Surprisingly this comes up a lot especially with doll companies that have gone out of business or have been bought out.

So the simple answer is no, but let's explore some of the reasons behind the no.

Companies that go out of business sometimes may shut their doors but transfer their trademarks to a relative or successor who may choose to renew it. Brand names can be valuable especially if they are licensing others to make products and charge a license fee, or sometimes it's to preserve the brand in case they want to resume operations at any time. So in essence, as long as an active trademark exists and it's being renewed, you have to contact the owner of the trademark to use it in making any product. They may be willing to issue you a license to create products with it for a fee or they may decide they don't want you to make anything at all. The age of the company is not necessarily the factor either, as we've seen older companies who are not operating continue to have their trademarks renewed.

Companies that are bought out by a larger corporation often transfer all their trademarks to the new company. This is very apparent for American Girl/Mattel who bought out the Pleasant Company brand and continues registration on all the old logos, doll names, and toys previously made by the old company. In this case the new company renews the trademarks so they remain current even if they aren't producing any dolls/toys under that brand any more. This also protects them from others trying to make old-branded merchandise and passing it off to collectors i.e. counterfeit logo'd products. Can you make your own custom dress and put a Pleasant Company logo on it? No, it would be illegal because American Girl owns the rights to all the Pleasant Company logos, words, and old product names. Can you make character inspired outfits such as Samantha's plaid in a modern day outfit? It really depends on if they trademarked that specific look but also be careful because characters are trademarked so if you are drumming up sales by leaning on their original character that is also a no no.

And here's where it gets murky....

If someone traces a company logo and makes it into a digital file for sale online to use with an embroidery machine, Cricut, craft making machines, etc. and you pay to download the file, do you then have rights to use it? Very murky waters here. Most of these files are not created legitimately, at least in regards to be able to distribute the file in digital form or to charge for it and they definitely don't come with rights to use it on products. So even if you downloaded a company's logo from a website and paid for it, still doesn't give you any rights to make mugs or sell dolly t-shirts with the logo on it. What good is it then? No idea. Most disclosures say it's for personal use which is just a fancy term for "things available for which you don't sell and just keep in your house for you", but really. Odds are no one is really downloading to make personal items for themselves to look like official branded items. Even if you did and then posted it on your Instagram or social media of choice there's gonna be someone that goes - hey I want one and then you've fallen down the rabbit hole of selling illegal copies.

Can I use a superhero logo on a costume for a doll? Sadly no. Most of the cool super heros have their artwork and logos trademark by their Marvel, DC, Disney, etc. Digital files and 3D print files have appeared on the internet for these items as well, especially Spiderman which is notoriously difficult to re-create with it's intricate webbing design. Trademark owners do find these sites and make the users take down the files as they catch up with them because they also aren't legal. In some cases, we've heard of the trademark owners making demands for the monetary amount made from the sale of the file to be handed over as a fine/reprimand and sometimes with interest to whoever created the file in the first place. We've also heard that in some cases where a physical costume was created that trademark owners ordered the return of the costume by each person who purchased one to be destroyed as a counterfeit and they received no refunds for purchasing a counterfeit costume. However these are cases where a great deal of money was involved in making un-authorized products. Although still not legal, it is not likely that dolls will be repossessed by one-off creations however you should be mindful that selling marketplaces and online communities are continuously scanned for copyright infringement. With that said, there have been some special releases by brands that have been in collaboration and have released super hero themed dolls or clothing - but they have all been granted license to do so by the original trademark owner. We can see this like Disney partnering with American Girl, Smart Doll and Marvel and DC, Harry Potter with a number of doll brands, etc. These same brands are also notorious for shutting down businesses who try to create inspired works of dolls or clothing without a license.

