CBS should sue Midnight's Edge

That incident is not a good example.

 

I think it's a pretty good thing you can't sue somebody for expressing opinions about your product you don't like. That would set up a precedent that would do much more harm than good.

 

There's a difference between opinions and lying. To say CBS doesn't have the rights to The Next Generation, so the new Picard show legally has to be a separate continuity, would be a lie - unless you're suggesting Midnight's Edge aren't lying?

 

Nope.

A company or corporation is not considered to have a reputation in the sense that an individual does, ergo, cannot sue for libel or slander. They can sue for defamation, but must prove that the accused's statements harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in some meaningful way. That's a steep hill for huge corporations to do, otherwise you'd see such suits happening all the time.

 

Also intent and reckless disregard. Malice must be established. Simply being wrong on a point of fact is not actionable.

 

So how do you stop something like Midnight's Edge? Just denounce them as liars?

It sounds stupid, I know, but I think most of Midnight's Edge's audience are stupid, because they believe what they hear. Like anyone with a braincell would know CBS obviously have the rights to TOS and TNG. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to distribute the shows, or pay some of the forum members on this board to write books and comics based on them.

 

Don't even have to do that. They'll dry up eventually and blow away. As the saying goes, "You can't fool all the people All the time." I hadn't heard of them prior to posting one of their videos. I saw they 60k followers and gave them a listen. Now I know they are a FOX News quality outlet - lesson learned. Others will learn as well.

 

Their audience is a minority though.

 

Willful ignorance is rampant on the internet, and most people don't care about being correct, they just want to be right in their assumptions. People just say and repeat things without making the minimal effort to check if they've got it right. Heck—and this is not a dig—but in a tiny way you did it yourself by throwing around the terms libel and slander without first checking if they applied.

 

I don't know if they believe they are correct or not. Yes, if it's a deliberate lie they could sue for defamation, but can you honestly say that it's harming CBS? Even if a few people believe them, they'll know they were wrong when ME is wrong about the new series.

 

Here is an interesting case:

https://3dprint.com/70149/cobblebot-delays-defamation/

When you check on the trademark of Cobblebot, you find this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark COBBLEBOT
Goods and Services IC 007. US 013 019 021 023 031 034 035. G & S: Laser engraving machines; Milling machines; Three dimensional (3D) printers. FIRST USE: 20140807. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20140807
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 86615265
Filing Date April 30, 2015
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition April 5, 2016
Registration Number 4980969
Registration Date June 21, 2016
Owner (REGISTRANT) Cobblebot Inc. CORPORATION TEXAS 12931 Northwood Glen Lane Tomball TEXAS 77377
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That date of 08/07/2014 is quite interesting. The premiere of 'Gotham' was the following month and the trailers had already been out for a while. 'Oswald Cobblepot' had been around since 1941 in the comics, but it was clear in 2014 that the character was going to have a major role in 'Gotham'.

I think there was clear intent to 'ride on the coattails' of the character, for recognition based on 'sounds-like'. The timing of it, in particular, would suggest that it is no coincidence.

DC may not have a case, because it is not the exact same name, but this seems like a very narrow skirting of the rules for gainful purposes. Personally, I would not purchase anything from the company.

 

Shouldn't they wait until the "Orville" case is settled before moving onto these guys? Also all someone has to do is call something a theory and then it means it's not libel.

Jason

 

There's a case against The Orville? I had not heard that.

 

That was a well-earned stomping in the eyes of most folks.

 

CBS stomped them?
I thought it was a "big win" for Axanar!

 

I think they may have been joking.

 

Plenty of news sites, tubers and others propagate lies, or half truths, usually to get clicks, or fame. Todays world is all about fame, thats why there's videos of people snorting condoms up there nose..and eating tide pods.. -_-
so there are options, 1, ignore them, 2 if there is provable damage, cbs could sue, 3 cbs could ask for them to be looked at for copyright/trademark infrengment, and there channel yanked.
But for me, I will advocate for free speach, even though I may not like what your are saying. You have the right to say it, I have no right to stop you. So, just ignore the idiots, they'll go away when no one is listening.
For all the thoughts of Ban this, Shut down that, Fore me, its More voices, not less. I don't want my voice shut down, so I am not going to shut down others. I'm just not going to watch

 

Anyone been following the David Gerrold Trek / Dr Seuss lawsuit?

https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/07/1...s-mash-up-lawsuit-become-a-chess-game-update/

 

I mostly assumed so, but in this post-Brexit world I won't take anything for granted!

I wouldn't exactly call it a chess game - the defendants are reduced to begging for cash!
http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=seuss_gofundme

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Unless they are for altogether made up words, trademarks are generally on the use of words *in a specific context*. Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows" in the context of computer operating systems - doesn't mean they can prevent a new company that sells glass windows from selling those as windows or calling their company "Bob's Windows". The name Cobblepot, in the real world, goes back hundreds of years, so it is a generic term, and DC has a copyright on the character and a trademark on the name in the context of that character (or at least I presume they have those). No one is reasonably going to confuse a 3D printer with their character, so a court would probably not uphold a complaint.

Now, if you feel that they used the name on purpose to try to ride the coattails of the show, then that's up to you. But one man's IP theft is another man's homage, and I prefer to think the best of people until proven otherwise. Maybe the creators are just really big Batman/Penguin fans. OR, based on the design of most 3D printers, maybe it has more to do with the approximate pot shape and the fact that you can cobble things together with it, and the name has a good sound to it.