Slashdot Mirror
Marvel and DC Enforce "Superhero" Trademark
An anonymous reader writes "GeekPunk is announcing that their flagship comic book title featuring superheroes patronizing their favorite bar & grill during their off-hours will now be entitled Hero Happy Hour beginning with the fifth issue of the ongoing series.
According to creator Dan Taylor, "The decision to change the title was brought upon by the fact that we received a letter from the trademark counsel to 'the two big comic book companies' claiming that they are the joint owners of the trademark 'SUPER HEROES' and variations thereof."
" Read the recent boingboing post for more background as well.
Super assholes to describe the tatics used by the executives of most media companies.
Look, up in the sky, its a shattered childhood.
Fine then. I'm going to go slap a trademark on men wearing tights, and file an injunction against Marvel and DC for violating my trademark. As an added bonus, I can sue people who are still lost in the 80's or perform theatrical choreography. Hmm...
-Vendal Thornheart
Good thing I trademarked 'super villains' for us linux users. :)
Why play fair when you can cheat ?
Reminds me of the old Onion article "Microsoft to patent zeroes, ones." Isn't the term "Super Hero" pretty generic?
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Before this thread is consumed by non-lawyers editorializing about what a legal travesty this is, let me first put forth a question: If this argument was about the term "Superman" instead of "Superhero," would it be any less absurd? I mean, surely we'll all agree that "Superman" is a clearly trademarkable name, and has been capitalized on by its creators for decades. But isn't the coined word "Superman" just as generic as the coined word "Superhero?" Aren't they both merely the concatenation of two relatively common words in the English language?
Let's just admit that they've created something new, and it's not entirely unreasonable for them to wish to protect their exclusive use of their creations.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Check out this hillarious spoof comic via BoingBoing.
They are actually trademarking "Superwhore," which describes their business philosophy.
Yep... these boys dont mess around. I played in a band for several years called "boywonder" and when a band of the same name surfaced, we naturally went after trademark rights. DC Comics were quickly on us requesting that any product with the use of the name be sent to them for examination citing infringement.
We had released two albums under the name and they were very good about finally allowing us continued use of the name after about 8 months but, unfortunately, we had already changed names given a CD release and tour hanging over our heads.
Registration Date
March 14, 1967
Owner
(REGISTRANT) BEN COOPER, INC. CORPORATION NEW YORK 33 34TH ST. BROOKLYN NEW YORK
(LAST LISTED OWNER) DC COMICS, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF NEW YORK 666 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10103
(LAST LISTED OWNER) MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF DELAWARE 387 PARK AVENUE SOUTH NEW YORK NEW YORK 10016
<grrr
Do they own the trademark on Super Bullies(TM) too?
Is it my imagination or has this never before been enforced? If this is the first time that it has been enforeced, can their hold on this generic term be great?
This really does seem as silly as a PB&J parent, but it sure might be legel in the eyes of the current system.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
That lawyer is operating a cartel running a "restraint of trade" operation. If I start a "car" company, and the lawyer for GM, Ford, Toyota and Mercedes tried to stop me from "abusing their trademark", I'd be deluged by lawyers slavering for their piece of the antimonopoly action.
That's the kind of abuse that launched MCI against the AT&T monopoly, opened the telco industry to some competition, and enriched a generation of lawyers. This time, the comic can still do business while complying with the abusive Cease & Desist letter, while getting justice and bucks.
--
make install -not war
Um, is it just me or does the link go to a post from 2004?
Seriously? What's next, Disney copyrighting antropomorphic animals?
The concept of superheros goes back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Back then, they were deified, but since that's no longer really an option with monotheistic religions, what we have now is superheroes. They have godlike powers (can lift heavy things, can fly, can see through stuff, can forsee the future, and so on), they interfere with the human world and try to make things "right", in other words, they function like the gods of old times.
Sometimes they're even "human" enough to have some of the worse traits of ancient gods. Makes them less godly and more credible.
But copyrighting the very idea of having entities that are capable of executing extraordinary feats, I guess the church might have problems accepting that their angels are on the verge of being (c) Marvel as well.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The article doesn't give much information, but I'm curious why they would just roll over and comply? Or did they get legal advice that said "yep, you better do what they say"? Or did they just go "eee I'm scared, better change stuff." Just because you get a letter from some corporate lawyer saying "you have to do this" doesn't mean you have to do this.
we will end no whine before its time
is there anything that you can't patent now? yesterday I read about someone patenting all thoughts connecting two things, now they have words which (regardless of who originally created them) which are used commonly by the public and are not associated in the public mind with any particular company or "intellectual property"... should I begin patenting words before they get into the dictionary so that when they become commonly used I can do this kind of thing... where will it end... come to think of it I should patent the phrase "It's the end of civilisation" and then I can annoy people as our society is crumbling because of things like this
/flame off
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
No such thing as rights to a "variation" on a trademark. Trademarks are extremely specific and limited only to the market in which they are used. If someone wanted to market "Super Hero" tires, they would be absolutely within their rights to not only use the name but trademark it as well.
This is similiar to the "Copyright Notice" that appears at most Kinko's which states with certainty that it is against the law to duplicate copyrighted material. That is absolutely false, and the people who wrote it know its false.
About time people started to understand the law is not "everything for them and nothing for me."
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
looks like the db freaked out and fell over .. gotta love the message :
:" comment bait stories can this site take in one day?
"An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists."
someone is going to have a lot of email.
in other news, how many "IANAL but
Cheers,
Ian
Anyone can have a trademark, but even MS can't trademark 'windows' all by itself, as it is a common word, that refers to more than MS products. In this case, I'd have to say that m-w.com shows superhero and superhuman to be common nouns, and thus should not be a protected trademark. Now, on the other hand, batman, spiderman etc. should be, and 'brand x superheros' also should be protected, but just superhero... that's just wrong
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This whole thing "super stinks".
