US Trademark Office Cancels Marvel, DC's 'Super Hero' Trademarks (reuters.com) 15
A U.S. Trademark Office tribunal canceled Marvel and DC's jointly owned "Super Hero" trademarks after the companies failed to respond to a request by London-based Superbabies Ltd, which argued the marks couldn't be owned collectively or monopolize the superhero genre. The ruling was "not just a win for our client but a victory for creativity and innovation," said Superbabies attorney Adam Adler of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg. "By establishing SUPER HEROES' place in the public domain, we safeguard it as a symbol of heroism available to all storytellers."
Reuters reports: Rivals Marvel and DC jointly own four federal trademarks covering the terms "Super Hero" and "Super Heroes," the oldest of which dates back to 1967. Richold writes comics featuring a team of super-hero babies called the Super Babies. According to Richold, DC accused his company of infringing the "Super Hero" marks and threatened legal action after Superbabies Ltd applied for U.S. trademarks covering the "Super Babies" name. Marvel and DC have cited their marks in opposing dozens of superhero-related trademark applications at the USPTO, according to the office's records. Superbabies petitioned the office to cancel the marks in May. It argued that Marvel and DC cannot "claim ownership over an entire genre" with their trademarks, and that the two competitors cannot own trademarks together.
What the *bleep*? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can hear the board room now What the fuck is England going to do?
Needs loser pays in these suits (Score:3)
If you build a product called Windows which is not anything related to computers, Microsoft sues you and loses in court, there should be damages to pay your legal fees plus a punitive amount to prevent trademark troll lawsuits. Or even, that their own trademark get a fixed end of life, such as 25 years in the future.
Good that Marvel and DC lost trademark of a generic term.
Re: (Score:2)
Good that Marvel and DC lost trademark of a generic term.
Indeed. According to Google, the term "super hero" was first used in print in 1917, 50 years before the trademark was first issued.
well diseny owns the IP now and will sue to keep y (Score:2)
well diseny owns the IP now and will sue to keep you from trying to make use of this.
and you can fight for your rights but you may need like $500K to take on the mouse for your day in court.
Re: (Score:3)
What would be the basis for Disney's suit? They no longer own the trademark, as TFS explains.
Not the super heroes we wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
Very strange case, but it certainly doesn't seem like "super hero" is unique enough to trademark, and two competitors camping on the phrase to the detriment of others certainly doesn't follow the spirit of copyright.
Re:Not the super heroes we wanted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Not the super heroes we wanted (Score:2)
This is a trademark case, not copyright. Joint ownership of copyright is fairly common.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it dates back to the 1960s, where it might very well have been unique enough to trademark because it wasn't a common use. Heck, it probably created the whole genre.
And therein lies the problem - the trademark might be unique at the time of application, but over the course of time, not so
Re: (Score:2)
If you allow the genre and not the term, stories like Moses and Loki and Maui are positively ancient.
Super heroes are the epitome... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the people who most closely resemble super heroes, you know, masked vigilantes, are white supremacists who go around lynching & extra-judicial