Allan Gelfand to Sue SEGA & Activision

[fitbabits]

Oh. My. Goodness! (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1833&Itemid=2)

Thanks to Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz).

Alan "Ollie" Gelfand, creator of the now standard skateboard trick of the same name, is suing Sega and Activision for using his nickname without permission.

"I'm just a skateboarder. I'm not a huge, mega corporation... yet," said Gelfand.
So if I want to name my kid OllieTM (and if you're reading this, Mr. Gefland, trust me, I don't), I would need to pay this gentleman a royalty fee?

[vornskr]

this guy is an asshole.

[vallor]

this guy is an asshole.

Maybe, but if Sega used his name for a video game he should have gotten some money for it.

Its no different than any other athelete with an endorsement deal.

I'd think the other folks he is suing just for using his name as a character as some historical flair or whatever are fairly safe.

[7ofswords]

Nah, this guy is an asshole.

[falcon]

Anybody played any of the games mentioned? If they features him in the game it's one thing but if they just called a move "Ollie" then I think he's FUBAR

[MaiXu]

Maybe, but if Sega used his name for a video game he should have gotten some money for it.

Its no different than any other athelete with an endorsement deal.

I'd think the other folks he is suing just for using his name as a character as some historical flair or whatever are fairly safe.

But that's just it, they didn't use his name. They used a nickname, which, by the way, had moved into the standard skating vernacular long before those games came out. So unless he can prove some kind of ownership of the name Ollie (people calling him that doesn't cut it), he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Valkyrist]

Agreed with all above. You'd think he'd have something better to do with his time...

Then again, mb he's pulling a Vanilla Ice. Old and meaningless, so they stir the pot to (re)make a name for themselves. Somehow thinking that in doing so, they'll validate their existance in the mainstream.

Seriously, I don't care who this guy is. I've never heard his name before, and I'm not interested in what he invented. It's prolly safe to assume almost everyone else here feels the same. This whole suit is just an attempt at some cash cause he got old and can't make money skateboarding anymore. He doesn't own the rights to the name Ollie, and the references to that word in these games were about the skating trick itself, not him. $20 million in "Damages" my ass.

[Ernst_Jager]

My friends call me Fantasy so I think I am going to try and sue a few people.

(J/k my friends don't actually call me this but damnit maybe they should!)

[hideouslywrinkled]

I don't he has a leg to stand on.

Even if the "ollie" was named after him, it's been part of the colloquial jargon for skateboarding for years and years. He should have trademarked it a LONG time ago...

[fitbabits]

My friends call me Fantasy so I think I am going to try and sue a few people.

(J/k my friends don't actually call me this but damnit maybe they should!)
If you promise to let me be your friend, I will call you Fantasy till I'm blue in the face! :)

[eatme]

So if I want to name my kid OllieTM (and if you're reading this, Mr. Gefland, trust me, I don't), I would need to pay this gentleman a royalty fee?

Correct. Also, if you wanted to name your kid Tony Hawk, you'd need to pay Tony Hawk a royalty fee.

No, wait, you wouldn't. Yet you still have to pay Tony Hawk a fee if you want to make a skateboarding game with his name on it. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?

[kickmybum]

what a retard.

[Citizen Philip]

Correct. Also, if you wanted to name your kid Tony Hawk, you'd need to pay Tony Hawk a royalty fee.

No, wait, you wouldn't. Yet you still have to pay Tony Hawk a fee if you want to make a skateboarding game with his name on it. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?

Science. Pure Science.

[fitbabits]

Thinking more on this - why doesn't he sue his damn parents for not having the foresight to name him Oliver. Or why didn't he legally change his name to Ollie? Knob!

[eatme]

Serious for a moment: remember when (okay, probably not) Intel sued to keep other chip manufacturers from labeling their chips 286, 386, 486? Intel lost, even though they'd been the first to brand their chips that way.

Why? Because the other companies brought in surveys, witness, etc., that showed 286 et. al. had become generic terms: most people in the real world, when asked, thought that 286 was a generic reference to the processor's power, and didn't think it had anything to do with Intel. The trademark was so diluted that it no longer had any protection.

I can't see "Ollie" having a stronger case. I know what the move is, I've heard the term tons of times, but I didn't even know it was named after anyone. That's probably typical, and if so, this guy's screwed.

Actually, he's not. He'll still get some sort of settlement, because that's cheaper than going to court.

[JazGalaxy]

Oh. My. Goodness! (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1833&Itemid=2)

Thanks to Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz).


So if I want to name my kid OllieTM (and if you're reading this, Mr. Gefland, trust me, I don't), I would need to pay this gentleman a royalty fee?

Of course not, don't be silly.

Anybody who actually skates and knows some skating history knows that the Ollie was named after Gefland. He's not saying he owns the name Ollie, he's saying he owns the name of the trick.

It's the same as if I made a wrestling game and had a charachter named Joe Wrestler who had a movie called "The People's Elbow" (which you should know is a signature move of Dwayne Johnson, The Rock).

The problem is, as people have mentioned, Gefland didn't legally protect his move or his name, which would give him far less leverage in a court case about this subject.