And I'll probably get sued for this moment of lamentation...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
>An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.
/. their e-mail server too!
>We apologise for any inconvenience.
Oof. We get to
null sig
Let Marvel and DC try to copyright that.
Look out criminals, a new brand of excellent martyrs are on the horizon, its 'The Awesome Braveguys!'*
*Awesome Braveguys and the Awesome Braveguys logo registered trademarks of Awesome Braveguys Enterprises, Inc.
The Awesome Braveguys 'AB' emblem is a trademark of Awesome Braveguys Corporation and are used under license to Awesome Braveguys, Inc.
All other references in this post to Awesome Braveguys and Awesome Braveguys manufacturers, toys, and photos are for informational purposes only and are not intended to imply any endorsement by or affiliation with the Awesome Braveguys manufacturer.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superhero
So they went after a bar, but not the dictionaries that list the incredibly commonly used word. Why? Because the bar makes money off the word? So do dictionary companies.
The dictionary is where we go for Scrabble help. It's the definitive answer to the question, "Is that a word?" Not a group of words or made-up words -- singular items of the language. They should not be subject to trademark, especially not in a completely unrelated business sector.
Also, trademarks must be enforced if they are to be kept. Marvel and DC didn't enforce it when it showed up in the dictionary. Unless they really want to remove it from the general lexicon, they should lose this trademark. Hell, they should lose this trademark period!
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
How long before they realize their superheroes movie franchises won't last forever, c'mon, most of these "blockbusters" are based on stuff from the 60s plus their audience/public will age soon.
Pulling the corporate BS and trying to trademark something that is common use is utter ridiculous, well, what else can you expect if until NOW Stan Lee is seeing profits from his work.
WTF? A "news" site generally deals with current events. Or at the very least, mentions the rather relvant fact that this is history, not news. Of course, that would be assuming that the Slashdot editors actually RTFA.
If they have a valid trademark should use their trademark properly.
For example, the following use (from Marvel's web site) in it's correct adjectival sense:
Throughout World War II, Captain America and Bucky fought the Nazi menace both on their own and as members of the superhero team the Invaders, which after the war evolved into the All-Winners Squad.
You see here, that the use "superhero" adjective could in theory at least be used to differentiate their "team" product from similar products of their competitors. On the other hand, the following is clearly an improper use of their own presumed mark as a noun (and despite the capitalization, a common noun):
If you've ever wanted to hear your voice come out of a Marvel Superhero's body-or if you are looking for a chance to break into the world of voice acting-then this is your chance!
This should read:
If you've ever wanted to hear your voice come out of a Marvel Superhero character's body-or if you are looking for a chance to break into the world of voice acting-then this is your chance!
Using it as a common noun (which they do throughout their web site, although it is sometimes capitalized) is tantamount to admitting the term is generic.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Faster than everybody else! Stronger than the weak! Able to leap to conclusions in a single bound! Sworn enemy of the dreaded RIAA! Destroyer of the Gates of hell! I'd have been a superhero if I weren't deathly afraid of lawsuits.....and girls :p
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Doesn't Thomas Edison have a trademark on DC? And I think God has a trademark on Marvel.
Dear god. Flooded areas of my 7th floor. No tech casualties, but "WTF?!" "Super Heroes" trademarked? I think the fool backed down too quickly. It's way to generic a term that can likely be demonstrated as being such for several decades. Who needs a lawyer to defend this? Just walk into a court room and say "Judge, this is complete bullshit! I move countersue for the revocation of this ridiculous trademark on the grounds that the words are too commonly used."
you unleash the lawyers on smaller competition, with the help of state endorsed terrorism as all-encompassing patents (even cursory and half-assed thoughts will cover whole fields now), perpetual and backwards copyrights (didn't Disney come up with all those Brother Grimm stories?), and trademarks on every dictionary entry.
Who you can't sue, you buy. Who you can't buy, you merge with to create a synergistic whole.
Eventually we'll be one giant happy family under the one true megacorp who the government will outsource all it's divisions to. You'll see.
In the meantime, China will be laughing at us while they outsource their industries to a portion of the Third World formerly known as the United States. Which has been trademarked so we can't use it anymore.
By the way, I own the copyrights to all the tags such as "offtopic", "redundant", "overrated", "troll" and "flamebait" - so you'll have to ask my permission before you mod me down - or I'll see you in a court of law, perhaps:P
Superman, used as a proper noun, refers to a guy who wears blue tights and red underwear with a red cape, shoots lasers from his eyes, flies, and is vulnerable to kryptonite.
Superman, used as a common noun, is a variant of superhuman.
The former usage is clearly covered by trademark; the latter is clearly not.
In this case, the term 'superhero' is common enough to be outside trademark, in my opinion. It's a plain compound, and while the decomposition would refer to a superset of the composed meaning, it's pretty damn close. Anyway, the OED first lists the term being used in 1917 by Greenhill Press, so they would hold the trademark if anyone. The company appears to be defunct, though.
Why not use SuperGyro? Sounds the same if you pronounce it correctly ;)
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
for trademark of the word "superhero" and variations thereof back in 1981. Apparently, there is some controvesy over the joint filing of this shared trademark as trademark law has a "single source" requirement. However,
there is precedent of two companies sharing a trademark, but is supposed to be quite quite rare.
I am not sure how accurate this information as a lot it is from disparate sources, so someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway, I don't see how Marvel/DC can claim a trademark on a word that has been in the popular lexicon for over fifty years.
I'm anti-copyright and anti-patent as I believe they destroy the desire to invent -- the legal hassles of trying to make sure your creation is unique leaves the power of invention to the distribution cartels.
I believe the market would provide many ways to profit without the force of government backing up the inventors, and I think trademarks are no different.
Copyright and patents and trademarks were intended to protect for a very short period of time so the creator and only the creator can make enough profit to keep food on the table. Today, that government force is only profitable for those powerful enough to control all the distribution cycles.
