Dammit. I’d forgotten about that abhorrent instalment. Still, it was their last day, who bothers with the effort on the last day at work.
Poll Be honest, did you see the TV revival actually happening?
- Thread starter Red Panda
- Start date
They're trade marks for web TV shows, and nothing else.
e.g. Starfleet Academy:-
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:o941ku.2.1
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:o941ku.2.2
Where as a video game one would look like one of these: https://tinyurl.com/y92a2dpu
Last edited:
Well, that's not what the United States Patent and Trademark Office says — as I quoted. The class of trademarks in question quite explicitly covers more than what you say that could plausibly be a use for the trademarks. Until announcements are made, we don't know what CBS has planned for the reserved names, if anything.
You can't link your search results, they're temporary
"This search session has expired."
No need for a poll. Just look back in the threads. Few here saw it coming, and were quite smug and arrogant in telling us all we were wrong to think Trek might appear again on TV. These same people were also predicting Kelvin-Trek would go on indefinitely and instead it is struggling to justify itself.
If CBS had plans to make games of any of the new trade marks in the OP, they would file it under that. They haven't. They've filed purely for web TV shows and their eventual Blu-ray/DVD/digital releases. The end.
Today's like the first day I started posting regularly in the future of Trek forum but that was the attitude back then? I remember even during the Kelvin films (2009-2012) I felt Trek belonged back on TV because that was where it shined. That that it's here and I see all these possible series showing up, I wonder if I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. I mean if those series come to fuition we've gone from 7 trek series (Including TAS) to like 12. That's pretty much the reason why I hope they do this in moderation.
Everyone wants to be like Marvel, but Marvel grew it's brand in 5 years at least. Iron Man came out in 2008, and Avengers came out in 2012. It wasn't really until Avengers when the MCU really did become a "Thing".
From https://www.worldtrademarkreview.co...ries-name-t-ara-denied-and-pewdiepie-responds:
TV network CBS filed a STAR TREK RELIANT trademark application on the same day that Patrick Stewart announced he was reprising his role as Jean-Luc Picard. The mark is filed in class 41 for services including “a continuing multimedia series featuring drama”.
From the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE [https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1400d1e1.html]:
An exception, however, is providing online or temporary use of non-downloadable game software, which is classified in International Class 41.
1) Yeah, I absolutely knew Trek would come back on television one day - it's simply too big a property at this point to ever die, as long as we will have hour-long live-action entertainment, Star Trek is probably going to be present in one form or another. How successfull, and how long the hiatus inbetween, that's a completely different thing.
2) I absolutely did not forsee an entire new streaming service basically banking it's entire existence on Trek, nor that so many shows would be produced at the same time without the property showing big mainstream success for a while again. I would be much more confident if DIS would already have run successfully for a few seasons. But it seems they are heavily reworking the entire approach of the show for the second season - and at the same time shelling new products out as if their life depends on it (the life of "All Access probably does...).
So I'm cautious. They are banking a lot on people blindly paying for everything with "Star Trek" in it's name. And if the majority of shows is actually good that can completely work. But if the quality simply isn't there - and so far they really haven't shown it to the degree necessary - , they can run out of steam super fast as well. It would really be a shame if the new surge of Star Trek shows walks into the same fate as the Marvel Netflix shows in 2 or 3 years...
2) I absolutely did not forsee an entire new streaming service basically banking it's entire existence on Trek, nor that so many shows would be produced at the same time without the property showing big mainstream success for a while again. I would be much more confident if DIS would already have run successfully for a few seasons. But it seems they are heavily reworking the entire approach of the show for the second season - and at the same time shelling new products out as if their life depends on it (the life of "All Access probably does...).
So I'm cautious. They are banking a lot on people blindly paying for everything with "Star Trek" in it's name. And if the majority of shows is actually good that can completely work. But if the quality simply isn't there - and so far they really haven't shown it to the degree necessary - , they can run out of steam super fast as well. It would really be a shame if the new surge of Star Trek shows walks into the same fate as the Marvel Netflix shows in 2 or 3 years...