[Worldcrafter]

Correct. Also, if you wanted to name your kid Tony Hawk, you'd need to pay Tony Hawk a royalty fee.

No, wait, you wouldn't. Yet you still have to pay Tony Hawk a fee if you want to make a skateboarding game with his name on it. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?

Because with a skate boarding game it's a commercial venture with the intent to make money off of the famous name. With kids, you aren't trying to commercially sell your kids because of what you named them. At least you shouldn't be.

[Beelzebud]

Oh. My. Goodness! (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1833&Itemid=2)

Thanks to Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz).


So if I want to name my kid OllieTM (and if you're reading this, Mr. Gefland, trust me, I don't), I would need to pay this gentleman a royalty fee?

Only if you were going to sell your child...

[doyama]

The fundamental problem in this scenario is that 1) does he own the trademark to the word "Ollie". 2) Even if he does, he must show that he was active in its defense. Aka I assume if he's 42 now that he 'invented' the name some 20 years ago. Trademarks even if registered can 'deteriorate' if the mark holder has not actively shown to be protecting their trademark. From the sounds of things he hasn't been doing this so by Trademark law he's gonna get screwed.

Also you could argue that 'ollie' is used in the sense of a noun/verb. So in this case the title Ollie King, is referring to the action or noun version. In this sense, because you are not referring to the 'brand' directly it is permissible. For example you may use the term 'xerox copy' since the term 'xerox' as a noun has become synonymous with photocopies. However to use Xerox (capitalized) is a trademark of the corporation and you'd need permission for that. I don't think Ollie King is referring to the guy in this case, so again you could argue that it has become 'standard' lexicon in that industry so you can't trademark it when it is used in that context.


The Intel case was dismissed because it wasn't legal to trademark numbers since numbers are in the public domain.

[fitbabits]

Of course not, don't be silly.

Anybody who actually skates and knows some skating history knows that the Ollie was named after Gefland. He's not saying he owns the name Ollie, he's saying he owns the name of the trick.

It's the same as if I made a wrestling game and had a charachter named Joe Wrestler who had a movie called "The People's Elbow" (which you should know is a signature move of Dwayne Johnson, The Rock).

The problem is, as people have mentioned, Gefland didn't legally protect his move or his name, which would give him far less leverage in a court case about this subject.
Yay! You busted me for being silly...

[JazGalaxy]

The fundamental problem in this scenario is that 1) does he own the trademark to the word "Ollie". 2) Even if he does, he must show that he was active in its defense. Aka I assume if he's 42 now that he 'invented' the name some 20 years ago. Trademarks even if registered can 'deteriorate' if the mark holder has not actively shown to be protecting their trademark. From the sounds of things he hasn't been doing this so by Trademark law he's gonna get screwed.

Also you could argue that 'ollie' is used in the sense of a noun/verb. So in this case the title Ollie King, is referring to the action or noun version. In this sense, because you are not referring to the 'brand' directly it is permissible. For example you may use the term 'xerox copy' since the term 'xerox' as a noun has become synonymous with photocopies. However to use Xerox (capitalized) is a trademark of the corporation and you'd need permission for that. I don't think Ollie King is referring to the guy in this case, so again you could argue that it has become 'standard' lexicon in that industry so you can't trademark it when it is used in that context.


The Intel case was dismissed because it wasn't legal to trademark numbers since numbers are in the public domain.

The situation is, as I understand is that he invented the trick and it was his manuever. Other skaters then began doing his manuver and called it the Ollie in reference to him, because it was his move. I don't believe he actually came up with the name "the ollie". I also don't think he laid any claim to "ownership" of the maneuver until just now.

[MaiXu]

Serious for a moment: remember when (okay, probably not) Intel sued to keep other chip manufacturers from labeling their chips 286, 386, 486? Intel lost, even though they'd been the first to brand their chips that way.

Why? Because the other companies brought in surveys, witness, etc., that showed 286 et. al. had become generic terms: most people in the real world, when asked, thought that 286 was a generic reference to the processor's power, and didn't think it had anything to do with Intel. The trademark was so diluted that it no longer had any protection.

I can't see "Ollie" having a stronger case. I know what the move is, I've heard the term tons of times, but I didn't even know it was named after anyone. That's probably typical, and if so, this guy's screwed.

Actually, he's not. He'll still get some sort of settlement, because that's cheaper than going to court.

Same thing happened to Xerox. They spent a lot of time making that name synonymous with photocopying, and then what happened? They tried to sue, to keep the name protected (because it brough in money), but it had become generic, and so they lost.

Hehe. Poor bastards.

His settlement won't be much. Certainly nowhere near $20 million.

[ezzkmo]

It's rainin' sideways!

[Kyle Jones]

So if I want to name my kid OllieTM (and if you're reading this, Mr. Gefland, trust me, I don't), I would need to pay this gentleman a royalty fee?

Only if you were going to sell your kid. If so, I think you have bigger problems then royalties...

[fitbabits]

Only if you were going to sell your kid. If so, I think you have bigger problems then royalties...
Well, if I like our first kid, I think we'll keep him/her! Otherwise, he'she is going on eBaby! :)