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.

Comments

Unenforced?

[Tiger Smile]

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.

This was TWO YEARS AGO!

[1u3hr]

The posts linked are dated 01-30-2004.

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.

Re:"Superhero" as a trade mark?

[mausmalone]

They haven't trademarked the concept of a super hero, just the term. What I don't get is how one could trademark a classification or genre. The way it seems to me (and please let me know if I'm way off base), it's like if one record company could trademark a genre (let's say "punk") and then prevent all other companies from releasing music using the genre name, regardless of the fact that that's the correct classification... and also preventing people from making a "punk hour" at a bar even if they'll be having a live performance and the term is applicable. Does that seem like a good analogy?

Re:Yes, it is.

[dougmc]

Anyway, the OED first lists the term being used in 1917 by Greenhill Press, so they would hold the trademark if anyone.

That's not how trademarks work. It's not like copyright, where it's automatic -- you have to file for a trademark, and if you don't, somebody else can. I think a lot of companies file for trademarks for every little catch phrase and slogan they use or think they'll use, not because they really want to `own' it, but because they don't want anybody else going after them for using it. Seems a big waste, but if that's what the system requires to protect yourself ...

I still think that the term `super hero' is so generic (or has become so) that any trademarks on it should be invalid, but that's another issue. Trademark law (unlike patent or copyright law) has a provision that a company must protect it's trademarks or they'll lose them, and in this case I'd say the phrase was or is so commonly used that they should lose it, if they even have it.

I saw `if they even have it' because I did a search on the US Trademark site for a trademark on `super hero' or `superhero' and didn't find any on just those two words that applied to comics. I did find a few for things like `Marvel Super Heros', but nothing just on `super hero' related to comics. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place or something?

Re:"Superhero" as a trade mark?

[AlterTick]

"The concept of superheros"

Nobody said anything about 'concepts'.

When they claimed trademark on the term "superheroes" they sure as heck did say something about "concepts". Unlike "Superman", or "Batman", or "Spiderman", the term "superhero" doesn't refer to anything in particular, but rather a generic set of things. Trademark is not like a patent, where the holder can use it to stake out a market segment and keep competitors out. THe purpose of trademarks is entirely for consumer protection, to prevent confusion in the marketplace. The fact that the term "superhero" exists in the common vernacular as a generic concept that nobody (other than a handful of jackass lawyers and executives at DC & Marvel) associates with any particular company's or companies' products, combined with the fact that their defense of said trademark over the last 40 years has been practically nil, obviously raises huge questions as to the validity of the trademark.