Hasbro And DC Comics Settle Bumblebee Trademark Dispute

Discussion in 'Transformers News and Rumors' started by pie125, Aug 15, 2018.

  1. Deadend

    Deadend Spark of Creation

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Posts:
    5,314
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +2,983
    Hasbro has the master toy license for Marvel and Star wars.

    It does not include certain things. Building block lines/construction toy is an outside those master rights thing. Lego has those currently.
    It also doesn't cover certain other things too, like certain kinds of collectibles that fall under other kinds of banners. Bobbleheads for example are exempt, as are other statues types and various other material. And the Master toy license aspect is also only for certain markets. Usually American continent, Europe, and select areas of Asian markets and sometimes China. Hot Toys is kind of a grey area because they are technically made in Japan which is a different rights system and sold stateside as "imports" through Sideshow, and are also considered more like a 'direct' market premium good. It's similar to how DC Direct handles DC stuff for the specialty market, but Mattel has the master toy license for DC material outside of construction toys which Lego has.

    On contracts that have to do with Master Toy license, it can vary and is usually entirely contract based. In theory, though not often in practice, you can write a master toy license contract that excludes or includes whatever and sell that excess you excluded from it to someplace else. As the master rights holder to determine the master toy license, you can word that contract any way you want so long as the company signing it/purchasing it agrees. That's usually a negotiations phase before purchase.

    Same is true for likeness rights agreements. You can work in any kind of stipulation you want so long as the company agrees that's purchasing it and is willing to sign it. So if VW or any car company said "Cannot ever hold any kind of firearm" and Hasbro wanted those vehicle rights to use for their figures, they'd have to agree and not include any kind of firearm element. It's entirely contract based and how it's worded or stipulations attached. Direct cars fall under likeness rights parameters iirc.

    Sometimes that can include scales, but sometimes that means toy types. Like Hasbro can do a legends scale sideswipe fine and accurate, but not a die-cast car. So they can do a 1:64th scale if it's considered an action figure and transforms. They can't do a "hot wheels" styled metal or plastic car though of that car since Mattel directly has those toy rights.

    Action figures fall under the same parameters as "Dolls". (This is what Transformers fall under since they are predominately variable action figures. But Hasbro owns the entirety of the brand, so they themselves decide those contracts of any material outside of their own company. Unless it pertains to needing to obtain outside likeness rights like real world cars.)

    Normal cars fall under something else.

    Stuffed animals iirc, fall under something else entirely too.

    And it can vary from there based on contracts.

    Model kits usually also fall under something else entirely as well.

    And stuff like Lego is considered "construction toy" rights. Same to Mega Construx. Same to K'Nex and Steel Tec.

    Like Playmates owns the master toy license for TMNT, but not the construction toy rights(Mega Construx owns that). They can make figures and any kind of vehicles they choose in any scale, including die-cast cars type of show vehicles that aren't real world vehicles but they cannot include building block pieces of any kind or anything else that constitutes a "construction toy". Though there are some grey areas of "conveniently uses a similar size of clip" that can often slide through. But cannot directly use brick peg style construction in an obvious manner.

    So it's usually by toy types. And how that's considered separate. Not usually by scales. But it can vary contract to contract, because a company can word the contract any way they deem fit that another agrees to. It also can go farther too. Like Bandai of America has the master license for Teen Titans animated/ TTG. But that does not include comic material. Which is firmly at Mattel. Same to Young Justice. BoA only has the DC license for that one CN show and those tied to it. They also do not have the construction toy rights. So contracts can also be determined by what's considered a separate entity too.

    This is also how Lego can make large figures of Star Wars and Marvel. They are considered construction toys in what they interact with and are made of. But that can also be expanded if they choose so long as it interacts with construction toy blocks directly and obviously.

