#1 La marca "super hero"
THE SUPER HERO TRADEMARK STORY
There’s good press and then there’s something like the editorial which ran in Sunday’s LA Times. In it, the unidentified editorial writer takes umbrage at the placement of the trademark symbol ™ after the word “super hero” as part of the California Science Center's latest exhibit, entitled: Marvel Super Heroes Science Exhibition.
The term “super-hero,” as long-time comic fans (albeit long time comic fans who pay attention to this kind of stuff) know, has been property of two companies for a quarter century. Marvel and DC jointly hold the trademark on the term “super hero,” and have done so since 1981. Why has this particular sprout of outrage has pushed up through the dirt this time? Since, like many other Newsarama readers, you’re probably the “comic book expert” in at least one of your social circles, someone might just ask you about this, after they read a teeth-gnashing editorial about a 25 year old trademark filing, we felt an explanation was in order.
So where did this attention come from, and what’s it about?
Tracking things back through the ether, as best as possible, BoingBoing.net’s Cory Doctorow found the ™ following the term in the ad for the Science Center exhibit and railed against it on the popular site, suggesting that, in a nod to Warren Ellis, that popular culture stop using the term “super hero” and instead use “underwear perverts”…for one. Claiming that Marvel Comics is “stealing our language,” Doctorow wrote:
“Here's a proposal: from now on, let's never use the term "super-hero" to describe a Marvel character. Let's call them "underwear perverts" -- as Warren Ellis is wont to -- or vigilantes, or mutants. Let's reserve the term "super-hero" exclusively to describe the heros of comics published by companies that aren't crooked word-thieves.”
Note – though Doctorow is only bringing Marvel into the fight, as noted, the term is jointly held by both Marvel and DC.
Along with Doctorow’s comments, Sci-Fi Wire recently got some play when it pulled a Newsarama story from two years ago, in regards to Dan Taylor’s Super Hero Happy Hour changing its name to Hero Happy Hour. Between the two, apparently, the zeitgeist reached a temperature high enough to bring out a major newspaper editorial on a 25 year old trademark filing.
According to consistent versions of how the trademark filing came to be, it involves toymaker Mego looking to create a line of action figures that would be called “World’s Greatest Super Heroes,” which would include characters owned by both Marvel and DC. This, and other considerations resulted in the two companies seeking joint ownership of the trademark for the term “super hero,” which, as the application claims, had been in use since 1966. The claim was filed in 1979, went unchallenged, and went into effect (USPTO #73222079) in 1981.
The co-registration then, allows only (as Dan Taylor learned) Marvel and DC to use the term in their products (comics, publications, costumes, toys, belts, television and film). As such, only Marvel and DC are legally allowed to use the term “super hero” commercially, that is, a new publisher, again, as Taylor learned, cannot use the phrase “super hero” on the cover of a comic, or as part of the marketing. Characters can be referred to as super heroes, given that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the term, not a copyright.
Aside from the overall filing for the term, both Marvel and DC own variations on the theme, for example, DC’s Legion of Super-Heroes and “Marvel Super Heroes,” both of which are solely owned by DC and Marvel, respectively. There are other, viable and legal, trademarks for “super hero” registered with the USPTO, but only for other product categories that are not covered under the Marvel/DC filing.
The larger legal claim of the trademark for "super hero" being held by both Marvel and DC is that in use, the term refers to, or indicates a Marvel or DC property, which, in much of the 1970s and ‘80s was largely true. As it was pointed out by observers when Taylor announced the name change of his series, Marvel and DC are obligated to protect their trademark, unless they wish to lose it – that is, both Marvel and DC have to use it, and defend the ownership of it to those who would challenge it, otherwise, “super hero” would lose its association with either Marvel or DC, and would enter the general usage. It’s a similar issue with Kleenex ® Xerox ® and other companies whose products have become synonymous with an entire category of goods – “tissue” is not trademarked, whereas “Kleenex ®” is. Both the Xerox and Kimberly-Clark (which owns Kleenex®) spend considerable amounts of money annually to remind other advertisers, artists and writers that legally, you cannot have a character in a novel walk into the copy room and “make a Xerox.” Cellophane and kerosene were at one time names of specific products which ultimately, due to a combination of widespread use and lack of adequate protection, became general terms of entire classes of products.
So – could the Marvel/DC hold on “super hero” one day be challenged? Sure – it could, and the term could end up going down cellophane road, but who would? Are there other “super heroes” out there? Sure. Thousands. When someone says “super hero” do they think of Marvel and DC characters, or any of these others? Has “super hero” come to mean, just in the natural evolution of language, something more than just, specifically or predominantly, characters from Marvel and DC?
Arguments for and against could be made, obviously, but then, of course, you go back to the who of it all – who would have the resources to challenge Time-Warner (owner of DC) and Marvel (who’s proven to be no slouch in defending itself in court lately)?
So there you go – when you’re asked what all this “super hero” stuff is about, now you know.
NewsaramaThere’s good press and then there’s something like the editorial which ran in Sunday’s LA Times. In it, the unidentified editorial writer takes umbrage at the placement of the trademark symbol ™ after the word “super hero” as part of the California Science Center's latest exhibit, entitled: Marvel Super Heroes Science Exhibition.
