MOD has trademarked "The Dambusters" and "617 Squadron"

Edit: after checking the squadron history I was even more alarmed to see they’ve been flying Pumas for 42 years

….and I’m sure they’ll reach their half-century, with the Mk 2 upgrade. I’m sure there will come a point when RAF Pumas are being flown by pilots whose fathers were born after the helicopters were built!

When 230 Sqn were based in Singapore If I remember correctly, they were discussing what to have as a Sqn badge over a few beers and someone suggested the badge off the Tiger Beer they were drinking, so it was adopted.

Cheeky beggars!

At first I was skeptical ( the crest was approved in 1937 ) but sure enough Tiger beer dates from 1932 so… you might just be right!

Edit: after checking the squadron history I was even more alarmed to see they’ve been flying Pumas for 42 years, which is nearly half their entire period of existence.

So…..Moggy….could you explain it all to me again?! I may have missed a point,

Right Tangmere. It’ll be two life bans next time 😡

Did MoD trademark RAF or Royal Air Force?

I am pondering if not trying to trademark both or even one, if not trademarked already. :diablo: Well, they could trademark Luftwaffe instead, I wouldn´t mind…… :dev2:

Ok, being reasonable: The matter seems to be quite stirred up. When the dust settles, you will just find out,they are trying to cover their behinds, and get an extra pound this way or that. Be happy, it will be subtracted off your taxes. Or not. Take your choice.

What about trademarking Typhoon or Hawk…..?

I´ll get my coat

Michael

Dambusters/Dam Busters AND Roundel – Kerrrrching!!!!!

So…..Moggy….could you explain it all to me again?! I may have missed a point, somewhere. :diablo:

Anyway, what about Damnbusters. As I recall, this was a famous mis-print in 1943.

I need a drink. 😉

Mike J

The crest as a whole is the entity that is copyrighted.

Not the emblem in the centre by itself, but the whole design, including the motto and the royal crown.

Mike you’re missing my point, that’s a bit like saying it is ok to pinch part of someone else’s work and pass it off as your own…

Well the DVD of the movie clearly shows the title as “The Dam Busters” as does my Eric Coates CD where his 1954 composition is listed as “The Dam Busters March” – not “The Dambusters”

You may be right about that but the fact is that there is nothing to stop anyone having a load of Lancs, painted glossy camouflage, sitting on top of a dammed lake, made in Shanghai, sporting the description Dam Busters 1943. However let’s hope that good taste prevails.

My collar is at comfortably low temperature, but I am getting frustrated that no matter how many times it is patiently explained that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of these two names in books and articles, the concept seems too testing for some to comprehend.

Moggy

Why are some people getting so hot under the collar about this?:confused: As has already been pointed out other variations of the word(s) are not registered so I can not see that it makes a scrap of difference. Mountains and molehills come to mind…..

I’m trying to understand the implications? There is so much literature out there already about the Dambusters… what is the competitive reasoning?

Oh for heaven’s sake. At least TRY to understand what Trademarking is all about.

It has nothing to do with preventing publication of literature on the subject.

It has everything to do with preventing the commercial exploitation of the trademarked name or term through the sale of plates, clocks, garments etc.

I’m trying to understand the implications? There is so much literature out there already about the Dambusters… what is the competitive reasoning?

Probably just to stop anyone else doing it.

Excuse the Ignorance, But What is the Concern?

I’m trying to understand the implications? There is so much literature out there already about the Dambusters… what is the competitive reasoning?

It’s really very simple.

The crest as a whole is the entity that is copyrighted.

Not the emblem in the centre by itself, but the whole design, including the motto and the royal crown.

Crown Copyright already protects the squadron crest, as a creative work.

Interesting idea, bar the surround and motto one wonders in some circumstances how they could enforce that, take for example

230 Sqn

When 230 Sqn were based in Singapore If I remember correctly, they were discussing what to have as a Sqn badge over a few beers and someone suggested the badge off the Tiger Beer they were drinking, so it was adopted. Hence the Tiger p*ssing up against a set of feeler gauges.

Therefore the Crown is claiming Copyright on someone else’s Copyrighted logo…..

I wonder what they would do if Tiger Beer kicked up a fuss.

Yes. John Green did. “Guide to the Law”, Fourth Edition. Penguin. John Pritchard.

It seems not.

Moggy

Why is so much nonsense spouted here every time the terms ‘copyright’ and ‘trademark’ come up? Does anyone take the trouble to do even thirty seconds research using Google as to what they actually mean, and what they affect, before spouting off? :rolleyes:

Registering a trademark does not prevent anyone from writing a totally fictitious and scurrilous history of 617 Squadron.

:confused: Who has said it would?

Moggy