San Diego Comic-Con wins case against Salt Lake Comic Con over use of the phrase "comic con" - Sensationalist Headlines

[t]https://media.deseretdigital.com/file/e6bcb24191?resize=width_1200&type=jpg&c=6&a=e0717f4c[/t] [quote]SAN DIEGO — A jury has found that Salt Lake Comic Con founders Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenburg, along with their company, [b]violated a trademark when they named their fan convention a "comic con."[/b] However, the jury decided that the trademark was not willfully violated, and only awarded $20,000 of the $12 million that San Diego Comic-Con had asked for in damages. The decision came at the end of an eight-day jury trial and three years of legal maneuvering. The four men and two women on the jury deliberated for about nine hours before reaching a verdict. And with an estimated 140 other fan conventions across the country calling themselves comic cons, the impact of the decision could be felt nationwide.[/quote] [quote]"This case is about stealing, taking something that is not yours, something you have no right to. It's about right, and it's about wrong," Bjurstrom told jurors.[/quote] [quote]San Diego Comic-Con, which has been holding events since 1970, has a trademark on "comic-con" with a hyphen, but was unsuccessful in its 1995 bid to trademark "comic con," with a space. The unhyphenated name "Comic Con International," as well as the event's iconic "eye logo," are also protected by trademark. The event maintains that its trademarks cover the term "comic con" in all its forms. Through the 29-question verdict form, the jury ruled that by using the "comic con" name, the Salt Lake defendants had violated all three trademarks.[/quote] [url]https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900005378/jury-finds-salt-lake-comic-con-violated-trademark.html[/url] Alternate source: [url]https://www.ksl.com/?nid=1070&sid=46214166&title=salt-lake-comic-con-violated-trademark-rules-jury-says[/url] Absolutely ridiculous. Pretty obvious money-grabbing attempt by SDCC, I'm glad that they only got $20k of the $12 million they were demanding. I attended SLCC 2017 earlier this year, had a great time, and I'll probably continue to attend future events even if they have to change their name to "Salt Lake Comic Convention".

You can trademark an obvipus abbreviation?

[QUOTE=zakedodead;52960919]You can trademark an obvipus abbreviation?[/QUOTE] I think you should be able to when the name is so closely associated with your brand. As an average consumer, if I heard someone say "Salt Lake Comic Con", I know the first thing I'd think is "Oh, Comic-Con are expanding to more cities?"

Hang on a minute. [quote]San Diego Comic-Con, which has been holding events since 1970, has a trademark on "comic-con" with a hyphen, but was [B]unsuccessful in its 1995 bid to trademark "comic con,"[/B] with a space. The unhyphenated name "Comic Con International," as well as the event's iconic "eye logo," are also protected by trademark. [B]The event maintains that its trademarks cover the term "comic con" in all its forms.[/B][/quote] Uh no? How does having trademark control for comic-con, Comic Con International and their eye logo apply them to have rights to "comic con" even though it was denied. This should have been thrown out, they have no actual legal grounds to stand on here as they don't actually own the trademark for "comic con". Also all those other conventions using "comic con" over the years and them not giving a shit about it, only now do they give a damn.

The most ironic thing is this incredibly hypocritical quote by SDCC's attorney: [quote]"This case is about stealing, [b]taking something that is not yours, something you have no right to[/b]. It's about right, and it's about wrong,"[/quote] Like why does SDCC believe they have "the right" to the term "comic con" when that registration was obviously rejected?

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52960933]I think you should be able to when the name is so closely associated with your brand. As an average consumer, if I heard someone say "Salt Lake Comic Con", I know the first thing I'd think is "Oh, Comic-Con are expanding to more cities?"[/QUOTE] Trademarks don't work like that, you only get trademark control over what you register and in that format, if you want to protect yourself you need to trademark all of the variations. The same applies to copyright as well. Now in some countries there are exceptions to this where they'll automatically expand it to protect against similar terms or variations from being used to impersonate your trademark eg. g00gle, but at the same time it can be ruled as general usage especially if its and abbreviation. Of which in this case, comic convention abbreviates to comic con, hence the original denial. Its too generic to trademark essentially.

[QUOTE=TerrorShield;52960945]The most ironic thing is this incredibly hypocritical quote by SDCC's attorney: Like why does SDCC believe they have "the right" to the term "comic con" when that registration was obviously rejected?[/QUOTE] That line sounds like it was pulled out of a patent troll lawsuit.

[QUOTE=Reagy;52960934]Hang on a minute. Uh no? How does having trademark control for comic-con, Comic Con International and their eye logo apply them to have rights to "comic con" even though it was denied. This should have been thrown out, they have no actual legal grounds to stand on here as they don't actually own the trademark for "comic con". Also all those other conventions using "comic con" over the years and them not giving a shit about it, only now do they give a damn.[/QUOTE] Maybe just trying to scare the little guy

should change the name to "graphic novel gathering"

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comic_book_conventions[/URL] they uh, seem to have let quite a lot slip by lol

[QUOTE=Reagy;52960955]Trademarks don't work like that, you only get trademark control over what you register and in that format, if you want to protect yourself you need to trademark all of the variations. The same applies to copyright as well. Now in some countries there are exceptions to this where they'll automatically expand it to protect against similar terms or variations from being used to impersonate your trademark eg. g00gle, but at the same time it can be ruled as general usage especially if its and abbreviation. Of which in this case, comic convention abbreviates to comic con, hence the original denial. Its too generic to trademark essentially.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of the studio that was trying to copyright the word "stealth" after they released "Stealth". :rolleyes:

We have an Indiana and Kentucky Comic Con over here, not sure if they are affiliated either.

