CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
So licensed products have updated the Garth story.
In the Kirk autobiography he is posted for a mission at Axanar. Yes our favorite canon world. The Garth battle is described in some detail. He is on the Constitution and battles against the Klingons using then-new tactics. (Sorry limited spoilers.)
No Ares. No four years war.
Congratulations fan film - you poked the bear. They poked back. With Jim Kirk.
In the Kirk autobiography he is posted for a mission at Axanar. Yes our favorite canon world. The Garth battle is described in some detail. He is on the Constitution and battles against the Klingons using then-new tactics. (Sorry limited spoilers.)
No Ares. No four years war.
Congratulations fan film - you poked the bear. They poked back. With Jim Kirk.
Ha, fair enough!You mean like the coffee bags with pictures of:
- Richard hatch in full Klingon makeup (and in said headshot was part of a Klingon costume that looked like something the Klingon character 'General Chang' wore in the film Star Trek VI:The Undiscovered Country.)
- The bag with a picture of a Klingon D-6 Battlecruiser; that to the casual person could easily be mistaken for a classic D-7 (IE brand dilution/confusion)
- The bag with a picture of the Klingon 'Great Hall' building that looks like it was practically lifted from a shot (matte-painting) from the TNG episode 'Sins of the Father' and/or 'Reunion'?
Yep, the folks at Axanar Coffee didn't use anything recognizable as being associated with 'Star Trek' - oh, wait...
I did ask to be corrected, so good show.
After seeing a few threads on different sites where people were supportive of Alec Peters and Axanar in general, I tried to see if I could see their point of view to be fair. I put aside the unease that I've had about Peters since I started hanging around fora like this one. I tried to see the production value. I just couldn't do it. The plaintiffs in this case aren't ganging up on Axanar Productions. They have what seems a valid gripe. Then I tried to understand where the supporters were coming from. The only thing I could come up with was "Enterprise didn't get seven years even though I despised it and JJ Abrams should be banished to the backest alley in Hoboken. THIS is real Trek!" Trek is many things to many people, so defining one production as REAL is a large task. Is it the idea of the Little Guy vs. The Corporate World? I don't know. I just don't get it.
Well, that's not quite accurate. While that link shows trademarks that have been registered with the U.S federal government, registration is not required for a trademark to have legal protection in the U.S.. In fact, an unregistered trademark that was in use earlier can "trump" a later-registered trademark (the U.S. federal trademark statute expressly provides for protection of unregistered trademarks against infringement, and also allows for the user of an unregistered trademark to cancel a registration later issued to someone else.)
All that is required for a trademark (or trade dress) to be protectible is that the holder can show that it has been used in connection with commerce (providing goods or services) and that the public has come to associate it with a single source of of those goods and services. So even if C/P hasn't federally registered, say, "Klingon", they have a protectible trademark in "Klingon" if they can show (i) it's been used on products (films, action figures, books, etc.) and (ii) people have come to understand that "Klingon" doesn't refer to just any old generic space alien, but rather a specific space alien found in the Star Trek universe.
The same principles apply to "trade dress", which in this case would really be the unique "look and feel" of certain aspects of the ST world, such as ship design. If C/P can show that the consuming public looks at (in this example) ship designs and says "those design elements tells me this is a spaceship from Star Trek, not just a generic spaceship or a ship from Star Wars or BSG - so this movie must come from (or be approved by) the makers of Star Trek", then C/P have grounds for claiming that similar ship design in non-C/P products infringes C/P's protected trade dress - even though C/P may not have ever registered the ship designs as trade dress with the U.S. federal government.
M
They've been trusting Peters for a long time, and resenting the Trek PTB for even longer. Old habits die hard.
It is getting a bit annoying how Peters canned defections are showing up in the comments for anything Trek related. I'm sure the folk at Horizon appreciated a comment section full of variations on 'Good job. But if Axanar's being sued, then so should you!'
Last edited:
Don't you go and correct them on why is and why not. Let them figure it out. How else will they ever learn? You can't fix stupid. But you can save yourself time by not engaging them to do something productive with your life.
Plaintiffs did not move. Rather, they just didn't answer the defense Motion to Dismiss. Thereby, the plaintiffs will submit an amended complaint. This probably will get the ball rolling, in that it will (I believe) be a short document but with a very long attachment showing all of the alleged infringements. More names may or may not come to light. But it seems to me that the door is open and, like the Kool-Aid pitcher, a really big, fat amended complaint/attachment will come barreling in.
I think they've probably had that laundry list ready to go for months. It's not like the AxaHats* have been at all subtle about their "progress".
By when?
@mkstewartesq welcome to the forum! It is always nice add another legal voice to this topic. 
As for 'Fat Terry', no need to insult anyone on appearance. Insulting based on ones actions is acceptable, IMO, but not on appearance. Terry has talked down to fans and donors, and that just is not right. However, his personal life or appearance have, and should not have, any place in this discussion.
As for 'Fat Terry', no need to insult anyone on appearance. Insulting based on ones actions is acceptable, IMO, but not on appearance. Terry has talked down to fans and donors, and that just is not right. However, his personal life or appearance have, and should not have, any place in this discussion.
Fat Terry does sound like a mafia name though.
Because of Fat Tony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Salerno
Or this one...
Insurance, and as mentioned, showing intent. Provided its admissible under the complaint.
Just in a general sense, I have been pretty disappointed with the new movies' lack of the furrowed brow part of TOS where anyone is trying to understand anything or draw any deeper conclusions or respect something they haven't grasped yet. IMO, they are all just doing their thing or reacting to other things, ie, action films.
I could therefore listen to a case that they are mainly exploiting the look and feel and emotional relationships prior work has built up around the characters and stories. I am not very happy finding myself watching something and thinking I'd like to check my phone because there just isn't anything going on in the film except 'the next jeopardy/escape'.
I might be willing to hold my nose at bragging claims of being 'true' and 'the best ever' and support a serious effort like Axanar, *provided* they had a brilliant story (not pewpew for sure), and in retrospect, weren't what they have turned out to be businesswise.
Even now, when I hear the new showrunners say right out of the gate that the show needs to go in new directions, I have some concern that this is a door through which someone, somewhere could overrun the gestalt with moneymaking blah and personal auteur visions. The current staff announcements look great but there is always a risk.
So, to your question, I think a number of people could be open to the idea of a production group with staying power and permission, that wants to remain in the world as established so far.
Then there are those who just won't listen to the fact that Axanar undid itself. Like anyone who listens only to talk radio that affirms their beliefs, as long as they are enabled and not personally crushed by the consequences and their announcers don't recant their rhetoric against the evidence at hand, the listener probably will keep at it. Rationalizations abound here, little guy vs. corporation, etc. But those arguments I think are not so important as the key matter of coming face to face with the fact that how Axanar has behaved must be interpreted as having crossed way too many boundaries.
Last edited:
- Status