caseyphillips.net

Buster left an informative comment on my last post about the Marvel/DC super hero trademark. I can definitely see his point, and have absolutely no problem with a company enforcing trademarks they own. I have no problem with DC or Marvel enforcing this particular trademark (which, they've proven is not impossible). I do not have a great deal of experience (as in none) with dealing with trademarks, so take everything I say with the proverbial grain of salt.

Anyway, what I don't understand is the granting of this particular trademark in the first place. I'll explain why.

The first use of "superhero" in print was in the Superman comics published in the late 1930's. At the time it was published by Action Comics, not DC (as it is now). Throughout the years, the term was used by other publications (non-Marvel/DC), and entered the public lexicon by the 1950's. Here's were I have the problem. DC and Marvel did not apply for the trademark until 1979 (it was granted in 1981).

Now, had they trademarked the term when it was not yet in common use, I would definitely agree they deserve the sole right to its use (I'm suspecting Buster was under the impression they did just that). This isn't a case of a Kleenex or Xerox, which were trademarked and then became commonplace words.

So, with all this in mind, my dreams to trademark cold beer may not be so out of reach. Well, it's really not my dream, but it it were. . .

Oh, and I want to put another disclaimer here. I am not a comic book buff, have no emotional stake in whether DC or Marvel sues the pants off of anyone who might violate their trademark, and only found out about these "facts" after just a little research (why? who knows). I might have owned 2 or 3 comic books in my entire life and that's probably a conservative estimate, taking into account my frail and exceptionally selective memory.