Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

King Kuuga wrote:All I'm seeing here is that nobody really understands trademark law, which is okay, it's not something that comes up everyday and it's full of gray areas and ambiguity.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable though.

This case will most likely end in either company having to look for an alternative, right? Now, if the unlikely thing happened, that both companies are allowed continued use of their "Bumblebee" trademark, what would the effects be in the long run? I'm talking about future cases of similar nature, in which one company has willfully registered a trademark that another company already owns, with the intent of using it next to the already existing one, and using this court case as example of precedent. Wouldn't that make the original intent of trademark law (and by extension copyright law in general) rather moot?

EunuchRon wrote:So Hasbro is spending money on lawyers instead of, you know, making good toys? I could get it if someone named their character Optimus Prime or Megatron, but Bumblebee? Seriously? It's a common name for a common bug. These people gotta think their customers are all blind and stupid to mistake a bug lady for a car robot. Man I hate suits. Way to insult our intelligence, jerkfaces.

One more "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" comment to add to the "don't get copyright laws" and "won't bother to read the thread" collection.

King Kuuga wrote:You cannot trademark the name Bumblebee for a toy of a bumblebee. It's too obvious. That's part of why there were never any Beast Wars characters named as such. But a yellow compact car or sports car that is also a robot named Bumblebee? You can trademark that

So...DC has no "yellow compact car or sports car that is also a robot named Bumblebee" so why is Hasbro suing...?

The suit claims that the DC “Bumblebee” — a teenage girl with the ability to shrink — could easily be confused with the Autobot “Bumblebee.”

quoted straight from the article...in what world could those two types of toys be confused???

The company is now seeking to block the sales of Mattel’s Bumblebee toy, which is part of the DC Super Hero Girls line of action figures. Hasbro is also concerned about a Bumblebee Lego set.

OK...I may not be the worlds greatest father, but my daughter has a marginal interest in Super Hero Girls. I am no legal expert either, amazingly however, when my daughter speaks about "Bumblebee", and my son speaks about "Bumblebee"...without even using any pretext I KNOW which character they are talking about respectively. If they ask for toys or Brick based play sets of each, there is no confusion.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

EunuchRon wrote:So Hasbro is spending money on lawyers instead of, you know, making good toys? I could get it if someone named their character Optimus Prime or Megatron, but Bumblebee? Seriously? It's a common name for a common bug. These people gotta think their customers are all blind and stupid to mistake a bug lady for a car robot. Man I hate suits. Way to insult our intelligence, jerkfaces.

One more "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" comment to add to the "don't get copyright laws" and "won't bother to read the thread" collection.

I read the thread, dude, and no, I don't get copyright laws. It's frikin confusing. How can anyone understand that stuff?

EunuchRon wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

EunuchRon wrote:So Hasbro is spending money on lawyers instead of, you know, making good toys? I could get it if someone named their character Optimus Prime or Megatron, but Bumblebee? Seriously? It's a common name for a common bug. These people gotta think their customers are all blind and stupid to mistake a bug lady for a car robot. Man I hate suits. Way to insult our intelligence, jerkfaces.

One more "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" comment to add to the "don't get copyright laws" and "won't bother to read the thread" collection.

I read the thread, dude, and no, I don't get copyright laws. It's frikin confusing. How can anyone understand that stuff?

There's a step-by-step explanation on the previous page. For the TL:DR folks:

Seibertron wrote:

Burn wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:One key note: the lawsuit is only about the trademarked name in the Toys & Sports category, not the copyrighted character in fiction. The two characters have the same name in fiction, which is fine, but trademark law allows only one company to lay claim on it in a certain category. That's where the clash comes from, the right to use "Bumblebee" for the toys. Just felt like pointing that out. >:

This needs to be quoted again in the hopes people actually read it and understand what this is about ...

And a 3rd time because it looks like people do not get what this is about at all.

... and this makes it number 4.

It's not about viewing the consumer as dumb, it's all about the premise of each set of copyrighted products from a certain company having it's own unique trademarked name.

You can requote the article all you like, and I can also, I have in almost every post I've made in this thread. But when DC's attorneys lay out a well articulated claim why Hasbro has no right to sue in this case, and Hasbro's attorneys come back with "You just don't get it..." I don't think that's going to hold up in court very well...

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:It's not about viewing the consumer as dumb, it's all about the premise of each set of copyrighted products from a certain company having it's own unique trademarked name.

