5. In 1980—decades after the birth of super heroes—DC and Marvel jointly registered SUPER HEROES as a trademark.
6. DC and Marvel claim that no one can use the term SUPER HERO (or superhero, super-hero, or any other version of the term) without their permission. DC and Marvel are wrong. Trademark law does not permit companies to claim ownership over an entire genre. SUPER HERO is a generic term that should not be protected as a trademark.
7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.
20. DC has accused Superbabies of infringing DC’s “SUPER”-related trademarks, has filed an opposition to Superbabies’ trademark applications (TTAB Trademark Opposition No. 91290757), and has threatened further legal action. DC has asserted the exclusive right to use “the prefix SUPER followed by a generic term for a human being."
There's also some examples of SUPER HERO used as a generic term by DC and Marvel. I know of some companies being famously strict about trademark use (example https://www.velcro.com/original-thinking/the-velcro-brand-tr...), and yet these uses seem benign. For example, a splash at the top of a comic book "DCs BOLDEST new super-hero" (without TM, with dash). Now I have to be careful about using any of my company's trademarks. I'm not sure I fully understand how this example is generic and harmful.
> 7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.
I'm baffled how this was ever allowed in the first place. It's like Marvel and DC went to the trademark office and said "Yes! We'd like to collude to prevent any other competitors from using these terms." and the trademark office was like "Collusion it is! Have a nice day!"
I'm not surprised that you can pretend to do that in a trademark office, but I'm more surprised that it does not trigger an antitrust investigation by authorities as it is clearly the 2 dominant players colluding to prevent having any competition!
What would happen if DC and Marvel established a body of organizations concerned with comics, which just happened to consist of the two of them and nobody else, and that body was the one holding the trademark?
As far as I'm aware, that's a completely normal set of events, but the effect is the same.
What you've described is essentially what led to the Sherman Antitrust Act in the first place ("trusts" in this case were exactly the kind of body of companies in the same industry that you describe). The two most dominant companies in the industry are simply not allowed to collude like this to the exclusion of competitors.
But there's nothing stopping them from jointly holding a trademark through a trade association. The United Negro College Fund holds a trademark on the phrase "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". It's a group with closed membership. This is just the normal, intended functioning of the system.
The problem with the SUPER HERO trademark is that it's descriptive, not that it's held by a trade association.
> The problem with the SUPER HERO trademark is that it's descriptive, not that it's held by a trade association.
No, that's wrong, because the court clearly specified both problems as being reasons for invalidating the mark:
> 6. DC and Marvel claim that no one can use the term SUPER HERO (or superhero, super-hero, or any other version of the term) without their permission. DC and Marvel are wrong. Trademark law does not permit companies to claim ownership over an entire genre. SUPER HERO is a generic term that should not be protected as a trademark.
> 7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.
I think that’d lead to the same challenges: it’d be trivial to show that usage of the term predated that organization by decades, and anyone making an argument about collusion or antitrust would be able to point to the existence of a closed group created by the top two competitors as evidence rather than a defense.
The preexisting use unrelated to Apple Records products wasn't affected by their trademark, whereas with superhero it is the preexisting generic use that is directly targeted.
Preexistence is still fully irrelevant. The generic use can come into being 50 years after the trademark does and it will still make the trademark invalid. Or it can die 50 years after the improper grant of a trademark and cause that trademark to become valid.
A descriptive term can't be trademarked, and using "super hero" to refer to stories about superheroes is descriptive. But there is no chronological consideration.
It is still relevant. The fact that it is preexisting is obvious evidence that it shouldn't have been granted or was immediately overturned on challenge.
The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow
> The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow
Again, so what? Would they give you a trademark on "The Bawdy House" for your chain of brothels? The problem with "computers", "internet", and "AI" is current usage, not former usage.
How many of those uses of “Apple” were for sales of recorded music? Trademarks aren’t a flat namespace and in this case a court would be looking at the use of that term by multiple companies to refer to similar things prior to creation of our hypothetical organization by those companies with a history of litigation against earlier users, all of which would suggest that this is a generic term they’re trying to close off.
No, I haven’t. Since multiple other people have needed to correct you, there’s clearly a communications failure here. The U.S. PTO has a good background page discussing how they assess the strength of a claim:
This helps us understand that “Apple records” can be a trademark because even though “apple” is an old, generic term for agriculture it wasn’t generic in the context of selling music and only that one company was using it there. Similarly, their examples note that “app store” is generic which is why you always see it referred to as the “Apple App Store”, and Apple’s suit against Amazon’s for use of the term failed.
