DC and Marvel want to trademark the word "super-hero" out of the public domain

[Funkatron]

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/18/marvel_comics_steali.html

Sleazy is all I can say

[Sr.Infierno]

*Cough* Um...



WTF?!?!

[Jor-El]

Here's what's funny:

DC's most popular superhero (how much did that cost me?) Superman has a dozen or so cartoons that are all supposedly (although I do not personally understand how) public domain. I have long heard that the Fleischer stuff is public domain for this and that reason, assuming it is true.

So why doesn't DC work on trademarking those cartoons before they go to trademark a word? Get some priorities straight, guys.

[Damien]

Have the two companies even thought about the other comic book companies that showcase superheroes? Or how about the fact that DC was using that term first. They plan on sharing?

Wait. Who did use the term first? Either way.

[Jeff Harris]

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/18/marvel_comics_steali.html

Sleazy is all I can sayWell, they've jointly owned the word phrase "Super Heroes" for decades, so that's not really a new thing. It is an idiotic business practice that they feel they're the only ones that should call their heroic characters "superheroes."

I'm sure they're really pushing the trademark issue in the coming months because no more that three non Marvel/DC super hero-based television series are in the works, including Ultra (based on the Image Comics title) at CBS, Heroes at NBC, and Who Wants to Be A Super-Hero? at Sci-Fi.

[Sharklady]

Why don't they try to trademark "exciting adventure" while they're at it?

This is the sort of we'll-do-what-we-want-'cause-we-can-hire-lots-of-lawyers attitude which gives big corporations a bad name.

[Anthonynotes]

Here's what's funny:

DC's most popular superhero (how much did that cost me?) Superman has a dozen or so cartoons that are all supposedly (although I do not personally understand how) public domain. I have long heard that the Fleischer stuff is public domain for this and that reason, assuming it is true.

So why doesn't DC work on trademarking those cartoons before they go to trademark a word? Get some priorities straight, guys.

IIRC, at the time the Fleischer shorts were made, copyrights didn't last the (IMO way too excessive) length they do now, and also had to be renewed by the company in question; however, IIRC some companies failed to do this renewal, and the material subsequently lasped into the public domain.

Trademarks (which're different from copyrights) last indefinitely, as long as the holder continues to make regular use of the item in question (name, character, etc.). If they aren't used regularly by said holder (or can prove they were using it regularly as such), it can also fall into public domain (at one point, "aspirin" was trademarked, but not anymore...). A reason that in writer's magazines, companies like Kleenex and Xerox will publish ads urging writers to either use a generic term ("tissue", "photocopier") or put a trademark symbol (™) next to the word in question.

[straw_hat]

This is just so hilariously egotistical that Marvel and DC's cast of heroes are the only ones who can be deemed Super. I'm all for naming them "underwear perverts" from now on if they really do win.

[Peter Paltridge]

I don't see how this could stand up in court. Hopefully, it'll fail.

[Funkatron]

So what do you think about the underwear perverts in JLA? :p

[Max Mercury]

Yet another of the many reasons why the idea of "intellectual property" is ridiculous.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

This is really, really old news. If you hit the link that's in the cited BoingBoing article, you'll see it takes you back to a story that broke in 2004, when GeekPunk's "Super-Hero Happy Hour" comic book had to change its name to "Hero Happy Hour" or something similar to avoid legal entanglement of the term "super-hero."

According to this post here, the trademark application was filed in 1979 and approved in 1981 (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004649.html#38976), making this story even older. You can search the US Patent & Trademark office (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=1o4viu.1.1) for serial #73222079 to see the original document. DC and Marvel have had the term "superhero" trademarked jointly longer than some of you guys have been alive ;).

This doesn't mean that it's illegal to use the word -- you just have to acknowledge that DC and Marvel own the trademark to it. You can refer to them that way without paying a nickel to anybody, just like people can refer to iPods in pop culture without paying Apple.

It doesn't have to hold up in court if it never gets there, and DC and Marvel have enough legal muscle to ensure that anybody who challenges them on it will spend far more on legal fees than they would gain by keeping it.

I don't see much point to the rampage, especially since almost nobody will stop reading their DC or Marvel comics in protest of this trademark, and really that's the only message that either company will understand.

-- Ed/Ace

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Comics Should Be Good just put up a FAQ about this trademark thing and what it really means (http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2006/03/superhero-trademark-faq.html). Worth checking out.

-- Ed/Ace

[Lorendiac]

Yet another of the many reasons why the idea of "intellectual property" is ridiculous.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that nobody should ever have a right to own a copyright or trademark or patent on anything at all, for any length of time?

[Condiment King]

Two comments:

-- The Fleischer toons are definitely public domain as you can find them at archive.org as well as a couple of old (and somewhat popular) Looney Tunes shorts.

-- If DC and Marvel actually own this copyright, how does Robert Kirkman's creator-owned Invincible get away with using "Probably the best superhero comic in the universe" on every cover?

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


-- If DC and Marvel actually own this copyright, how does Robert Kirkman's creator-owned Invincible get away with using "Probably the best superhero comic in the universe" on every cover?

First question from the FAQ which I just linked to (http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2006/03/superhero-trademark-faq.html):


Q: What does it mean that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the word "Superhero"?

A: It means that companies cannot enter certain areas of commerce with the word/phrase "superhero"/"super-hero" as part of their product name.

I'm assuming that Invincible is pulling a quote from a review for the cover, which is totally legal and nothing DC or Marvel can take action against.

I wasn't kidding when I said that FAQ is worth reading all the way through :p.

-- Ed/Ace

[Condiment King]

Howdy,
First question from the FAQ which I just linked to (http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2006/03/superhero-trademark-faq.html):
Man, I'm lazy! :p