Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should San Diego Be Allowed To Trademark The Name Comic Con?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should San Diego Be Allowed To Trademark The Name Comic Con?

    Read this, then comment. IMHO, this is bs.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...nd-desist.html

    The power of will is found at the deepest level of your being. It's more than mere rules. It's a duty that you must honor.

  • #2
    It is a rather ludicrous position for them to try to take, given that they were denied trademark on "Comic Con", and the term has been used by countless other conventions over the years already, some of which they have already tried (and failed) to stop from using it. If it goes to court, I cannot imagine that SDCC will win. They are probably just trying to intimidate them into dropping the term from their name to avoid the cost and effort of going to court in the first place.

    Comment


    • #3
      Personally, I think San Diego should be able to trademark "Comic Con" because it is truly riding the coat tails of the established brand name of San Diego "Comic-Con." The NFL is allowed to trademark "Super Bowl" and I'm sure that includes "Super-Bowl." Let's be real, the reason why these start conventions use "Comic Con" in their convention name is to draw attention and have the illusion that they are affiliated with SDCC.

      When anyone says I'm going to "Comic Con" it's generally assumed it's SDCC.

      However, I don't think the SDCC organizers will be able to trademark "Comic Con."
      You just witnessed the strength of geek knowledge. N.W.A., Nerd With Attitude. Straight out of Vulcan!

      Comment


      • #4
        they shouldn't be allowed to trademark just "Comic-con", there/their/they'res like a Comic-con in almost every city and they can't sue'em all but they could trademark "San Diego Comic-con" and get away with it

        IonFan says

        MAGA then, MAGA now, MAGA FOREVER

        Comment


        • #5
          Here's what I don't get. They want to trademark "Comic Con", but that's just a shortening for Comic Convention. So not sure how they would or should be able to trademark the name of a function that literally takes place at thousands of areas worldwide. So I guess if they trademark went through, all those "Comic Cons" would become "Comic Conventions" ?


          Follow The Nobodies Comic on Facebook or Twitter

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Darth_Primus View Post
            Let's be real, the reason why these start conventions use "Comic Con" in their convention name is to draw attention and have the illusion that they are affiliated with SDCC.
            Really? You don't think that it could possibly be that they are comic conventions, and the WIDELY accepted abbreviation of conventions of ALL sorts is "con"? What would other comic conventions be called if this wasn't allowed? You can't reasonably keep them from using the term "comic" in their name, and while you could theoretically force them to use the full term "convention" on all official documents, nobody would actually refer to them as such, because "con" IS a widely used, generic abbreviation for convention.

            No, I think the term is obviously a generic description, and it is laughable that SDCC thinks they can trademark it in the first place (though stupider things have been allowed as trademarks in the past I expect).

            In this case, though, they don't have a legal leg to stand on, I wouldn't think, because the term is so obviously one that has been in wide usage, and they have already failed in the past when challenging its use by other cons.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mister Ed View Post
              Really? You don't think that it could possibly be that they are comic conventions, and the WIDELY accepted abbreviation of conventions of ALL sorts is "con"? What would other comic conventions be called if this wasn't allowed?
              I understand how the terms "comic" and "con" seem genetic, but term "Comic-Con" is an established brand name in the sense that you tell the average comic book fan that you're attending "Comic Con" is generally assumed that it is San Diego Comic-Con. I mean, if you look at all the articles, press release and other media coverage of the events and information coming from San Diego, it's typically something like "from 'Comic-Con'." Thus, establishing a brand name. If you Google "news from Comic-Con" most likely every link in the search result will be related to San Diego "Comic-Con." Therefore "Comic-Con" is not really a genetic or general term as it relates to a very specific event.

              There are other comic conventions that do not use "Comic Con" in their titles such as C2E2, BigWow Comic Fest, Comikaze, SuperCon, BotCon, Star Wars Celebration, etc. You can use Fest, Expo, Celebration, i.e. Salt Lake ComicFest, Salt Lake Comic Expo, Salt Lake City Comic Celebration. There are alternatives.

              If the organizers of Comic-Con had the foresight for trademarking the term "Comic Con" like the NFL did with the "Super Bowl" it wouldn't sound so ridiculous.
              Darth_Primus
              Guardian of the Universe
              Last edited by Darth_Primus; 07-28-2014, 11:31 PM.
              You just witnessed the strength of geek knowledge. N.W.A., Nerd With Attitude. Straight out of Vulcan!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Darth_Primus View Post
                I understand how the terms "comic" and "con" seem genetic, but term "Comic-Con" is an established brand name in the sense that you tell the average comic book fan that you're attending "Comic Con" is generally assumed that it is San Diego Comic-Con. I mean, if you look at all the articles, press release and other media coverage of the events and information coming from San Diego, it's typically something like "from 'Comic-Con'." Thus, establishing a brand name. If you Google "news from Comic-Con" most likely every link in the search result will be related to San Diego "Comic-Con." Therefore "Comic-Con" is not really a genetic or general term.