"Class 41" is just an area of trade mark laws that entertainment falls under. When you file a trade mark, you have to specify what it'll be used for. CBS Studios Inc. know how to file a trade mark. So the 8 trade marks in the opening posts are for TV series and movies.From https://www.worldtrademarkreview.co...ries-name-t-ara-denied-and-pewdiepie-responds:
TV network CBS filed a STAR TREK RELIANT trademark application on the same day that Patrick Stewart announced he was reprising his role as Jean-Luc Picard. The mark is filed in class 41 for services including “a continuing multimedia series featuring drama”.
From the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE [https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1400d1e1.html]:
An exception, however, is providing online or temporary use of non-downloadable game software, which is classified in International Class 41.
None of the titles in the OP have been registered for anything else besides TV series and movies. They're not video games.
If they were video games, they would be Class 41 trade marks for "video games".
But they're not.
They're TV series and movies.
Not video games.
TV.
Movies.
Not games.
Hopefully this is a little clearer for you.
As you've provided absolutely no links to back up your claims, including no links to what CBS has actually filed, except for links to searches that expired, no, your claims are not clear at all.
I, on the other hand, have provided links.
To clarify: I'm not claiming that the trademarks under discussion aren't all for TV shows. I'm simply unaware of evidence that conclusively establishes that they are all for TV shows, and I'm aware of information, which I've provided, that indicates they could potentially be for something else.
If you have links to better information, you need simply provide it. That's what discussion is for.
In the absence of anything more substantive to discuss, I've said all I have to say regarding this.
Except, one other thing: I would indeed be very surprised, if all of what's listed in the OP were shows that were airing/streaming by 2020, very surprised indeed.
You seem capable of using http://tess2.uspto.gov/ yourself.
Tip to help you out: Click on "Basic Word Mark Search (New User)"and use "*star trek*", it'll show you all the Star Trek trade marks.
Last edited:
Thank you.Your seem capable of using http://tess2.uspto.gov/ yourself.
Tip to help you out: Click on "Basic Word Mark Search (New User)"and use "*star trek*", it'll show you all the Star Trek trade marks.
That clears it up. You are correct. Those all look like trademarks for drama shows.
From https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1400d1e1.html:
If the services comprise an "online game:"
"Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game, in Class 41."
"Providing a computer game for use network-wide by network users, in Class 41."
"Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game, in Class 41."
"Providing a computer game for use network-wide by network users, in Class 41."
As you already indicated, if any of them had been for games, the goods would have been indicated as something like that. But none of them were. All of the ones listed in the OP seemed to be either essentially for streamed drama or in the case of duplicates also associated media discs.
That's quite clear, now. Thank you.
But why the snark?
If you drop a bunch of un-sourced information, what do you expect, if not people to wonder what the basis is of what you're posting? We can't all be experts in everything, you know; we don't all enter into a thread knowing everything.
@Corporal Cupcake, I'm a dickhead that gets defensive whenever somebody on here "throws shade". I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention.
No, I wasn't "throwing shade."
The article in World Trademark Review that I cited from the OP of the other thread did not specify that the goods field in the record for Reliant specifically indicated that the purpose of the trademark was for streamed drama. It simply stated that the trademark was for class 41, a class that included drama. That's what I knew coming into the thread.
Providing the link as you did for the search was helpful, since that settled it, far better than the World Trademark Review article did.
It was inevitable that Trek would return, it's one of those enduring franchises which appeals to a wide demographic, young and old, male and female, people of colour etc.
I never thought for one moment that a whole network would be built round delivering Star Trek all year round though. I am absolutely giddy at the thought of more Trek with different tones and styles. Although I think 4 shows a year would be the maximum unless they are going for some with takere short runs.
I never thought for one moment that a whole network would be built round delivering Star Trek all year round though. I am absolutely giddy at the thought of more Trek with different tones and styles. Although I think 4 shows a year would be the maximum unless they are going for some with takere short runs.
Definitely thought it would be back on TV someday, though I didnt see a Picard show coming. I did think that if we ever saw the post Nemesis Prime timeline again, Picard would be involved only because Patrick Stewart is who he is. He is one of Treks biggest stars outside of Trek and one of the best actors they've ever had.
Short Treks is one if the better ideas they've had. So many possibilities there to flesh out existing characters, introduce new characters, test the waters for new shows, species and settings.
Short Treks is one if the better ideas they've had. So many possibilities there to flesh out existing characters, introduce new characters, test the waters for new shows, species and settings.
Similar threads
