Trademark

• Main
• Altered names

This article is about the legal protection for an identifying name or mark. For the legal protection of a piece of fiction or other expression of an idea, see copyright.

Silly Porter C. Powell, you can't copyright a name! You're thinking of a Trademark!

A trademark is a name, phrase or symbol used by a company to distinguish their goods or services from those of other companies in a similar range, preventing "brand confusion". Literally, a mark of trade. Trademarks are indicated by a ™ symbol, or in the case of registered trademarks, a ® symbol. Hasbro's ability to legally secure a trademark dictates what proper nouns they will use to describe a toy, gimmick, or line.

It is not the same thing as copyright. Trademarks are only relevant in commercial contexts. Private individuals who are not associated with a company that operates in the same field as the trademark holder cannot commit trademark infringement by simply using a trademarked name in a non-commercial context.

Hasbro does not strictly need to claim trademarks for the character names applied to individual toys. Some toy companies do not claim them, though this is most often in the case of short-lived licensed lines based on movies or video games. But, Hasbro values the advantages of maintaining established characters (or character types) in the long term, and they wish to be able to hold exclusive claim to those names and use them as long as possible without fear of litigation from or loss to another company.

Trademark law is full of gray areas and complexity; otherwise lawyers couldn't charge exorbitant sums for their services in that field. The whims of the judges who look at the cases also play into the end results. However, there are guidelines and general rules that can explain why items end up named like they do.

Trademark basics

Trademarks are categorized into groups of products/services, so when a company applies for a trademark, lawyers compare them to similar marks within the same category, not across all products ever. Transformers toys fall under International Class 28, "Toys and Sporting Goods."

The name "Bumblebee" provides a perfect illustration of how these categories work. During the time Hasbro was unable to mark a Transformers toy "Bumblebee" (see "notable cases", below), Hasbro licensee Fun4All was able to release a keychain named Bumblebee, because keychains are not categorized as "Toys and Sporting Goods". Similarly, the character of Bumblebee could be referred to by that name within a comic book, since the comic company was not actually claiming it as a trademark within that field. If they were to release a comic series titled "Bumblebee", though, a trademark search (and possibly claim) for comics would be needed.

Odds are, you won't let your kids play with these "Megatrons".

This is also why there can be car batteries with "Mega-Tron" as a brand name, despite having no connection to Hasbro or Transformers. Hasbro does not make car batteries or anything along the lines of automobile parts, so the odds of "brand confusion" are exceedingly remote, making the battery-maker safe from litigation.

For toys released as part of multi-packs, Hasbro traditionally claims each individual character's name in the pack as a separate trademark ever since the days of Action Masters. So when they release a two-pack containing two toys named "Grimlock" and Swoop", they count as two individually trademarked names, rather than one compound trademark for "Grimlock & Swoop"; after all, they might try and produce separately-sold toys of those characters later on. The only exception was the Heroes of Cybertron two-pack of Spike Witwicky and Bumblebee, which was officially called "Autobot Espionage Team" without claiming the individual characters' names as trademarks, since the name "Bumblebee" was unavailable to Hasbro at that time.

Often, companies that own character-based Intellectual Property (IP) will apply for trademarks across a vast swath of categories to maximize the range of product on which they can use that name. Around the time of the 2001 Robots in Disguise franchise, Konami brought the wildly successful Japanese collectible card game franchise Yu-Gi-Oh! to the US. Among the trademarks they applied for across multiple categories was "Space Megatron," the name of one of the game cards (called simply "Megatron" in Japan). Some fans, upon hearing this, believed that Hasbro was in danger of losing the "Megatron" trademark. However, since Hasbro had made steady and repeated use of the name over the course of the previous decade (over a dozen toys branded “Megatron” between 1990 and 2001, plus media association thanks to five years of the name belonging to a central villain of the associated TV shows), this seems unlikely. The card in question did end up being called "Space Megatron" in the English translations of its videogame and manga appearances, because at the time that Konami applied for that trademark, Hasbro did not have any Transformers trading or playing cards and thus could not contest the claim in that field. However, no "Megatron" toys were produced in association with the Yu-Gi-Oh brand, nor even an appearance as an actual physical card. Still, Hasbro ultimately didn't manage to successfully register the name "Megatron" until 2005.

How foolish is it that some other beings in the multiverse have stolen my name?Megatron, Energon #22 (letters page)

Relevance

Brand recognition

I'm the beginning of a new trend!

