I'm going to be a total goddamn pedant here and point out that bees actually do have something that's basically a language. They tell each other about the locations of food and such via dances, it's pretty neat!

Bees are absolutely shit at paperwork and their knowledge of trademark and IP law leave much to be desired, however. So everything else you've said here is pretty much on-point.

 

Why is this just now an issue? It’s been nearly over 30 years.

 

Long story short its the first time during that period where the parties have had enough on the line to make an issue of it. Hasbro has the trademark for Bumblebee action figures (and a Bumblebee movie coming out), DC is really trying to push their superhero girls line, and both companies probably see an opportunity to get some leverage if the other side doesn't defend it's IP.

 

Oh I know about that, that’s why I said language as we know it. Many insects have ways of communication. But they still don’t refer to themselves as the names that humanity gave them.

 

They definitely don't go around referring to themselves as bumblebees, my pedantry is more that their dancing is a form of language that we're aware of. Language is a means of communicating information from being to being in a structured and consistent way, and that's what those bees are doing (and which we've studied and sort of figured out the concepts of).

 

Glad this is over. Was stupid to begin with.

 

Just to settle this argument once and for all, and since your links haven't been working I decided to look up the actual Trade Marks myself.

Hasbro

"Toy action figures, toy vehicles and toy robots convertible into other visual toy forms

Perfect for these industries

Toys and Sporting Goods Products
Words that describe this mark

toy action figures toy vehicles toy robots convertible visual toy forms"

These are descriptors of the actual Trade Mark as listed by the site you attempted to link to earlier. As you can clearly see here it's not just a single word "Bumblebee" as you have continuously tried to claim.

The site also has this to say about applying to Trade Mark Bumblebee.

"mark has a greater likelihood of registration if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) it is not confusingly similar to other marks, (2) it does not dilute a famous mark, (3) it is not generic or descriptive, and (4) if there are no unregistered, common law trademark holders that are using this trademark in commerce today."

1. Trying to Trade Mark a single word like Bumblebee that has a common use would fail to meet the very first requirement.

2. I guess that's a pass since no famous mark even exists.

3. Bumblebee by itself is a generic common word that describes an insect, fail.

4. This one is basically saying that no one else is currently holding the same Trade Mark. There are 11 pages of different Trade Marks with about 10 different Bumblebee's displayed on each page. If the Trade Mark were just for that word as you have continuously tried to claim, by this rule, there could only be ONE holder of this Trade Mark. Fail.

By the sites own rules if you bothered to actually read them, everything I've been saying from the very first post is true, you can not Trade Mark the word Bumblebee by itself, the Trade Mark web site says so right there.

You can however use the word in a Trade Mark so long as it doesn't violate any of the above rules you seem to think don't exist.

So there you have it, trying to sue DC over the use of a single word makes as much sense as trying to sue a freaking insect. It never happened as they have no such Trade Mark, no one does. You can't Trade Mark a gawd damn insect. It's public domain, it's fair use, you can not Trade Mark it. This is indisputable.

Here's the same Argument with pictures if words are too complicated for you...

Hasbro's Trade Mark is this



Not this



DC's Trade Mark is this.



Not this



No one can Trade Mark that and by claiming to own any use of the word that is not even remotly similar to your actual Trade Mark, this is what you're claiming to own rights to. This is what you all have been claiming is Trade Marked.

Does everyone understand now?

 

I figured it boiled down to that. Thanks for reassuring.

 

What

I mean what

No seriously, what


Nobody ever claimed that Hasbro has some sort of super-exclusive rights to the word "Bumblebee". Everyone except you has been constantly pointing out that the trademark was specific to the field of toys. You created this strawman which you were then constantly attacking. Everyone else kept arguing that it was always about toys, not about insects. Now you have finally figured out what everyone else has been saying this whole time and yet somehow you believe this proves your point?

Wow. Words fail me.

Back in 1984, toy trademarks weren't much of an issue yet. In fact, back in the earliest days of the brand, it was perfectly possible for Hasbro and its biggest rival Tonka to have directly competing toys using the same names (such as "Blaster" and "Warpath") and nobody had a problem with it. It wasn't until 1988 that Hasbro even started slapping trademark claims on its toy packaging.

While DC's "Bumblebee" character already existed back then (as people keep pointing out, the DC character actually predates Hasbro's character, which is completely irrelevant when it comes to toy trademarks), there weren't any toys of it being sold. The first toys based on DC's Bumblebee, manufactured by Bandai, were released at a time when Hasbro itself couldn't use the name "Bumblebee". Then Hasbro got the name back, the 2007 movie happened, Bumblebee became the face of the brand over night, a decade later Hasbro finally successfully registered the trademark, and then Mattel released new toys based on DC's character.

