Talk:Trademark

It's a word with a strict dictionary definition, and it doesn't specifically refer to Transformers, nor is it a fan-coined term like "retool" or "neon." Why would it need an article? - Dark T Zeratul 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it's kind of important to Transformers, since it determines what things are NAMED? And the "CANT THEY JUST CALL HIM AUTOBOT HOT ROD" continuiously comes up, so having a page that explains why not we can just link to for the various explanations as to the name changes and etc would be quite the handy thing to have? --M Sipher 05:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, yes please. Then I wouldn't have to explain what trademarks mean in context to Transformers thirty million times a week, instead just linking a URL. That's something a dictionary definition certainly won't give. --ItsWalky 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's so incredibly important and you all seem to know exactly what such an article should contain, then why don't you actually make it? It's been on the Most Wanted page for a while. - Dark T Zeratul 07:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We're hoping our trademark lawyer friend will write it. He's just been busy. --ItsWalky 07:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Think this will get him unbusy? ;-) -Autobus Prime 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I work in trademarks now. I could have a whack at it if ye like. --Ratbat 10:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is so rad.--Octopus Prime- King of the Road! 12:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ronimus Prime, who is NOT trademarked, concurs.Ronimus Prime 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, whoever came up with Autobot Carblast gets the Awesome badge. Nutjob RT 14:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Quite frankly, I've long felt that this article is one of the worst offenders here in terms of sacrificing useful information on the alter of dubious attempts at humor. --TVsGrady 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fucking Outback Steakhouse. --FFN 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, poop. Always liked this one.--Chiasaur11

The mighty Carblast is still there. --FFN 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The new article is excellent. The old one was actually not a dubious attempt at humor. This is not because it was brilliant (although it of course was exceedingly brilliant, by the Usual Standards for Such Things) but because it was a dubious attempt at irritating the ever-busy legal types to the point that somebody would actually write a proper article. I can't find my d20. --Autobus Prime 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Convert" not "Transform"

Cite me, because that was precisely what I was told when doing the TF movie game guide. Fun Publications is also under this edict. --M Sipher 05:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Danke. I'm not up on all the wiki-coding stuff yet. --M Sipher 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comic books

What's with comic book titles? I'm thinking of the Spotlights in particular. Even if one were to argue that IDW doesn't actually claim the trademark to "Hot Rod", "Drift" etc., and the actual title of all the Spotlight issues is simply Transformers: Spotlight, as evidenced from the lag of ™ claims after the individual characters' names, IDW would still have to make sure they don't collide with other companies' trademarks, right? Because even when they don't consider the names trademarks from a to-be-defended standpoint, they'd still need to make sure another company doesn't either, since those flashy, artistic renditions of the names sure do look like something that might be considered a trademark. Thoughts?--Nevermore 06:39, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Book titles are a completely different animal. IDW doesn't need to worry about the name of the guy in a spotlight issue anymore than Marvel needed to worry about "End of the Road!" on every every single final issue he's written. --FortMax 06:53, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Speaking just in tersm of books-books... there's been sixty-bazillion books called "The Ring." You sometimes get books with the same title published the same year. *shrug* -Derik 08:36, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Comics/books are an entirely different field of TMing than toys - two completely different companies can hold the same trademark in different fields. It's how you can get VW Polos and Polo mints which don't conflict with each other. - SanityOrMadness 10:46, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for entirely missing the point and answering a question I didn't ask! Now, on to what Fort Max said... If I understand it right, it works like this: Since IDW doesn't own Transformers, but only publishes those comcis unser license from Hasbro, they see no need to trademark individual comic titles. That would be Hasbro's problem - and since Hasbro sees little purpose in actively defending names such as "Jazz" or "Hot Rod" in the comic book field, they don't bother either. So those names are not trademarks, they are just treated as "flashy graphics" or exclamations or whatever. All of this isn't a problem until one of those names happens to be actually trademarked by another company. So if DC were to have a theoretical superhero title named "Shockwave" on the market, IDW couldn't release "Transformers: Spotlight Shockwave", even when they wouldn't claim "Shockwave" as a trademark. Did I get that right?--Nevermore 06:22, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

