What is Digg?96 Comments
- h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+41You deserve 50 lashes for NOT knowing about Boing Boing...
...and another 50 for relating it to Nascar! - Greg-J, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27I don't pick on 'newbs' but good god man, wtf.
- Stephanite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20You just called Boing Boing spam? Ummm... The Boing Boing piece IS the article.
- VaderHader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12it's called brand-name assosciation and nobody forces it down your throat. We choose to use the socially accepted synonym for a product rather than call it what it is, even though if we said 'cotton swab' or 'bandage' somebody would still know what you were talking about. The point is that Xerox never said "we own the term 'copy machine' so don't use it or else"
ps- i think you meant to say Tylenol - alexhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11DC Comics is owned by Warner Bros., a division of AOL/Time-Warner. Marvel Comics is owned by Marvel Enterprises which also owns Marvel Studios.
- chaos213, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I wouldn't be so down on Marvel for trying to claim copywrite on "super-hero" if they weren't so guilty of flagrant use of copywrited words themselves. For that matter so are all of you. Here is a copy of the email I sent Marvel asking then to please stop using words I copywrited "ages" ago.
To™ whom™
This™ article™: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/18/marvel_comics_steali.html
Has™ Prompted™ me™ to™ send™ Marvel Comics a™ request™ to™ stop™ using™ words™ that™ I™ have™ trademarked™. I™ am™ sure™ you™ can™ appreciate™ the™ value™ of™ a™ trademark™, given™ your™ current™ struggle™ to™ establish™ a™ trademark™ for™ "super-hero". Sadly™ I™ must™ also™ inform™ you™ that™ ages™ ago™ I™ trademarked™ super™ and™ hero™ so™ I™ think™ your attempt™ to™ trademark™ "super-hero" may™ be™ a™ trademark™ infringement™. At™ any™ rate™ please™ refrain™ from™ using™ my™ other™ trademarked™ words™ or™ phrases™.
Flame™ me™ if™ you™ will™ but™ please™ refrain™ from™ violating™ my™ copywrited™ words™ if™ you™ do™. - cyberry, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13the trademark info is apparently real (here's another source - http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2005/07/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-9.html ), but kinda old news.
and why pin it just on Marvel, when it's Marvel and DC together? - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin:
"The name "aspirin" is composed of a- (from the acetyl group) -spir- (from the spiraea flower) and -in (a common ending for drugs at the time). On March 6, 1899 Bayer registered it as a trademark.
"However, the German company lost the right to use the trademark in many countries as the Allies seized and resold its foreign assets after World War I." - Godric, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13OK so Marvel got a trademark for the phrase "super hero" in 1979. How is this news?
A lot of words filter down from corporations... Xerox, Kleenex, Band-aid Q-tip, Cellophane and
Aspirin were all trademarked names that are now used generically. But if you try to start your own brand of Xerox office equipment you will be in violation of a trademark. How is language any poorer for that? This editorial is pure sensationalism. - halikar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If this had been trademarked since the genre was created in the 1930's, I could see the arguement for it. Of course, if it HAD been trademarked in the 1930's, DC would be sitting pretty, and Marvel would be up a creek without a paddle. It's one thing to have a used trademark become public domain, like Asprin has. I can also understand why Xerox fights tooth and nail to preserve their trademark name, even though it's a loosing battle.
But claiming a trademark AFTER it's generally used? That's horse pucky. - lalindsey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17"Although I'm sure you'll express your disaproval by modding me down, the reason why I don't read blogs is because I don't need anyone telling me how to think and feel about an issue. I especially don't need someone to fill me with fear or anger with a poorly researched rant."
^Speaking of poorly researched rants . . .. ^
So I assume you read neither newspapers or magazines either. Or non-fiction books for that matter. Blogs aren't a means to brainwash you to change your own opinions about issues. Blogs are a way for people to express their thoughts and opinions and share news/information with people. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23It's not an article, its an editorial with no sources.
- gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"ps- i think you meant to say Tylenol"
Aspirin was (is?) a trademark too, probably from "aspire"--but I haven't read up on that part yet. - VaderHader, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10So you can't submit an editorial?? I didn't know digg had the same rules as Calvin-Ball?
- QuikSilvr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's on the back of my Spiderman - The Vemon Saga DVD: "Super Hero(es) is a co-owned registered trademark."
- Apreche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6DC has the trademark for superhero, without the hyphen.
- ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Remind me to trademark underwear perverts...
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Kerosine was also a registered trademark.
- Godric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Companies have to be able to show that they've historically protected their trademarks by litigation and other means. As long as they do that, they can prevent them from becoming "the people's property". In other words, even if the word iPod becomes part of the common vocabulary, Dell won't be able to call their mp3 players "Dell iPods" so long as Apple can show due diligance in protecting their trademark.
- spiderland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Who really cares? In all honesty, it won't change the way you or any of us would use the word.
- halikar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes, this is exactly how trademarks get lost. Corporate policy currently is to sue as often as possible the use of their trademark words in a generic fashion. I say again though, I can accept this if the trademark has been used as a trademark throughout the products use, even if said product has made such an impact that it's become a cultural icon (i.e. Kleenex).
But super-hero comic books have been around for 40 years BEFORE they trademarked. The only reasons to trademark it after the fact is to prevent others from competing, and that is not what a trademark is for. - ghelton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I dont know if anyone has said this yet, but words go into public domain IF we start using them. Words like Band-Aid become less Trademarkable when we use them everyday. It is the companies job to enforce their identities. They'll never win because Super-Hero is such an every day word.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I usually love BoingBoing, but this is just sensational journalism. This article makes it seem like just saying the word "super-hero" when not referencing a Marvel character will get you a call from Marvel's lawyers and a cease and desist in the mail.
Like other people have said, we use names like Coke, Kleenex, White-Out, Q-Tip and Asprin among others to refer to a general group of products. The word super hero is the same, and because Marvel didn't do anything in the past to really fight the common use of the word, they won't be able to do anything with this other than possibly other publishers like DC using the word super-hero in their comics or other products - Godric, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No prob, it's an easy mistake to make. And it's precisely the kind of thing we're talking about. If Aspirin could start out as a trademarked name, there's no reason that "super hero" couldn't, even though both are quite ubiquitous and common now. If you look around, the same process is taking place with words like iPod and Google... they're becoming part of the language... they're adding to it, rather than stealing away.
- jamielsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So, coming from an avid supporter of Marvel and DC (just so that you are aware of my bias), this story is possibly the lamest thing I've read on here to date.
- GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Thanks be to the gods we have an advocate against our Comic Book Oppressors in the Trotskyist Doctorow.
Cory, you're thirty-something. It's time to put the comic books away. - brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is a bit inaccurate since both Marvel and DC filed for a joint patent.
- feshmania, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4probably because they think it's an interesting topic?
- brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Um...so why is this news? Brand names have been around as long as capitalism. Not a big deal...I promise the world or the language is no worse because of it.
- VaderHader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4ok you got me there...i shoulda let it go without the P.S.
in my defense i was thinking of all the times i've read 'non-aspirin pain reliever' on the side of a bottle, so you'll forgive the misconception!
:) - draegloth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4there's a difference there, too.
AirPort is a name Dell gave to it's routers. AirPort describes those routers only abstractly.
Super Hero is a description. Hero is a standard term for the good guy in a story. Super is a modifier that shows that these heroes are stronger than most.
If I genetically engineerd giant slugs and, would I be able to copyright the term giant slug? No, because that's what they are. They're giant slugs. Batman is a super hero. Beowulf is a super hero. Neo is a super hero. Frodo is a hero. Gollum is an anti hero.
If you don't see the difference, you're being obtuse. - Godric, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"ps- i think you meant to say Tylenol"
No, I meant Aspirin. You proved my point actually because the word Aspirin was trademarked by Bayer. But after decades Aspirin has become so ubiquitous and well-known that the trademarked corporate name replaced the name of the substance described.
To use an example you might be more familiar with, the name iPod describes a "portable mp3 player" and it is concievable that in 10 or 20 years iPod will be so well known that iPod will be the generic name. A whole generation will have grown up with iPods and know nothing else. Similar to the way "walkman" for many people is synonymous with "portable cassette player." But if at that time Dell decides to make its own line of Dell iPods, they would be in violation of Apple's trademark.
So, I really can't be bothered by the fact that Marvel was granted a trademark for "superhero" back in 1979. For all I know they deserve the trademark and it is their right to defend it against all comers. And if words like "aspirin" are any judge, corporate trademarks actually add to the language, rather than "steal" from it. The premise of this editorial is flawed and its tone is needlessly sensationalistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin - esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This HAS to be the funniest thing since the Fonz from Happy Days jupmed over the shark while wearing a leather jacket and shorts on a pair of ski's.
