Forum: Author Hangout

You can't protect titles or subtitles via copyright. You have to use trademarks for that.

Forgot to mention, unlike copyrights, trademarks are not automatic. To have a valid trademark, it must be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office.

As for trademarking said title, "Superhero Avengers" was intended as a joke

I wasn't sure if that title was serious or not. It could have been a seriously intended title for a parody. However, I though I would mention the bit about superhero just in case, because a lot of people aren't aware that "superhero" is actually trademarked.

Marvel and DC are fairly decent trademark custodians in this case as they will generally ignore fan fiction and other works that are put out for free. They only go after "superhero" users that enter the market place in the covered fields.

"superhero" is actually trademarked.

What would be the legal odds if it was changed into two words instead of a joined word. Example Super Hero. Would the change be considered as a violation of the trademark?

Super, superior, supreme. Go for Supreme Heroes. Yes my spellcheck underlined Heros. Likes Heroes.

If Superhero is trademarked, can they take action if you use Supreme Heroes? Neither word is one they used.

Example Super Hero. Would the change be considered as a violation of the trademark?

Most likely yes, read the information at the link I posted.

The big question is did they trademark the joined words because the separate words were generic and considered as public domain?

Of course I am not a lawyer or even college educated just a poor 9th grade level schooling (due to being in a damned institution). edited to add: They could never charge me with more than self-defense, but could have me put into a mental hospital and destroy my future that way.

I can think of a 1950s film and a 1960s TV show that kills a strong trademark ownership of Avengers and Superhero is even older, first used in 1913.

Doesn't matter because it's in a different field and there is no such thing as prior art or a public domain for trademarks. As far as prior use and trademarks go, to kill a trademark, you would have to show that it was used as a generic term in the field for which it was registered. TV show and Movie titles won't work for that.

Trademarks are issued for specific fields and the application of that trademark applies on to the field or fields for which it was registered.

You can register a trademark that was previously registered by someone else if the original holder has abandoned their mark.

Once they can show the usage is public domain or there's prior art involved, they no longer have total protection under the trademark laws.

This is not correct. There is no such thing as public domain when it comes to trademarks.

Except you can't enforce a trademark on something that's in the public domain.

Half right, such trademarks are void, but not for the reasons you think.

But doesn't a company lose their trademark when they don't stop people from using the term generically?

Yes, they do, but that's a very different concept from the public domain as applied to copyrights.

But the US Trademark laws are about as logical as a piece of spaghetti in a small ball of spaghetti is a straight line - and makes less sense than the spaghetti.

This is just not true. You think it's true because a lot of people talk about IP in the generic sense and you keep trying to apply patent and copyright concepts (prior use and public domain) to trademarks.

You need to understand that patents, trademarks and copyrights are all very different things and there is almost zero overlap in the rule between any one and the other two.

If you want to understand trademarks, you need to sit down and actually learn the trademark rules.

PS

The issue of "superhero" being generic has already been litigated by Marvel and DC and they won on that issue.