Thomas C. There is next to no chance of any proceedings be that from the club or Tan, lots of scaremongering and discrediting going on, pretty much guaranteed when someone shows a bit of entrepreneurial-ship. Even had a guy on the other thread saying "is he paying taxes on those"

A PM asking whether the copyright is fine would have sufficed. People love a drama and a bandwagon.

Surely it's up to other people to decide whether you are coming over as stupid, not you? In this instance I think you are.

I wish I could be so sure that the club won't do anything as you are, but, as Green Arrow says, with someone as unpredictable Tan in charge you cannot take anything for granted.

As for scaremongering, I'm not bothered in the slightest whether those producing the shirt pay any attention to what I and others have put in this thread and I wish them all the best with the project. However, this is a subject that I have some experience in and I don't see anything wrong at all in myself and others pointing out possible pitfalls - especially if those selling the shirt have little or no experience of copyright/trade mark matters.

Surely it's up to other people to decide whether you are coming over as stupid, not you? In this instance I think you are.

if we left it to the people of the board to decide what is stupid and what isnt then you would still have cornelius up front, i was supposedly "stupid" for saying he was rubbish too. Not to mention "world class" medel being too expensive. How stupid eh?

I dont see what you perceive as stupid, ive simply stated i dont think the club or the police would take this on, its a pretty sketchy case. If you think they will then by all means, take my bet, surely you would like to profit off such "stupidity"

I wish I could be so sure that the club won't do anything as you are, but, as Green Arrow says, with someone as unpredictable Tan in charge you cannot take anything for granted.

they have made their stance quite clear with similar historical projects. Not sure how many more times i have to say that. Im sure Thomas has also done the same Karl did.

As for scaremongering, I'm not bothered in the slightest whether those producing the shirt pay any attention to what I and others have put in this thread and I wish them all the best with the project. However, this is subject that I have some experience of and I don't see anything wrong at all in myself and others pointing out possible pitfalls - especially if they have little or no experience of copyright/trade mark matters.

by all means, go for it. However there was very little help being offered at all "good job on infringing intellectual property rights " read one such "helpful message". Its clear people are trying to discredit Thomas' idea by going through every line of every textbook even though the answer has been given by the club.

If people genuinely had a concern for the maker with his interests at heart then a PM would have done rather than turning their thread into a load of self gratifying nonsense. Copyright is case specific and 99% of what is being recited from google here doesnt apply as directions from the club are clear.

How many more circles are we going to go in

Right, so it's established that you don't agree with me and as my only point in contributing to this thread was to point out potential problems to the people producing the shirt, there seems no point in you and I going over the same ground all of the time.

However, one thing I'm fascinated by is your contention that changes have been made to the bluebird which appears on the shirt when compared to the one that appears on the image posted by 7Summit on Tuesday - genuine question here, what changes are they? They look identical to me.

Right, so it's established that you don't agree with me and as my only point in contributing to this thread was to point out potential problems to the people producing the shirt, there seems no point in you and I going over the same ground all of the time.

However, one thing I'm fascinated by is your contention that changes have been made to the bluebird which appears on the shirt when compared to the one that appears on the image posted by 7Summit on Tuesday - genuine question here, what changes are they? They look identical to me.

Different shape, fatter, different angles. At the end of the day it is a swift, they are going to look similar. However to claim they are identical just factually is not true.

Right, so it's established that you don't agree with me and as my only point in contributing to this thread was to point out potential problems to the people producing the shirt, there seems no point in you and I going over the same ground all of the time.

However, one thing I'm fascinated by is your contention that changes have been made to the bluebird which appears on the shirt when compared to the one that appears on the image posted by 7Summit on Tuesday - genuine question here, what changes are they? They look identical to me.

Different shape, fatter, different angles. At the end of the day it is a swift, they are going to look similar. However to claim they are identical just factually is not true.

Right, thanks for that. All I'll say is that it's little wonder the club are £100 million plus in debt and have been losing money hand over fist for fourteen years if signing away it's legal rights on the basis of such "differences" is a typical example of how it does business.

With that, I'll take my leave from this thread.

Right, so it's established that you don't agree with me and as my only point in contributing to this thread was to point out potential problems to the people producing the shirt, there seems no point in you and I going over the same ground all of the time.

However, one thing I'm fascinated by is your contention that changes have been made to the bluebird which appears on the shirt when compared to the one that appears on the image posted by 7Summit on Tuesday - genuine question here, what changes are they? They look identical to me.

Different shape, fatter, different angles. At the end of the day it is a swift, they are going to look similar. However to claim they are identical just factually is not true.

Right, thanks for that. All I'll say is that it's little wonder the club are £100 million plus in debt and have been losing money hand over fist for fourteen years if signing away it's legal rights on the basis of such "differences" is a typical example of how it does business.

With that, I'll take my leave from this thread.

Id hazard a guess that almost none of that debt has been accrued from fan, or any type of copyright infringements

Will be Available from Next Week, Thomas will be put his online site up on this forum

The shirt has had a couple of changes, visit Wales has been removed, Thomas listened to the feedback

Will be Available from Next Week, Thomas will be put his online site up on this forum

The shirt has had a couple of changes, visit Wales has been removed, Thomas listened to the feedback

I still think the Trust is by far a better way to go. Sorry!

Will be Available from Next Week, Thomas will be put his online site up on this forum

The shirt has had a couple of changes, visit Wales has been removed, Thomas listened to the feedback

I still think the Trust is by far a better way to go. Sorry!

Your opinion

For me all BLUE shirts, the more the merrier and this one says Cardiff City FC on it, that means a lot to me

Will be Available from Next Week, Thomas will be put his online site up on this forum

The shirt has had a couple of changes, visit Wales has been removed, Thomas listened to the feedback

I still think the Trust is by far a better way to go. Sorry!

Your opinion

For me all BLUE shirts, the more the merrier and this one says Cardiff City FC on it, that means a lot to me

If it dies then he seriously needs to think again based on what we've said previously.

The Trust has been very clever in how it's approached this and has maneuvered very cleverly around the copyright issue. Is also very clear that they are not making a profit from them which will be another sticky issue for the guy producing these. Seriously annis, I know we've had our differences but I think this is a very ill thought out and I'll advised plan. I just don't want to see anyone in trouble and losing a shed load of money.

A clean top looks better, sponsor was superficial