This is a tragedy that a real artist loses to the content cartels -- proof yet again that these avenues of force do not protect the common man, and should be abolished. All trademark really means is a legal structure that utilizes government force to protect residual value. Most jobs have zero residual value, and I believe that's the way it should be. Get paid for the work you do, not future uses of the products you made and then sold to another.
" Isn't the term "Super Hero" pretty generic"
Trademark laws exist to protect the consumer, not the producer.
If you buy a brown fizzy beverage, and if it says "cocacola" you should have some sort of confidence you're buying CocaCola brand of fizzy soft drink.
Is there some consumer confusion that your "superhero" is not a DC or Marvel brand of superhero? To say nothing of the fact if don't activly protect your mark you lose it.
Goog sez: "Results 1 - 50 of about 7,330,000 for "superhero""
If Marvel and DC jointly own the trademark on "superhero" I'd be saying the words "Anti trust". A LOT. And ignoring the C&D letter.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Did I wake up wrong or something?
Aren't all the dates on this "news" story from 2004?
They don't argue that the concept of an individual who can leap tall buildings in a single bound is trademarked--you would have to patent the concept, and we don't have such patents yet (as far as I recall).
Rather, they say you can only use the term 'superhero' if you pay them a royalty.
The first example of a superhero in comics is Superman (you can argue, but it's seems to be accepted as the case) so DC did it first.
They have also enforced their trademark repeatedly, so they create something novel, use the correct channels to protect themselves, and... get hammered?
When Linus did this with "Linux" in Austrailia, the comments went entirely in the other direction.
All of you pissing and moaning about this being wrong or evil amaze me. You have no idea what you're crying about, yet you cry louder than anyone else.
Oh right, this is slashtroll, where patents/trademarks/copyright is automatically evil, and people who disagree are automatically modded out of sight.
Grow up people, you're wrong and you don;t even know why. How embarrassing for you.
I believe 'super hero' would fall under a genericized trademark. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
If the mark does not perform this essential function and it is no longer possible to legally enforce rights in relation to the mark, the mark may have become generic. A generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be commercially exploited by anyone.
nothing
Sorry, but much like Xerox lost the right to their name as a verb, Super Hero is now a part of the English language. They should have been enforcing this for the last 20 years at least. Strangley though I'm at a loss for an example of someone else using Super Hero in a title... lots of descriptions, just can't think of any titles. (edit.. there's a band called SuperHero apparently).
I CAN think of a lot of other Comic book IP that has been infringed over the years.... to the benefit of Marvel and DC... lots of pop culture that kept their characters, etc. in the public eye while comic books themselves fell out of favor with the ADD generation.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I remember the GURPs supers book calling the SuperHeros 'Metahumans' becaues Marvel/DC threatened to sue. It sucked rocks then, and it sucks rocks now. It's ridiculous, a trademark identiifies a business. Marvel's a trade mark, so is DC. I don't know of any company called 'SuperHero'. Shit, why not let them patent it while your at it so the next time someguy flys around in tights they can sue.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Didn't realize you could trademark compound nouns that make it into common language. I am going to started on my list of trademarked words right now! Word of warning, anyone who uses dillhole on slashdot, expect a letter from my lawyer.
From a full 2 years before the trademark was originally awarded to Marvel and DC
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think their system clock's off. Note that one of the comments from "2004" has a quote from Serenity in the sig.
Typed Drawing
Word Mark SUPER HEROES
Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY COMIC BOOKS AND MAGAZINES AND STORIES IN ILLUSTRATED FORM [(( ; CARDBOARD STAND-UP FIGURES; PLAYING CARDS; PAPER IRON-ON TRANSFER; ERASERS; PENCIL SHARPENERS; PENCILS; GLUE FOR OFFICE AND HOME USE, SUCH AS IS SOLD AS STATIONERY SUPPLY;] NOTEBOOKS AND STAMP ALBUMS )). FIRST USE: 19661000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19661000
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 73222079
Filing Date July 3, 1979
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition June 9, 1981
Registration Number 1179067
Registration Date November 24, 1981
Owner (REGISTRANT) Cadence Industries Corporation a.k.a. Marvel Comics Group and DC Comics Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 575 Madison Ave. New York NEW YORK 10022
(LAST LISTED OWNER) DC COMICS PARTNERSHIP BY ASSIGNMENT NEW YORK 1700 BROADWAY NEW YORK NEW YORK 10019
(LAST LISTED OWNER) MARVEL CHARACTERS, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT DELAWARE 10474 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SUITE 206 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90025
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record JONATHAN D. REICHMAN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20020819.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20020819
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Worst use of trademark law.... ever
"No! Its clearly a derived work coming from Nietzsche's concept of "Übermensch" [wikipedia.org] :)"
I would agree if "Übermensch" translated as "superman" but it doesn't.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Don't forget to sue the movie also - Robin Hood: Men in Tights. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/
They are the only ones to have used the term "SuperHero" to describe their characters. It IS pretty generic. Sure, Superman and Batman are obvious superheros that they do own the rights to, but unless they own every single character in this file, I call shenanigans:
http://www.superherodb.com/
This is improper use of trademark law, in my opinion.
It would be similar to suing for the right to use "Military Personnel". A "Super Hero" is elementary, and refers to an individual (alien or human) that has abilities that are beyond the norm. I can't see how you can trademark that and the concept therein.
DC and Marvel went toe-to-toe in legal battles over the term "superheros" and other two-word and hyphenated variations. When there really was no such common word each company wanted the rights to the unique term to help identify their properties. I don't see how, simply because the term is far less unique simply due to their own use and promotion of products the term applies to, that their ownership of it is any less valid.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I seem to recall the term 'superhero' being tossed around left and right by the media after 9/11 in reference to various emergency workers. Where was the legal order on that? On a different note...what is the trademark -actually- on? 'Superhero' / 'Super-hero' / 'Super Hero'? Does capitalization matter?
