San Diego Comic-Con Wins Trademark Suit Against 'Salt Lake Comic Con' (deseretnews.com) 117
The Deseret News reports:
A jury has found that Salt Lake Comic Con founders Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenburg, along with their company, violated a trademark when they named their fan convention a "comic con." However, the jury decided that the trademark was not willfully violated, and only awarded $20,000 of the $12 million that San Diego Comic-Con had asked for in damages. The decision came at the end of an eight-day jury trial and three years of legal maneuvering... And with an estimated 140 other fan conventions across the country calling themselves comic cons, the impact of the decision could be felt nationwide...
The Salt Lake group also has an ongoing action with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate San Diego's "comic-con" trademark... San Diego Comic-Con, which has been holding events since 1970, has a trademark on "comic-con" with a hyphen, but was unsuccessful in its 1995 bid to trademark "comic con," with a space. The unhyphenated name "Comic Con International," as well as the event's iconic "eye logo," are also protected by trademark. The event maintains that its trademarks cover the term "comic con" in all its forms...
San Diego Comic-Con wanted more than $12 million in damages from Salt Lake, including over $9 million for a three-month "corrective advertising campaign" to dispel confusion... In his closing arguments, Michael Katz, an attorney for Salt Lake Comic Con, questioned the amount San Diego was seeking, noting that San Diego authorities said during trial the organization generally spends between $20,000 and $30,000 for a month of advertising.
Slashdot reader AlanBDee writes: When I attended the Salt Lake City Comic Con I did assume it was the same organization that put on San Diego Comic-Con... But now I have to wonder how that will affect other Comic Cons around the nation? What should these comic based fan conventions be called if not Comic Con?
The Salt Lake group also has an ongoing action with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate San Diego's "comic-con" trademark... San Diego Comic-Con, which has been holding events since 1970, has a trademark on "comic-con" with a hyphen, but was unsuccessful in its 1995 bid to trademark "comic con," with a space. The unhyphenated name "Comic Con International," as well as the event's iconic "eye logo," are also protected by trademark. The event maintains that its trademarks cover the term "comic con" in all its forms...
San Diego Comic-Con wanted more than $12 million in damages from Salt Lake, including over $9 million for a three-month "corrective advertising campaign" to dispel confusion... In his closing arguments, Michael Katz, an attorney for Salt Lake Comic Con, questioned the amount San Diego was seeking, noting that San Diego authorities said during trial the organization generally spends between $20,000 and $30,000 for a month of advertising.
Slashdot reader AlanBDee writes: When I attended the Salt Lake City Comic Con I did assume it was the same organization that put on San Diego Comic-Con... But now I have to wonder how that will affect other Comic Cons around the nation? What should these comic based fan conventions be called if not Comic Con?
They should be called something else (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole thing about having a trademarked name, is San Diego Comic Con may very well want to branch out in offering comic conventions in other cities - to me the name does sound pretty generic but just far enough away from "Comic Convention" that I can see where they'd be awarded a trademark, especially for Comic-Con.
Other shows can be called "Comic Conventions" and they should be perfectly fine as it's enough of a distinction and comic itself is a broadly generic term.
Re:They should be called something else (Score:4, Interesting)
It does seem like def con was before comic con (I think?) and would be good example for someone trying to invalidate the trademark. It could be though since def con was a play on the term "DefCon" that it may actually not apply.
Like I said I find it right on the edge so I wouldn't be unhappy to see the trademark validated, but I feel there's some justification there if it is upheld.
Re: (Score:3)
A nuanced response?? WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH SLASHDOT?!?!
Re: (Score:3)
You're off by a few decades. Per Wikipedia, Def Con started in 1993. The San Diego Comic Con goes back to 1970, but didn't use "Con" initially.
Dictionary.com indicates that using "con" for convention dates to 1940-45.
Possibly Phillycon (1940), a science fiction convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious problem with your argument is that DefCon is named DefCon, not Comic-Con.
Re: (Score:2)
When I did some searching earlier I found an article which said the Salt Lake City group claimed that the term comic con predated the San Diego one in the 1970s.
Not a lawyer but I do find it surprising a term which seems generic term could be trademarked.
Re: (Score:2)
Posted from my pc running windows.
True, but its used in a different context. Maybe a better example would be Word?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming "comic con" is trademarkable and not generic, like "tomato soup".
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that decades ago, MS claimed they were filing to trademark "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows", which could not have been granted.