Originally, Hasbro didn't put as much emphasis on outstanding characters for the Transformers toy line from a marketing standpoint as they do today. Toys were supposed to have a shelf life of two years at maximum, to be replaced by new toys, which would be entirely new characters. With the exception of Galvatron (only in the cartoon and comic fiction) and Goldbug, all the new-toy line-ups from 1985 through 1987 were entirely new characters (not counting variants or reuses of existing sculpts, such as the Targetmaster versions of Hot Rod, Cyclonus etc.), as were most of the Pretenders and all of the Micromasters released by Hasbro. As a consequence, Hasbro only bothered to register a small number of trademarks in the 1980s, such as "Optimus Prime" or "Soundwave".

Hasbro didn't originally realize how much of a crucial part recognizable characters had played in the success of the original Transformers series until they were facing the massive viewer backlash following Optimus Prime's death in The Transformers: The Movie. As a consequence, the first entirely new Transformers toy to be released under the name of an older toy intended to represent the same character was the Powermaster version of Optimus Prime in 1988, followed by the Classic Pretender versions of Bumblebee, Grimlock, Jazz and Starscream in 1989. Following that, about half of the Action Master line-up in 1990 consisted of "classic" characters from the 1984-85 toy line-up.

Since then, Hasbro have been putting more emphasis on recognizable characters in all their Transformers lines, and by extension, on recurring names in general—although Beast Wars put it to a stretch with modified names such as "Optimus Primal", and numerous characters sporting the names of older Transformers toys, but not sharing any other similarities with those characters beyond the name.

Market situation

Guys, I think we forgot something.

Hasbro wasn't the only company slowly coming to realize the importance of recognizable, "iconic" characters, however. Since "characters" were no longer considered easily replaced throwaway elements of toy lines, companies began to put a stronger focus on developing, emphasizing and defending their intellectual properties—which included the characters' individual names. For comparison, back in the 1980s, it was possible for both Hasbro and Tonka to have toys named "Blaster", "Rumble" and "Warpath" in their respective Transformers and GoBots toy lines at the same time, without either company bothering to cause any legal problems with the other. This is particularly remarkable considering how competitive Hasbro and Tonka were at that time, and is only a fraction of the "shared names" between Hasbro and its contemporary competitors. Hasbro didn't even start slapping a ™ claim after individual toys' names on their packaging until 1988, suggesting that they weren't really bothered that another company might use those names for their own toys. And despite the slowly changing market situation, Hasbro still didn't start systematically trying to register as many trademarks as possible until the turn of the millennium. They didn't even bother to file for a registration of the name "Cheetor", a major character with multiple toys in both Beast Wars and Beast Machines, until 1999, three years after the first toy using that name had been released!

In contrast to that, toy companies enforce their trademarks a lot more rigidly these days. As a consequence, Hasbro's lawyers have become a lot more conservative, objecting the use of any names they fear might interfere with another company's trademark. This has resulted in quite a few names becoming "off limits" for any further use as part of a Transformers toy line, at least until the other company decides to abandon the name in question. Hasbro has also performed several not-so-nice maneuvers to seize a trademark in order to prevent their competitors from introducing certain toy lines in the US market under their original names, such as claiming "Machine Robo Rescue" and "Crush Gear", both names for Bandai toylines in Japan. Furthermore, Hasbro's legal department also prefers to modify certain names in order to make them easier to defend in court... since Hasbro wouldn't want one of their competitors to release a toy under a name so similar to a Transformers toy's that it could easily cause confusion on behalf of the customers.

Protection and loss

Once a trademark is claimed, legal protection of that mark hinges primarily on usage. A company cannot defend a trademark that they never actually use. Protection of a trademark in the action figure world typically lasts roughly a year, though this (like most anything involving trademark law) is not ironclad. (See "notable cases" below.) The longer and more frequently a company uses a trademark ("consistent use"), the stronger their case becomes to retain ownership of it should it be contested by a competitor.

At the time of his release, he really had to be a tape player for the purpose of this article.

Registered trademarks are a stronger level of protection, thanks to a more involved process (and some more fees). With a standard trademark claim (™), a company that feels that another company is infringing on one of their trademarks needs to actively prove that they have used the trademark (preferably consistently) if they want to take legal action against their competitor. With a registered trademark (®), on the other hand, that process becomes somewhat automated: a company regularly needs to provide the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with evidence of consistent use of the trademark in question anyway in order to guarantee continued registration. If the owner of the ® feels another company is infringing on one of their trademarks, the burden of proof of consistent use has become automated, and they have an 800–pound gorilla (i.e. the USPTO) backing them up on their case.

Note, however, that even registered trademarks are not by any means absolute protection. They can be lost due to lack of use (abandonment) or a successful challenge from another company.

