Tartan Law Suit - LL Bean & "Maine" tartan

[ccga3359]

The story is about money. The tartan is an incidental... a minor detail.

She may have a legitimate claim to this tartan and if she does she has every right to stop L.L. Bean and yes, receive compensation. The tartan is not incidental, L.L. Bean would not be selling unlicensed Coca-Cola apparel would they?

[M. A. C. Newsome]

The irony of all this is that the Maine tartan LL Bean used is not even the official tartan of the state of Maine.

The first Maine tartan was proported to have been officially adopted by the state, but the copyright holders have always been extremely strict about who can produce -- or even show an image of -- the tartan. They guarded it so closely that when Drs. Teall and Smith wrote their District Tartans book in the mid 90s that they had extreme difficulty getting permission to picture it in the book. I think the agreement they finally settled upon involved them going back through all the printed books and pasting a blank page over the plate that pictured the tartan.

In any case, there were enough folks in Maine interested in designing another state tartan that would be more widely available. And come to find out, when they did some research, the only indication that the original tartan was approved by the state was a news clipping from the 60s. When the state offices were contacted about it, absolutely no record could be found.

So a new tartan was designed by the Maine St. Andrews Society, called the Maine Dirigo tartan ("Dirigo" being the state motto), and this one was actually formally adopted by the state in 2001.
http://www.district-tartans.com/maine_dirigo.jpg

The argument that LL Bean is using is that the state tartan, as a symbol of the state, should lie in the public domain, and this was the assumption they were making when they selected the tartan for their shirts. It will be interesting to see how this argument flies.

However, the big irony is that the tartan LL Bean used was the original Maine tartan. Had they selected the Maine Dirigo tartan, which is actually the official state tartan, they would not have had to deal with these pesky copyright issues.

Aye,
Matt

[macwilkin]

Matt,

Thank you for the clarification on this -- ironically, I am wearing my L.L. Bean Maine tartan shirt this morning!

Cheers,

Todd

[ccga3359]

Matt,

Thank you for the clarification on this -- ironically, I am wearing my L.L. Bean Maine tartan shirt this morning!

Cheers,

Todd

Be careful you might be named as a co-defendant!

[neo71665]

Matt,

Thank you for the clarification on this -- ironically, I am wearing my L.L. Bean Maine tartan shirt this morning!

Cheers,

Todd

What ever you do don't post a pic of it

[macwilkin]

What ever you do don't post a pic of it

:mrgreen: I wonder if she'll start a lawsuit against everyone who owns one?

T.

[Nanook]

However, the big irony is that the tartan LL Bean used was the original Maine tartan. Had they selected the Maine Dirigo tartan, which is actually the official state tartan, they would not have had to deal with these pesky copyright issues.

The problem is that unless they defended their copyright against its use by LL Bean they would effectively yield their rights to the pattern to LL. Bean. Copyrights are not patents. Worse still: even public patterns can be made proprietary merely by their association with a brand. I refer the readers here to look at Burberry's threats against the mills making Thompson Camel tartans (and companies using the cloth). Their lawyers have argued that it does not matter that Thompson Camel predates the company or its use but that its come to be a logo identified with Burberry. I refer also to the Sony-versus-Sony and other similar suits. Should LL Bean continue to use the tartan without agreement with the copyright holders and they did nothing then LL Bean could eventually argue that they own "effectively" the tartan and could, in theory, move to prevent the current copyright holders from using it. Twisted world!

[Fearnest]

The problem is that unless they defended their copyright against its use by LL Bean they would effectively yield their rights to the pattern to LL. Bean. Copyrights are not patents. Worse still: even public patterns can be made proprietary merely by their association with a brand.

There are similar problems with trademarks and service marks.

Look at the term "XEROX." It became so commonly used as a term for photocopiers and photocopies (e.g. "I'm going to XEROX a copy of my tax returns") that it lost its trademark protection, and the XEROX corporation no longer has the right to exclude others from using its corporate name!

If that can happen to such a huge entity, think about the individual owner of intellectual property (whether or not he or she was the actual originator, or just purchased the rights from the original copyright holder). If you don't defend your rights, you lose them.

[Highland Logan]

L. L. Bean have been busy getting a name in the tartan world (see the below).

http://www.clanmacbean.net/more.html

An American company, L. L. Bean, was marketing a tartan that they called MacBean Hunting. This was brought to the attention of Chief James who challenged them on it, rightly asserting himself as the only person who could legally make such a designation. As a result, L. L. Bean renamed the tartan Bean of Freeport (Freeport, Maine, being the company location). James Scarlett comments, "There is a pattern called Bean of Freeport, which is a simple variation of the green Shaw of Tordarroch tartan. It has no official standing."

Frank

[flairball]

Interesting. I don't quite understand what the chief of MacBean's authority is over the naming of a tartan though. My understanding was, and I could be mistaken, that if you design a tartan you can name it whatever you please, provided that name doesn't already exist. The clan chief just officially adopts the tartan if he feels it suits the clan. Lord Lyons role? I thought he had very little to do with tartans. Seems to me ol' LL was bullied by his clan chief.

Perhaps Matt could enlighten us a bit?