You're talking about it as if you are a lawyer. I want to talk about it from a philosophical standpoint. Why is copying a painting stealing (to the point that it should be protected) but copying the Croc shoe design is not stealing?
I don't see why there is a distinction. I recognize that there is a distinction under the law, but I don't get the reasoning as to why.
Intellectual property comes in many forms.
The distinction is that copyright protects exact replications of artistic/literary creations. So the blueprints for Crocs could be copyrighted. It signifies authorship and allows the author to control distribution of that specific creation in that
exact form.
Patents protect inventions/creations/ideas. Patents are much stronger than copyrights as they protect the underlying idea and knowledge on which products are created. As a result they are much more difficult to obtain.
Trademarks protect indicators of the
source of a product or service. In a sense they protect both the owner and the customer since it is a way to ensure the origin of a given product or service.
So, with the case of Crocs. They are a design that was not sufficiently non-obvious to merit patent protection (I assume). Someone therefore can closely copy them - just like anyone could copy a new McDonalds sandwich. The non-obviousness is critical since you are protecting the idea itself.
The name and logo Crocs is protectable since it identifies a particular manufacturer (gets to your fraud concern) and in effect provides the consumer with some assurance that the product is legit and who is liable for the product.
They are all based on the notion that intellectual property is owned by the creator and should therefore be afforded protection. Since the forms of intellectual property are different so to are the forms of protection. In all cases the creator has:
1) the option to pursue protection or not (make it public domain)
2) the burden of policing the use of their work.