In some cases, Transformers toys also share their trademarked names with toys from other lines distributed by Hasbro or one of their subsidiaries. This also counts as a use of a trademark in commerce. All that matters is that the parent company, a subsidiary or even a licensee has used the trademark in the "toys" category. In order for this to work, however, the description of intended use needs to be sufficient yet not too specific. In 2000, Hasbro actually had to file for a second registration of the name "Soundwave": the original 1984 registration (which is still active as of this writing) was specifically for a "toy robot convertible into a cassette recorder", making it insufficient for any toys with other alternate modes (or no alternate mode at all). This doesn't mean Hasbro couldn't use the name "Soundwave" outside that narrow definition; all it means is that any other uses wouldn't have helped Hasbro to defend the registration had anyone tried to challenge it. The 2000 registration therefore uses a much broader definition of intended use, namely "toy action figures and accessories for use therewith".

By acting through a licensee, a company doesn't even need to release its own products in a specific category in order to defend a trademark. General Motors doesn't need to produce and/or distribute Chevrolet Camaro toys; all they need to do is grant Hasbro the license to release toys based on the Camaro, Hasbro explicitly identifies the name "Chevrolet Camaro" as a General Motors trademark used under license on the toys' packaging, and GM can defend the name "Chevrolet Camaro" in the "toys" category.

Descriptive trademarks

There's a reason we never got a "Bumblebee" redeco of Waspinator.

Defensibility is also determined by the name itself and its distinctive qualities regarding to what it's being applied. One could not reasonably expect to claim trademark of "Apple" as a product name for apples. But for, say, computers, which would not otherwise be referred to as an "apple", that works. In regards to toys and Transformers, "Car" would be basically impossible to defend successfully as a distinct trademark. "Carblast", however, is fairly strong, being a made-up compound word highly unlikely to be used elsewhere. "Autobot Carblast" is even more defensible, thanks to the addition of a clearly nonsensical word, which is by itself very strong, like "Rodimus" or "Cybertron". This is also why there was no "Bumblebee" character during Beast Wars: A toy that is a bumblebee and is named "Bumblebee" would make the name impossible to defend as a trademark, unlike a car named "Bumblebee".

Because Hasbro has been shoring up some of their infrequently-used "common word" names in recent years by adding prefixes (such as "Autobot Tracks" or "Decepticon Frenzy"), fans sometimes mistake this to mean that reclaiming a trademark from another company is as simple as writing a faction name in front of it. This is not true. If it were, then a competitor such as Bandai could release a line of robot toys called "Gundam Transformers" with an "Optimus Prime Gunpla" toy and get away with it. Hasbro's addition of extra words to these old names —notably all common real words— is primarily to strengthen the claim to a name that is currently (likely) uncontested as a single-word trademark, or is part of someone else's multi-word Trademark, which would prevent Hasbro from claiming the single-word use but allowing for a significantly different multi-word use. Real words are generally harder to defend as a trademark than nonsense words. Adding nonsense to a real word makes it more defensible, but adding nonsense to somebody else's active trademark, especially their nonsense-word trademark, is only asking for trouble.

Another popular method Hasbro uses to modify real words to make them more distinctive (and thus easier to defend) is by using an alternate spelling (in other words, a deliberate "misspelling"), such as "Tankor", "Demolishor", "Spittor" or "Scattorshot" (and, possibly, also "Grappel"; see below).

Based on some of Hasbro's naming choices, it could be argued that the strategy of Hasbro's IP lawyers is somewhat conservative or cautious. They may be able to defend more than they try to defend, but they choose not to take that (potentially expensive) risk.

• For a list of the various names that have had prefixes and suffixes attached to them, go here.

Genericized trademarks

Trademarks can also be lost by allowing a term to become a "genericized trademark" — effectively, letting their mark become a common term. Examples include "thermos" for vacuum flasks (genericized in the US in 1963), "linoleum" for floor covering, and "zipper" for a method of fastening fabric. Brand names that are also in danger of becoming genericized (but are currently still protected as trademarks) include "Kleenex" for facial tissues, "Jell-O" for processed, gelatinized pig hooves, "Xerox" for photocopies, and "Google" for computer searches.

Product also does not xerox, kleenex, or jello.

Hasbro has realized that using the word "transform" as a verb to describe the process of changing a Transformers toy from one mode into another one would make the brand name "Transformers" descriptive, making the mark indefensible. The end result would have been a loss of the mark Transformers as a registered trademark, allowing competitors to use it as a generic term for their shape-shifting robot toys and thus creating further confusion among parents when asked to buy a Transformer.

As a consequence, the use of "transform" as a verb when being used to describe Transformers product is almost strictly forbidden in certain written materials: If it's a toy that "converts", Hasbro can argue that Transformers is not merely a descriptive term, thus allowing for trademark protection to persist. Synonyms like "convert" (or simply "change") are used in Hasbro's own products (like packaging call-outs and instructions) and in licensees' products (such as game guides). This generally didn't apply to fiction for many years, but most comics and cartoons began to follow suit per Hasbro mandate starting in the 2010s, with exceptions only being made in very specific instances.

