Hatters beware! American hatter threatens to sue over matches behind the ribbon!

moehawk said:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But if I were the Danish hatter, I would hire one to look into whether or not it is legal for Mr. F to ship his hats, containing his incendiary "signature", overseas. The USPS prohibits mailing matches of any sort internationally, but I'm not sure if other carriers have the same restrictions. If the answer is no, I'd pay said lawyer to file paperwork to try to prevent Mr. F. from selling hats with the match included in the European market, if not everywhere outside of the U.S. of A.
If that was successful, I would then have the lawyer challenge Mr. F.'s international trademark on the matchstick behind the ribbon on the grounds that selling a similar product with a similar signature in Europe wouldn't be competing with Mr. F.'s ptoduct as he was not allowed to sell in that market.
I have no idea if any of that would fly in a court of law, but if a matchstick can acquire a new "meaning" by simply having a couple of people state it is not just a matchstick anymore then it's worth a shot...

Click to expand...

I think you have something there. At least with the US Post Office, nothing like a match, flammable at all, can be legally placed in the US Mail. Now that does not mean someone else would not be a carrier...but US Mail, no.

As to the "look" of placing a match and legal issues about it, come on...that is insane.

BobHufford said:

It goes back at least to the 1970s and probably way before.

Click to expand...

"there ya go"......

LuvMyMan said:

Was that from a Turkey? LOL!!!!

Click to expand...

"Tom" turkey.

AbbaDatDeHat said:

One less hat brand to consider!

Click to expand...

Considering we didn't know the hatter before yesterday & I doubt folk on this forum are rushing to get their orders in, there isn't much to consider. If Holmskov hats are so great, do they really need a couple of matches in the ribbon to sell ? I'll give Holmskov the benefit of the doubt regarding plagiarism, but if customers want to pretend they have a Fouquet hat, they can put the matches in themselves.

moehawk said:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But if I were the Danish hatter, I would hire one to look into whether or not it is legal for Mr. F to ship his hats, containing his incendiary "signature", overseas. The USPS prohibits mailing matches of any sort internationally, .

Click to expand...

Maybe he uses disactivated or replica matches when shipping his 'works of art'

Lean'n'mean said:

if customers want to pretend they have a Fouquet hat, they can put the matches in themselves.

Click to expand...

no, matches in a hat are simply matches in a hat, which is the point you seem to have missed. They will now for some time remind me of the negative aspects of this thread and Mr. F***it.

KarlCrow said:

no, matches in a hat are simply matches in a hat, which is the point you seem to have missed.

Click to expand...

A match in a hat maybe just a match in a hat to us common mortals but it ain't apparently to Mr. Fouquet or Holmskov, which is why we are wasting our time discussing it. .

Lean'n'mean said:

Considering we didn't know the hatter before yesterday & I doubt folk on this forum are rushing to get their orders in, there isn't much to consider. If Holmskov hats are so great, do they really need a couple of matches in the ribbon to sell ? I'll give Holmskov the benefit of the doubt regarding plagiarism, but if customers want to pretend they have a Fouquet hat, they can put the matches in themselves.

Click to expand...

First of all, he is called Hornskov. Secondly, I believe AbbaDatDeHat was talking about Fouquet. And thirdly, no, Hornskov does not need matches to sell the hats, but he has a really nice story to it. He inherited his grandfather's matchbox collection and connected it with hats. And, according to Hornskov, the matches in the hat were a bargaining symbol during the Great depression, so it has sense, it has a nice story to it and in no way does Hornskov claim any copyright to wearing matchsticks in the hats. Unlike Fouquet.

Out of solidarity with Hornskov, I am now wearing a hat with a matchstick, but I would really prefer not to be connected to Fouquet in any way. I support only honest entrepreneurs.

I had a nice hat that I took off one time and placed on a box sitting outside the barn while I was shoeing a horse in the barn. Another horse tied outside in wait was close enough to move around and deposit a load of manure on my silver belly hat leaving it stained. I now worry that if I ever were to wear this hat I might be in violation of F's trademark as his hats mostly look like something defecated on them too.


I appreciate trademarking and branding and the right to protect those things. I see the similarities in the two makers' hats. Mr. F may have a point on the similarities but I do not like that an openly used, long used, adornment on a hat like the match sticks was too long in the public domain and should not be trademarked.

Pinč said:

First of all, he is called Hornskov. Secondly, I believe AbbaDatDeHat was talking about Fouquet. And thirdly, no, Hornskov does not need matches to sell the hats, but he has a really nice story to it. He inherited his grandfather's matchbox collection and connected it with hats. And, according to Hornskov, the matches in the hat were a bargaining symbol during the Great depression, so it has sense, it has a nice story to it and in no way does Hornskov claim any copyright to wearing matchsticks in the hats. Unlike Fouquet.

