OA stickers - petition for print

[Shay]

lol true and adding and aus outline to that, patriotic enough??

oh and theres an aussie flag on my parcel shelf now too

[Hoya]

the whole legal side of the opel blitz is total BS

1. opel as a business entity doesnt exist in Australia
2. and where opel exists there are MANY forums online with the opel blitz in their logo.
http://www.dreamvale.net/sgopel/index.php
https://www.club-opel.com/
http://www.opelownersforum.co.za/forum/

its stupid just having a aussie logo and opelaus.com when we just have a opel badge on our cars.
having the blitz and the website address would say to other astra/corsa/etc etc drivers that the forum is about the car.
rather then just having some random artwork with a website address.

most people at the time would see a aussie logo or the southern cross and some website they would assume "ohh yea some bogan website"

sorry if this is harsh but if you want marketing you need to combine it with something

[GodsKnight]

I have to agree.

[Kudrow]

You are both wrong.

The word "Opel" and the "Blitz" logo are both Registered Trademarks in Australia, hence their intellectual property rights are enforceable in Australia.

If you don't believe me, go to www.ipaustralia.gov.au, find the ATMOSS tool, and do a search for trademarks 130780 and 844072. You will find the first is for the word "Opel" and the second for both the "Blitz" logo and the "Opel" word. Both are owned by Opel Eisenach GmbH in Germany.

For your convienence, I have attached images.

Thank you.

[GodsKnight]

I stand corrected

[Hoya]

maybe you should just send a email to the IP firm that registered the logo to get permission

http://www.pof.com.au/ContactUs

[ASTRAY]

brady, just curious mate, that first one....
its patent (etc) is for the logo that has the word opel and the blitz logo.
if we had wording as opelaus and blitz logo, we might be alright.

just mentioning this because it seems to me they have only registered the word with the blitz... not the just actual blitz, unless there is another one protecting just the blitz.

sorry if im wrong mate.

[Kudrow]

maybe you should just send a email to the IP firm that registered the logo to get permission

http://www.pof.com.au/ContactUs

Unsure what you mean here.

1. To use it in the examples above? No need to.
2. For us to use it openly on cars? Pay me the licence fee that they will charge and sure.

[Kudrow]

brady, just curious mate, that first one....
its patent (etc) is for the logo that has the word opel and the blitz logo.
if we had wording as opelaus and blitz logo, we might be alright.

just mentioning this because it seems to me they have only registered the word with the blitz... not the just actual blitz, unless there is another one protecting just the blitz.

sorry if im wrong mate.

Nah, if you have a look at the top one, you will see it says something about IMAGE Lightning zig-zag breaks circle, meaning the image is protected too.

[tomtom]

Unsure what you mean here.

1. To use it in the examples above? No need to.
2. For us to use it openly on cars? Pay me the licence fee that they will charge and sure.

Ok, well I decided to ask Yahoo. I originally had a response to this but alas I found someone who seemed to have a better grounding:

To the extent that your incorporation of the logos suggests endorsement or sponsorship of your website, your use would be trademark infringement. I would be cautious about incorporating logos into your website without permission. However, merely mentioning the websites by name without the logo is likely nominative fair use.

That being said, I'd be surprised if any of the websites you mention would strictly enforce trademark infringement in the example you describe. Also, they might have explicit terms for using their trademarks for linking purposes.

From... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3131921AAd0h8c

So on a wank-level I'm thinking, yes - they can sue your ass. Will it ever happen? Most likely no.

No corporation is going to take a few guys to court over using their logo to represent their product, after all, we are all walking talking billboards for Opels. Further more, OA is not a profitting organisation and we are not using their logo for any monetary gain. Being that money is the core foundations from which copyright laws were created, without that factor, there is no reason for them to pursue OA.

Also, I believe the law has provisions for the use of names/logos/images in "parody". Don't know how that adds I'm just going to start random fact dropping soon.

In saying all this, I am 100% behind OA owners in pursuing full legality to ensure NO CHANCE of future issues.