Unpleasantries.
"From the German, it literally translates to "Super" "Person"."
No, that is not the "literal" translation. Literally it translates as "Overman" with the over part meaning "greater than, more gifted than".
The idea is similar, but it is not "literally" "super" "person" as you conclude.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Moreso than the shock over trademarking what appears to be a common word, I find it interesting that this trademark is apparently being jointly enforced by two companies who are undoubtedly in direct competition with each other. Why hasn't one company gone after the other?
I disagree.
I intensely dislike the length of copyright, and I dislike many, many ways in which patents are applied to day.
Trademarks, however, are valueable in that they provide a unique way to identify a product or service. Without them, it's easy for someone else to trick consumers who want the original product or service.
I agree that some trademarks are badly abused to attempt to avoid copyright's time restrictions (loose as they are). Disney has trademarked Mickey Mouse in a number of positions such that they go after people using the Mouse even after the copyright on him expires (if it ever does). However, I think that the value of trademarks does outweigh the drawbacks of the occasional bit of abuse.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
The term "superhero" long ago lost any unique association with DC/Marvel, the same as aspirin did. Early D+D used the term "superhero" to stand for a mere 8th-level fighter (back when that really was a super character.) In short, the trademark can not be enforced.
But that's not necessarily the best path for a small publisher, considering that, as the article says: "It looks like all of the readers that took a chance and purchased our book before the title change are now in the possession of a collector's item."
1. Publish comic using generic term
2. Get form letter from DC/Marvel
3. Change name, so comic is now collector's item
4. ???
5. Profit!!!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Back in the day, we didn't have your fancy-schmancy foryums and blahgs on everyone's webpage. We had ourselves the NEWSGROUPS.
And we liked it!
In order to discuss super-hero based RPGs on the rec.games.frp.* hierarchy, our posts would get lost. I decided to act upon this and had rec.games.frp.super-heroes created. There was much (ridiculous) debate ([sarcasm]on the internet? NO...[/sarcasm]) regarding the name.
We couldn't used "Superheroes" because of the joint trademark. We couldn't use "Supers" because someone (idiot) thought it meant the forum was only for discussion of GURPS: Supers . So a news admin suggested that we hyphenate. I mean, it's not like we were selling anything.
I maintained the FAQ for years, but then that C++ Hybrid guy kept spamming the Newsgroup and most of us left to go to various other gaming forums.
I salute you, sir, and your your companions, for their excellent attempts at diverting the real issue with such a magnificently textbook strawman argument.
In the future, I will ask that your cease and desist using each and every word contained within this post as I have applied for copyright protection. Surely you understand this is a mutually beneficial agreement that will promote much progress within our society. Fear not, however, as you may still discuss the ideas themselves, albeit with a different vocabularity.
Failure to comply would be an unfortunate and expensive mistake. Oh, and PURPLE MONKEY DISHWATER!
They can't TradeMark(tm) my SUPER POWERS! I Will obliterate them all and take over the world!!
muhuhahahahaha!!!
"Dingo, fetch me my PFazer Ray(tm) and my Super Slippers(tm). Those meddling kids!!!"
I met the guys who write and draw "Hero Happy Hour" at comic conventions a couple times. The book is a fun read, and the creators are funny guys. They know they aren't going to make a fortune, they're just making a comic because they want to make a comic. I've never seen any publicity for their comic until now, which is a damned shame. "Hero Happy Hour" is easily the best small press/amateur title I've ever picked up.
Anyone who is into comics would do well to pick up whatever issues they still have in print, 'cause they're worth the money.
Anyway, I remember Marvel and DC claiming trademark on Super-Hero in the early 80s if not earlier, and just about everyone who writes about people with super-powers, who doesn't work for Marvel or DC, uses some other term to describe them. I can't believe they're enforcing their trademark on a couple guys whose comics have a print run that's probably 1/100 the size of an average "big name" book, but they've had the right to do so for over 20 years.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
"Superman" comes from Nietzsche, and the subsequent abuse of his terminology by the Nazis.
;)
Krypton, surely?
Copyright and patents and trademarks were intended to protect for a very short period of time so the creator and only the creator can make enough profit to keep food on the table. Today, that government force is only profitable for those powerful enough to control all the distribution cycles.
Trademarks were never "intended to protect for a very short period of time so the creator and only the creator can make enough profit..."
Trademarks are protected because they provide a socially valuable service. Trademarks provide a shorthand that permits consumers to identify the source of a good, and thereby associate the good with characteristics such as quality, economy, performance, etc. (or the lack thereof). Kodak, Fuji, Coca-cola, Pepsi... none of these marks is protected simply by virtue of their creation. They are protected because they are used to identify particular goods that are actually sold in commerce.
Trademarks are protected because people like Michael Dell have spent decades creating distinctive brands of merchandise, and consumers would be confused and/or deceived if others were to suddenly start up businesses selling "Dell" electronics to you and I. Trademarks are protected because consumers lose when they have to spend additional time researching whether they are purchasing a bona fide product that they want, or a counterfeit product that they probably do not want.
Trademarks incidentally protect the "creator", because they are the embodiment of the seller's reputation and goodwill. Even if a consumer wants to purchase a counterfeit good, that good is not sold by the "creator" and typically shoddy, which confuses other consumers about the source of the good, the quality, economy, and performance of the good, and denigrates "creator's" business reputation. Trademark law is intended to eliminate that unwarranted confusion.
If Coca-cola continues to be sold for the next two centuries, then the trademark will continue to be enforceable for the next two centuries, because the confusion caused by my rip-off of Coca-cola would always serve to harm the consumer. I have no particular opinion concerning the Marvel/DC mark, but I certainly have an opinion concerning this fairy tale of trademark-as-copyright.