Out of solidarity with Hornskov, I am now wearing a hat with a matchstick, but I would really prefer not to be connected to Fouquet in any way. I support only honest entrepreneurs.

Click to expand...

The other problem is Hornskov's social media marketing (which is, in this day and age, a BIG deal) was affected by Fouquet's legal threats. They were ordered to take down all of their photos featuring a match in the ribbon. If you look at the instagram thread, Fouquet gave Wellema Hats the same legal threat and they complied.

Now, these makers I'm sure would have no problem selling their hats without matches in the bow. But -- on top of everything else that's screwed up about this, Fouquet is basically attempting to decimate people's entire legacy of social media content which would require additional overhead to rebuild.

Basically, every angle of this trademark seems unfair IMO.

Sent directly from my mind to yours.

Frunobulax said:

Sent directly from my mind to yours.

Click to expand...

Too funny.

Bamaboots said:

Too funny.

Click to expand...

Anybody else tries this I'll sick a horde of Fruno-lawyers on you that will make the swarm of women at a basement shoe sale look tame.


Sent directly from my mind to yours.

This reminds me of that leech Gene Simmons trying to trademark the I Love You / Heavy Metal devil's horn hand sign.

Feraud said:

This reminds me of that leech Gene Simmons trying to trademark the I Love You / Heavy Metal devil's horn hand sign.

Click to expand...

Yeah, everybody knows that was Dio.


Sent directly from my mind to yours.

TheDane said:

You could ask Art what he feels about his small "counter-pointing" color detail in the bow's knot now is being copied by most any hatter around. He has on numerous occasions said, that he's proud of that fact.

Click to expand...

Certainly a very different reaction. I wonder if, under US law, Art could have registered it as a TM. It seems like the sort of thing that could have been possible - unless it was previously common in the hat industry as it existed at the time when he started doing it. It's not something that here in the UK would be protected by copyright as an alternative to TM (the law basically regards all clothing design as utilitarian and therefore not qualifying for copyright).

blueAZNmonkey said:

I believe he can legally trademark the matchstick look by categorizing his hats as works of art, rather than clothing accessories - as if each hat is a wearable sculpture with the matchstick as the signature of the artist. I'm no expert in the legalities, of course. But I'm an artist, and I am very familiar with the dirty tricks artists do to "protect their intellectual property." It's a really horrible move.

Click to expand...

I don't know that it's necessarily a nasty move, to TM it - and once a mark is registered, if you don't protect it, you lose it. Google, for instance, have at various times tried to protect and limit the use of the term "googling" in case it becomes such a synonym for "running an internet search" than they would lose protection of the mark by TM dilution. IT'll very much be a TM issue here, though, rather than a question of artistic copyright.

KarlCrow said:

I was referring to
rather than the comment some way before it using the word. I should have quoted the post.

allowing rights over such general attributes of property being more libertarian and less liberal.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Nordic thing. No, that's the classic use of the word "liberal" - to be liberal in your interpretation with the law, as opposed to a very strict application. This could mean strict - clampnig down on a wide range of things, or strict in temrs of a very limited range of application, as distinct from liberal - a wide interpretation, a free and eay interpretation and such. It's not connected to the US political terminology; further complicated, I think, by the fact that 'liberal' in Europe claissically means something very much the same as 'libertarian', whereas in the US they have very different meanings in the political arena.

jlee562 said:

Apparently it falls under "trade dess," which creates a brand identity .

Click to expand...

That makes sense. (I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be, on US law, but followingt this from a perspective of UK law, it seems logical.)

blueAZNmonkey said:

Sadness... I wonder what would happen if Instagram accounts specified that matchsticks were placed in the hats by customers after purchase.

Click to expand...

Interesting notion. I can still see it being problematic, as a court mght interpret that as an indication to prospective buyers as to how they can 'adapt' the hat to look like one from the other brand by adding the match.

Bob Roberts said:

Why not put drumsticks in yer hats? Or guitar pics or chopsticks or breadsticks? Wtf?

Click to expand...

Well, you'd need a pretty nig hatband to supportg a drumkstick for a start...

Frunobulax said:

I would think it would inly be enforceable in the US. I doubt he has a trademark throughout the world. However, cutting off the US market is a big slice.

Click to expand...

That is a salient point: a trade mark registration is only valid in territories where the registration applies; to protect a mark in Europe, an American company would have to register their mark either as an EU-wide mark, or in each EU country in which they wished to protect it. Of course, the web and ecommerce rather complicate these things by blurring markets.