Honestly, we're just surprised there isn't a ® after every proper noun.

As a matter of fact, "Transformer" (specifically "with a capital initial") is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as a description of "a type of children's toy, first manufactured in Japan, consisting of a model robot which can be transformed into another toy". However, since the term is identified as a "proprietary name" and Hasbro is specifically mentioned in the name etymology, the entry makes it pretty clear that the term is not a catch-all description of a general product type, but tied to a specific manufacturer, hence posing no threat to Hasbro's exclusive claim of the trademark. The fact that the entry has been in the dictionary since 1993 also implies that Hasbro has never seen any need for intervention. (The same dictionary also has an entry for Mattel's "Barbie", for that matter.)

Many Hasbro competitors have used "transform" as a verb on their toy packaging in the past. More recently, however, some such as Mattel and LEGO have changed (ha ha) to using terms like "convert" and "shift" instead. Whether this is due to Hasbro legal intervention is, at the moment, pure conjecture.

In recent years—starting in the late 2010s, but really kicking into high gear in 2022–2023—Hasbro has become even more cautious with using the phrase “Transformer” to refer to individual robot characters within the franchise. As a result, many forms of print media, press releases, and licensed works of fiction have instead pivoted to using variations of the phrase “Transformers robots”, "TRANSFORMERS robots", or sometimes "Transformers bots"—that is to say, a twist of phrasing that essentially says these are not "robots who transform," but "robots from the franchise Transformers". Higher-profile media such as the EarthSpark cartoon have been able to get away with using the words "Transformer" and "transform", albeit at a reduced frequency compared to past media; notably, Transformers One makes heavy use of "Transformer" to refer specifically and only to Cybertronians that are able to transform, with transformation cogs being core to the film's plot. (One would think that if you have a major motion picture in cinemas using "Transformer" and "transform" in every other line of dialogue, making your official guidebook use "Transformers bots" and "convert" isn't really going to swing the needle much, but admittedly we're not trademark lawyers.)

Trademark dilution

I'm not the terror that flaps in the night.

In cases where a trademark is very well known among the general populace due to the brand's popularity, and is commonly associated with the particular brand (instead of being merely associated with a general product type, hence being in danger of becoming genericized), it's possible for the brand owner to defend their "popular" trademarks even in categories they don't operate in. This is only possible for very well-known brands (or very big companies with a lot of money to throw at lawyers) where a company can reasonably argue that another company is trying to cash in on their "good name", and may create confusion among the target audience who may mistakenly associate the other company's product with its more well-known namesake by the original company. The argument is that the well-known trademark is considered "unique", and its intended use in other fields by other parties would lessen its uniqueness. Calling your car dealership simply "McDonald's" is probably not exactly a good idea.

This may be the reason why Hasbro renamed the redeco of 2008 Universe Silverbolt, whose deco was based on Generation 1 Darkwing, into "Darkwind", and subsequently the Power of the Primes figure representing the same character into "Blackwing": At the time, there was no toy line based on Disney's Darkwing Duck, but the brand was still very well-known and active in comic form, and Hasbro's legal department may have been simply cautious to avoid any potential problems with Disney in the first place. That Hasbro is a frequent licensee for Disney-owned properties adds an extra ten tons of caution on their part. (Since then, Darkwing Duck has returned to toy and merchandise shelves, and not through Hasbro.)

Conversely, in 2010, a company named Mavizon offered user interface technology for cars (a field Hasbro doesn't operate in) named "AutoBot". A few years earlier, Hasbro would have probably just let this pass; however, with the increased popularity of the Transformers brand thanks to the live-action film series, they have a much better legal stand in this regard. By the end of 2010, Mavizon changed the name of their product to "Mavia". In late 2011, Hasbro tried to preemptively stop Asus from releasing an Android tablet under the name "Transformer Prime", but ultimately lost in the first instance.

The international market

From the "completely random substitute name" files.

Since Hasbro is a company rooted in the United States, the focus of trademarks is also naturally on the US market. Trademark law and the availability of terms can differ across countries. "Aspirin" is a genericized word in several countries, but there are many others where it is still a protected trademark, including Germany, Canada, and Mexico. In these countries, producers of acetylsalicylic acid must use a different term. Similarly there is less danger of the terms "Kleenex" or "Xerox" becoming genericised in the United Kingdom as these terms are rarely used to refer to anything other than the relevant company's products. The status of a trademarked word in one country often has little bearing on its use in other jurisdictions.

Unlike in the early 1990s, when name variants were abundant across the various international (particularly European) markets, Hasbro now aims for a uniform brand representation. In other words, a Hasbro toy (ideally) has the same name in every country it's released in. (Thus making Japanese names an anomaly... and with TakaraTomy shifting over to Western names for their toys more and more, even moreso.) However, that could mean a toy that can't be released by Hasbro under its originally intended name in the US, but could easily be released under that name in the United Kingdom, will still be released under the substitute US market name everywhere in the world, because it's easier (and less expensive) to manage than individual names for individual markets.