From the article

Hasbro, owner of the Transformers brand, filed a lawsuit on Monday accusing Warner Bros. and DC Comics of trademark infringement. The suit claims that the DC “Bumblebee” — a teenage girl with the ability to shrink — could easily be confused with the Autobot “Bumblebee.”

It could be if you're dealing with product listings that don't have pictures, or with parent buyers who don't give a smeg about the fiction their kids watch and read. The same kind of stupid parents who fail to notice toy swappers have struck.

EunuchRon wrote:I read the thread, dude, and no, I don't get copyright laws. It's frikin confusing. How can anyone understand that stuff?

Lawyers and busybodies are counting on that, bro. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are two kinds of people in this thread, people who can read and people who can't.

o.supreme wrote:

King Kuuga wrote:You cannot trademark the name Bumblebee for a toy of a bumblebee. It's too obvious. That's part of why there were never any Beast Wars characters named as such. But a yellow compact car or sports car that is also a robot named Bumblebee? You can trademark that

So...DC has no "yellow compact car or sports car that is also a robot named Bumblebee" so why is Hasbro suing...?

Because Hasbro has trademarked the name Bumblebee in the Toys and Sports category and they don't want anybody else using it (which is the point of a trademark). When people refer to a Bumblebee (proper noun) toy, they want the yellow robot to be the ONLY thing that comes to mind. This is almost certainly related to the Bumblebee movie coming next year and the surge of related toys that will follow.

The suit claims that the DC “Bumblebee” — a teenage girl with the ability to shrink — could easily be confused with the Autobot “Bumblebee.”

quoted straight from the article...in what world could those two types of toys be confused???

The world of trademark law in which parents are easily confused.

The company is now seeking to block the sales of Mattel’s Bumblebee toy, which is part of the DC Super Hero Girls line of action figures. Hasbro is also concerned about a Bumblebee Lego set.

OK...I may not be the worlds greatest father, but my daughter has a marginal interest in Super Hero Girls. I am no legal expert either, amazingly however, when my daughter speaks about "Bumblebee", and my son speaks about "Bumblebee"...without even using any pretext I KNOW which character they are talking about respectively. If they ask for toys or Brick based play sets of each, there is no confusion.

That's great, that means you pay attention to the interests of your kids and are aware enough of the toy market.


Practically speaking, you're right that almost nobody is liable to confuse Hasbro's character with DC's. But Hasbro owns the trademark to the name and that means nobody else is allowed to use that name for toys and sports merchandise. Hasbro is well within their rights to protect their trademark. The only gray area is that Mattel first released toys of the DC character in the SHG line a few months before Hasbro finally secured the trademark to the name (I guess they've been going without the trademark between 2006 and 2015? I'm a bit unclear on that). I'm not sure if DC is as adamant about trademarking all their character names as Hasbro, but I have to assume they didn't have the trademark for Bumblebee at any point. As we should all be aware, Hasbro is very intent upon trademarking the names of all their characters, and applying them. That's why some characters are unable to be referred to by their at the time non-trademarked G1 names, because another company owns the TM and Hasbro doesn't want to end up in exactly the situation they're putting DC/Mattel in. (though again, this calls into question how they got away with all the Bumblebee toys between 2006 and 2015 when another company had the TM to the name)



Also I would like to point out, the issue in question is to do with trademarks, not copyrights. DC owns the copyright for a shrinking superheroine with bug wings named Bumblebee for use in fiction, and they sublicense that copyright out. The appearance of the character is copyrighted. The name, as applied to toys, is not covered under that copyright.

King Kuuga wrote:The only gray area is that Mattel first released toys of the DC character in the SHG line a few months before Hasbro finally secured the trademark to the name (I guess they've been going without the trademark between 2006 and 2015? I'm a bit unclear on that). I'm not sure if DC is as adamant about trademarking all their character names as Hasbro, but I have to assume they didn't have the trademark for Bumblebee at any point. As we should all be aware, Hasbro is very intent upon trademarking the names of all their characters, and applying them. That's why some characters are unable to be referred to by their at the time non-trademarked G1 names, because another company owns the TM and Hasbro doesn't want to end up in exactly the situation they're putting DC/Mattel in. (though again, this calls into question how they got away with all the Bumblebee toys between 2006 and 2015 when another company had the TM to the name)

Hasbro did own the "Bumblebee" trademark for a time, with the "tm" next to the name on the packaging of his toys since 2006, with plenty of prefixed derivatives. As trademarks expire after a certain amount of time, I'd say it's safe to assume the trademark was "available" in a sense before Hasbro managed to renew it, I dare say between AoE and RiD2015. That's probably where the glitch took place: I suspect DC Comics applied for the trademark proper, but Hasbro applied for renewal instead which is a different form and processed differently. From my previous experiences as a data clerk, hiccups tend to happen like duplicate applications, the same data being entered twice on separate occasions, that sorta thing (and it was part of my job to seek them btw). I truly hope the USPTO gets involved in this case and the matter gets investigated, as such a mistake is practically unforgivable.

