4 ms·

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

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.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
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.
- biorach 2y ago
  Maybe there's some context missing? Was there something about superbabies that made them more likely to contest the TM?
- terribleperson 2y ago
  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.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    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.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > 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.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    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.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

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.

biorach 2y ago
Maybe there's some context missing? Was there something about superbabies that made them more likely to contest the TM?
terribleperson 2y ago
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.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  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.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> 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.
- lolinder 2y ago
  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.