The Battle over "Super Hero"

[ctc]

>The Incredibles used the term superheroes all through the movie, so by then the trademark may have expired.

Or they were big enough to scare away Marvel and DC. It CAN be argued that the use of the term "super hero" as a descriptor doesn't violate trademark; especially by a team of expensive lawers....

Don C.

[torgospizza]

I don't see how someone could trademark it, to begin with. It's like Martin Caidin owning the term bionic or William Gibson owning cyberspace. Actually, those aren't good enough examples: it's like Louis Lamour owning cowboy.

[cjefferys]

>The Incredibles used the term superheroes all through the movie, so by then the trademark may have expired.

Or they were big enough to scare away Marvel and DC. It CAN be argued that the use of the term "super hero" as a descriptor doesn't violate trademark; especially by a team of expensive lawers....

Don C.

Yeah, no one is dumb enough to challenge Disney's lawyers unless they are damn confident that they have a strong enough case to win. Of course, now the point is moot considering Disney owns Marvel.

[drmego]

Elasti-Girl to Mr. Incredible:
"What can happen - we're superheroes."

Didn't Incredibles use the shortened version "Supers"....maybe that's how they were able to get around it ?

[The Toyroom]

^ Yeah but I think Syndrome also refers to a "whole family of Supers" or something like that...they used both forms....

[timb]

I've read up a little bit on this as I was flaberghasted when I first learned of this.

I think that if you use the term "super hero" in a general descriptive informal way like in dialogue, it's ok, but try including it in the title of your book, movie, tv show/whatever, and then you're in trouble with the big 2 as they have a joint trademark of the term.

me thinks.

[johnmiic]

A couple of Koo-koo comparisons:

George Lucas owns the term Droid. How the heck can he own the word Droid? I would have loved to see someone challenge that in court because Droid is a shortened version of Android which has been a staple of Sci-Fi novels for decades. It's like me claiming that the word Toon is mine and people have to pay me to use it. Cartoon is the real word. Toon is part of the correct word.

The proposed Nuclear Missile Defense program of the 1980's was referred to as Star Wars by Ronald Reagan. Lucas sued but a judge threw out the suit saying Lucas could not claim Star Wars as his own because it was out there in public consciousness, similar to The Right To Parody or something along those lines, despite it only referring to films and items associated with his creation.

[ctc]

>How the heck can he own the word Droid?

It's short for android; but I'd never heard this term before Star Wars. Also, he uses it as a term for any thinking robot.... a different usage from android. (Which refers to a robot designed to APPEAR human or mimic the human form.)

Trademark is a funny thing because it's SO specific. Your trademark exists as a legal entity within very well defined parameters. Even a tiny tweak CAN fudge things.... but the legal battyle will be long and painful; especially if you're fighting a big company who's got a lot of practice protecting their property. (There's a good discussion of this pertaining to the Air Pirates comic in the film "Comic Book Confidential.")

>similar to The Right To Parody or something along those lines

Considering how effective the use of lasers or particle beams would have been in real life, "parody" could definitely apply.

Don C.

[samurainoir]

I've read up a little bit on this as I was flaberghasted when I first learned of this.

I think that if you use the term "super hero" in a general descriptive informal way like in dialogue, it's ok, but try including it in the title of your book, movie, tv show/whatever, and then you're in trouble with the big 2 as they have a joint trademark of the term.

me thinks.

That is correct regarding a trademark. As the name suggests, it's physical mark, versus copyright which can be conceptual. The incredibles toy packaging at the time would not be able to do that.

Now however, I'd assume Disney could do that with the incredibles as marvel's parent company. What are they going to do? Sue themselves?

Likewise, Warner could do the same with the Hanna barbera superheroes since they acquired those characters.

[hedrap]

It's not an issue to use the word superhero in a movie, you just can't slap it on the poster or any other advertising/promotional material in a way that designates it as a proper noun.

For example, if the poster read "The Incredibles - Pixar's Superhero Family", that's a violation. But if it reads "Pixar's The Incredibles" with a tagline referencing "superhero" below, that clears.

As for ownership in the 70's, DC was always the defacto owners, Abrams, (or was it Weston), just made a legal swerve into ownership, but without the WGSH license they would have had no reasonable claim on it. DC colluded with Marvel on ownership as a way to squeeze out any publishers past, present or future.

IMO, Cooper was in his heyday at that time, so he probably wasn't even aware of Mego since their business was built around Halloween. '74 was the WGSH takeoff year, so the line probably came as a shock to Cooper, asked DC/Marvel about it, and panicked.

[samurainoir]

Anyone who wants to dig deeper into the labyrinth of copyright and trademark (particularly applied to comics), should read this...


(and a George Perez Cover to boot!)