You wouldn't know that from their behavior today . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
I could see them possibly having a valid trademark on the term taken together as a whole, but on just “comic con”? That’s like when Apple was slapped down for trying to sue Amazon for referring to their mobile apps marketplace as an “App Store”. The terms are generic and unenforceable.
It’d be one thing if they had branded it as “Comicon”, but “con” being short for “convention” pre-dates SDCC. The university I attended has held AggieCon
Comicon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
or Mormicon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Khan Con
Re: (Score:2)
Khan Con
Yes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
Re: (Score:2)
Swearing in French is like wiping your ass with silk.
Haven't gone since '03 or '05... (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on these actions I feel much better about my decision not to continue supporting them.
Comic Con has turned into an over-commercialized whore-fest, less about the fans and more about pushing whatever Big Media is selling this year, as can be seen by the majority of their panels, and the floor space disproportionately focusing on non-comic related content nowadays.
Whether it is porn stars, new movie/tv franchises, or videogames, Comic Con has been letting in a lot of things that really stretch the limits of a comic convention.
Given the amounts these knockoff comic conventions are charging though, nobody on any side of the debate is not being a money whore though. Would rather seen the cons just fall into irrelevance, but sadly all these faux nerds and geeks who thing being a commerce whore and fanboy/girl gives you nerd/geek cred.
Maybe it is time for the real nerds and geeks and hackers and phreaks to find new terms for ourselves, because the old ones have been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism assimilates subcultures, it happened to rock, it happened to metal, it happened to gaming, and now it is happening to geeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, looking at Che Guevara logos shows it even happened to communism to some extent.
So what else DO you call them? (Score:3)
NOT Comic Con?
I have an idea (Score:2)
They could call them PAX.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They started a branding with "FanXperience" and "FanX", Wikipedia says it started in 2014 three months before SDCC started legal proceedings.
I think that's a better name, since so little of the conventions are focused around comic books any more. They pull from TV shows, from movies, from video games, from anime, from graphic novels, from authors, from non-comic artists, and from many other sources as well. All those fandoms are in addition to comic books.
Headliners aren't typically from comic books any
Suggestions for the new name... (Score:2)
- The Convention Formerly Known as Salt Lake Comic Con.
- Much Better Than Comic Con
- The Comic Convention That Isn't a Con
- Unwilling to Pay Extortionate Fees to Be Called Comic Con
- Did They Bribe the Judge So We Aren't Comic Con Anymore?
- Like Comic Con, Except We Don't Suck
- More Comic, Less Con
Others?
Re: (Score:3)
You really think that the average comic enthusiast doesn't know the difference? We're talking about people who notice the difference between two comic writers that do whatever they can to draw in the same style and squabble about whether this or that one is better or worse despite looking IDENTICAL to every sane person.
You honestly believe these people wouldn't notice the difference? If, and only if, they actually give a fuck and don't just want to go to a con?
Re:Suggestions for the new name... (Score:4, Funny)
I vote for "Comic Sans Con"
Re: (Score:2)
Comically Conned? (Score:1)
So which comic con conned which comic con out of their comic con name?
Was there really ever any confusion? (Score:1)
When people hear "City <generic convention name>", is anyone actually confused?
(Aside from the stoners who wonder "Huh... I didn't know that Salt Lake City moved San Diego! I guess Mormons like the beach, too!?")
Re:Copycats should be ashamed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Copycats should be ashamed.
Like 90% of comics are a formulaic copy.
There is an assertion, an assumption that these conventions are a celebration of art and creativity.
That's taking things a bit too seriously. There are very few Alan Moores in this world and a whole bunch of Stan Lees. When comics are artistic and creative, it's an anomaly. People don't go to conventions to celebrate creativity and art. They go to conventions to goo over collectible comics and buy useless junk and see celebrities and feel like their lonely hobby isn't quite so lonely.
Re: (Score:1)
Sacrilege! There is ONE Stan Lee.
Bite your tongue!
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say the same about classic literature (I would, I'm just wondering if you see that your claim applies to it as well).
Re: (Score:3)
Would you say the same about classic literature (I would, I'm just wondering if you see that your claim applies to it as well).
No, because what makes something a "classic" and what makes it "literature," by definition would mean that it's critically viewed as artistic, creative, and of high quality. Now, there are works that are considered classics that I find unworthy of the title—much of Thomas Hardy's work, or On the Road, for example—but I usually understand why classics are so widely admired.
