Specifically "Warp Nacelles." I assume the saucer, lower pod, two pods on struts as a trademarked configuration. But I'm curious if certain individual part of a ship are trademarked. Certainly a saucer can't be trademarked. So what if you had a ship, lets say a rocket, with two cylindrical pods out on struts on either side with glowy bits, could it be dinged as a trademark violation? Specifically a glowy dome on front and a glowy side piece. Something like this for example: I guess what I'm asking is, "Is the generic warp nacelle trademarked?" Let's also say you call them Hyperspace Quantum Stabilizer Pods, or something; rather than "Warp Nacelles."
Lots of other ships possess external engines in pods- you either have them that way or in some sort of arrangement in the rear. I think what would make them look like they belong to the Trek universe is having the glowing domes and a roughly cylindrical shape.
I read somewhere once that CBS have some kind of copyright on a saucer/nacelles combination. So a saucer by itself is fine, nacelles are fine but if you have a saucer and two nacelles, you might be getting into murky waters. The USS Archer in Renegades is an interesting example of a Trek ship being redesigned as a non-Trek vessel. They kept the Voyager-ish primary hull, but went with four nacelles as part of a ring instead of two nacelles on pylons. This isn't exactly the best comparison of the two versions of the Archer, but it's all I've got on hand at the moment
Kind of reminds me of a ship I am designing: My concept is that it's a Multi-Role Cruiser built mainly with flat hull panels for easy/fast construction. The lower three or four decks are a replaceable "skid" that will reconfigure the ship from a peace-time patrol mission to a battle-ready combat ship, be it at photon-armed warship, carrier, missile platform, troop transport, electronic-warfare ship, fleet defense escort, command & control flagship, or any number of other missions.
Trademarks refer to logos and/or brand names. They do not apply to designs such as ships. That's a copyright issue.
No, I don't believe so. If Disney can trademark all of their characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, etc.), one would think CBS / Paramount can trademark the Enterprise, and George Lucas can trademark the X-Wing and Millennium Falcon.
I'm searching through the Axanar filings for the relevant pages, but until then the guy behind this building actually got a license from CBS to use the Enterprise shape. EDIT: Still can't find the pages I want, but here's Judge Klausner saying "...the Federation spaceships with their iconic saucer-shaped hull" are protected by copyright.
Thanks. I think most of us would know a Federation knock-off if we saw one. I'm just more skeptical of the broad declaration that anything with a saucer and nacelles could be protected and/or would cross the line as something infringing.
My unlaywered understanding is that trademark protects against brand confusion. So you can't make a similar design to the Millennium Falcon, call it the Decade Eagle, and you're good to go. If it is sufficiently similar to cause people to think that your product is Star Wars then it would violate trademark. But I could be completely wrong. My only run in with trademark so far has been with names.
I actually prefer their "de-Trekked" design. It still looks like a Starfleet ship to me but is more imaginative than the original.
While working at Georgia Tech's library, I did a quick patent search. I was surprised to see the USS Reliant had been patented. So there's probably more than just copyrights and trademarks to consider. Late Addendum: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_design_patents
Trademarks are very misunderstood by the general populace, so for those who've never had to deal with them (I have), let me clarify. A trade mark is essentially a brand name like Star Trek™ or Levis™ or GAP™ or Atari™. It's specifically there to let people know that the goods and services they are paying for are the real deal, and to provide legal recourse to the trademark holder if their brands are violated. Unlike copyright, you can't just slap a ™ or ® symbol on a brandname or logo. And there's a big distinction between the ™ and ® symbols, and they are not interchangeable. As above ™ is for trademarked business and brand names. If you're writing out the name it's Star Trek™ and not Star Trek®. The circle R mark is specifiically for what are known as visual marks, like logos or symbols, such as an image of the flying-A starfleet arrowhead, or the Star Wars rebel alliance symbol, or the words STAR TREK rendered in a typeface that's been registered and cleared by the Patent & Trademark office. Ergo, the name Millennium Falcon is trademarkable, but the ship design is not, as it's not used as a brandname or logo. It is copyrightable and possibly even patentable (as a toy or other product). When I worked for Bandai Namco Games America I was the producer of the product PAC-MAN + Tournaments and had to work with the legal department on getting the game name and logo trademarked. Below is what was registered and cleared by the Patent & Trademark office. And what you'll notice is that while this is a logo, it's got a ™ and not an ® next to it. That's because the PAC-MAN portion of the logo is already a registered visual mark and thus already protected, ergo we couldn't ® a mere variant (it would be redundant in the eyes of the trademark office). Furthermore, we couldn't put the ® next to PAC-MAN, even though it is a ® visual mark because it would appear that we trademarking + Tournaments alone, and not the full name of the game That would be "brand confusion", ergo the ™ even on the visual marks to identify that the full text PAC-MAN + Tournaments™ is a trademark. Hope that clears rather than muddies the waters.
I always thought that also. Stick a saucer in place of that Y-wing cockpit and you've got yourself a nice (TOS era?) Starfleet ship!
Right. Avoid the word "Warp" too. It may or may not be trademarked, but they can still use it as evidence of derivative works for a copyright lawsuit. "Nacelle" is a common aerospace term, though. Keep in mind that, unless you're rich, it doesn't matter if you'll succeed at trial. You'll be bankrupt by then. The idea is to make it sufficiently different from Trek that the copyright holders don't feel threatened. If that means an engine that looks like a corkscrew coming out the back of the ship that spins, that's what you gotta do. I have to say, though, I'm not liking "FTL" as an alternative to the term "Warp". Just feels to generic, and it gives the impression of a "blink" drive that transports over vast distances instantaneously. Here are some ideas: Alcubierre Drive Metric Tensor Drive Spatial Displacement Drive Quantum Bridge Drive Superluminal Phase Drive