In this case, the trademark for “superhero” as opposed to “Marvel superhero” involves questions about how strongly consumers identify that term with those companies. That’s where the history comes in, and why it doesn’t change matters if they created a shell organization. The question would involve both prior use by other companies and how over that time popular usage has shifted – has it specialized to mean only the DC/Marvel characters, or do consumers think of any over-powered character as a superhero regardless of whether it’s a DC/Marvel property. Transferring ownership to an organization controlled by the two current holders is a legal maneuver which doesn’t control whether the public usage is descriptive or generic instead of referring to products specifically made by those two companies.
i didn't mean to imply that it did, just that the idea of sharing a trademark is not as ridiculous if you consider that licensing a trademark i possible and the result would mostly have been the same.
The intended point of a trademark is essentially to prevent scams. E.g. nobody is allowed to sell something called an "apple computer" except apple. The interest doesnt change with time. (In contrast the theoretical point of copyright and patents is to allow people to recoup r&d costs. Eventually at some point the holder has had a fair shot at recouping the cost, so there is a time limit)
> The intended point of a trademark is essentially to prevent scams.
This is why I think that companies should lose their trademarks in case of scandals, e.g. privacy infringements or security breaches. This is a much better punishment than fines which are often just a slap on the wrist. And to the consumer, a scandal often feels similar to being scammed.
A trademark is a symbol of trust. And companies who are not trustworthy should not be able to use it.
And why trademarks should be dissolved in bankruptcy, not treated as a transferable asset. If there’s a break in continuity of the provider, then the public has no guarantees about the quality after such a break.
They should also not extend to works of fiction, or individual products. Preventing other companies from impersonating your company is one thing, but I don't care if six companies make a Thinginator-o-Matic 9000.
That said, your stripping suggestion is interesting.
That's also happened: Aspirin, escalator, cellophane, laundromat, kerosene, thermos, and zipper are all former trademarks now considered generic terms.
It was. However trademarks, much like patents, are made as generic as possible in order to give the company as much control and value as possible. Tech Dirt is filled with articles of trademark trolling.
> The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled for S.J. Richold's Superbabies Ltd after Disney's Marvel and Warner Bros' DC did not file an answer to Superbabies' request to invalidate the marks.
So, canceled after the companies declined to defend them.
> Marvel and DC have cited their marks in opposing dozens of superhero-related trademark applications at the USPTO, according to the office's records.
It's not like they haven't been using them, they just knew that at this point they'd have lost if they tried to actually fight it. Most previous groups probably folded immediately under pressure from the giants.
I imagine that the DC legal team were well aware that the trademark was indefensible but figured that the expense of counter suing a well funded industry giant would cause most small players to fold immediately. Their luck ran out in the end but they got a few decades out of it.
If the DC legal team knew their TM was indefensible, they ought to have picked their battles FAR more carefully. Because sending a demand letter to a target likely to contest the TM, would be the end of the TM. Which is exactly what happened.
They could have literally kept their TM - to sue another day - if they had chosen to look the other way with superbabies.
So, my point was whether it was hubris that led to the decision to go after superbabies, or failure instituting unsexy (but necessary) internal dilligence checklists.
> If the DC legal team knew their TM was indefensible, they ought to have picked their battles FAR more carefully. Because sending a demand letter to a target likely to contest the TM, would be the end of the TM
One special aspect of trademark law is that you can also lose a trademark by failing to protect it.
I think their point is that they already effectively lost the trademark—they only had it on paper. That paper was enough to scare a lot of people into paying, but now even those who were cowed into paying a license fee in the past are free to stop.
Letting one more usage slide would not make "Super Heroes" more generic.
If they looked the other way, it would become obvious to other players that the trademark was indefensible, and they would lose the trademark in practice even if it was not revoked.
>an article titled "A British Super Hero" in a 1918 newspaper
trademark does not work like patents, prior art is not a thing. The question is whether anyone else uses the mark in trade, exchanging money for goods/services. Usage outside of that context does not matter.
you get diluted and lose your trademark when the public uses the term generically in trade, in your line of business, and not in reference to your product, not just because they use the term.
for example, the automobile Mercury Comet is named after two generic things, a Greek god and an space body. So what, they are used in trade for particular automobiles.
Comet is also the name of a cleaning product. The two are not in the same line of business, so they don't get confused, and there is no conflict, but you can't start selling another Comet cleaner, or Comet car.
While there is no prior art, there is prior use, in trade. But in that case, the trademark belongs to the prior user, not to the world at large. If the prior user stops using it, like Aunt Jemima is no longer used for pancake syrup, then the term becomes free for anybody to use for pancake syrup. (I'll bet that company still uses that name for some pancake syrup product, like for institutional use, so they can stop anybody else from using it.)
