That incident is not a good example.After stomping out Axanar, it would probably be a good idea for CBS to not take a YT channel to court.
That incident is not a good example.After stomping out Axanar, it would probably be a good idea for CBS to not take a YT channel to court.
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?I think it's a pretty good thing you can't sue somebody for expressing opinions about your product you don't like.
Nope.Not how that works, especially on privately owned platforms. It also doesn't mean you can't be sued for slander or libel.
Also intent and reckless disregard. Malice must be established. Simply being wrong on a point of fact is not actionable.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.
So how do you stop something like Midnight's Edge? Just denounce them as liars?
Their audience is a minority though.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.
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.So how do you stop something like Midnight's Edge? Just denounce them as liars?
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?
There's a case against The Orville? I had not heard that.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
After stomping out Axanar, it would probably be a good idea for CBS to not take a YT channel to court.
CBS stomped them?That was a well-earned stomping in the eyes of most folks.
I think they may have been joking.There's a case against The Orville? I had not heard that.
I mostly assumed so, but in this post-Brexit world I won't take anything for granted!I think they may have been joking.
I wouldn't exactly call it a chess game - the defendants are reduced to begging for cash!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/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effectAnd make them more popular and famous than they are right now?
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.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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.