I don't think so. The publishing title of the comic is "Transformers Spotlight." The publishing title of the DC book would be "Shockwave." If Superman puts in a guest appearance in "Shockwave" the title doesn't legally change to "Shockwave Guest Starring Superman", and the IDW book didn't become "Transformers Spotlight Shockwave" either. The character names on each issue of Spotlight are probably considered cover blurbs - "In this issue: Shockwave!" Even if DC had a dude named "Shockwave", unless he was bright purple and overly logical and had one eye, or was an outer-space robot villain, I don't think there'd be much actionable content there - both Marvel and DC have characters named "The Scarecrow" with virtually identical gimmicks (criminals who dress as scarecrows). Even then, I'm almost certain Hasbro/IDW could claim first usage, as Hasbro has been licensing comic books with a one-eyed robot named "Shockwave" for 25 years now. Hooper_X 10:50, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Two words: "Captain Marvel".

Or, in longer form, DC can't put "Captain Marvel" on the cover of ANY book they publish, even though they have the first guy to be called that, because Marvel have the trademark. Even if they want to flag up a guest appearance, the blurb STILL has to be "Guest-starring The Power of Shazam!" or something along those lines. - SanityOrMadness 12:15, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Case in point: http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=246271&zoom=4 - SanityOrMadness 12:19, 27 May 2009 (EDT) - SanityOrMadness 12:19, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm not talking about a theoretical DC Comics "Shockwave" character. I'm talking about an actual "Shockwave" comic from DC, released as "Shockwave". Captain Marvel is a perfect example: Both Marvel and DC have characters of that name, but Marvel has the trademark. So even though DC can call the character "Captain Marvel" in dialogue, they have to release comics starring their Captain Marvel under titles such as "The Power of Shazam!" They occasionally refer to the character as "Captain Marvel" on their comic covers, but unless I'm mistaken, they refrain from rendering the name as a flashy graphic, which could get mistaken for a trademark. As far as I recall, this here is about as fancy as DC would ever go in terms of rendering the name "Captain Marvel" on a comic book cover. Aaaand SOM just beat me to the punch.--Nevermore 12:21, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

The Power of Fawgsbm! is kinda a special case, in term of how thoroughly he got legally buttraped.

Basically what it comes down to is this vague idea of "Pre-eminent brand." Marvel is such a looming force in the comics marketplace, that any character with the "Marvel" in their name is automatically trading on their name. "Mom, buy me some Marvel Comics!" *2 hours later* "WTF is this crap? Talking tigers?" It's not so much about Trademark per-se so much as it is about 'genuine opportunity for confusion.'

MINI wouldn't be allowed to sell a car called the "Mitsubishi"-- even thought here is no car called "Mitsubishi", they'd clearly be creating confusion with the car company of the same name.

Captain Marvel should rightly have fallen under a Grandfather Clause... but the problem is that CM's trademark was already weakened by the '66 The Power of Split/Xam! series. D.C. failed to shut Split/Xam! for violating their trademark (to say nothing of copyright!) even though they did cease-and-desist MF Ent. from using a vaguely-Batmanlike villain called "The Bat." DC failed to defend their trademark-- and they could hardly claim ignorance of the violation since they sued over a separate character who appeared in that title. Undefended trademarks are weakened.

So by 1966, there was legal precedent for the idea "a comic named Captain Marvel is fair game for non-DC publishers." And lo and behold in 1967, guess who makes his first appearance? Mar-Vell.