In theory, this could backfire: A toy's name that has been cleared for use in the USA might conflict with another company's trademark in another country. In general, however, European trademark law is a lot less rigid than it is in the US, and Hasbro generally refrains from using any trademark claims after names on their international packaging in the first place, either because that would require them to actively try to defend those trademarks in every single country they release those toys in, or because the ™ symbol has no legal power in many countries outside the USA. Hasbro's never really bothered to register any individual trademarks besides "The Transformers" in the various European countries, at least.

The first notable trademark conflict outside the United States affected the 2016 Generations: Titans Return Deluxe Class Brainstorm figure from the Hasbro Toy Shop/San Diego Comic-Con exclusive "Titan Force" giftset, which was officially redistributed in the United Kingdom by A1 Toys in American packaging, first at their booth at London Film & Comic-Con 2016 and later also via their website and at other UK conventions. Since there is an actual toy company named Brainstorm Limited based out of the UK, the name couldn't be used for an official Hasbro-sanctioned UK release. As a consequence, the character was renamed "Charon" via stickers applied to the outside of the box. Additionally, there were at least two cases prior to that where the intention to release a toy in the United Kingdom did affect the United States name of those toys due to other concerns: see Animated Snarl (as well as Universe Robot Heroes "Snarl") and Power Core Combiners Over-Run for more juicy details.

Notable/unusual cases

This is not a list of every lost Transformers trademark ever, just some instances with unusual or interesting twists.

Prominent names that are/were unavailable

David Willis's head just exploded.

• As mentioned above, "Bumblebee" was unavailable to Hasbro for many years. The name was being used as a registered trademark by a company called Playcore for their "Buzz the Bumble Bee" swing as of 2003, and as Hasbro had not used the name for a toy since 1995, their case to contest was likely a weak one. The Heroes of Cybertron PVC two-pack with Spike Witwicky was officially named "Autobot Espionage Team" for that reason, although the bio on the back of the packaging identified the two characters as "Bumblebee" and "Spike" (but without claiming them as trademarks). Furthermore, as can be seen on the right, one of the main characters of the Armada franchise was initially intended to be named "Bumblebee" before the unavailability of the trademark resulted in the character being renamed into "Hot Shot". However, in March 2005, Hasbro tried to reclaim the trademark, due to its intended association with a principal character in the big-deal live-action movie and its associated merchandise planned across a great many categories. However, the registration attempt was contested in July 2005, both by a production company named "Bumble Bee Productions, Inc." and by an online toy retailer named "Bumblebee Toys", both of which argued that the mark, as it was filed under the "toys" field, was too close to their own registered marks. Ultimately, Hasbro abandoned the registration attempt for "Bumblebee" in 2006 and simply decided to use the name as a "normal", non-registered trademark instead. The movie's release date being pushed back a year meant that the first "Bumblebee"-branded Transformers toys in over a decade were a 3" Titanium Series figure and a toy from the Classics line. (Playcore, or more accurately, its subsidiary Swing-N-Slide no longer manufactures the "Buzz the Bumble Bee" swingset.)

Silly Hasbro, you won't be able to name your toys "Bluestreak" again until 2010!

• "Bluestreak" is one of the most infamous cases of a name of a classic character being unavailable to Hasbro for a long time, since a company named Gendron, Inc. registered the name "Toledo 'Blue Streak'" in 2002. All toys based on the Generation 1 Bluestreak character released since then were officially named "Silverstreak" instead. (Note that this does only affect Hasbro; while the character is traditionally known as simply "Streak" in Japan, TakaraTomy once released a blue redeco of the Binaltech Streak toy, named "Bluestreak".) Gendron finally abandoned their trademark in 2009, with Hasbro promptly using the name "Bluestreak" for a Speed Stars car (a redeco of Revenge of the Fallen R.P.M. Sideswipe), and later for other toys as well.

• Next to Bluestreak, "Hot Rod" is the most well-known case of a name unavailable to Hasbro. Mattel has registered various "confusingly similar" trademarks over the years, among them "Ho! Ho! Hot Rod", "Hot Rods" and "Hott Rodd". Hasbro's original substitute name for the Commemorative Series line of reissues was "Rodimus Major"; "Rodimus" was used for Energon and then later also for the Classics Deluxe toy and the Universe Legends toy; and the toy based on the Animated Rodimus Prime character was called "Rodimus Minor". Hasbro eventually regained the name "Hot Rod" in 2016.

Released just a teensy-weensy bit too early.