I'll bet that company still uses that name for some pancake syrup product
a related story: in many european countries the product "twix" was named "raider", until some day they decided to unify the brand and rename it to twix. but apparently, every few years they sell a batch under the old name "raider" presumably just so they can keep the trademark.
I think that’s the other side of the same theory: the reason it’s worth owning as a trademark is that millions of people remember it. Keeping it alive is cheap as long as the cost of printing labels is lower than the profits from a limited run.
> If the prior user stops using it, like Aunt Jemima is no longer used for pancake syrup, then the term becomes free for anybody to use for pancake syrup.
You know, I never thought of that. I kind of wonder why nobody has thought to revive those trademarks and take the market that the company had built up. I don't really believe that you would have enough pushback (because some people find the trademark offensive) to make it not worth one's while to get an instant market for their competing pancake syrup.
Honestly surprised the trademark wasn't nullified earlier. It's pretty clear the term has become genericised at best, and was in common use before the trademark at worst.
Guess it shows you the dangers of uneven legal resources, since I suspect if the folks whose trademarks were shot down using this had fought back, it probably would have cancelled way earlier.
No one cares until someone cares. If trademark is not used in any actions to supress others, no one really tracks them. So there is no impetus to clean it up.
And I don't think government has resources to iterate over trademark and invalidate generic ones automatically.
Never going to happen; too much investment. Not without something resetting the whole patent system all at once.
And hey, I’m not actually opposed to all patents. H.265 - if you put tens of millions into compression research, or hundreds of millions into database scaling research at PlanetScale, a temporary exclusivity period makes sense.
95% of software patents don’t reach that level.
I think some of the bad rap also comes from technology advancement. Amazon’s 1-click Checkout patent is notorious; but nobody talks about how much of an accomplishment that technology was in 1997. It actually was very impressive when that patent was granted, particularly in getting the credit card networks to agree to the security design.
Because of the nature of software patents the investment is worthless anyway.
One of the biggest problems with software patents is that they're unreasonably broad or ambiguous and then the claims read on arbitrary software the authors of which have never even heard of the patent.
Another is that companies purposely patent interfaces that are needed for compatibility, and then the patent isn't needed because it's so great, it's needed to interoperate with existing systems and thereby offers no ability for competitors to design a better alternative because better is different is incompatible. You have to license H.264 even if you build something better yourself -- or you've already licensed H.265 -- because you still have to be able to interact with media and clients that use H.264.
Then as between large companies, they all need each others' patents and just end up cross licensing everything. All the effort is for nothing because it just cancels out.
As between large companies and small companies, the large companies can sue the small one, but the small company probably doesn't have any money anyway and the suit makes the large company look like a bully and creates PR losses that likely outweigh any benefit from filing the suit. The small companies, on the other hand, can't sue the large ones because the large company would just file counterclaims and (at best) force the same cross-licensing that exists between large companies. So that's worthless.
Which leaves the only entities that really like software patents: Patent trolls. Eliminating them is a major economic benefit of eliminating software patents.
> Then as between large companies, they all need each others' patents and just end up cross licensing everything. All the effort is for nothing because it just cancels out.
As you explain in the next paragraph, that creates a moat the protects the large companies from the small ones.
They compete against each other but they also collectively defend their own kind.
You're describing another major benefit of eliminating software patents.
Even large companies don't actually benefit from that because their suppliers and companies in complementary markets do the same thing, and you lose any time any of those companies can maintain a moat with which to extract rents out of your own market.
These are deadweight economic losses. They hurt everybody to benefit the company doing them, but even that company is suffering a net loss because of all the companies doing it back to them. Yet they still do it because it's a tragedy of the commons, unless you remove the mechanism that enables it, i.e. software patents.
H.265 is a great example of software patents going wrong. As it was the first MPEG video standard created after the rise of widespread commercial video streaming, all the patent owners involved wanted to be able to get as much money as possible from the streaming companies. Because of this, we went from the relatively reasonable H.264 licensing terms (pay one patent pool a per-device licensing fee, capped at a total royalty payment of $14 million) to H.265 being covered by three separate patent pools. Between all of them you have to pay royalties on decoding hardware, software, and per-item encoded, and some of the pools don't have caps on royalties. Additionally, some major patent holders aren't in any pools and you have to work out deals with them individually. Here's a summary of the H.265 licensing situation: https://www.slashcam.de/images/news/HEVC-Patent-Pools-14134_...
