US Trademark Office Cancels Marvel, DC's 'Super Hero' Trademarks (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0175146615
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/09/27/233217/us-trademark-office-cancels-marvel-dcs-super-hero-trademarks
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-trademark-office-cancels-marvel-dcs-super-hero-marks-2024-09-26/
> 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 [2]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.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-trademark-office-cancels-marvel-dcs-super-hero-marks-2024-09-26/
[2] https://rrsfirm.com/super-hero-trademark-dispute-with-marvel-and-dc-comics/
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:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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)
> 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
What the *bleep*? (Score:2)
Not that I'm complaining but what happened here? How did the ghouls that run Disney & WB let this happen?
Re: (Score:2)
I can hear the board room now What the fuck is England going to do?