Marvel gives him his own title in 1968, then files papers saying-- "Yeah, we know it's traditionally been okay for anyone to publish a book called Captain Marvel-- but we've been around for 7 years now and don't seem to be going anywhere... and while as it stands we can both publish a comic called 'Captain Marvel', it really feels like the marvel name is becoming so prominent that this continued use threatens to dilute our Trademark, or possibly constitutes trading on our name."

This seems like a silly argument, but remember both National and Atlas had renamed their companies after the name of one of their comics. (Detective Comics and the lesser-known Marvel Comics, where the Human torch first appeared.) Titles of comics and names of the companies that produced them had a significant inter-relationship at the time.

• DC shafted Shazam with copyright
• Marvel shafted Shazam with trademark
• DC protested Mar-vell on copyright grounds
• Marvelman was a DC copyright violation who got shafted by Marvel via trademark

It's not that complicated.  ;-) -Derik 17:36, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

What Derik said. Captain Marvel is a completely unique and convoluted case - it's also worth noting that the word-marks being used for the various TF names aren't being trademarked, nor are they being used, to the best of my knowledge, anywhere else. (Unlike, say, the word-marks created for the 2007 movie cast, which appear on some of the toys and a fair bit of the ancillary printed merchandise; gift wrap, stickers, etc.) Hooper_X 17:43, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Copyright

Since this is the main place where those who understand IP law hang out...

Does anyone feel able to have a bash at a copyright article that answers the "who owns what?" questions (e.g. Circuit Breaker, Death's Head, the Neo Knights) and also why some issues are present in some tradepaperbacks but missing from others? And similarly whether or not a new licensee can use elements from a previous fiction? Timrollpickering 16:41, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I tried this.--Nevermore 11:30, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Genericized trademark watch

The Fisher Price Dragonwagon "transforms into a dragon." - Starfield 23:16, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

There's a fair bit of "Transforming" stuff on shelves right now - there's a Transforming Batmobile in the current Batman line, and those thumb skateboard figurines have a toy that's actually marked as "Vansformer" - it's a van that folds out into a playset. I don't know whether it's an aggressive attempt to fight over the trademark or if it's jsut trying to cash in on the current popularity, though. Hooper_X 09:47, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

LEGO Atlantis Undersea Explorer TRANSFORMS--Nevermore 08:27, 13 December 2010 (EST)

Old example: "Megatron" Barcode Battler promo card

Here's an early(ish) example of another company using a Transformers name on their product that lies outside of their trademark.

Released as a promo in the U.K. around 1992 by Toys R Us for the Barcode Battler, it was given away with five blank cards (the bottom scan - the middle is from the Barcode Battler box) to add your own barcodes to, and a card wallet to store them in.

Note the lack of a picture of Megatron (the character on the front is taken from the Barcode Battler box), the implication that he is a "good guy" (perhaps to distance themselves from the Transformer) and the fact that Megatron hadn't been sold in the U.K. for about six years. No other promo cards (with Tranformers names or otherwise) are known to have been made.

The original discussion can be found here, and if anyone thinks it merits a place in the article then by all means add it. --xensyria 15:51, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Is it always true that Hasbro is required to change a name?

The article makes it sound like Hasbro has to change names or use prefixes for legal reasons. The one section heading says "Names that require(d) prefixes..." Is that always strictly true? Are all those instances because Hasbro required to, or because Hasbro wanted to. I'm thinking that Hasbro probably did not have to change Octane to Tankor or use "Autobot Jazz", they probably chose to because "Octane" and "Jazz" are common words that aren't trademarkable. Am I far off? - Starfield 22:15, 13 November 2012 (EST)

requesting Trailbreaker/Trailcutter timeline?

Many attempts to use the name Trailbreaker fell through, but Trailbreaker (disambiguation) seems to indicate Hasbro had the trademark back in 2007--but i guess it's expired again since then, leading to Trailcutters? or didn't they have the trademark in 2007, and some kind of loophole allowed Trailbreaker (Movie) to use the name because he's a 3D Battle-Card Game character, not a proper toy?

--Rhymus (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (EST)