Beyond valid registration, you're into any other local protection that may or may not be offered by law. In the UK, for example, a common law (unregistered) mark can be protected in passing off, but it is a difficult and arduous process of having to go to court and prove ownership of the goodwill in the name, which will typically turn on customer perception in the market. See, for example, the 1960s Irish folk rock band called 'Nirvana' who tried and failed to sue the Seattle band over ownership of the name.

Lean'n'mean said:

I doubt Fouquet is concerned with what hat owners wear on their hats but is however, with what other professional hat makers use, especially if it could lead to confusion or loss of sales............he is after all, only looking after his business interests.
Just to clarify......I'm neither a fan of Fouquet or his hats I'm just trying to look at it objectively.

Click to expand...

Yes. To draw a comparison, Addidas are unlikely to go after individuals who paint three stripes on their shoes, but if a competitor triedc to sell training shoes with three stripes on them....

blueAZNmonkey said:

I just don't think he could adequately support the argument that a Danish hatmaker is causing him a loss of sales. He's on the other side of the world in Venice, CA and his target demo appears to be celebrities and the rich. His hat prices are so high that people who want his hats care about the artist more than the product. LeBron James isn't surfing the web for "hats with a match in the bow" and choosing the Danes over Hollywood.

Click to expand...

The debate on confusion is interesting. THe original purpose of TMs was to give the buyer a clear knowledge of the origins of goods, but we're way beyond that in the modern era where the brand is more important than its origin andc often valued more highly by the market than the item to which it is applied in and of itself.

Lean'n'mean said:

Countless people yes but maybe not countless hat makers. If someone has the idea to copyright something, even if it's as ridiculous as an unlit match tucked into a hat ribbon/hatband, then the law is on their side.

Click to expand...

This is Trademark, not copyright. He'd get nowhere in copyright with this.

Lean'n'mean said:

True, Nick Fouquet is a brand & his customers don't just buy a hat but a Fouquet 'creation' ....designer hats for the rich & famous, where the brand is indeed the most important thing.

Click to expand...

Zactly.

jlee562 said:

The other analogy I thought of was Levis, they sued several companies over the shape of the embroidery on the back pocket, and infringing logos on a leather tab. Sure, Levis didn't invent embroidery, but they had their signature design.

Click to expand...

Yes, those will all be registered by Levis as their own trademarks. Most big brands have a whole bunch of TMs.

Lean'n'mean said:

Apparently he can if he's threatening to sue. Indeed, it would be more difficult for the Danish hatter to prove that he wasn't copying Fouquet, though the loss of business claim does sound surprising considering the different customer base but I suppose other brands such as Rolex could claim the same in regards to the counterfeits on the maket.

Click to expand...

Very much so. I'll never be in a position to buy a Rolex myself, but the fake Rolexes and Lorexes I've knowingly picked up on occasion over the year in China are no less in infringement of TM for that.

V.C. Brunswick said:

Also some years ago Pepsi tried to copyright the expression "Uh Huh" because they were using it in their advertising at the time. And supposedly Steven Spielberg tried to copyright the word "Nazi."

Click to expand...

I'd put money on the Spielberg thing being an urban myth. Pepsi might have succeeded if they'd made it a bigger thing - McDonalds have TM'ed "I'm lovin' it", afaik.

moontheloon said:

hey ... Paris Hilton tried to trademark "that's hot"

how amazingly brilliant ...

Click to expand...

That should have been viable (she clearly had a very strong association with it that noone else could claim) if - but only if - she had a range of goods and/or services that it could be applied to. Noone cam TM things and then sit on them and block others from using them if they do nothing with them - that would be considered registration in bad faith.

moehawk said:

Just looked it up...safety matches can be sent domestically by ground only, not internationally, and are subject to weight restrictions, must be packaged just so and marked clearly as surface-only and "Consumer Commodity ORM-D". Strike-anywheres cannot be mailed, domestic or internationally.
Wonder if all regulations are being followed?

Click to expand...

THat would be an interesting oopsy if somebody got pulled up on that.

blueAZNmonkey said:

Threatening to sue proves only two things -- 1) Fouquet has enough money to sue, 2) he's willing to sue. The threat of a lawsuit does nothing to prove the actual case, which would have to be litigated. In this case, I think he's just trying to push people around because he has the money to do so. Unfortunately, this is a common tactic used by American businesses.

Click to expand...

To be fair, if somebody doesn't protect their mark, they can lose it. It is, of course, not unknown for companies to try to abuse their TM. Gibson Guitars were widely accused of trying to do this when they sued PRS over the 'Singlecut' model a few years ago, though the Court of Appeal rightly threw out the notion that anyone who took a moment to consider the two products would be in any way confused between them. (The whole episode hit Gibson with bad PR for a few months as they were considered, fairly or otherwise, to have launched the lawsuit against a competitor they saw as a threat, rather than any one of the many, many companies making guitars which actually looked far more similar to their Les Paul model, and deliberately so.)

