This is one of those issues that tend to fall very much to the grey area.

The question here is (in my opinion): would Elias Pietilä have made money off the game, had it been a totally original concept? If you find yourself answering "no" or "considerably less", we see the grey area problem.

But does RAY have a right to go ahead with a lawsuit like this? Of course. Should they do it? Well, that's a totally different ballgame. RAY has been building and operating Pajatso games since 1938, so over 70 years so I'd say it's pretty much established as "their game" if you look at it from a Finnish perspective.

Of course RAY is committing internet faux-pas, at least if you ask your average tweeter/blogger. But here's the thousand dollar question: should corporations just let everything pass? Of course not, but where should the line be drawn? The current internet state-of-mind urges corporations to let go of their brands and let the users do what they want. This, of course, is not always cool with the corporations. In this case someone is making money seemingly off a product RAY has spent 70 years marketing and distributing (at least they seem to see it that way).

So what should RAY do, if not sue, and where should the line be drawn? How far can we go with fair use before it's ok for corporations to snap back?

Thanks Tuomas for the good comment.

My opinion is that RAY and others should of course watch over their rights. However, the question is not what to do but how to do it. Sending lawyers after individuals such as Elias Pietilä is not the right way to go.

Why not have a sensible discussion with the developer himself and see what his intentions with the application is and only after that resort to stronger means of fighting.

What is meant by "RAY does not own the trademark to Pajatso" and why exactly is it so?

Checking the EU CTM register RAY's Pajatso trademark app was filed Feb 2007, but then withdrawn in Oct 2008 just after "registration pending" status. Wonder why?

Of course the application from RAY was in really strange (if not to say funny) categories and not even involving games:

Nice Classification: 9
List of goods and services Navigational, geodetic, photographic, cinematographic, weighing, measuring, checking (supervision) and life-saving apparatus and instruments; cash registers, calculating machines; fire-extinguishing apparatus.

Nice Classification: 28
List of goods and services Gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees.

Nice Classification: 41
List of goods and services Sporting activities.

:)

Tuomas,

By endorsing individuals that think a brand is worth time and effort to build a game on top of it would be the best possible marketing strategy a company like RAY could have. In this case this would've meant to help Elias to market that game/app and make it as successful as possible. To milk all the media visibility out of it and take Elias in as a digital evangelist for the traditional non-sexy company with a traditional non-sexy brand. For a brand as sexy as RAY, it equals winning in a lottery if a young smart gun like Elias thinks Pajatso is so great it would make his game sell better.

Instead their marketing department is unable to talk to their legal department and if that would happen legal department refuses to listen. Instead they spend big € to buy a "360 social media marketing campaign" from yet-another-digital-marketing-agency that results in disbelief in everything digital when it does not make RAY the next Apple.

To succeed in business one requires insight, flexibility and ability to act quick when market throws something at you. In a big organization this either means a management that listens and understands the market, or an employee who's willing to break the rules to achieve something remarkable for her company. This time RAY had neither and missed another big opportunity to grow their business. Most times big companies have neither and miss those opportunities. And yes, many times it's entrepreneurs who do because they have to.

I think Pajatso is part of Finnish culture and thus it should not be possible to trademark it. When you think of Pajatso, you think of an old Esso service station where the machine is basically part of the furniture.

Sure, you think of RAY too, but here is the problem... RAY is operating under government sanctioned monopoly. So, in other words, you would not be able to think of any other brand simply because they are the only ones allowed to operate these types of machines.

Pajatso is - from my point of view - property of all Finns. It basically takes money from poor / old people and gives it to youngsters sports activities. A noble cause, of course. If RAY really wants to protect the brand though, they should just work with Elias to make sure the iPhone version is as accurate as possible and provide him with the correct logos and branding to use.

They could even come up with a license where the app becomes an official Pajatso game and a certain percentage of the proceeds goes to RAY! Assuming the game actually is good.

I see Pietiläs pajatso as a version of pajatso in a different platform. As Pajatso being a original finnish invention, naah...

"Taitavuuskoeautomaatti nimeltä Bajazzo on alunperin saksalainen keksintö. Pajatson esi-isä kehitettiin Saksassa 1900-luvun alussa, ja siellä oikein valtakunnanoikeus totesi ”Bajazzo-automaatin” taitopeliksi! Tässä automaattityypissä raha työnnettiin laitteen sivusta sisään, minkä jälkeen laite vapautti kuulan lasisen etulevyn takana olevasta aukosta. Pelaajan oli yritettävä saada pyydystettyä kuula kuppiin, jota hän saattoi liikutella vaakasuoraan automaatin sivussa olevasta vivusta. Automaatti antoi rahavoiton, jos kuula osui kuppiin."