You'll all see what happens when I trademark "The"! That way, in the (TM) future you'll all have to pay me rolaylties for the (TM) use of the (TM) word "the" (TM) in any of the (TM) sentences you ever write or speak! The (TM) profits will be endless! All the (TM) people in the (TM) world will depend on the (TM) decision I make about their use of the (TM) world "the" (TM)!! Ah, the (TM) future....
"Please, I have German Parents and am fluent in it"
Neither one of which prevents you from being wrong. You are.
Your statment that it "literally" translates was what I took issue with. It doesn't, and as a "fluent" speaker you should know that. I am, and I do.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Superhero, KMFDM
You're so wonderful
Apple of everyone's eye
You're so clever
Multimillion-dollar smile
The world is your oyster and pearls are fun
Share them with everyone that you love
And you love everyone always all of the time
Missing link you eat your own dear
Bird of prey you can't control
In your world perception
Hazy
Connection precise
Cave in
Bow to the other side
You're a superhero
Demigod
No one anywhere anytime any which way but you
If the mirror speaks the truth we must aspire and work
Harder to be like you
'cause anything goes when you're a star
Regal elegant
You are bewitching and wild
Fifteen minutes a lifetime
They just don't apply
Shudder to think that if could ever be true
That anyone else is as lovely as you
You bear the name and the lineage that we desire
In the shutterbug-flash you look fabulous
With your made-to-order plastic-mask
You look so divine
Join Tor today!
It's still not a good thing, but note that Super Hero Happy Hour received the message in 2004. It's just now being brought to everyone's attention- and as others have pointed out, they've had the trademark for some time. The original BoingBoing post noted that Marvel was using a museum to strengthen its trademark argument (the TM note at the bottom of the page).
Still, between this and the NCSoft suit, I'm not at all happy with Marvel nowadays. This is the kind of thing that could hurt their authors. The Underwear Pervert blog (Boing Boing's suggestion to replace super heroes) gives examples of where authors published by these guys have used materials in the public domain, which they should be able to do.
According to the US Copyright and Trademark office, "superhero" or "superheroes" have been registered as trademarks in 31 cases, include Superhero underwear, Superhero skateboards,
Superheroes Television, a Superheroes School, a Superheroes Deli, a "Timmy the Superhero Toothbrush", etc, etc, etc. I don't see the "joint" registration by Marvel and D.C. of Superheroes or Superhero as a trademark for their comic books in the list. I don't understand the concept of a "joint" trademark. If it is a trademark, it isn't a registered one. It would be interesting to know when they started claiming that this was their trademark, how they think it became such a strong mark that nobody can use it as a trademark for something other than a comic book (such as a bar), and how they account for the 31 Superhero(es) marks that have already been registered.
Marvel and/or DC must feel that this comic is stealing some of their market, or they wouldn't have bothered with this. I don't know what they were worried about though, since I read a fair number of comics, and I'd never even heard of Super Hero Happy Hour.
Of course, I have now . . . .
Except by George Bernard Shaw. Who rolled Nietzshe's concept into a play, Man and Superman, a decade before Superman took wing.
Surely by now we've learned that there are nuances in translation. It's been decades since 'the wine is agreeable but the meat has spoiled' plopped out of some bit of literalist translation software. Likewise here: ultraman, superman, overman... they each have a distinctive flavor to their own meaning but none is a WRONG translation of the german uberman.
Consumers don't need trademarks to help them decide if a product is good -- the just need honest retailers. Would your local major chain grocery store sell a knock off Coca Cola with the same logo? I doubt it -- especially if Coca Cola said they'd stop selling to them. I buy generic diet cola because it is just fine for me -- and I have no desire to help Coca Cola stay on top just because of their marketing. The same is true of Dell or Ford.
The retailers are the ones picking the products to sell, and they make their profits on the most marketed items. Trademark is not really helping or harming in this situation. The fact that a word such as Superhero can be trademarked is ridiculous -- and it shows the harm that trademarking performs.
In the long run, you the consumer decide which products are worthy of purchasing, and the retailers listen and provide those products. If some retailers decide they'll buy the lower quality Coca Cola knock off, noting prevents Coca Cola from making new ways to prove you're buying the real thing (holograms, higher quality packing, etc).
That's before 1942 I think.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
That doesn't prove anything at all. The fact that one person got it wrong and other line up to follow only proves that those people are unaware of the correct translation.
What did you hope to demonstrate by your post?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
So what?
"Except by George Bernard Shaw. Who rolled Nietzshe's concept into a play, Man and Superman, a decade before Superman took wing."
This proves what exactly? That someone mistranslated something and it gained acceptance.
My point was that "Ubermensch" isn't translated as "Superman". Again, so what if a playwrite did it and other's accepted his mistranslation? That doesn't make it correct.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Why does Übermensch stand there and let the bullets bounce off of him when the bad guys shoot him, but when the bad guys run out of bullets and throw the gun at him Übermensch always ducks?
That Nietzsche was such an overrated philosopher.
This is a job for ... Trademark Man!
So THAT was the underpants gnomes' business plan:
1 - Steal underpants.
2 - Wear over tights, trademark this as 'superhero' look.
2a - When the term becomes generic, sue Everyone.
3 - Profit!
Consumers don't need trademarks to help them decide if a product is good -- the just need honest retailers.
Really? How do you propose to create this world of "honest retailers"? There are 50 Attorneys General that would love to hear your innovative ideas. eBay is hiring as well.
Would your local major chain grocery store sell a knock off Coca Cola with the same logo? I doubt it -- especially if Coca Cola said they'd stop selling to them.
That's a simplistic view of the supply chain and vendor networks. Do you suppose that every grocery chain buys directly from Coca Cola? Who supplies the vending machines in your building? Let's talk about the computer parts market, and how various RAM chips have widely varying quality yet are traded back and forth like coins-of-the-realm, repackaged as DIMMs, sold to distributors, and then retailers, and then consumers, and then to another consumer as used equipment...