The result is that H.265 hasn't gotten much commercial adoption (the one major use is 4K Blu-Ray). Instead, most major streaming and tech companies have been pushing AV1, which doesn't have licensing fees and takes a "mutually assured destruction" approach to patent enforcement (the AV1 patent license states that if any patent holder tries to sue an AV1 user for patent infringement, they automatically lose the rights to all AV1 patents, opening them up to a countersuit).
In an ideal world, all intellectual property would become public domain after 10-15 years, including all research, schematics, wire diagrams, source code, marketing materials, etc. When you go to the various offices to get your IP recognized you must also submit various materials and continue to do so for the life of your property rights.
Again though, in an ideal world. In reality any major changes to something like copyright would probably get you killed even faster than judges who are hard on drugs. The most that we, the people, can do until there’s some amount of backbone in our various countries is to remove ourselves from the primary market wherever we can. For instance, I have been on a successful Nintendo boycott for the last 8 years, and it’s been even longer for Disney. I buy anything I want secondhand or pirate it directly, I don’t pay into SaaS but use alternatives, and I feel a lot happier being ungovernable in this way.
Patents already require that all information be available, for someone similarly invested in the craft, to be able to completely reproduce the invention.
That doesn’t require an implementation - but that mirrors our regular patent office, which does not require physical functioning prototypes to demonstrate.
Have you filed or read any software patents? Many are so vague that they do not embody any significant "idea" or contribution, and are mostly just a hindrance to actual innovation. And some are just plain stupid, like the patent to average two integers without overflow.
Like the parent said, a compromise could be "source or GTFO". But even that seems of questionable value.
The shit show gets to the point where many companies file patents defensively. They'll file a patent just in case their competition does it first, even if they have nothing to show for it. And this naturally affects smaller companies disproportionately because they do not have the funds to pay lawyers (there is a hilarious interview on Youtube of a small startup CEO that explains how his company spends more on lawyers than engineers.)
So tl;dr, we'd probably be better off without software patents altogether.
A wiki specifically on the topic written by non-lawyers is interesting; but I don’t see why it should be considered an unbiased list of ideas. Sometimes the status quo is imperfect but okay.
Why did you specify “non-lawyers”? Did you mean to imply that something written by lawyers would be unbiased? And where did I ever claim that this was unbiased? It’s the “End Software Patents Wiki”; it’s about as biased as it gets. But I thought you wanted arguments, so I linked it. If you want to dismiss them without reading them, that’s up to you.
Interesting points from https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmamnnavr/...
5. In 1980—decades after the birth of super heroes—DC and Marvel jointly registered SUPER HEROES as a trademark.
6. DC and Marvel claim that no one can use the term SUPER HERO (or superhero, super-hero, or any other version of the term) without their permission. DC and Marvel are wrong. Trademark law does not permit companies to claim ownership over an entire genre. SUPER HERO is a generic term that should not be protected as a trademark.
7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.
20. DC has accused Superbabies of infringing DC’s “SUPER”-related trademarks, has filed an opposition to Superbabies’ trademark applications (TTAB Trademark Opposition No. 91290757), and has threatened further legal action. DC has asserted the exclusive right to use “the prefix SUPER followed by a generic term for a human being."
There's also some examples of SUPER HERO used as a generic term by DC and Marvel. I know of some companies being famously strict about trademark use (example https://www.velcro.com/original-thinking/the-velcro-brand-tr...), and yet these uses seem benign. For example, a splash at the top of a comic book "DCs BOLDEST new super-hero" (without TM, with dash). Now I have to be careful about using any of my company's trademarks. I'm not sure I fully understand how this example is generic and harmful.
> 7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.
I'm baffled how this was ever allowed in the first place. It's like Marvel and DC went to the trademark office and said "Yes! We'd like to collude to prevent any other competitors from using these terms." and the trademark office was like "Collusion it is! Have a nice day!"
I'm not surprised that you can pretend to do that in a trademark office, but I'm more surprised that it does not trigger an antitrust investigation by authorities as it is clearly the 2 dominant players colluding to prevent having any competition!
What would happen if DC and Marvel established a body of organizations concerned with comics, which just happened to consist of the two of them and nobody else, and that body was the one holding the trademark?
As far as I'm aware, that's a completely normal set of events, but the effect is the same.
What you've described is essentially what led to the Sherman Antitrust Act in the first place ("trusts" in this case were exactly the kind of body of companies in the same industry that you describe). The two most dominant companies in the industry are simply not allowed to collude like this to the exclusion of competitors.