    Same as how Hasbro could do Mashers, which were heroes you built, but were considered action figures that could swap parts. Not brick built or a construction toy, so it didn't tread on the construction toy rights.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  2. backhawkdown

    backhawkdown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Posts:
    2,107
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +2,965
    Talk about poor research. For one, being the name of a real insect doesn’t prevent someone from being able to trademark the word. Plenty of trademarks are real things...Apple ring a bell? There are currently eight live trademarks for the word Bumblebee alone:
    TESS -- Error

    What were you even remotely basing your assertion on, because it clearly wasn’t any understanding of what words can be trademarked or the current trademark status of the Bumblebee word.

    Two, Hasbro has the trademark for Bumblebee so how can you assert they don’t?
    Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,290
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,658
    Yes it does because Trade Marks prevent anyone else from using said words without permission from the Trade Mark owner. That's exactly what the purpose of a Trade Mark dispute is to determine who actually owns the rights to that word.

    You can't own rights to words that exist in the public domain. They have to have other descriptors to differentiate them from each other. You said it yourself, there are currently 8 Trade Marks with Bumblebee in the name. There can't be eight different Trade Marks on the same word if that word on it's own could actually be Trade Marked. There would only be one Trade Mark on Bumblebee if you could Trade Mark it.

    A trade mark including the word along with other descriptors such as Apple Computers is not the same thing as a Trade Mark on the word Apple by itself. Saying someone owns the word means every use of that word is owned by that person or corperation, meaning even the actual fruit would be owned by Apple Computers. But the fact is no one can own the word. That would be rediculous for Hasbro or anyone else to own Bumblebee. They own the character Bumblebee, a robot who transforms into a car, but they do not freaking own the word. They can not sue someone just for using the word Bumblebee because that isn't Trade Marked.

    I'm bassing my assertion on common sense. Bumblebee is an insect, you can't sue an insect, so how can you own the word? Answer, you can't. It's that simple. By claiming otherwise YOU are asserting that Hasbro can sue the insects for infringing on their Trade Mark. YOU are asserting that Apple Computers can sue the fruit for infringing on their Trade Mark.

    I'm not claiming that you should sue the Bees as someone else tried to claim, that's YOUR claim, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it. YOU claim there is a Trade Mark on a common word, that means every use of that word is owned, no one else can use it. That is your claim.

    My claim is you can't Trade Mark common words, anyone can legally use them because it's fair use.

    If you agree that the idea of trying to sue insects or fruit for use of common words is the stupidest thing you've ever heard then what the hell are we even arguing about? That's the whole point of my argument right there is that it is stupid.

    If you're going to continue to assert that common words can be Trade Marked that's the same thing as claiming you can sue an Insect or a fruit because they infringe on Trade Marks you claim to exist which I claim can't exist. So make up your mind, do the Trade Marks exist or not?

    You can't have it both ways, there is no option where Hasbro can sue DC over the word Bumblebee but not an insect they're both equally stupid Trade Mark claims that could never happen.
     
  4. Super4Ever

    Super4Ever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    809
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Likes:
    +527
    I would just like to point out that in your ridiculous explanation that bees did not name themselves. They don’t refer to themselves as bees, they have no concept of words or language as we know it at all. So to even argue that if someone had a trademark on Bumblebee that they we need to sue an insect is beyond ludicrous.

    Next you’re going to start telling people that the Sun isn’t made out of orange soda.:rolleyes: 
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    19,038
    News Credits:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +9,098
    Thank you for completely ignoring my evidence that the United States Patent and Trademark Office totally recognizes "Bumblebee" as a Hasbro trademark.

    Than you for completely ignoring my and other people's repeated exlanation that trademarks do not mean across-the-board name exclusivity, but are relevant to the intended goods and services. If there is no direct relation between a common word and the intended use, it can be totally used as a trademark.It just cannot be descriptive. You keep completely ignoring that argument in favor of your ignorant thruthiness attitude.

