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

Re:Is it really so crazy?

[rolfwind]

Ever hear of Ubermensch? I pretty sure the philosopher Nietsche coined it in the 1880's or around that time, but I could be wrong.

From the German, it literally translates to "Super" "Person".

http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Kn owles.htm

Isn't this a 2 year old story?

[snarlydwarf]

Did I wake up wrong or something?

Aren't all the dates on this "news" story from 2004?

No, id doesn't

[GuloGulo]

"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.

Re:Again so what?

[GuloGulo]

"Yawn. So your hypothesis is that its illegitimate to use the prefix 'super' as a translation for the german prefix "uber"?"

No. My position, which is correct, is that there is NO NEED to change "Overman" to "Superman" because "Overman" fits perfectly.

What Shaw did is meaningless to me, as well as to the point. For someone apparently grounded in logic, you failed t=with the introduction (repeatedly) of that silly fallacy.

And all YOU'VE done is point to Shaw and repeat "nuh uh, he said...". I'm sure you're feeling very smug, but you've actually said nothing.

"Personally, I think you should move on to your next bit of schtick and tell us that JFK proclaimed he was a jelly doughnut."

WTF does this sentence mean? Why do you have to be such a snide prick?

This explains it

[GuloGulo]

"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.