But there's nothing stopping them from jointly holding a trademark through a trade association. The United Negro College Fund holds a trademark on the phrase "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". It's a group with closed membership. This is just the normal, intended functioning of the system.
The problem with the SUPER HERO trademark is that it's descriptive, not that it's held by a trade association.
> The problem with the SUPER HERO trademark is that it's descriptive, not that it's held by a trade association.
No, that's wrong, because the court clearly specified both problems as being reasons for invalidating the mark:
> 6. DC and Marvel claim that no one can use the term SUPER HERO (or superhero, super-hero, or any other version of the term) without their permission. DC and Marvel are wrong. Trademark law does not permit companies to claim ownership over an entire genre. SUPER HERO is a generic term that should not be protected as a trademark.
> 7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.
I think that’d lead to the same challenges: it’d be trivial to show that usage of the term predated that organization by decades, and anyone making an argument about collusion or antitrust would be able to point to the existence of a closed group created by the top two competitors as evidence rather than a defense.
> it’d be trivial to show that usage of the term predated that organization by decades
So what? How is that relevant?
How long do you think the term "apple" predated Apple Records?
The preexisting use unrelated to Apple Records products wasn't affected by their trademark, whereas with superhero it is the preexisting generic use that is directly targeted.
Preexistence is still fully irrelevant. The generic use can come into being 50 years after the trademark does and it will still make the trademark invalid. Or it can die 50 years after the improper grant of a trademark and cause that trademark to become valid.
A descriptive term can't be trademarked, and using "super hero" to refer to stories about superheroes is descriptive. But there is no chronological consideration.
It is still relevant. The fact that it is preexisting is obvious evidence that it shouldn't have been granted or was immediately overturned on challenge.
The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow
> The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow
Again, so what? Would they give you a trademark on "The Bawdy House" for your chain of brothels? The problem with "computers", "internet", and "AI" is current usage, not former usage.
How many of those uses of “Apple” were for sales of recorded music? Trademarks aren’t a flat namespace and in this case a court would be looking at the use of that term by multiple companies to refer to similar things prior to creation of our hypothetical organization by those companies with a history of litigation against earlier users, all of which would suggest that this is a generic term they’re trying to close off.
No, you've confused trademarks with patents.
No, I haven’t. Since multiple other people have needed to correct you, there’s clearly a communications failure here. The U.S. PTO has a good background page discussing how they assess the strength of a claim:
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/strong-trademarks
This helps us understand that “Apple records” can be a trademark because even though “apple” is an old, generic term for agriculture it wasn’t generic in the context of selling music and only that one company was using it there. Similarly, their examples note that “app store” is generic which is why you always see it referred to as the “Apple App Store”, and Apple’s suit against Amazon’s for use of the term failed.
In this case, the trademark for “superhero” as opposed to “Marvel superhero” involves questions about how strongly consumers identify that term with those companies. That’s where the history comes in, and why it doesn’t change matters if they created a shell organization. The question would involve both prior use by other companies and how over that time popular usage has shifted – has it specialized to mean only the DC/Marvel characters, or do consumers think of any over-powered character as a superhero regardless of whether it’s a DC/Marvel property. Transferring ownership to an organization controlled by the two current holders is a legal maneuver which doesn’t control whether the public usage is descriptive or generic instead of referring to products specifically made by those two companies.
you can license others to use your trademark. so one of them could have trademarked it and licensed it to the other in an exclusive deal.
But that seems to be clearly not what happened in this case, at least by the explanations in the court's ruling.
i didn't mean to imply that it did, just that the idea of sharing a trademark is not as ridiculous if you consider that licensing a trademark i possible and the result would mostly have been the same.
I would never have guessed the term was trademarked. It seems far too generic.
And if it was granted in the late 60s, that’s what 30 years after Superman? Shouldn’t it have been common by then?
Trademarks do not expire ever.
The intended point of a trademark is essentially to prevent scams. E.g. nobody is allowed to sell something called an "apple computer" except apple. The interest doesnt change with time. (In contrast the theoretical point of copyright and patents is to allow people to recoup r&d costs. Eventually at some point the holder has had a fair shot at recouping the cost, so there is a time limit)
> The intended point of a trademark is essentially to prevent scams.
This is why I think that companies should lose their trademarks in case of scandals, e.g. privacy infringements or security breaches. This is a much better punishment than fines which are often just a slap on the wrist. And to the consumer, a scandal often feels similar to being scammed.
A trademark is a symbol of trust. And companies who are not trustworthy should not be able to use it.
And why trademarks should be dissolved in bankruptcy, not treated as a transferable asset. If there’s a break in continuity of the provider, then the public has no guarantees about the quality after such a break.