• "Shockwave" was temporarily lost to a company named Lanard Toys, Ltd—who actually used it in their The Corps! military figure series, direct competitors to Hasbro's G.I. Joe. An Energon toy designed as an homage to Generation 1 Shockwave was named "Shockblast" instead, as was the Alternators toy. However, Lanard had abandoned the registration for the "Shockwave" trademark shortly prior to the release of the Alternators toy (too late to change the name on the packaging), so Hasbro seized the opportunity and slapped the name onto the next best Mini-Con just to claim it back. They have since been able to use it for other toys more closely based on the Generation 1 character. Ironically, a figure from Hasbro's G.I. Joe 25th Anniversary line based on an older figure from 1988 named "Shockwave" was released under the name "Shockblast" in 2008, presumably either in an attempt to avoid brand confusion or to maintain the "Shockblast" trademark. Either way, Hasbro apparently considers the name "Shockwave" more iconic for the Transformers character.

• "Ravage" became unavailable during Beast Wars, so Hasbro used the alternative "Shadow Panther" instead, and when even that turned out to be off-limits, used the somewhat clunky name "Tripredacus Agent". The name "Ravage" eventually became available again in time for Energon, but apparently Hasbro decided to play safe and added a prefix, thus releasing the Energon toy under the compound name "Battle Ravage" (and later, its redeco as "Command Ravage"). Hasbro also used "Battle Ravage" for the Alternators toy and also intended to use it for a reissue of the original Ravage cassette toy available with a Toys"R"Us exclusive Classics-affiliated "Commemorative Edition" reissue of Soundwave... but then decided that the single name "Ravage" would work just as fine. Thus, the reissue is still named "Battle Ravage" on the packaging, but simply "Ravage" in the instructions. Following that, multiple subsequent toys have simply used the name "Ravage".

Space required.

• A particularly odd case: During the 1990s, another company held the "Sideswipe" trademark in the "toys" field, even though Hasbro still released two toys using that name as part of the Generation 2 line (it's unclear if this resulted in any legal repercussions for Hasbro). When Hasbro finally managed to reclaim the name for the Robots in Disguise line, the name was now written as "Side Swipe", in two words, for whatever reason. Despite that, the OTFCC 2003 exclusive and the Armada Super-Con both still spelled the name as one word on their own packaging; however, the cross-sell on the packaging for the OTFCC 2003 exclusive Shadow Striker/Roulette two-pack referred to OTFCC Sideswipe as "Side Swipe", and the "the Unicron Battles"-style packaging redesign for the Armada figure saw the name changed to "Side Swipe" on the name insert as well as the packaging back. (See also the image to the left.) After many years' worth of "Side Swipe" toys, the 2008 Universe Deluxe toy finally hailed the return of "Sideswipe" (as one word). Presumably, the (then planned) use of the name on a character in the movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was reason enough for Hasbro to apply for a second registration to get rid of that pesky extra space. Oddly enough, in 2012, Hasbro re-filed "Side Swipe", along with several other old trademarks, but hasn't done anything with it thus far, although Commemorative Series VIII Side Swipe was re-released in Hasbro's Asian markets (where US trademarks do not apply) in minimally altered packaging in 2012, with the toy still being named "Side Swipe".

• According to Hasbro copy writer Forest Lee at BotCon 2006, Hasbro's IP lawyers were initially skittish about using the name "Matrix of Leadership" on packaging for the 20th Anniversary version of Optimus Prime, as they were unaware of the history of the term "Matrix" within the brand, and feared confusion with the franchise surrounding the film, The Matrix. Although the lawyers were satisfied and allowed "Matrix" to be used in that instance, it appeared that some variation of the term "AllSpark" would supplant "Matrix" in future Transformers franchises, until Revenge of the Fallen used "Matrix of Leadership" as a name for a plot point (contradicting the writers' earlier statements that the Matrix would not appear in the live-action movies, and the AllSpark would be a replacement for it). "AllSpark" is, of course, an easier mark to defend because—unlike "matrix"—it is a contrived compound word that doesn't have any other meaning.

• In 2016, Hasbro could release an exclusive toy of the G1 character named "Reflector" without any trademark issues. They apparently lost the trademark for the name sometime before 2019, however, forcing the Siege figure to be named "Refraktor" instead.

Other trademark kerfuffles

Trail who?

Hilarious error or intentional misspelling for better trademark protection? You decide!

Once used as a substitute name, later in need of a substitute name itself.

