JJsemp: NO: 1) BMW owns a design patent for a die cast toy automobile. Actually several. One for each model of car or motorbike they manufacture, at least. 2) BMW owns the following registered trademark: IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Bicycle bags; golf bags; golf balls; golf divot tools; golf gloves; toy racetracks; snowboards; skateboards; toy motorcycles; miniature toy vehicles But if they did not protect their design this way, then yes, Mattel could. They do not protect against 3D models (which are actually, in OBJ format and CR2, text descriptions anyway) Joey: ...I doubt BMW would look kindly on someone selling knock-off beemers with the BMW logo plastered on them Of course not. They have a trademark on clothing using that name. If they didn't, it would not matter how they looked on it. ...why did folks like Louis Vuitton and Versache go postal on companies in the Far East that were creating t-shirts that used their trademarks? Because that is the same good. The specific design of a shirt isn't what's protected by trademark, it's the manufacture of shirts in general. what you suggest is a tap dance around something that should just be common business courtesy No, what I 'suggest' is the law. It's the way IP law works, and it will keep working that way whether or not you understand it. A 3D model is a description of an item. It's a set of instructions for drawing that item. If the instructions explain how to draw a BMW and the result looks like a photo of a BMW, it's irrelevant. The Millenium Falcon, as a part of Lucas' Star Wars copyrighted series of stories, can't be sold becuase a description of how to draw it is still a copyright violation. But you can't copyright a machine. Romantic notions to the contrary, a functional mass-produced machine is not considered a work of art no matter how much you like 'Stangs, Bel Airs, and '63 split rear window 'Vettes. It's a patentable device, not a copyrightable one. The appearance of the vehicle is covered under Design Patent, but for that to apply the competing item must also be a car. The big chunk of text I quoted in my last message was not me or anyone elucidating on the subject -- it was from the United States Patent and Trademark Office website. if someone put up a model that used my trademark on it without my permission, you can sure bet I'd be on their ass in a second to remove it If you have a trademark that applies to 3D models, Poser content, or somesuch, you'd have every right to. If you did not have a trademark that applied to an applicable good, then the person on whom's ass you were in a second would and should have harrassment charges filed against you right after they sue you for challenging their trademark if you try it. DAZ is not obligated to gain any permission to use those trademarks because DAZ is not selling automobiles (or anything else BMW or Harley Davidson has trademarks on, which is a lot, especially in the latter case). In theory, DAZ (or anyone else who uses these kinds of trademarks in their MP products) isn't ripping them off because, in theory, all the licenses have been worked out. Exactly. A trademark search for 3D models trademarked under the name BMW or Harley Davidson would have been done, after which point if it's not found, the licenses are worked out because they belong to the artist. Trademarks are much like domain names. If you register the .com version of something, someone can still register the .net version whether you like it or not. Now, will the next person to try to argue with me about this please quote some law or other official documentation if you feel the need to contend? I'm afraid I can only express disdain for people trying to argue against my quoting of USPTO explanations with 'theory' and what passes for logic or at least philosophy. I'm talking what's legal here. Period. If I registered the trademark 'Star Wars' for hubcap manufacture and Lucas Arts did not have such a trademark, nor did antyone else, I could sell all the damned Star Wars hubcaps I pleased and George couldn't do a thing about it. However, if I used a scene from a Star Wars movie to advertise it, I'd be viol;ating his copyright on the series. If I produced a toy Millenium Falcon, i'd be violating both LucasArts' Trademark to sell Star Wars toys and also likely Hasbro's Design Patent for toys that look like the Millenium Falcon. If I sold a Millenium Falcon Poser figure, I couldnt' call it that, and if I called it that, it couldn't look like it. Because if I did both I'd end up with a copyright violation. As a note, unless I sold through DAZ, I could also not use the name Millenium Falcon for a whole different reason -- DAZ has an unregistered trademark by precedent for the term 'Millenium' on Poser figures.