And when did the hyphen become part of the word super-hero?
LMAO - gschienke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Okay, let me set a few misconceptions straight and I am speaking from knowledge because I am an intellectual property attorney.
1. A key thing people seem to forget or don't know is that trademark law was created as consumer protection law, though people sometimes think of it as manufacturer protection law. "Branding" is twentieth century concept; before then a trademark was looked at a manufacturer's mark of identification and has its roots back in the Middle Ages. For example, let's say that Clive produces wine and ships it out in casks branded with three grapes in a triangle. People who buy Clive's wine begin to associate that mark with his product and either buy it because they know the quality is always good or avoid because the wine is often sour. Now, if Clive is doing a booming business, another wine producer could try to take advantage of Clive's success by putting his product in casks marked with three grapes in a triangle. An unknowing consumer could buy the second producer's wine and find the product terrible. Having been stung, the consumer never buys the wine again and tells her friends to avoid it, too. Eventually, enough consumers could be tricked that Clive's business decreases and he has to close up.
Without trademark law, Clive has no recourse since there is nothing special about wine in and of itself that can be protected; the only thing he has is his trademark which acts as an indicator of quality for consumers. So, at its core, trademark law is a tool to stop a person from defrauding consumers by using the same or similar trademark of another on the same or similar product that the other produces.
2. Words can be taken out of the public domain when they apply to something not ordinarily associated with that word. "What does that mean?" you ask. Simply this: If you wanted to produce bottled water and simply call it WATER, you would not be awarded that trademark if you applied for it because that would withdraw it from the public domain for its common usage. The reason is that "water" is the word that is used to describe the aqueous form of H20 and if one manufacturer had the trademark for its bottled water, other manufacturers of bottled water wouldn't be able to use that traditional, common word to describe its own product. On the other hand, if you wanted to produce a line of automobiles called WATER, that trademark you could apply for and could possibly be awarded because "water" is not commonly associated with automobiles by people.
3. Just to sit things straight, DC Comics only owns the trademark for KRYPTONITE, for cosmetics, toys & sporting goods, and t-shirts. Some think that is wrong, but "kryptonite" is a fanciful word, it does not exist in chemistry, thus it cannot be removed from the public domain. The name of the solid form of krypton is "krypton." I know this because before I became a lawyer I was a chemist. Now, if for some reason DC wanted to trademark KRYPTON in relation to the noble gas, that could not happen since the word used to describe the gas would be taken from the public domain.
By the way, just so that it is known, KRYPTONITE has been trademarked for products ranging from bicycle locks to bone cement by companies other that DC.
4. The "right" of Marvel and DC to jointly own the trademark, SUPERHERO and/or SUPER-HERO and/or any permutations including pluralizations thereof. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them owning the trademark to that word. That word may have been in use before 1966, the year given on the record of ownership, but DC and Marvel took it upon themselves to assert that when consumers think of "super heroes" characters they own, Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, Captain America, come to mind. I think it is a difficult battle to wage to try and prove in court that any of the characters found in the comic book "Super Hero Happy Hour" have the same association with the word.
If you look at the two trademark serial numbers presented at the head of the Wikipedia article, you'd find that #72243225 is for the use of word in conjuctions with masquerade costumes and that #73222079 is for the use of the word on publications, particularly comic books and magazines and stories in illustrated form. (DC also owns LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES and Marvel owns MARVEL SUPER HEROES.) If you go back and look at the wine example, you'll understand what this means: On masquerade costumes and comic books only Marvel and DC have the right to use SUPER HERO (or any reasonable variation thereof; the two companies will argue that the trademark is famous and should be given that breadth of protection). For GeekPunk to use SUPER HERO on the cover of a comic book is an unauthorized use of a trademark and the company could have rightly been sued for trademark infringement.
It may not seem "fair" to some, but what Marvel and DC did is well within the context of trademark. Additionally, if Marvel and DC do not actively protect their trademarks, there is a chance that they could fall into the public domain. This is what happened to "murphy bed", "escalator", and "cola." All of those were trademarks that entered the public domain because the owners didn't make enough effort to inform the public that they were trademarks. This is also why every so often Xerox will have an ad campaign reminding consumers that "you use a Xerox copying machine to make a copy, not to make a xerox."