• "Trailbreaker" has been unavailable as a trademark for years, which has—at least indirectly—resulted in several "Trailbreaker" toys changing before release:
  • 3H had to cancel its plan of a new BotCon exclusive version of Trailbreaker as a redeco of Robots in Disguise X-Brawn.
  • A reissue of the original Trailbreaker toy was planned for the Commemorative Series before the line was canceled.
  • A Trailbreaker-themed redeco of Robots in Disguise Spychanger Ironhide became another "Ironhide".
  • A redeco/retool of Alternators Autobot Hound with a new Trailbreaker-styled head instead became Swindle.
  • A Cybertron character intended as a Trailbreaker homage ultimately became an entirely new character named "Overhaul", losing pretty much all similarities with Trailbreaker in the process (yet his upgraded form remained "Leobreaker". Huh).

Hasbro finally released a Legends Class version of Generation 1 Trailbreaker as part of the 2010 Transformers toy line, under the substitute name "Trailcutter". That name has since been used for all versions of the character in all media; in-fiction, the original character even makes the conscious decision to change his name in the then-ongoing IDW continuity - admittedly in a comic intended to be included with a "Trailcutter" toy... and then the version of the comic included with the toy was edited to remove any reference to the name "Trailbreaker". Hasbro has since regained the name "Trailbreaker", however, and newer toys have been produced under that designation... after the character died in the IDW comics. Aheh.

• In 2001, Hasbro attempted to trademark "Skyfire" for use in the 2001 Robots in Disguise toyline. However, at the same time, their competitor Mattel applied for a registered trademark on the name for a vehicle/accessory in their Max Steel toy line. Without any past usage to call on to contend Mattel's claim, Hasbro lost the trademark for "Skyfire" to the stronger registered claim within a very short time frame. This resulted in the name "Sky Blast", used first on an Armada Mini-Con, then for the Energon Omnicon Skyblast, who is a clear homage to the Generation 1 cartoon character, "Skyfire".
• In 2004, the Commemorative Series VI reissue of Grapple was simply prefixed "Autobot Grapple" (although the name was misspelled "Auotbot Grapple" in several instances on the packaging). The 2010 Transformers retool of 2008 Universe Voyager Class Inferno not only tried to be a little more creative with a new prefix, "Solar Storm"... but also spelled the name "Grappel". While this could be attributed to a particularly glaring typo, it's not without precedent: Revenge of the Fallen Fast Action Battlers Grapple Grip Mudflap, who uses "Grapple" as part of a prefix, also had it spelled as "Grappel" all over his European packaging and on Hasbro's public website, whereas the North American version had it spelled as "Grapple". Chances are that Hasbro decided to misspell the name in order to make it more defensible as a trademark, similar to "Scattorshot" and "Demolishor". The US-released Solar Storm Grappel's on-packaging bio also refers to the character simply as "Grappel™", whereas Reveal the Shield Special Ops Jazz and Turbo Tracks are still referred to as "Autobot Jazz™" and "Autobot Tracks™" in their US bios, respectively (but not in their European packaging bios).
• In 2005, Fun Publications was forced to change the name of a BotCon 2005 exclusive intended as an updated version of Generation 1 Outback to "Fallback". The Outback Steakhouse restaurant chain has successfully applied for "Outback" across a vast number of categories. Since Hasbro had not used the name for a product since 1993, there seems to be no way for them to wrest control of Outback Steakhouse's active claim to the mark without heavy modification. The "Outback" name was ultimately used for G.I. Joe, but the trademark claim was for "Stuart 'Outback' Selkirk." Since Transformers can't quite get away with that, they've stuck with the "fallback" name (ha ha) for subsequent iterations of the character since they already have it. However, in 2018, Hasbro released figures of Outback in Power of the Primes and Vintage G1 lines under the proper name, implying that they were able to secure the trademark.
• Similar trademark problems affected other items in the BotCon 2005 set: notably, Chromia began life as Moonracer until it was discovered Royal Treasury, LLC owned the "King Moonracer" trademark for toys from the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer TV special. Unfortunately, Moonracer was already well into production when Fun Publications learned the name was unavailable, and due to the time involved in trademark searches, a suitably appropriate alternative could not be found. This necessitated the use of Chromia — reportedly their "third or fourth choice", but a name which had cleared legal. Brian Savage expressed particular vexation with this turn of events at the BotCon 2005 organizer's panel.
• Just to further illustrate how (relatively) quickly a trademark status can change: Back in 2006, Hasbro couldn't use "Powerglide" for a Classics redeco of Legends of Cybertron Jetfire, so they called the toy "Fireflight" instead. By 2008, "Powerglide" was available again and reclaimed in the 2008 Universe line. By 2013, "Fireflight" had become unavailable, even though it had been secured in 2009, in a Superion giftset released in both the Universe and Revenge of the Fallen lines. Thus, a Kre-O Micro-Changer, a retool of Generations Fall of Cybertron Shockwave, and a limb for Combiner Wars Superion, initially announced as being named "Fireflight", ended up named "Firestrike", "Air Raid", and even Firefly, respectively.
• In 2017, Hasbro filed a lawsuit against DC Comics and Warner Bros. over the use of the name "Bumblebee" as Mattel was beginning to produce toys based on the DC superhero of the same name. The case was settled out of court.

