Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Patents Books

US Trademark Office Cancels Marvel, DC's 'Super Hero' Trademarks (reuters.com) 31

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Trademark Office Cancels Marvel, DC's 'Super Hero' Trademarks

Comments Filter:
  • Not that I'm complaining but what happened here? How did the ghouls that run Disney & WB let this happen?
    • I can hear the board room now What the fuck is England going to do?

  • 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.

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      What would be the basis for Disney's suit? They no longer own the trademark, as TFS explains.

  • by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Friday September 27, 2024 @09:31PM (#64823193)
    but the superbabies we deserve.
    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.
    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday September 27, 2024 @09:44PM (#64823201)
      They were able to keep it for years and years. I first found out about this trademark BS when I was a kid playing the table top RPG Heroes Unlimited that included a disclaimer explaining why the word "Super Hero" didn't appear in the book.
    • This is a trademark case, not copyright. Joint ownership of copyright is fairly common.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      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.

      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

      • The genre/term of super hero ismuch older than the 1960s [google.co.jp].

        If you allow the genre and not the term, stories like Moses and Loki and Maui are positively ancient.
        • A trademark is a mark of trade. It is what distinguishes YOUR widget from the competitors widget.

          Genre would be a broad descriptor of the widget.

          "Car" would be a genre. "Porsche" would be the trademark.

        • "If you allow the genre and not the term"

          This entire case is about the term, not the genre.

    • it certainly doesn't seem like "super hero" is unique enough to trademark

      The question should be WAS IT unique enough when it was trademarked back in 1967?
      -Sure, it seems commonplace to us NOW, but when it was created, it may have been unique.
      -They may have lost control of the trademark since, via dilution (aka the phrase "superhero" becoming a common term)

      two competitors camping on the phrase to the detriment of others certainly doesn't follow the spirit of copyright

      Again, we have to look at the history. *
      The trademarks were established by multiple people working together who later went their separate ways -resulting in Marvel and DC both having claims, thus the agreement to share the tra

    • by tragedy ( 27079 )

      Of course, the term superbabies really should not be trademark-able either. The concept is not remotely new and the name is extremely derivative and obvious. Not to mention having been in prior usage.

  • ...& embodiment of 'Murican exceptionalism. They truly believe they have the moral authority over all other nationalities & can do whatever they like, no matter how evil, e.g. destabilising & invading sovereign countries & dropping nuclear bombs on civilians, as long as they can justify it to themselves. That ain't how morality works.

    Meanwhile, the people who most closely resemble super heroes, you know, masked vigilantes, are white supremacists who go around lynching & extra-judicial
    • Several super-hero deconstruction comics expose this. Watchmen is the prime example. Among other things:

      * In the present day of the story (mid-1980s), it has as a bacground event referred in posters a music show by a white supremacist band.

      * In a flashback to the 1970s, it shows the superpowered character Dr Manhattan indifferently exploding Vietnamese soldiers as if they were ants without a second thought, thus winning the Vietnam War for America, with a scene that shows another character shooting his Viet

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Yeah, but as Paul Verhoeven, director of "Starship Troopers," found out to his dismay, US audiences typically cheer at all the "wrong" moments. I wonder how many 'Muricans look up to Homelander? You know, like they look up to people like Trump?

        Plus, Marvel super hero films are making obscene profits at the box office: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
        • by vivian ( 156520 )

          Yeah, but as Paul Verhoeven, director of "Starship Troopers," found out to his dismay, US audiences typically cheer at all the "wrong" moments.

          The movie Battleship was a little like this. It was clearly a little subversive, with the aliens depicted as only being reactionary to over use of force by the US military. Even the end credits had a Vietnam era anti-war protest song playing in them -Credence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son".

    • ... authority over all other nationalities ...

      I haven't detected that: Sure, the USA is the 'good guy' and gets to own everything but otherwise, national boundaries aren't relevant. I think Team America: World Police (2004) is the exception.

      ... can do whatever ...

      The Iron Man/Avengers series raised the question: What is the alternative? They become a servant of some government, or become paralyzed by the unintended consequences of their extra-judicial thuggery.

      • Of course, they can carry on doing what they do because... reasons!

        When values cultivated by fiction spill over into foreign policy, you get... well... war crimes, crimes against humanity, nuclear bombing civilians, chemical warfare, wars of aggression, etc., etc.. because, "The USA is always right!" Just like super heroes always have the best interests of humanity at heart, right?

        The thing is, "The Boys" comes across as a lot more authentic than Marvel.
  • EasyJet’s parent company loses High Court ‘easy’ trademark battle [independent.co.uk]

    Easyjet's owner has registered more than 200 "Easy-" trademarks, but the High Court in London has rejected his attempt to oppose easyfundraising's use of the name. However, this is on the grounds that "it is unlikely that any but a few would make the association and be confused” between the two brands.

    However, other firms have capitulated to Easyjet's threats, e.g. EasyJetwash [bbc.co.uk] and Indie Band Easy Life [bbc.co.uk]

Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!

Working...