I actually think it would be harder for Fouquet to explain how him copying a standard practice since the depression era is somehow an art original to him.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be original to him to be a TM - just to be sufficiently distinct and associated with his goods to be registrable.

As for fake Rolexes, the difference there is that fake Rolexes use the Rolex logo. So in this case, you'd have to equate a matchstick, not even manufactured by Fouquet, as being his artistic identity.

Click to expand...

Not all of them; Trademark law can also cover lookalikes and near-copies, even where there is little to no chance of confusion as to who made it. Ultimately, if you can convince those who decide whether to register a TM, then it's a fairly open and shut case most of the time as to whether it is a violation.

moehawk said:

If that was successful, I would then have the lawyer challenge Mr. F.'s international trademark on the matchstick behind the ribbon on the grounds that selling a similar product with a similar signature in Europe wouldn't be competing with Mr. F.'s ptoduct as he was not allowed to sell in that market.

Click to expand...

There is a legitimate question about the TM: if not registered in Europe, then it can't be enforced in Europe (or any specific terroritory in which it is not registered) as an RTM. It would then have to fall back on any common law protection available in the territory, which is harder.

suitedcboy said:

I appreciate trademarking and branding and the right to protect those things. I see the similarities in the two makers' hats. Mr. F may have a point on the similarities but I do not like that an openly used, long used, adornment on a hat like the match sticks was too long in the public domain and should not be trademarked.

Click to expand...

That would have been the logical argument against, though it seems that failed.

blueAZNmonkey said:

The other problem is Hornskov's social media marketing (which is, in this day and age, a BIG deal) was affected by Fouquet's legal threats. They were ordered to take down all of their photos featuring a match in the ribbon. If you look at the instagram thread, Fouquet gave Wellema Hats the same legal threat and they complied.

Now, these makers I'm sure would have no problem selling their hats without matches in the bow. But -- on top of everything else that's screwed up about this, Fouquet is basically attempting to decimate people's entire legacy of social media content which would require additional overhead to rebuild.

Basically, every angle of this trademark seems unfair IMO.

Click to expand...

The internet angle does raise an interesting question: if the Danish business has an online presence advertising hats which violate a US RTM for sale and that online presence is (as would typically be the case) available in the USA, then there can be a case for violation in the US market in which it is registered. The issue then becomes one of enforceability: a US court certainly can order the take-down of an online article which is available there, but if the offending party is based somewhere that will not agree to enforce a US judgment, then there's little as can be done, unless said offending party has assests in the US or a place more favourable to the US, or, in extreme cases, sets foot in either.

Edward said:

It's not connected to the US political terminology; further complicated, I think, by the fact that 'liberal' in Europe claissically means something very much the same as 'libertarian', whereas in the US they have very different meanings in the political arena.

Click to expand...

liberal and libertarian mean very different things politically in Europe and the US. I'm not suggesting people don't confuse them, they do, and it irritates me as they are very different concepts. Raising property to the status of an inalienable right puts a value on everything and is not liberal but is the essence of libertarianism.

suitedcboy said:

I had a nice hat that I took off one time and placed on a box sitting outside the barn while I was shoeing a horse in the barn. Another horse tied outside in wait was close enough to move around and deposit a load of manure on my silver belly hat leaving it stained. I now worry that if I ever were to wear this hat I might be in violation of F's trademark as his hats mostly look like something defecated on them too.


I appreciate trademarking and branding and the right to protect those things. I see the similarities in the two makers' hats. Mr. F may have a point on the similarities but I do not like that an openly used, long used, adornment on a hat like the match sticks was too long in the public domain and should not be trademarked.

Click to expand...

Bustin a gut here! Thanks for the chuckle. Reminds me of the time my dad looked at a hat i was wearing and said “wish i had two of those”, i said “why”, think you know the rest of it. Be well. Bowen

First, before saying that this could be the stupidest thread topic situation ever, let me say that this could be the stupidest thread topic situation ever.

I went to M. Fouquet's website to take a peek at his wares. Never mind my opinion of the hats themselves, or the prices (exclamation point), but all this stuff is aimed at women. How could anyone else who makes primarily men's hats take sales from this guy? Women often wear men's hats, but men very seldom wear women's hats. Oh wait, he markets to Hollywood, so ya never know, now do you.

If all you need is someone to say that the first time they saw a matchstick in a hat was on a Fouquet lid, then any hundred people can produce the Humphrey Bogart picture and blow a fedora sized hole in that argument. But then maybe the Bogart estate or Warner Bros would slap a lawsuit on everyone.

Just because of this I am going to put matchsticks in all my hats, even my ball caps. Or maybe I'll just wedge my Zippo in there.

This is so silly I think we should all just fouqet.