The term “super-hero,” as long-time comic fans (albeit long time comic fans who pay attention to this kind of stuff) know, has been property of two companies for a quarter century. Marvel and DC jointly hold the trademark on the term “super hero,” and have done so since 1981. Why has this particular sprout of outrage has pushed up through the dirt this time? Since, like many other Newsarama readers, you’re probably the “comic book expert” in at least one of your social circles, someone might just ask you about this, after they read a teeth-gnashing editorial about a 25 year old trademark filing, we felt an explanation was in order.
So where did this attention come from, and what’s it about?
Tracking things back through the ether, as best as possible, BoingBoing.net’s Cory Doctorow found the ™ following the term in the ad for the Science Center exhibit and railed against it on the popular site, suggesting that, in a nod to Warren Ellis, that popular culture stop using the term “super hero” and instead use “underwear perverts”…for one. Claiming that Marvel Comics is “stealing our language,” Doctorow wrote:
“Here's a proposal: from now on, let's never use the term "super-hero" to describe a Marvel character. Let's call them "underwear perverts" -- as Warren Ellis is wont to -- or vigilantes, or mutants. Let's reserve the term "super-hero" exclusively to describe the heros of comics published by companies that aren't crooked word-thieves.”
Note – though Doctorow is only bringing Marvel into the fight, as noted, the term is jointly held by both Marvel and DC.
Along with Doctorow’s comments, Sci-Fi Wire recently got some play when it pulled a Newsarama story from two years ago, in regards to Dan Taylor’s Super Hero Happy Hour changing its name to Hero Happy Hour. Between the two, apparently, the zeitgeist reached a temperature high enough to bring out a major newspaper editorial on a 25 year old trademark filing.
According to consistent versions of how the trademark filing came to be, it involves toymaker Mego looking to create a line of action figures that would be called “World’s Greatest Super Heroes,” which would include characters owned by both Marvel and DC. This, and other considerations resulted in the two companies seeking joint ownership of the trademark for the term “super hero,” which, as the application claims, had been in use since 1966. The claim was filed in 1979, went unchallenged, and went into effect (USPTO #73222079) in 1981.
The co-registration then, allows only (as Dan Taylor learned) Marvel and DC to use the term in their products (comics, publications, costumes, toys, belts, television and film). As such, only Marvel and DC are legally allowed to use the term “super hero” commercially, that is, a new publisher, again, as Taylor learned, cannot use the phrase “super hero” on the cover of a comic, or as part of the marketing. Characters can be referred to as super heroes, given that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the term, not a copyright.
Aside from the overall filing for the term, both Marvel and DC own variations on the theme, for example, DC’s Legion of Super-Heroes and “Marvel Super Heroes,” both of which are solely owned by DC and Marvel, respectively. There are other, viable and legal, trademarks for “super hero” registered with the USPTO, but only for other product categories that are not covered under the Marvel/DC filing.
The larger legal claim of the trademark for "super hero" being held by both Marvel and DC is that in use, the term refers to, or indicates a Marvel or DC property, which, in much of the 1970s and ‘80s was largely true. As it was pointed out by observers when Taylor announced the name change of his series, Marvel and DC are obligated to protect their trademark, unless they wish to lose it – that is, both Marvel and DC have to use it, and defend the ownership of it to those who would challenge it, otherwise, “super hero” would lose its association with either Marvel or DC, and would enter the general usage. It’s a similar issue with Kleenex ® Xerox ® and other companies whose products have become synonymous with an entire category of goods – “tissue” is not trademarked, whereas “Kleenex ®” is. Both the Xerox and Kimberly-Clark (which owns Kleenex®) spend considerable amounts of money annually to remind other advertisers, artists and writers that legally, you cannot have a character in a novel walk into the copy room and “make a Xerox.” Cellophane and kerosene were at one time names of specific products which ultimately, due to a combination of widespread use and lack of adequate protection, became general terms of entire classes of products.
So – could the Marvel/DC hold on “super hero” one day be challenged? Sure – it could, and the term could end up going down cellophane road, but who would? Are there other “super heroes” out there? Sure. Thousands. When someone says “super hero” do they think of Marvel and DC characters, or any of these others? Has “super hero” come to mean, just in the natural evolution of language, something more than just, specifically or predominantly, characters from Marvel and DC?
Arguments for and against could be made, obviously, but then, of course, you go back to the who of it all – who would have the resources to challenge Time-Warner (owner of DC) and Marvel (who’s proven to be no slouch in defending itself in court lately)?
So there you go – when you’re asked what all this “super hero” stuff is about, now you know.
Basicamente ahi dice que DC y Marvel registraron en conjunto la marca "super hero". O sea, que son los unicos que pueden utilizar esa expresion. En realidad, como explica el articulo, solo ellos pueden poner en la tapa de las revistas cosas como "World’s Greatest Super Heroes", pero si cualquiera puede llamar super heroes a sus personajes.
Al final se cuestiona que pasa con la marca, si no sufre lo que paso con algunas marcas que pasaron a ser mas de uso comun, como Gillete, Curitas y esas cosas.
Esta bueno el articulo.
0