Oh that's good. I would love to see someone pursue this as a legal claim.
They should also not extend to works of fiction, or individual products. Preventing other companies from impersonating your company is one thing, but I don't care if six companies make a Thinginator-o-Matic 9000.
What sort of a break of continuity do you think happened in General Motors in 2009?
Companies which have grossly violated trust often need no inducement to jettison their old marks:
<https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/11/04/companies-th...>
<https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2023/08/identity-crisis-...>
That said, your stripping suggestion is interesting.
That's also happened: Aspirin, escalator, cellophane, laundromat, kerosene, thermos, and zipper are all former trademarks now considered generic terms.
I don't think this would work. Trademarks would be shifted to holding companies and licensed to operating entities so as to avoid legal exposure.
The comment was not about expiration in any way, it was surprise that the trademark was granted long after the term had started being in wide use.
Imagine if "PC compatible" got trademarked in 1997.
Ah, you are right, i misread.
It was. However trademarks, much like patents, are made as generic as possible in order to give the company as much control and value as possible. Tech Dirt is filled with articles of trademark trolling.
Tech Dirt is an equally generic Trademark as Super Hero!
Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch is from 1883.
Marvel and DC were not the original holders of the term
> The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled for S.J. Richold's Superbabies Ltd after Disney's Marvel and Warner Bros' DC did not file an answer to Superbabies' request to invalidate the marks.
So, canceled after the companies declined to defend them.
> Marvel and DC have cited their marks in opposing dozens of superhero-related trademark applications at the USPTO, according to the office's records.
It's not like they haven't been using them, they just knew that at this point they'd have lost if they tried to actually fight it. Most previous groups probably folded immediately under pressure from the giants.
So they sued others into folding. But superbabies did not.
Was it overconfidence, or a a gigantic blunder in not doing their diligence ? (by the DC legal dept team)
I imagine that the DC legal team were well aware that the trademark was indefensible but figured that the expense of counter suing a well funded industry giant would cause most small players to fold immediately. Their luck ran out in the end but they got a few decades out of it.
I feel like you missed my point
If the DC legal team knew their TM was indefensible, they ought to have picked their battles FAR more carefully. Because sending a demand letter to a target likely to contest the TM, would be the end of the TM. Which is exactly what happened.
They could have literally kept their TM - to sue another day - if they had chosen to look the other way with superbabies.
So, my point was whether it was hubris that led to the decision to go after superbabies, or failure instituting unsexy (but necessary) internal dilligence checklists.
> If the DC legal team knew their TM was indefensible, they ought to have picked their battles FAR more carefully. Because sending a demand letter to a target likely to contest the TM, would be the end of the TM
One special aspect of trademark law is that you can also lose a trademark by failing to protect it.
I think their point is that they already effectively lost the trademark—they only had it on paper. That paper was enough to scare a lot of people into paying, but now even those who were cowed into paying a license fee in the past are free to stop.
Letting one more usage slide would not make "Super Heroes" more generic.
If they looked the other way, it would become obvious to other players that the trademark was indefensible, and they would lose the trademark in practice even if it was not revoked.
Other players may not have had the resources or foresight to stumble upon superbabies.
A trademark is not infringed if its infringement is not known to others accused of the same thing.
Maybe there's some context missing? Was there something about superbabies that made them more likely to contest the TM?
A quick search on the Australian National Library archive finds an article titled "A British Super Hero" in a 1918 newspaper. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/129947369
>an article titled "A British Super Hero" in a 1918 newspaper
trademark does not work like patents, prior art is not a thing. The question is whether anyone else uses the mark in trade, exchanging money for goods/services. Usage outside of that context does not matter.
you get diluted and lose your trademark when the public uses the term generically in trade, in your line of business, and not in reference to your product, not just because they use the term.
for example, the automobile Mercury Comet is named after two generic things, a Greek god and an space body. So what, they are used in trade for particular automobiles.
Comet is also the name of a cleaning product. The two are not in the same line of business, so they don't get confused, and there is no conflict, but you can't start selling another Comet cleaner, or Comet car.
While there is no prior art, there is prior use, in trade. But in that case, the trademark belongs to the prior user, not to the world at large. If the prior user stops using it, like Aunt Jemima is no longer used for pancake syrup, then the term becomes free for anybody to use for pancake syrup. (I'll bet that company still uses that name for some pancake syrup product, like for institutional use, so they can stop anybody else from using it.)
I'll bet that company still uses that name for some pancake syrup product
a related story: in many european countries the product "twix" was named "raider", until some day they decided to unify the brand and rename it to twix. but apparently, every few years they sell a batch under the old name "raider" presumably just so they can keep the trademark.