Simply put, 2015 was the first time when toys based on both characters were available at the same time, which is required for there to even be a trademark conflict.

 

I knew you understood.   Sorry if you ever felt like you were being lumped in with the rest of the illiterate children over there. I've seen you liking my posts and commenting how stupid this whole topic is. Surprised they weren't attacking you too, I guess they just like to single me out for some reason.

 

Taskmanager and Nevermore have both posted valid links that work (I’ve tried them). You just seem to ignore them because they don’t support your assertion  .

 

So you have a link:

Record List Display

And

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

 

Woh dude. Illiterate is a bit harsh. These guys are certainly not fitting of that either. Also I didn’t say much anyway. You just put in more effort and that makes you more susceptible to being picked on.

 

And in case the link doesn’t work:

 

You sure are awful smarmy for someone who has been shown to be wrong here, time and time again.
Yeah, there's several trademarks for JUST the word "Bumblebee" - they are each for different categories, and other companies hold the trademark for their various industries. THAT is why there is several. AND, they are for JUST the word "Bumblebee." You can pretend the links don't work at all (you DO have to initiate a new search) BUT they've also shown you screenshots.
HASBRO has the trademark for the term BUMBLEBEE (just that word, all by itelf!!) for the category Toy action figures, toy vehicles and toy robots convertible into other visual toy forms.
Calling other people "illiterate" - especially when they've proven and shown that they are correct, time and time again, is simply uncalled for. Your own search has shown you that the simple term Bumblebee is a trademarked term, sorry if you misinterpreted why there are several trademarks for it - they're different categories and therefore, different trademarks, albeit for the same term. Hasbro only has to "protect" the trademarked term in their applicable category or categories.

 

No, you still don’t understand what you just posted. The trademark is for the use of the word “Bumblebee” in a specific category. Hasbro’s ownership of the mark in the toy category does not prevent someone else from having ownership of the mark for a copy service or any other product. It does prevent DC from having it for a toy regardless of the different design of the toy.

You’re not illiterate, just clearly too stupid to grasp the concepts you are even posting and arguing.

 

Wrong. As you can see, it IS "just" the word Bumblebee. In fact, you can see that several companies have that simple word trademarked, in their own categories.

Except, by your very own search, you admit that you can see several instances where, in fact, that word IS trademarked. Now it seems you're ignoring your own evidence that you've now brought forward, since it disproves your assertion.

There's certainly a fail of monumental proportions here.
You admit, right here, that there are several instances of other people holding the same trademark, most of which is for just that word. You're contradicting yourself in the very next sentence you typed.
Each trademark only applies to a specific category, that is why there is several trademarks, and several trademark holders.

Yet you yourself just looked at the list of trademarks that ARE the word Bumblebee by itself (as well as several where it's part of the trademark) Seriously, you yourself linked to it, and several screenshots have been provided.

DC (through licensee Mattel) tried to use the trademarked term "Bumblebee" for a toy. Hasbro owns the trademark for the term "Bumblebee" in the toy category. THIS is indisputable, as you yourself have now admittedly seen the site - even though it's been pointed out and shown to you repeatedly prior.

I broke this down into small points, and typed slowly in case it's too complicated for you...

Oh, I think a lot of people understand....

And this last point, you are actually correct - no one can trademark use of the term that is not similar to their actual trademark. THAT criteria HAS been met here, however. Hasbro owns the term "Bumblebee" in regards to the toy category. Mattel tried to call another toy "Bumblebee" and DC (being the license holder) was sued for it.

 

Just do what I did several days ago. Report him using the board's "report" feature, and ignore him from here on out. He's not arguing in good faith, and there's no reason we should keep engaging him.

 

That probably IS the best choice.

 

They don't work for me. Maybe it's my tablet, I don't know but all I got was a page saying your search has expired every single link goes to that same error.

One of the links was literally posted in here as "TESS -- Error" that's how the actual link itself appears here's on the forums. Also I litterally just said in my last post that TESS is the exact same web site I used to look up the information myself. Your links just go to that search has expired page but if it go there directly rather than your shitty links it actually works. And your own searches actually support what I've been saying this whole time, I'm not ignoring them, YOU are. Did any of actually bother to read the information on those sites you tried to link to? I think not, which is why I provided quotes to the information you claimed didn't exist.