3 ms·

> 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 goo

> 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!"

em-bee 2y ago
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.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  But that seems to be clearly not what happened in this case, at least by the explanations in the court's ruling.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    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.
greatgib 2y ago
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!
thaumasiotes 2y ago
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.
- acdha 2y ago
  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.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > 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?
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      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.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        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.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        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

em-bee 2y ago

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.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
But that seems to be clearly not what happened in this case, at least by the explanations in the court's ruling.
- em-bee 2y ago
  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.

greatgib 2y ago

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!

thaumasiotes 2y ago

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.

acdha 2y ago
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.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > 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?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    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.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      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.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        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