                There are other comic conventions that do not use "Comic Con" in their titles such as C2E2, BigWow Comic Fest, Comikaze, SuperCon, BotCon, Star Wars Celebration, etc. You can use Fest, Expo, Celebration, i.e. Salt Lake ComicFest, Salt Lake Comic Expo, Salt Lake City Comic Celebration. There are alternatives.

                If the organizers of Comic-Con had the foresight for trademarking the term "Comic Con" like the NFL did with the "Super Bowl" it wouldn't sound so ridiculous.
                I think it WOULD still sound ridiculous, but maybe that's just me.

                Sorry, just because there are alternatives doesn't make it non-generic. And the fact that New York Comic Con, Chicago Comic Con, etc. exist gives the lie to the idea that it is in any way exclusive to SDCC. And even the list you gave includes other names that include "con" which just provides evidence that "con" IS a generic abbreviation for convention.

                If somebody told me they were going to "Comic Con" I would likely ask them which one, and might possibly assume they were going to whichever one was closest. But I confess that could just be because I'm not a big con-goer.

                The Super Bowl isn't really comparable, as there is nothing about the term "Super" that would be said to generically apply to all Football games. It would be more like if they tried to trademark the term "Football Game".

                Comment


                • #9
                  I understand "con" is generic, but "Comic Con" is not because it's a specific event and known entity. Again, if you Google "news from Comic Con" or "Comic Con exclusives" it relates to the comic convention in San Diego.

                  San Diego "Comic-Con" was established in 1970 where there were no other conventions like it anywhere, so thus is created/coined the phrase "comic con." At that point, if the organizers trademark the phrase "Comic Con" none of these other conventions would be able to use it.

                  The problem is that the organizers are trying to retro-actively trademark the name, but are failing.

                  As far as "Super Bowl," it is a register trademark so you can't have the Salt Lake "Super Bowl," like they have for Salt Lake Comic Con.

                  Seriously, these other conventions really don't want to distinguish themselves from original "Comic Con" because name recognition and ease of marketing.

                  I mean, why not start a smart phone/table company called "Apple Devices" or comic book store called "Portland D<space>C Comics?"
                  You just witnessed the strength of geek knowledge. N.W.A., Nerd With Attitude. Straight out of Vulcan!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Eh, I still think this case is different, since the term "Comic Con" is made up of two generic terms which are both literally descriptive of the events in question. "Apple Devices" might be made of two generic terms, but "Apple" is not a LITERAL description for the devices in question. The events in question are undoubtedly, literally Comic Conventions, and "con" as a generic abbreviation for convention was not originated by SDCC. Just because they were the first comic convention does not, IMHO, entitle them to trademark the generic descriptive term "comic convention" nor variations that simply differ by using a generic, generally accepted abbreviation for one of the words (said abbreviation pre-dating SDCC's use of it). I find it a bit sketchy that they were able to trademark the term even by putting a dash in the middle of it, but I suppose that is sufficiently unique from the standard spelling to qualify.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      they probably see it as a cash grab wich is why they would love to trademark it
                      .................................................. ..........................

                      Cnn = constant nasuating nonsense

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think this is silly, and almost like trying to trademark "concert" while preventing all other musicians, bands and comedians from using the word on their tours. If SDCC is really a Non-profit Organization (which they continually claim to be), they shouldn't care about trademarking the name. After all, it's not like they're making money from it... allegedly. If they want to trademark SDCC, I get that, but to take "ComicCon" and any variation therein away from other cities that have similar shows is ridiculous.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The gag order is off. Case goes to trial later this month.

                          https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...amendment.html

                          The power of will is found at the deepest level of your being. It's more than mere rules. It's a duty that you must honor.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I still can't fathom how they think they will win this case, since they have already failed in the past, and there are quite obviously many, many other existing conventions that use the term "Comic Con". I can't quite figure out why they think this is a smart use of their funds...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I read a story a while back abut how Johnny Grant, a semi-celebrity in the 50s and 60s who somehow got himself named "honorary mayor of Hollywood," once demanded that the city of Hollywood FL change its name -- even though Hollywood FL was an incorporated city and Hollywood CA wasn't! Of course the city officials in Hollywood FL laughed at his silly ass.

                              And Spike Lee once demanded that Spike TV change its name. They laughed at his silly ass too.
                              The pandemic should have ended in the United States in March. You know why it didn't, don't you? Think about that every time you put on a mask.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X