3 ms·

> retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies Here's a quick thought experiment: Suppose I create a small movie

by Terr_ 1y ago

> retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies Here's a quick thought experiment: Suppose I create a small movie company based on another character also in the public domain, and I successfully receive a trademark for my logo, which is... Jesus Christ. Does/Should that give me control over anyone selling or distributing other books, movies, pictures, and songs depicting Jesus? In a sane world, the answer is "heck no", because trademarks are really about stopping fraud, where someone else is trying to leech off my good reputation by confusing people into doing business with them instead. Now, one might plausibly argue that Jesus is "generic" and thus the original trademark was wrongly granted, but the same principles apply even if I rebrand under just one of the less-popular characters or symbols. ("As the owner Pontius Pilate Productions, your story violates my trademark!")

marcosdumay 1y ago
You can't get the trademark on the parts that are in common use, and you can't the trademark in a way that harms language. You can get protection over stuff that you invented and doesn't limit how people talk to each other. On this case specifically, you can't make a Mickey Mouse cartoon in a way that looks like it came from Disney. That's all that the trademark protects.
zdragnar 1y ago
There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place. My brother in Jesus Christ paperwork, even now there are already 236 active and formally-registered trademarks which have been granted involving "Jesus Christ", 18 if you limit it to "wordmarks." [0] Also, as per the concurrent(?) edited-in last paragraph, the basic idea remains even if the scope is, er, less-grandiose. [0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/ https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/
  - gamblor956 1y ago
    USPTO search reveals...0 trademarks of "Jesus Christ" because its not trademarkable. There are a number of longer phrases which include the phrase "Jesus Christ" that are trademarked (either as logos or as phrases), but that is a very different thing.
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      I'm not sure how you got from "the example logo contains Jesus Christ" to "the company name must be this exact string."
      - ab5tract 1y ago
        But your example just proves that the trademark avenue is not a genuine moat for Disney. If dozens of trademarks have been given for logos containing Jesus Christ, then there can be dozens of logos containing Steamboat Willie.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    You can trademark a novel turn of phrase that includes historical figures, but not the actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" and protections against false endorsement. So, you could start a new church and trademark "Terr's Church of Jesus Christ", as the trademark covers the organization, but you cannot trademark the name "Jesus Christ" itself.
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      > not the [historical figure] actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" IANAL but I don't think it'd be blocked for that reason: "Right of publicity" is a per-state affair, where it exists it may not be posthumous, where it is posthumous it may not include historical figures, and even if it could apply, there's there's no credible estate/heir of Jesus Christ with standing. ... But I gotta admit it would be amusing to watch someone try to fill that role. As an example, see Pirone v. MacMillan [0], where there was no posthumous "right of publicity" for Babe Ruth's daughter to draw upon. (At least, not back then.) [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/894/579/306858/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/894...

by Terr_ 1y ago

marcosdumay 1y ago

You can't get the trademark on the parts that are in common use, and you can't the trademark in a way that harms language. You can get protection over stuff that you invented and doesn't limit how people talk to each other. On this case specifically, you can't make a Mickey Mouse cartoon in a way that looks like it came from Disney. That's all that the trademark protects.

zdragnar 1y ago

There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

Terr_ 1y ago
> There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place. My brother in Jesus Christ paperwork, even now there are already 236 active and formally-registered trademarks which have been granted involving "Jesus Christ", 18 if you limit it to "wordmarks." [0] Also, as per the concurrent(?) edited-in last paragraph, the basic idea remains even if the scope is, er, less-grandiose. [0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/ https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/
- gamblor956 1y ago
  USPTO search reveals...0 trademarks of "Jesus Christ" because its not trademarkable. There are a number of longer phrases which include the phrase "Jesus Christ" that are trademarked (either as logos or as phrases), but that is a very different thing.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    I'm not sure how you got from "the example logo contains Jesus Christ" to "the company name must be this exact string."
    - ab5tract 1y ago
      But your example just proves that the trademark avenue is not a genuine moat for Disney. If dozens of trademarks have been given for logos containing Jesus Christ, then there can be dozens of logos containing Steamboat Willie.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  You can trademark a novel turn of phrase that includes historical figures, but not the actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" and protections against false endorsement. So, you could start a new church and trademark "Terr's Church of Jesus Christ", as the trademark covers the organization, but you cannot trademark the name "Jesus Christ" itself.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > not the [historical figure] actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" IANAL but I don't think it'd be blocked for that reason: "Right of publicity" is a per-state affair, where it exists it may not be posthumous, where it is posthumous it may not include historical figures, and even if it could apply, there's there's no credible estate/heir of Jesus Christ with standing. ... But I gotta admit it would be amusing to watch someone try to fill that role. As an example, see Pirone v. MacMillan [0], where there was no posthumous "right of publicity" for Babe Ruth's daughter to draw upon. (At least, not back then.) [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/894/579/306858/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/894...