If some retailers decide they'll buy the lower quality Coca Cola knock off, noting prevents Coca Cola from making new ways to prove you're buying the real thing (holograms, higher quality packing, etc).
Nothing prevents others from copying those ways, and they add expense that ultimately comes out of the consumers' pockets. Microsoft has gone about as far as you can go, and yet counterfeit product is rampant. How do you determine that you've bought the real thing in this situation? You discover after you've bought it that it is unsupported, shoddy, underspec, and then the fun of returns, disputes, and lawsuits begin.
You've convinced me. Trademarks certainly are unnecessary and useless.
Yes, they would in fact sell generic Cocoa Cola. Walmart would jump right up and label every single one of their Sam's products and market them as Cocoa Cola, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, etc. While they're at it, they'd just reverse engineer the recipe for Cocoa Cola and sell that. That, though, would only be the tip of the iceburg of misrepresentation. As if giant retailers give a shit what you think of them. They know you're going to shop at their stores because their prices are better and they have a wide selection. Most of their products are already shitty, and their business practices are already devoid of ethics. Abusing previously held trademarks?! Oh no, they'd never do that!
While trademark is still very much in the vein of "intellectual property" it does serve a very important function. It ensures that I can identify a given product as genuine. I know as an individual, if someone were to perform work claiming to be me, they could cause serious harm to my reputation for quality work.
Maybe a company could still be allowed to protect itself by scaling back trademark to include only the company's name. "The Coca-Cola Company" then could remain and identifying a product as coming from such when it does not could remain illegal.
Certainly I'd agree that the current use of trademarks is overly broad, and in a world without patents or copyrights the full spectrum of uses would need to be curtailed. (Note, I am not convinced that totally abolishing any of the three systems is in fact appropriate, but thats for a different thread.)
"Anyway, I don't see how Marvel/DC can claim a trademark on a word that has been in the popular lexicon for over fifty years."
I'm sure words like Word, Excel, Office, and Windows have been in use for more than fifty years and that didn't seem to slow things up too much.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
"If they filed the trademark decades ago, have they been enforcing it all along?"
Yes. Somewhat selectively, but yes.
"If so, then why is this news?"
It isn't. It's an attempt by a publicity whore to whore publicity.
Anything else?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Has anyone else noticed this story is over two years old? I thought maybe something new had happened in the case, but I guess not.
Where you been the last few dozen, 20, 30, 40 years? Trademark laws exist to protect "intellectualy property" so the owner can profit. Way it is, way its been. News? No. Right? No. Life moves on.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
These words have become commonly used household terms now. I think the trademarks should no longer apply. Really... if someone wants to make a fan-flic called Superman 10, then why not? It's not like, by the time your product is a household word, you haven't made much money yet.
"Get off it dude. You're wrong."
You know what, I'm tired of this. Show me.
"Or, how do you translate the following..."
Ok, so because you posted a few completely unrelated examples, you think this demonstrates what?
All of your examples are perfectly acceptable using my stated definition of what "over" meant in the case of "Ubermensch". Just because you like that the english version translates nicely, you leave out all the examples where it doesn't support your point. Sneaky that.
"and many more..."
Which matter exactly as much as your others. That is, none.
So, if you were trying to demonstrate something other than your inability to construct a coherent refutation, then you failed.
And with that, I'm finished correcting you and the others like you who accept the mistranslation.
Live in ignorance. I couldn't care less.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Geez, the link goes to a 2 year old story.
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
They must have confused this universe with a parallel dimension where only DC and Marvel make superhero comics. :)
The etymology of "super" isn't up for debate.
Nothing you've said does anything other than attempt to change the subject, which is, "Ubermensch" doesn't translate as "superman". It doesn't.
So again, what was your point?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
... and noticed something I did not:
>the comic was renamed over 2 years ago and BoingBoing's most recent blurb was merely there to announce that Marvel and DC, by sponsoring a science show, got Superhero(TM) included in one of the flyers.
I *HATE* that!
But, as you say, the article links to a posting dated 01-30-2004 . So why is this news?
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"I seem to remember the Greeks writing tales of superheroes about 2 millennia before DC or Marvel "invented" the concept?"
No, that's wrong. You CHOOSE to believe this, but you're wrong. You honestly believe that you're the first to bring up this idea? You also honestly believe it hasn't been refuted?
The "heroes" you refer to don't fit the accepted definition of what a "superhero" is. You may not like that, but you didn't create the genre, so you don't get to define it.
"Patently, applying a term like "super hero" to fantastic heroic figures is almost devoid of any such novelty."
Correct, but that isn't what happened. You, and many like you, assume things that aren't true. The previous statement is one of those things.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Evil supervillian lawyers would come up with a scheme so twisted, so nefarious, so ironically self-defeating.
Wow... you really ARE smarter than GBS *AND* the entire planet's accumulation of AI experts and linguists. There REALLY IS just one way to translate anything between two languages.
Just because you say it twice.
I don't know that it matters too much for the conversation, but the last news from the website (dated Feb 23, 2005) says the comic book will no longer be published.
The article linked in this article is from January of 2004...
Little late for us all to be outraged...
Palladium Books http://www.palladiumbooks.com/ had the same problem long ago when they went to make a superhero rpg... hence the reason the title, "Heroes Unlimited"...
So, I can make a trademark out of common language use? Who owns "antihero", "neohero", "nonhero" and other combinations that can pass my spell checker? How about the plural, "heros"? I created that, right? How much of your language do you want to have to beg a publisher to use?
I think that much argument can be made that they have long since lost any claim to the trademark.
Yeah, but they have more money and time than you do, so they are likely to win as often as they want. That's what happened here. As an anti-competitive measure, it backfired. While that's great for GeekPunk, it's bad for anyone else who wants to use their language without asking for permission first.