If a trademark has expired, can you use it? Proceed with caution. I've seen an expired trademark become reactivated, so it's hard to say what the period of time is or if someone is in line to purchase a brand name. Research these instances carefully. Sometimes it can get confusing as well, for instance Patti Playpal by Ideal stopped renewing their trademark in 1989 however Lovee has a current registration of Patti Playpal that has been renewed and kept current and these Patti Playpal dolls were different models and looks. In this case even though the dolls were produced by these companies with different looks and asthetics, it's the words Patti Playpal that have been trademarked. This has been an issue for recreation artists who do replicas of the original outfits because the words Patti Playpal almost always appeared on a tag or ribbon that was large and very visible on the front of outfits. As many collectors consider the Ideal Patti Playpal the original brand in this case, they don't realize that the words were later trademarked and owned by another brand even after 60-70 years. But sellers are always wanting to put those words on their outfits to make them look more authentic.

It is certainly tempting, especially if it doesn't exist on the market. Most of these project ideas start out of just desire to either make something really cute or re-create something that has been retired. The logo is that extra push that makes it look more legit than if you just sewed a blank outfit. Many sewers fall into the trap of just looking around on the internet to see if other people have done something similar or identical to what they want to do, because if it exists on the internet it must be ok to do right? Especially if you see a picture that shows up in your social media feed right? That person did their research? That's really not the thinking that gets you down the right path and it doesn't keep you safe from copyright infringement. Your first idea should be to check the trademarks on the logo and/or word combinations. You can search internet trademark databases just as easy as typing in "doll Nike clothing" into Google. In fact most trademark databases have a search bar at the top where you can type in a brand name, company, or logo. I can pretty much guarantee that if it involves another company's logo it's off limit without a license. As annoying as it is to not be able to create mini-stuff from our favorite brands, it also protects us from being scammed as well. Imagine if you were desperately searching for a retired doll outfit to complete your collection. Doll outfits and sets often become worth more when they are hard to find and rare. Now imagine that you found one and paid top dollar, and then later on realized that it was a copy. No matter what, copies are not worth the same as the originals even if they are very very good. But this delves into the next part of what is unethical here.

Not every seller gives 100% disclosure on selling things, I wish sometimes the world was honest, but many aren't. Some sellers will try to pass off a copy as an original by using key words we are looking for such as original, vintage, etc. Some sellers will claim to be "not knowing" so that you have to hunt and figure out the authentication on your own so that they are not responsible for giving you mis-information. And some will make it look like they have gotten permission to sell logo'd items by just omitting the subject entirely, again to claim that "they didn't know", and finally some that will disclose it's a copy but not disclose they have no permission to use the logo to make their sales. Why? To make sales of course and for plausible deniability. After all would you purchase that cute doll logo t-shirt if the description said "it is illegal for me to use this logo or sell this item but I'm doing so anyway"? Not likely. Instead it's much easier to simply say, "I didn't know that I wasn't able to use this logo to sell this cute doll logo t-shirt". It's a lot easier because we can forgive the person for breaking the rules when they didn't know but not when they are doing it intentionally.

Copyright has a lot of grey areas and it's not always clear cut. Recently we were educating doll lovers and artists in the facelessnotvoiceless campaign which was American Girl vs. the handmade artists on selling clothing using the doll models in photos wearing the clothing. What's at fault here? The American Girl Company has trademarked their doll faces but they don't own copyright to prevent doll sewers from sewing their own clothing (unless someone slapped an AG or Pleasant Company logo on it). So this becomes very grey, and which confused most artists on what they did wrong. And where does it stop, can an owner of a doll be reprimanded for selling a second hand doll because the doll's face appeared in a picture? Can a photographer create doll related merchandise from photos that they themselves took or is it against the rules because the doll's face is copyrighted? When you are down to splitting hairs in a grey area, it is not always clear what you can and cannot do and even in the doll community and the only ones that can spell it out for you would be a lawyer or talking with the company that owns the trademark direct. If you are too scared to do either, there's a rule of thumb or a series of questions you can ask yourself and if you answered yes to any of them, odds are you are on the wrong side of copyright.