Now, it must be noted that most novels—both past and present—are complete garbage and not worth the paper they're
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit that I failed to find a way to know what is "good" and what is "trash". In my eyes, what matters is how much I feel that a book influenced my emotions or interested me. That makes "Fountainhead" (I'm not libertarian but I think it is really good propoganda) and "Moby Dick" into "good" books in my eyes and some of Kafka's works into "trash". I have failed to find any better criteria so far.
Also, do you think that being obssessed with "good" books is better? I would assume that obssession, by defin
Re: (Score:3)
[...] They go to conventions to [...] feel like their lonely hobby isn't quite so lonely.
And there's actually nothing wrong about that. I collected comics as a kid. I loved going to a comic store (Commercial! Sacrilegious!) not just to see what the newest titles coming out where but to just be around others that at least understood something that I liked (and by extension, understood something about me).
My kids love comics. They're now 11 and 14 years old. I'm happy that comic characters (if not collecting comics) are becoming somewhat mainstream. We've been to a couple comic cons (Tampa
Re: (Score:3)
I went to SDCC '90, and I thought "comic con" was a generic term for all such events. I've been to similar events before and after. Those that went out of their way to not call them comic cons were still called that by attendees, even outside of the US were almost nobody putting it on or attending has ever been to SDCC.
And what about comi-con? It may be spelled comic-con, but it's pronounced
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have named it Commie-Con, but then again, there is already something sounding similar in California, and you can't really have something like that anywhere else in the US.
Re: Copycats should be ashamed. (Score:3)
For something like q-tip or band-aid then it's obvious that even though the trademark name has become generic, that it isn't just descriptive. Things like comic-con, App Store, windows, friend list, etc.. that are mostly just descriptive should not be trademarks.
As a side note, I'm typing this on my iphone and apple refuses to let me type App Store in lowercase but has no issues letting me type the rest of the trademarks in lowercase.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, they should be able to claim SDCC or Comic-con, but not both.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, what would be an original name for a comic con? Preferably one that still tells you it's a comic con.
Salt Lake City (Score:2)
Welcome to Mormon Con 2018!
Re: (Score:3)
It already happens twice a year and is called General Conference.
"Comic Convention" would certainly be generic (Score:1)
So "Comic Con", a straightforward streamlining of the generic term, should be considered generic as well.
Contrast that with a clear trademark violation: an entrepreneur who reasoned that "google" meant Internet search, or "amazon" meant ecommerce, would have a tough time convincing a court that "music-google.io" or "amazon-novelty-gifts.com" didn't violate somebody's trademark.
San Diego Comic-Con wins trademark suit (Score:2)
Rumours were heard that "Salt Lake Comic Con" would change its name to "Salt Lake Comic Sans".
That was good (Score:2)
+1
Seems one side won, but the true winner as usual.. (Score:1)
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jury by peers (Score:2)
A jury by peers, should mean that the only people allowed to be on the jury are those who have attended one or more comic book conventions in their lives.
I hope ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Clearly this trial was a con job (Score:1)
Ba-dum tsss
Salt Lake one should just change its name to
Salt Lake Comic CONvention
The rename is obvious (Score:2)
Other gatherings should just call themselves Comic McConface.
I’ll call mine “Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con&rdqu (Score:2)
But it will only be held once a year.
Law suit makes me less likely to attend San Diego (Score:3, Insightful)
Also realize they don't care.
But... OTH, it does bug me when people poach on the Youtube "Primative Technology" guy.
So I guess I get San Diego action but either
* I just don't sympathize with really rich people.
* I don't think you can confuse different comic book and science fiction conventions.
In the end it comes down to guests and events. Not the name.
For me.
The irony (Score:2)
What about New York Comic Con? (Score:2)
In fact, if I google "comic con", the NYCC comes up first, followed by SDCC.
Alternate names:
- Comicky Con
- GraNoCon
- Comicsexpo
- Comixpo
- Nerd/Geek/Dweeb/Derp/[choose your favorite reclaimed epithet] Con
92 posts (Score:2)
92 posts and nobody has registered his disgust yet?
Comic Con (Score:2)
An abbreviation that has been used for decades. Heck, baseball card conventions, comic book conventions... decades old.
This trademark should ONLY be enforceable in San Diego. Now, a legitimate trademark would be if San Diego Comic Con created a stylized logo/text type for "Comic Con" which they then used to branch out to other cities. No one else could use that style.
But government is so stupid, this sort of thing exists. $20,000 is enough to kill a convention.
To put it in perspective, this would be like