Big Al is Super. I'd like to see the people from South Park turn him into a superhero or at least an antihero. That would teach these morons a lesson.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"In this case, the meaning of "Übermensch" would be the same as "superman"."
I agree. But that is the meaning not the translation. It would be translated as "Overman" with the definition of over in this case being "above or greater than, beyond".
It seems many many other people insist on trying to make the case that because it MEANS superman that it should translate as superman, but the use of "over" in the way I've demonstrated makes perfect sense.
Shaw got it wrong. I'm done with this silliness now.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
You can't have SUPER HEROES but you can have
Super Heroes
Superheroes
and..............SUPERHEROES.
BECAUSE...I can have superheroes Ubermenchen superbeings supramen
I could give a damn what the "big two" are doing.
They quit being entertaining when Kamandi ended and "Blue Devil" started.
Underground and small shop beat them blind any day.
They don't Deserve SUPER HEROES.So many Before them had SUPER HEROES it is public domain.
so you can tell em to taste taint.Don't be a wuss about it or we'll all have to put up with another microsoft in pulp.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Easy there, "steal" is such a harsh word. The proper term is to "collect" underpants. The gnomes will now sue you for defaming their character by saying they steal, which will also bring them to "3) Profit!"
You proved nothing, and demonstrated that you're a childish individual.
Your parents would be proud.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
So "Ubermensch" translated as "Overman" where "over" means "above, greater than, beyond, more gifted than" is LESS accurate than "Superman"?
Of course not, and yet you and others will continue to argue otherwise.
I'm done with this for good now.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Have they not tradmarked supevillian? They really should, otherwise the message sent to impressionable children and adults will be that in order to stay free, you need to be super-evil.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I think yes, the term is used for a lot of things. Here's what the patent and trademark office shows regarding this:
SUPERHERO is owned by David & Goliath, Inc. for use on clothing
SUPER HERO Oooh, this one's for skin cream
So it isn't reserved across everything, where is it reserved?
SUPER HEROES FOUND IT!!!
Goods and services: " PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY COMIC BOOKS AND MAGAZINES AND STORIES IN ILLUSTRATED FORM [(( ; CARDBOARD STAND-UP FIGURES; PLAYING CARDS; PAPER IRON-ON TRANSFER; ERASERS; PENCIL SHARPENERS; PENCILS; GLUE FOR OFFICE AND HOME USE, SUCH AS IS SOLD AS STATIONERY SUPPLY;] NOTEBOOKS AND STAMP ALBUMS )). FIRST USE: 19661000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19661000"
So, they technically can ONLY press this against comic book writers (and other publishers).
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
If this is allowed to continue then the next thing you know some company will trademark generic terms like "Windows". Sheesh..
The editors really need to check for freshness on this one.
Keith
Um, did anybody chack the date on TFA? It was posted 2 years ago. This is old news.
Also, the book folded over a year ago.
"I know you're done, but I don't care. I'm responding anyway."
Right, because you don't listen. Despite the fact I stated I was done, you decided to rant anyway. YOU DON'T LISTEN. Which is really funny because then you say this
"I don't know why you're sticking on this silly point so much."
I'm not. YOU'RE the one replying to someone who finshed commenting on the topic a while ago.
Apart from insisting you're correct when you're wrong, you should also examine why you think it's ok to call someone out for something when you're doing it yourself.
And then maybe ask yourself if that same hypocrisy and bull headedness are present in other areas. Like the current subject, which you're wrong about, but continue to argue over.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A trademark is a mark of trade. It's so you know who you're dealing with. If you buy Kleenex (TM), you know you're getting it from the same organization you did last time.
So if you hear "Super Hero Comic", do you know which organization you're dealing with? No, you don't. It could be either of two competing organizations that produced it. So it's not a trademark, it's just two big companies trying to keep competitors out. This should not be permitted.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Damn straight ! Go sue me Marvel/DC. I dare ya !
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
GP made the assertion, it's up to him to support it. He stated that something was true, yet gave no evidence that the heroes of myth are equivalent to superheroes.
_ superheroes_in_comic_books
So why did you post to me looking for evidence? Did you do the same for the GP?
Read the Wiki. It explains it better than I could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero#History_of
But more than that, you should ask yourself why you only ask for evidence from people who disagree with you, instead of from everyone making assertions. That's your bias, and you should try to improve yourself by doing away with it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Why would you ask me that when you can look it up for yourself? I'm not being a jerk, I want to know.
Why do you think that asking me a question you can find an answer to is worthy of a response? Why can't you just look it up like I did?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Only old people use Britannica.
Join Tor today!
This was a over a year ago. This is not a recent development.
posted under the Fair Use doctrine of the US Copyright Act as a review of methods and products of the Marvel Comics group
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Trademark that, b!tches.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78356610
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=76526513
(ice cream, actually)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=73222079
(dear lord, I posted elsewhere that there's no way the USPTO would allow that mark to be registered for those goods. Is it even remotely possible the term wasn't in generic use 25 years ago??)
This is just legal bullying to enforce a mark that they know they've already lost.
Sincerely, I think they just xerox off these threats to everyone to augment their balance sheets that are as limp as damp kleenex. Their case is solid as a pile of jello.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
That the artist and his company are getting a good chunk of business driven their way... I know that I was interested enough that I ordered the graphic novel that they had on their site. Daniel
Wonderful Hero
Great Hero
Marvelous Hero
Fabulous Hero
Tremendous Hero
Very good Hero
Excellent Hero
Splendid Hero
Terrific Hero
Superb Hero
Brilliant Hero
Superior Hero
Super Hero
Better Hero
Enhanced Hero
Improved Hero
Outstanding Hero
High-quality Hero
Best quality Hero
First class Hero
High-class Hero
So have the gotten to them all? Probably not. Just use a new one each issue in protest and your fans will love you.
And since when is a trademark owned by two companies at once for the same product?