> apparently, every few years they sell a batch under the old name "raider" presumably just so they can keep the trademark.
Oh, I wonder if that's why Mars are doing a limited run of "Snickers" named as "Marathon".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/20/mars-brings...
I think it is more to trigger some nostalgia induced sales from those who were kids in the 80's.
Despite the renaming we used to call the raiders for years as teenagers in the 90's
I think that’s the other side of the same theory: the reason it’s worth owning as a trademark is that millions of people remember it. Keeping it alive is cheap as long as the cost of printing labels is lower than the profits from a limited run.
> If the prior user stops using it, like Aunt Jemima is no longer used for pancake syrup, then the term becomes free for anybody to use for pancake syrup.
You know, I never thought of that. I kind of wonder why nobody has thought to revive those trademarks and take the market that the company had built up. I don't really believe that you would have enough pushback (because some people find the trademark offensive) to make it not worth one's while to get an instant market for their competing pancake syrup.
> the automobile Mercury Comet is named after two generic things, a Greek god and an space body
Roman god. The Greek version would be Hermes.
And here is one in the plural from 1928 referring to our Anzac (veteran's) day march. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article115521528
And even a "super-super hero" in 1926! http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article21042874
Apparently Charles Lindburgh was known in the USA as a "super-hero". http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article95784232
Clearing out the easy stuff before facing the final boss: space marine.
Do any of these space marine games have beaches?
I wonder if this will escalate to fights over trademarking "Ultra Hero" or other superlatives next.
Superb Hero FTW
Hawkeye?
Klinger?
Here's the full article, but turns out it isn't really any longer that you can see from outside the paywall: https://archive.is/jQtuc
Honestly surprised the trademark wasn't nullified earlier. It's pretty clear the term has become genericised at best, and was in common use before the trademark at worst.
Guess it shows you the dangers of uneven legal resources, since I suspect if the folks whose trademarks were shot down using this had fought back, it probably would have cancelled way earlier.
No one cares until someone cares. If trademark is not used in any actions to supress others, no one really tracks them. So there is no impetus to clean it up.
And I don't think government has resources to iterate over trademark and invalidate generic ones automatically.
... and many things that we consider to be generic ones may have started out specific and become generic through various means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
I wrote a role playing game I called 'Heroes' in the 80s. I should file something.
Good. Now I hope someone figures out how to abolish software patents.
Never going to happen; too much investment. Not without something resetting the whole patent system all at once.
And hey, I’m not actually opposed to all patents. H.265 - if you put tens of millions into compression research, or hundreds of millions into database scaling research at PlanetScale, a temporary exclusivity period makes sense.
95% of software patents don’t reach that level.
I think some of the bad rap also comes from technology advancement. Amazon’s 1-click Checkout patent is notorious; but nobody talks about how much of an accomplishment that technology was in 1997. It actually was very impressive when that patent was granted, particularly in getting the credit card networks to agree to the security design.
> Never going to happen; too much investment.
Because of the nature of software patents the investment is worthless anyway.
One of the biggest problems with software patents is that they're unreasonably broad or ambiguous and then the claims read on arbitrary software the authors of which have never even heard of the patent.
Another is that companies purposely patent interfaces that are needed for compatibility, and then the patent isn't needed because it's so great, it's needed to interoperate with existing systems and thereby offers no ability for competitors to design a better alternative because better is different is incompatible. You have to license H.264 even if you build something better yourself -- or you've already licensed H.265 -- because you still have to be able to interact with media and clients that use H.264.
Then as between large companies, they all need each others' patents and just end up cross licensing everything. All the effort is for nothing because it just cancels out.
As between large companies and small companies, the large companies can sue the small one, but the small company probably doesn't have any money anyway and the suit makes the large company look like a bully and creates PR losses that likely outweigh any benefit from filing the suit. The small companies, on the other hand, can't sue the large ones because the large company would just file counterclaims and (at best) force the same cross-licensing that exists between large companies. So that's worthless.
Which leaves the only entities that really like software patents: Patent trolls. Eliminating them is a major economic benefit of eliminating software patents.
> Then as between large companies, they all need each others' patents and just end up cross licensing everything. All the effort is for nothing because it just cancels out.
As you explain in the next paragraph, that creates a moat the protects the large companies from the small ones.
They compete against each other but they also collectively defend their own kind.
You're describing another major benefit of eliminating software patents.
Even large companies don't actually benefit from that because their suppliers and companies in complementary markets do the same thing, and you lose any time any of those companies can maintain a moat with which to extract rents out of your own market.