    I'm also still waiting for evidence for your claim that Hasbro's trademark is for "Autobot Bumblebee". Show me a single toy released under that name or I keep calling bullshit every time you reply to this thread.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  6. backhawkdown

    backhawkdown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Posts:
    2,107
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +2,965
    I just linked to actual live trademark registrations for Bumblebee on the United States Trademark and Patent Office,including Hadbro’s Trademark for the word “Bumblebee” in isolation, which completely disputes your false, nonsensical and completely ignorant argument. How in the world in the face of indisputable evidence that contradicts your assertion, from the very body responsible for registering marks, could you post such an asinine post?

    Dear God, man.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. backhawkdown

    backhawkdown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Posts:
    2,107
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +2,965
    I just linked him to Hasbro’s trademark registration, for Bumblebee in isolation, and he completely ignored. Either he isn’t intelligent enough to understand something as simple as a TM regustration, or he’s a trolling liar simply interested in defending himself at this point. I’m not sure what other course this conversation could take when someone is blatantly ignoring facts.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    19,038
    News Credits:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +9,098
    Here it is again, SaberPrime, in case you missed it:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office entry for the word mark "Bumblebee", owned by Hasbro, successfully registered in December of 2015.
    Bumblebee trademark.jpg


    Now either the United States Patent and Trademark Office is wrong, or you are. Which is it?
     
    • Like Like x 5
  9. stad

    stad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Posts:
    2,334
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +2,270
    It's pretty much willful ignorance at this point.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. DeletedUser_117894

    DeletedUser_117894 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Posts:
    107
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    102
    Likes:
    +177
    Obviously you photoshopped that to cover up your conspiracy against the bees. The guy's just trying to get attention. He'll respond with the same nonsense hoping that someone will reply to him.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. SPLIT LIP

    SPLIT LIP AKA Beve Stuscemi

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Posts:
    81,344
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    agile house
    Likes:
    +31,825
    This thread became positively magical.

    I ask myself that routinely.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Magnum Dongus

    Magnum Dongus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Posts:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Likes:
    +343
    Holy shit who the fuck cares anymore this is actually a heated argument about wether the word Bumblebee is copyrighted
     
  13. Eleyre

    Eleyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Posts:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    182
    Likes:
    +304
    :popcorn 
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    19,038
    News Credits:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +9,098
    Nobody is arguing whether the name "Bumblebee" is copyrighted!

    Trademarked, on the other hand...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. backhawkdown

    backhawkdown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Posts:
    2,107
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +2,965
    No, trademark not copyright. And this very thread topic is about the trademark for Bumblebee; what the hell else would we be discussing on topic in this thread? And why did you come into this thread in which the very title describes the topic is about the trademark for Bumblebee if you were just going to be offended by people discussing the trademark for Bumblebee? What else did you expect people to be discussing?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Ikkstakk

    Ikkstakk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    10,592
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    272
    Likes:
    +10,361
    I've noticed on the newest Bumblebees for Studio Series and Cyberverse, the name has the ® after it, where prior figures had the ™. Found that interesting.
     
  17. Magnum Dongus

    Magnum Dongus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Posts:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Likes:
    +343
    Holy shit, here we go again.
     
  18. Capirus

    Capirus The Gray

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    3,251
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Location:
    SoCal
    Likes:
    +3,807
    Well, things have gotten worse since I last checked in, but at least I got two answers to my previous query. Okay so the trademark is for "Toy action figures, toy vehicles and toy robots convertible into other visual toy forms". So if someone made a stuff animal bumblebee, no issue. Since DC's/Mattel's Bumblebee qualified as a "Toy action figure", then issue. Yayy! Learning is fun.

    As an aside, if anyone here needs to vent after this fiasco, you might want to meander over to this thread: The Official Rant Thread. Hope it helps.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    19,038
    News Credits:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +9,098
    That's because Hasbro didn't successfully register the trademark until December 2015. Taking into account the lead time for designing packaging and manufacturing the toys, the earliest instance of "Bumblebee®" I can find is the Studio Series Deluxe Class wave 1 figure.
     
  20. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,290
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,658
    You posted no such links. The link you did post is Tess Error, your link goes straight to an error page. Nothing regarding any trademark was displayed just text saying "your search has expired"