5. An inventor applies for a patent when he has created something new. Marvel and DC did not invent anything, so they would not submit a patent application.
6. Finally, "super hero" is not being removed from the public domain (and, in fact, it is trademarked by companies other than the Big 2 comic companies for products from fireworks to beauty creams). If you want to produce a superhero comic book and refer to the characters inside the comic as "superheroes," there is nothing to prevent that act. However, if you put it on the cover of a comic book, then you are infringing upon a registered trademark and legal action could be taken.
I hope I made things a little clearer. If you have any questions, post them, but, please, also e-mail me that you did post the questions or else I might miss them. - movieguyjon, on 04/03/2009, -2/+5This article wasn't very well written, especially the parts about calling the superheros underwear perverts. If they actually cared about this issue, they wouldn't have written such a poor article. They might have actually gone and done something about it. Such, however, is life.
- halikar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This trademark actually has had an affect in the pen and paper role playing game market as well. Marvel and DC products refer to "superheroes", while the more popular games fall back on "capes", "supers", and "metahumans". Most players of said games use the term "superhero" anyway, as that's what they are familiar and comfortable with. That already shows the case for trademark is eroding.
- Makyo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4-digg.
The header and the linked article make it seem like this is something new, when in fact they've held the trademark since 1981 -- 25 years ago!
here's a link to an article with a copy of the trademark information:
http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2005/07/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-9.html - slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i guess i'll start using "super hero" as two words instead of one or with a hyphen
- halikar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Yes you do Godric, or you wouldn't have reported this as spam and be defending the position that it's crap and no one should be looking at it. But I can respect that opinion, even if I don't share it. :)
- Godric, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14Captaindan, I have a policy of admitting my mistakes. I have made none in this case.
This editorial conveniently leaves out the fact that Marvel was granted the trademark for "superhero" 25 years ago in 1981. The trademark is jointly held with DC and other companies can get around it by using "super-hero" with a hyphen. It is also standard procedure for trademark holders to proect their trademarks because otherwise they become public domain. This doesn't stifle competition any more than the fact that "Xerox" is still trademarked despite its being so common that it is interchangeable with "copier".
However, if you still believe that Marvel is "stealing" from the language and that my opinions are based on incorrect facts or reasoning, you are more than welcome to correct me and I will gladly admit to any mistake that I have made.
The mob is often wrong. - teno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Godric, you're my goddam superhero.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3no i dont think it can be becuse im pretty sure its an element in the periodic table
wait yep its in there alright as taken from schoolchampions.com
Kryptonite
You all know that the comic-strip hero Superman was weakened by the green substance Kryptonite. It is true that the gas Krypton will glow green when electrically charged, but in its solid form, it is a white crystal. Kryptonite is fiction. Superman lives!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This again? For those uninformed, they tried this before. But how I heard it was that Marvel got "super-hero" and DC got "superhero." What's the difference? See the hyphen in the first one? No? You're blind.
Now if they're both going for "super-hero" then what happens to "superhero?" Does it become public domain? If anybody should be the focus of criticism it's DC for holding both "super-hero" and "superhero" at the same time.
No matter. I'll be using both. They can go to hell if they don't like it. - Gneisbaard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3super-heroes are gay anyway.
- simbaB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The question (for me at least) is not whether or not they have a trade mark on the word but if they are doing as the post suggests and using it to harass their competitors. That would be a problem. They probably shouldn't have the trade mark, IIRC back in the late '90s Intel was denied a trademark on MMX because it was too generic. Something similar should be the case here, at least I think...
- Jangles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5That is ridiculous, how can these people sleep at night?
This is just as dumb as trump copyrighting the phrase "you're fired". God damn these people are stupid. If this continues in a few years every other word we use there is going to be a royalty fee. - EmperorSamoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought Marvel had the word trademarked a long time ago, we just used the word in our everyday language. Like some people that call a soda: "Coke", videogame systems: "Nintendos" (god I hate that), and any MP3 player: "iPods".
- retawd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Everyone here got green thumbs up. You are all -retawded!
- Godric, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"Kerosine"
I didn't know that. Yet another word added to the language by trademarks.
But I suppose if you come up with a killer product like iPods and its name becomes well-known, you better not defend its use or you will be considered a thief "stealing" from the language. - ghelton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@godric
exactly, but if they dont sue or anything else then they will lose it. By now i think its way too late in the game for Marvel to regain this word, if its even theirs to begin with. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is