These are deadweight economic losses. They hurt everybody to benefit the company doing them, but even that company is suffering a net loss because of all the companies doing it back to them. Yet they still do it because it's a tragedy of the commons, unless you remove the mechanism that enables it, i.e. software patents.
H.265 is a great example of software patents going wrong. As it was the first MPEG video standard created after the rise of widespread commercial video streaming, all the patent owners involved wanted to be able to get as much money as possible from the streaming companies. Because of this, we went from the relatively reasonable H.264 licensing terms (pay one patent pool a per-device licensing fee, capped at a total royalty payment of $14 million) to H.265 being covered by three separate patent pools. Between all of them you have to pay royalties on decoding hardware, software, and per-item encoded, and some of the pools don't have caps on royalties. Additionally, some major patent holders aren't in any pools and you have to work out deals with them individually. Here's a summary of the H.265 licensing situation: https://www.slashcam.de/images/news/HEVC-Patent-Pools-14134_...
The result is that H.265 hasn't gotten much commercial adoption (the one major use is 4K Blu-Ray). Instead, most major streaming and tech companies have been pushing AV1, which doesn't have licensing fees and takes a "mutually assured destruction" approach to patent enforcement (the AV1 patent license states that if any patent holder tries to sue an AV1 user for patent infringement, they automatically lose the rights to all AV1 patents, opening them up to a countersuit).
There are plenty of people working on video codecs both in and out of patented realms, with patents hindering progress more than they incentivize it.
For PlanetScale, are you sure the patents are necessary when they have copyright on all their code?
I'd say that productivity-enhancing software patents are so vanishingly rare that we barely need to consider them.
Also software is math, it's not supposed to be patentable.
> Amazon’s 1-click Checkout patent is notorious; but nobody talks about how much of an accomplishment that technology was in 1997.
How exactly is removing the confirmation prompt for the purchase basket a technical accomplishment?
As a compromise, I suggest the source code must be made public for patented ideas.
In an ideal world, all intellectual property would become public domain after 10-15 years, including all research, schematics, wire diagrams, source code, marketing materials, etc. When you go to the various offices to get your IP recognized you must also submit various materials and continue to do so for the life of your property rights.
Again though, in an ideal world. In reality any major changes to something like copyright would probably get you killed even faster than judges who are hard on drugs. The most that we, the people, can do until there’s some amount of backbone in our various countries is to remove ourselves from the primary market wherever we can. For instance, I have been on a successful Nintendo boycott for the last 8 years, and it’s been even longer for Disney. I buy anything I want secondhand or pirate it directly, I don’t pay into SaaS but use alternatives, and I feel a lot happier being ungovernable in this way.
Patents already require that all information be available, for someone similarly invested in the craft, to be able to completely reproduce the invention.
That doesn’t require an implementation - but that mirrors our regular patent office, which does not require physical functioning prototypes to demonstrate.
> Patents already require that all information be available ...
That's not always the case. For example, patents around nuclear technology:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act
"All information be available".
Have you filed or read any software patents? Many are so vague that they do not embody any significant "idea" or contribution, and are mostly just a hindrance to actual innovation. And some are just plain stupid, like the patent to average two integers without overflow.
Like the parent said, a compromise could be "source or GTFO". But even that seems of questionable value.
The shit show gets to the point where many companies file patents defensively. They'll file a patent just in case their competition does it first, even if they have nothing to show for it. And this naturally affects smaller companies disproportionately because they do not have the funds to pay lawyers (there is a hilarious interview on Youtube of a small startup CEO that explains how his company spends more on lawyers than engineers.)
So tl;dr, we'd probably be better off without software patents altogether.
I direct your attention hither: <https://wiki.endsoftwarepatents.org/wiki/Why_abolish_softwar...>
A wiki specifically on the topic written by non-lawyers is interesting; but I don’t see why it should be considered an unbiased list of ideas. Sometimes the status quo is imperfect but okay.
Have you ever wondered why lawyers themselves have nothing in their field remotely similar to patents?
A though provoking question!
But 99.9% of legal arguments are copies. I.e. ideas with precedence. Copying is to be encouraged.
If legal ideas, which are the fallback of all our rights, could be owned, not even a veneer of justice would remain.
[dead]
Why did you specify “non-lawyers”? Did you mean to imply that something written by lawyers would be unbiased? And where did I ever claim that this was unbiased? It’s the “End Software Patents Wiki”; it’s about as biased as it gets. But I thought you wanted arguments, so I linked it. If you want to dismiss them without reading them, that’s up to you.