Questions to ask:

1. If a doll collector came across (this product that you've made) without any descriptions or backstory, would they believe that it was issued by the original company or manufacturer?

2. Is your product giving people the perception that you have been given legal permission to use a company's logo or create products with their brand on it?

3. In order to sell your product, are you needing to lean on the company's original brand or what that company's brand represents?

Let's break down these questions.

#1 This deals with the perception of the public on your product. Logos, neck stamps, and tags are often ways that a consumer looks for authentication on doll items. Starting out, you might have a full disclosure on your website that you are making a copy of a product, but once that product circulates it could pass through several owners and down the line could be believed it's an authentic piece of merchandise especially if you've used that company's logo in your work. In copyright disputes a common question is if that seller is impersonating a genuine product by the way they've created it. The original company's don't like that because their brand is representative of their own criteria and rules, it covers how their products feel, what they are made of, how they are sewn. If you've used their brand name and that item is not made according to the brand standards, it is looked on as damage to the brand name. However if you are trying to avoid this, since clothing itself is not copyrightable you can create a similar product that looks like a retired outfit or a particular style and put your own logos and tags in it. Then you cannot possibly be accused of misrepresenting someone else's brand and the tags will travel with the garment long after it's left your selling site so that no one could mistake it as an original from the original company.

#2 Many companies have been given licenses to create product lines for original brands and likewise the original factories that produce the brands and packaging are given legal permission to product products under the brand's name and logo. People can sometimes assume that because you are offering a product, that you've already cleared the permissions to make it and that you are legally allowed to make it. Even if you omit those words from your selling description you can still give that impression with the public. The correction to this is obvious but no one wants to do it because as we said earlier, a seller who is trying to hide that fact is not going to post on their sales post that they don't actually have permission to sell the item or have use of a trademark. So odds are if it's not mentioned that it's (c) official merchandise anywhere in the description, that it is likely that seller doesn't have permission. Furthermore if the seller has disclosed that they have created a replica using their own brand name, you can be assured that at least they are going out of their way to disclose and be honest about what you are buying and that the seller is being respectful of any original trademark owners.

#3 This area was the grey area for the facelessnotvoiceless issue mentioned above. When it came down to it, it wasn't really the doll's faces used as models to show off the clothing that the seller was making as the heart of the issue. And it was clear that the original brand was not making the clothing or that any seller was trying to pass off their clothing as original brand clothing. The issue was using the brand's implications to sell. Brands are more than words and logos, they also convey a consumer's idea of quality or company presence or a history of how products are made. The piggy back question to this issue was - if you removed American Girl from your titles and descriptions, would your item still sell? The question was prompting if the seller needed those words to sell their own product and if they were dependent on using the brand name to sell their product. The counter to this argument has been that the American Girl body size is unique to the other 18" dolls created similarly in this doll's category so the necessity to mention the words American Girl and showcase the clothing on an American Girl branded doll was essential to selling because it conveys the proper fit and is not leveraging off the brand to create sales. So the answer to this was - make sure you've written your description to reference American Girl as words in reference to size and not to insinuate that it is a branded product, and if possible include other doll brands in listings to showcase that you as a seller are not dependent on a single brand to sell your product. This becomes the key standard now - for suppliers of clothing, wigs, and accessories to showcase more than one brand, to refer to the brand as a size reference, and to make wording in a way that it is not piggy backing on the reputation of the brand as a means to sell their own handmade products.

I hope this has helped clarify some issues for those of you that research and struggle with compliance. If you have more questions that I haven't addressed, feel free to leave them in the comments. I'm not 100% perfect in these issues either but I make a consicous effort to follow the rules and help spread a little clarity as there is so much mis-information on the internet and a little bit too much assumption on what you can do. As we learned this last year, it is much worse for sellers who wait to get caught rather than taking preventative measures ahead of time.