Notes

Lawyer-friendly medic.

• Bob Budiansky's original name for Jazz was "Jazzz", with three "z"s. Whether or not that would have made it easier for Hasbro to protect the name without a prefix in recent years or not is hard to tell. Though if "Grappel" is any indication, we might actually see them use that spelling in the near future....

• The "red cross on white backdrop" symbol often associated with medical services, used on various representations of Generation 1 Ratchet, is in fact a trademark owned by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who vigorously protect their claim to it. They actually took Hasbro to court over the use of their symbol on Armada Red Alert and won, resulting in it not only being dropped from the toy's redeco, but also having to be removed from the then-current Dreamwave Productions comics. Hasbro typically uses "electrocardiogram" graphics as a substitute these days. The occasional flub still slips through, though.

• The Transformers Collectors' Club has shown an irritating tendency to slap a "registered trademark" ® after the names of various BotCon exclusive toys on their bio cards regardless of whether Hasbro actually had those names registered at that time or not.

• For the 2007 movie line's Fast Action Battlers, Hasbro added gimmick-specific prefixes to each toy's name. For names already having prefixes, this resulted in particularly clunky names such as "Ion Blast Autobot Jazz" and "Double Missile Decepticon Brawl". By the time the redeco waves started, Hasbro realized that they could simply omit the extra "Autobot" and "Decepticon" prefixes, which gave us "Desert Blast Brawl" and "Rescue Torch Ratchet". With Revenge of the Fallen, Hasbro suffered a temporary relapse with "Beam Blast Autobot Ratchet", but then omitted the gratuitous prefixes again for pretty much everyone else.

• Most of the 2015-onwards Robots in Disguise line's Combiner Force-branded One-Step Changers and Three-Step Changers featured trademarked names for the way they convert on their packaging, such as Snap-Back™, Kick-Pop™, Kick-Latch™ or Lift-Switch™ for the One-Step Changers, and Hyper-Twist™, Hyper-Swoop™ or Hyper-Vault™ for the Three-Step Changers. The only exception are the figures released in the first Combiner Force-branded wave of the One-Step and Three-Step Changers assortments respectively, which still lacked the trademark claims following their conversion names.

• Though it might be a coincidence, Hasbro didn't use any names that required "Autobot" or similar prefixes for any toys from the Unicron Trilogy. This might stem from a notion that such modified names are a less-than-ideal solution, and Hasbro wanted to avoid using them whenever possible (Aaron Archer's reasoning for the Alternators version of Jazz being named "Meister" was that "three 'Autobot someone' toys in a row" were "redundant", referring to "Autobot Hound" and "Autobot Tracks"). This might explain why the Autobot medic from Armada and Cybertron is named "Red Alert" rather than "(Autobot) Ratchet". During that time, prefixed names only appeared in "secondary" lines such as Alternators, Universe and the Commemorative Series reissues, where the toys typically represented existing characters whose names require prefixes these days. It wasn't until the 2007 live-action movie prominently featured several characters whose names require prefixes when used as trademarks that "Autobot Jazz", "Autobot Ratchet", "Decepticon Frenzy" and "Decepticon Brawl" started to appear in a "mainstream" toy line. These days, prefixed names are a common staple in Transformers toy lines regardless of whether they're backed by "mainstream" media such as a movie or cartoon or not.

• Hasbro's desire to defend their exclusive claim on trademarks occasionally also leads to somewhat clunky on-packaging bios that include prefixes (where required) every time a character's name is mentioned in a bio ("During the long process of being rebuilt by AUTOBOT RATCHET®, there was a long time to think. AUTOBOT JAZZ digs his Earth vehicle form..."). A particularly egregious example are the bios for 2010 Transformers Special Ops Jazz and Turbo Tracks, whose names used different prefixes in order to support the "gimmick" of the Reveal the Shield subline imprint (where a toy's faction was only supposed to be revealed via a rubsign)... yet the on-packaging bios blatantly referred to them as "Autobot Jazz" and "Autobot Tracks". The heavily truncated multi-lingual bios on the European packaging simply called them "Jazz" and "Tracks" (although the toys' names were still "Special Ops Jazz" and "Turbo Tracks"), possibly due to a different trademark situation in the European market, where Hasbro isn't trying to enforce an exclusive trademark claim on every single toy's name for every single national market.

See also

• Transformers names in other Hasbro lines
• Blastification

External links

• Trademarks at Wikipedia
• US Trademark & Patent Office
• Extensive article about Transformers-related trademarks at TFArchive.com (outdated)