I guess my line in the sand is not using anything live nor current without express permission. That includes names, logos, artwork, etc... So using that principle, the Tina
RHC chips for me are 100% off limits since it is a replication of a currently active poker chip mold owned by GPI and probably 100% illegal to use/reproduce as well. ( Yes, I understand that Paulson chips are clay and Tina chips are ceramic and it would be relatively easy to tell them apart upon inspection, but that's not the point. GPI currently owns/uses the
RHC design and no one else should, regardless of the material. )
And let's face it, if it was legal for anyone to produce chips with that mold, I'm sure Claysmith and/or other consumer poker chip companies would be doing it, considering the Top Hat and Cane logo is iconic in poker chips. But they don't because they don't have the rights to. The chip mold and logo are part of a company's brand/trademark/copyright they own and we should all respect that and avoid doing anything to infringe on it. And I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use it on any poker chip whether the artwork be a live "tribute", defunct casino or complete custom design. But I'm not a lawyer so I can't say that with 100% confidence. I'm sure someone would try and argue fair use or something like that since it's a facsimile of the original and not trying to counterfeit it. Again, not the point. We all know that mold is Paulson and we should not use it period.
I bet
CPC would probably have big time issues with Tina if her next mold was one they own and have exclusive rights to produce. Don't know what legally
CPC could do to stop it or what, if anything, they could do to any individual who contracts to produce and imports Tina chips using their exclusive mold? Maybe
@David Spragg could chime in and give some insight from the point of view of an entity that exclusively owns and currently uses molds in the daily function of their business?