I trust this guy has talked to his lawyers and someone believes the comic companies have a case, but it seems to this observer that he was cowed by yet another SLL (Scary Lawyer Letter).
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This one time, I was getting mugged in a dark alleyway, and SouperMan came to rescue me. I thought I was saved, but all he did was give the thug a bowl of hot soup and a card advertising some restaurant. I felt totally gyped.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I always look for the "cpt kangarooski"(tm) brand posts. Quality legal information at a reasonable price, you can't go wrong with a "cpt kangarooski"(tm) post!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh for crying out loud. Let's put this in perspective. Only Marvel and DC comics have the right to use the term "Super-Hero" to sell a comic or other publication.
That prohibits use of the term on the cover or title of any such publication by anyone else.
However, you can still write books about garishly costumed people with powers beyond those of the average man. You can even call them super heroes between the covers of the book! You just can't use the term in the marketing of the book.
Hey even mighty DC Comics ended up on the short end of that stick. They have the rights to the original Captain Marvel character (aka Billy Batson, as published originally in Fawcett Comics, later bought out by DC). However, during the time between Fawcett's last publication of the character and DC's resuming it, the trademark lapsed. Marvel Comics asserted trademark rights to any derivative of the term "Marvel" on a comic book. They even went so far as to create their own character named "Captain Marvel"
DC Still publishes books featuring their Captain Marvel, but cannot use his name on the cover of any of the comics. Nor on any related merchandise. Instead they refer to "Shazam!", the word used by Billy to become Capt. Marvel (and the name of the wizard who gave him those powers.
This is just a whining campaign by some people who were ignorant of the existing trademark on the term Super-Hero. They just have to stop using the term on the covers of their books. What's the big deal? ( They're probably doing all this complaining to get their book some cheap publicity, I guess)
Be Seeing You, Shawn Levasseur -Rockland ME
Maybe the thug had some cruton-ite and was thus saved from the punishment that could have been dish'ed out. ;)
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
Our Herpes
:)
Pure Horse
He so pure
See ho purr
Well, that one doesn't even have the same *number* of letters... so I guess that means you're free to start marketing comic books under that name any time now. Just don't tell me what they're going to be about, please.
some of them aren't even super, just spider or atomic. I have a right to know if some of them just have skilz. Those of us who are really super take these things seriously.
...it could've been a dupe of a years-old story.
That "arcing capacitors cause plasma TV recall" article got posted again too. I'm still trying to decide if it's the capacitor manufacturers or Slashdot who have worse quality control. At least Slashdot doesn't burst into flames when it fails... Err...
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
This is like Ford getting together with Peugot to trademark the word "car" and prevent other car manufacturers from using it.
s p
Or Microsoft preventing others using the term "operating system".
BTW: "Windows" was used by others before Microsoft to develop a windowed interface.
Quote: Lindows.com on Tuesday won an important early tactical victory against Microsoft in their ongoing trademark dispute. The judge ruled that 'windows' must be considered in its historical user-interface context.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1524941,00.a
Microsoft paid $20 million so that Lindows give up the Lindows name and assign related Web domains to them.
Garry Anderson - skilful.com - wipo.org.uk
You have to understand, Libertarians believe that the free market will fix everything, and that all evil comes from government coercion. They will twist themselves into pretzels in order to uphold those points. Therefore, there is no way they could ever admit the utility of something government enforced like trademarks. They would have to throw out their entire philosophy. Try talking with them about monopolies and externalities and you will see the kind of "nyah nyah nyah nyah I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" craziness this engenders. It's as if they have invented an entire new language where you can't even express the idea of government doing something useful.
It makes arguing with them rather pointless, so I generally don't even try anymore.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm not sure, but didn't the Company that makes Band-Aid brand bandages have to change their labeling from just Band-Aid to Band-Aid Brand Bandages? Isn't there a precedent for losing the rights to a term you invented if that term enters the lexicon as a generic description of the product?
9x out of 10, if you ask someone to name a "superhero" they are going to name one of DC or Marvel's characters.
Can't blame the companies for attempting to prevent the "dilution" of their brand recognition.
Wasn't this what Kleenex from Johnson and Johnson fought over for tissue and Xerox for photocopies?
Do people commonly refer to them as batty boys instead?
I was attempting to make a joke based on an previous story titled “In Korea, Email Is Only For Old People”.
Join Tor today!
gods, Greek, German, Egyptian, Roman, Jewish, Mayan, Aztec, Native American, Hindu, Norse, etc.
The original SUPER HEROS, Titans, Valkyries, Heros of Old, Giants, the sons of gods mating with the daughters of men.
So piss off, silly cartoon drawers!
JESUS said, 'I am the truth the way and the life.'
Raises people from the dead (and he didn't have to spin the planet backwards to do it!)
Can Greek and Roman pagan churches sue Harry Potter for intellectual property theft?
http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1447
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
I'm sure words like Word, Excel, Office, and Windows have been in use for more than fifty years and that didn't seem to slow things up too much.
Not with respect to specific software programs, fuckwit. Wheras "superhero" is almost exclusively used with comic book charachters.
Cory Doctorow recommends we not use the moniker "super-heroes" anymore and to replace it with "underwear perverts", but changing my website name to ZerotoUnderwearPerverts.com doesn't have that "zing" I'm looking for.
Hey, Cory's a cool guy and I'm definetely a fan of his stuff, but I'm second guessing his latest recommendation.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Assuming for the sake of argument that D.C. and Marvel did invent the term "superhero", it has obviously lost its exclusivity to these companies in common usage. Much like Zipper and Asprin, which began life as trademarks but became "ordinary" words through usage and were properly ruled to be such. If the legal system still worked, I would suggest other comic publishers ignore D.C./Marvel's attempt to abuse trademark law to surpress competition. But since these days the court could (ignoring the relevent precident) rule in favor of D.C./Marvel . . .