[QUOTE=Reagy;52960934]Hang on a minute. [QUOTE]San Diego Comic-Con, which has been holding events since 1970, has a trademark on "comic-con" with a hyphen, but was unsuccessful in its 1995 bid to trademark "comic con," with a space. The unhyphenated name "Comic Con International," as well as the event's iconic "eye logo," are also protected by trademark. The event maintains that its trademarks cover the term "comic con" in all its forms.[/QUOTE] Uh no? How does having trademark control for comic-con, Comic Con International and their eye logo apply them to have rights to "comic con" even though it was denied. This should have been thrown out, they have no actual legal grounds to stand on here as they don't actually own the trademark for "comic con". Also all those other conventions using "comic con" over the years and them not giving a shit about it, only now do they give a damn.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Reagy;52960955]Trademarks don't work like that, you only get trademark control over what you register and in that format, if you want to protect yourself you need to trademark all of the variations. The same applies to copyright as well. Now in some countries there are exceptions to this where they'll automatically expand it to protect against similar terms or variations from being used to impersonate your trademark eg. g00gle, but at the same time it can be ruled as general usage especially if its and abbreviation. Of which in this case, comic convention abbreviates to comic con, hence the original denial. Its too generic to trademark essentially.[/QUOTE] I don't know who gave you this information but [i]trademark[/i] infringement (as opposed to copyright infringement) is much more flexible than a one-to-one comparison. I'll just quote from a recent brief of mine: [quote]In the Ninth Circuit, a trademark is entitled to protection from alleged infringement when there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. [U]GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.[/U], 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit has established eight factors – commonly referred to as the “Sleekcraft factors” – which determine whether confusion is likely: (1) strength of mark; (2) similarity of marks; (3) evidence of actual confusion; (4) proximity of goods; (5) types of goods and degree of care exercised; (6) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; (7) marketing channels used; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. [U]AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats[/U], 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979). A plaintiff does not need to satisfy a majority of the factors for the injunction to be issued. [U]See, e.g.[/U], [U]Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc.[/U], 618 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010) (“This eight-factor analysis is ‘pliant,’ illustrative rather than exhaustive, and best understood as simply providing helpful guideposts.”); [U]Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG Studio[/U], 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The factors should not be rigidly weighed; we do not count beans.”).[/quote] You do not need a granted trademark on the precise wording and format of the mark you want to go after. [quote]The Ninth Circuit recognizes five types of marks – generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful. [U]JL Bev.[/U], 828 F.3d at 1107; [U]AMF[/U], 599 F.2d at 349. A generic mark describes the product in its entirety. [U]JL Bev.[/U], 828 F.3d at 1107. A descriptive mark describes the qualities or characteristics of the product, [U]Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.[/U], 469 U.S. 189, 194 (1985) (quoting 15 U.S.C. §§ 1065, 1115(b)), and “does not require any exercise of the imagination.” [U]Yellow Co. of Sacramento v. Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, Inc.[/U], 419 F.3d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2005). . . . Advertising expenditures can still transform a presumptively weak suggestive mark into a strong mark by achieving marketplace recognition. [U]JL Bev.[/U], 828 F.3d at 1107; see [U]Network Automation[/U], 638 F.3d at 1149.[/quote] I'd agree that "comic con" is either a generic or descriptive mark but that doesn't mean it gets no protection. And denial of a USPTO application is not a test that is binding on the courts; the denial can be introduced as evidence and may carry a presumption, but that presumption is rebuttable.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52960933]I think you should be able to when the name is so closely associated with your brand. As an average consumer, if I heard someone say "Salt Lake Comic Con", I know the first thing I'd think is "Oh, Comic-Con are expanding to more cities?"[/QUOTE] As another average person I didn't even know that comic con was a brand.

[QUOTE=Reagy;52960955]Trademarks don't work like that, you only get trademark control over what you register and in that format, if you want to protect yourself you need to trademark all of the variations. [B]The same applies to copyright as well.[/B][/QUOTE] Not only is it wrong to say that trademarks have to be explicitly declared, it's [I]extra[/I] wrong to say that about copyrights. Talk to a photographer or artist, or anyone else who frequently has their work stolen online, and they'll be quick to point out that you don't need to explicitly declare copyright to be protected by it. It's automatic. Explicitly declaring it just makes any court case a little easier. In the US at least, no form of IP (be it trademark, copyright, or patent) needs to be explicitly declared in order to have legal weight. Formally registering a work with the federal government only serves to provide an authoritative record of prior art, and makes it easier to demonstrate that IP has been infringed. Denying a trademark doesn't mean 'you don't get to claim this as a trademark', it just means 'the federal government is not ready to grant you explicit control over the phrase, so you'll need to go to court if you think an infringement is occurring, and make your case there'. It's now twenty years since their denied application, so they went to court, and the jury decided that they own a trademark for basically the same phrase they already held a trademark on. That's how IP works.

all they need to do is rename it "cummie con"