3 ms·

Disney says their trademark on Snow White precludes ANY other films based on the story. Even if the source of the new film is the public domain tale.

anigbrowl 11y ago
No it doesn't, such a claim would be laughed out of court. Where did you hear this? Are you not aware that there have been other non-Disney versions of Snow White? Here's a list, you'll note there were 3 feature films released in 2012 alone taking different perspectives on the original story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_adaptations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_ada...
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  I t is worth noting that only one of those three 2012 works uses the term "snow white" (in the title) and they prefix it with "Grimm's [Snow White]" which automatically counters any claim by Disney that Disney's trademark is being appropriated. Note that the "registration date" for the RTM [which I'm assuming is the date at which the registration becomes active, please correct if wrong] is 2013 - how the hell did Disney get a RTM on "Snow White" it doesn't indicate origin, it's a traditional story character. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_N...
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Because trademarks are different from copyright, in law and in practice. 'Google' is a trade mark even though it's just a homonym of 'googol,' a word from the dictionary. You can trade mark almost anything and if you can show you have been using the mark in commerce in a meaningful way then you can stop other people from using it in an infringing way - and you have to make an attempt to do so, or face possible future claims of trademark abandonment. Registration of a trade mark is prima facie proof of ownership and also allows you to collect statutory rather than just economic damages. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. Who told you that? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts and bringing up TM issues in a discussion of copyright only confuses people.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      You can't use common words in a field as registered trademarks. They can be used as trademarks by a company. The purpose of a trademark is to indicate the origin of goods and services - thus sane trademark registration requires that a mark being registered meets certain basic requirements. One of those requirements is that a mark not be a common term in the field. A trademark has to be distinct. Google is distinct in the field of search engines as it's both a neonym (ie neologism, made up word) and a word that is not especially pertinent to the particular field of commerce. That is why it's Google and not Googol, neologism's are better because it's far easier to establish uses that are infringing. You /can/ use almost anything as a trademark but there are restrictions on what can be a registered trademark. So back to Disney. "Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark as it's a traditional term in the fields of story telling/movies/cartoons/fiction. Just as a fruit sellers can't have [the word mark] Apple as a registered trademark so too it is normal to reject marks that would prevent people from merely describing their goods (as opposed to indicating the origin of those goods [or services]). Thus to my "wrong, wrong, wrong" statement - Snow White is a perfectly good mark outside the fields of fiction, eg for a hair care product. But allowing the registration of a mark for a Nice class in which that word is widely used descriptively is insane. "Snow White" can only practically indicate the origin of goods/services outside the field of fiction/media. >Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts Except in these instances they're not. Because trademarks don't expire (as long as you pay renewals and manage to avoid genericisation, etc.) then a common method of protecting copyright works as they pass in to the public domain is to use RTMs to bind as much as possible of the IP away from the public domain; eg getting RTMs on character names. This way it is more risky for firms to sell the now public works and the ability to create franchises and such is made far harder - you can create a new Snow White series and use "Snow White" descriptively but then you attempt to create merchandise and oh look Disney own the names of your central characters.
      - anigbrowl 11y ago
        "Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark as it's a traditional term in the fields of story telling/movies/cartoons/fiction. You are of course entitled to that opinion but the fact is that the USPTO decided otherwise. When I say you are 'wrong, wrong wrong' it's because I am talking about how things go in the real world rather than how they should go in the ideal world.

anigbrowl 11y ago

No it doesn't, such a claim would be laughed out of court. Where did you hear this? Are you not aware that there have been other non-Disney versions of Snow White? Here's a list, you'll note there were 3 feature films released in 2012 alone taking different perspectives on the original story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_adaptations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White#Modern_uses_and_ada...

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
I t is worth noting that only one of those three 2012 works uses the term "snow white" (in the title) and they prefix it with "Grimm's [Snow White]" which automatically counters any claim by Disney that Disney's trademark is being appropriated. Note that the "registration date" for the RTM [which I'm assuming is the date at which the registration becomes active, please correct if wrong] is 2013 - how the hell did Disney get a RTM on "Snow White" it doesn't indicate origin, it's a traditional story character. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_N...
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Because trademarks are different from copyright, in law and in practice. 'Google' is a trade mark even though it's just a homonym of 'googol,' a word from the dictionary. You can trade mark almost anything and if you can show you have been using the mark in commerce in a meaningful way then you can stop other people from using it in an infringing way - and you have to make an attempt to do so, or face possible future claims of trademark abandonment. Registration of a trade mark is prima facie proof of ownership and also allows you to collect statutory rather than just economic damages. The only way it could genuinely be a trademark would be if it were used in a way completely unrelated to the character or story. Who told you that? It's wrong, wrong, wrong. Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts and bringing up TM issues in a discussion of copyright only confuses people.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    You can't use common words in a field as registered trademarks. They can be used as trademarks by a company. The purpose of a trademark is to indicate the origin of goods and services - thus sane trademark registration requires that a mark being registered meets certain basic requirements. One of those requirements is that a mark not be a common term in the field. A trademark has to be distinct. Google is distinct in the field of search engines as it's both a neonym (ie neologism, made up word) and a word that is not especially pertinent to the particular field of commerce. That is why it's Google and not Googol, neologism's are better because it's far easier to establish uses that are infringing. You /can/ use almost anything as a trademark but there are restrictions on what can be a registered trademark. So back to Disney. "Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark as it's a traditional term in the fields of story telling/movies/cartoons/fiction. Just as a fruit sellers can't have [the word mark] Apple as a registered trademark so too it is normal to reject marks that would prevent people from merely describing their goods (as opposed to indicating the origin of those goods [or services]). Thus to my "wrong, wrong, wrong" statement - Snow White is a perfectly good mark outside the fields of fiction, eg for a hair care product. But allowing the registration of a mark for a Nice class in which that word is widely used descriptively is insane. "Snow White" can only practically indicate the origin of goods/services outside the field of fiction/media. >Trade marks and copyright are totally separate beasts Except in these instances they're not. Because trademarks don't expire (as long as you pay renewals and manage to avoid genericisation, etc.) then a common method of protecting copyright works as they pass in to the public domain is to use RTMs to bind as much as possible of the IP away from the public domain; eg getting RTMs on character names. This way it is more risky for firms to sell the now public works and the ability to create franchises and such is made far harder - you can create a new Snow White series and use "Snow White" descriptively but then you attempt to create merchandise and oh look Disney own the names of your central characters.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      "Snow White" shouldn't be allowed as a trademark as it's a traditional term in the fields of story telling/movies/cartoons/fiction. You are of course entitled to that opinion but the fact is that the USPTO decided otherwise. When I say you are 'wrong, wrong wrong' it's because I am talking about how things go in the real world rather than how they should go in the ideal world.