C.E. Evans wrote:
It's a solid fact in 2013.
I wouldn't say so. The name has a mixture of good and bad baggage at this point thanks to the intervening adventures and misadventures of the brand, I'd say it's at best a toss-up.
It's hard to quantify though because nobody that I can find conducts surveys of the general public about this kind of thing. You may well be right; all I can say is that I've never met a non-fan who really cared about what particular ship was featured in a Trek show, that just seems to me to be a fandom thing.
Singer's pitch seems to fall into the idea (covered in the rest of my post) of using the Enterprise to kick off a new era after a period of time has passed.
That's why I cited it.
To come back to the trademarking thing, BTW:
It will, though, stop some other entertainment studio, network, or company from creating a sci-fi series with their own starship/spaceship called the Enterprise (and more importantly, from making any merchandising money off it).
I wonder how they would be able to refute someone who simply said their
Enterprise was based on historical vehicles of the same name, as Trek's originally was. It sounds like what they're essentially trying to control is the right to derive fictional properties by historical analogy; about all they should
be able to claim rights to should be the Enterprise
as it actually appears in their shows (the ship design, fictional registry, political affiliation and fictional history).