Also I would like to point out, the issue in question is to do with trademarks, not copyrights. DC owns the copyright for a shrinking superheroine with bug wings named Bumblebee for use in fiction, and they sublicense that copyright out. The appearance of the character is copyrighted. The name, as applied to toys, is not covered under that copyright.

Again, AMEN.

Man, I'm learning a lot today!

So jelze, if I'm understanding this right; legally this would inevitably have to happen at some point and Hasbro just decided to take the plunge now?

Kurona wrote:Man, I'm learning a lot today!

So jelze, if I'm understanding this right; legally this would inevitably have to happen at some point and Hasbro just decided to take the plunge now?

Think of it this way: how would Hasbro properly sue? With physical evidence, which happen to be in stores right now. Had DC comics just left the toy trademark unused, I doubt Hasbro would have done anything, not being threatened and all.

Rodimus Knight wrote:

Burn wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:One key note: the lawsuit is only about the trademarked name in the Toys & Sports category, not the copyrighted character in fiction. The two characters have the same name in fiction, which is fine, but trademark law allows only one company to lay claim on it in a certain category. That's where the clash comes from, the right to use "Bumblebee" for the toys. Just felt like pointing that out. >:

This needs to be quoted again in the hopes people actually read it and understand what this is about ...

It would be curious to look, because I believe there was a Bumblebee Toy in the crappy Teen Titans Toy line back with the original Cartoon series around 2005. It would be funny if it was trademarked back then, and no one realized it and it was still active.

I almost hate to say it, but I do hope Hasbro loses this one.

FYI The teen titans cartoon of the early 2000's is not the original teen titans cartoon
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=19uz74OcGUM

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:FYI The teen titans cartoon of the early 2000's is not the original teen titans cartoon
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=19uz74OcGUM

Even then, the 2000's one is the one that debuted the current team, right? Now, let me look at the link... O god...

*shivers, twitches, then loses consciousnesses*

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:FYI The teen titans cartoon of the early 2000's is not the original teen titans cartoon
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=19uz74OcGUM

Even then, the 2000's one is the one that debuted the current team, right? Now, let me look at the link... O god...

*shivers, twitches, then loses consciousnesses*

My favourite part is that the team finds previously unknown intelligent alien life, we learn nothing about it, and they instantly destroy it.

Sure Filmations original DC stuff may not hold up well,(it was the 1960's after all...)but as a fan of classic animated series, I'd rather watch THAT than anything currently produced by CN Studios.


so...any details on the proceedings thus far (trying to stay on topic ).....

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:FYI The teen titans cartoon of the early 2000's is not the original teen titans cartoon
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=19uz74OcGUM

Even then, the 2000's one is the one that debuted the current team, right? Now, let me look at the link... O god...

*shivers, twitches, then loses consciousnesses*

The teams change every few years anyway

As first reported here over a year ago, and thanks to fellow Seibertron user Decepticon Stryker, we now have word that Hasbro and Mattel have come to an agreement and the case has been dismissed.



The specifics of the arrangement have not been made public but it looks like both companies may continue to use the name, but we'll have to wait and see what happens when (and if) the companies make a statement.

The Variety article offers a refresher at what caused Hasbro to bring this case to court in the first place.

Variety wrote:The DC Comics character actually predates the Hasbro character, having been introduced in the “Teen Titans” comic series in 1977. DC Comics and Warner Bros. revived the character in 2015, when they launched the DC Super Hero Girls franchise. At the time, Mattel began selling a Bumblebee action figure and a Lego set based on the character.

Hasbro introduced its Bumblebee in 1983, and obtained a trademark on the Bumblebee name in 2015.

Stay tuned to Seibertron for all the latest news and reviews.

That's some corporate shenanigans.
But one thing that I DO hope that will come out of this. A TF X-Over between Bumblebee and Bumblebee. Gimme a fembot with whings who can fly but also transform into a bug beetle!

-Kanrabat- wrote:That's some corporate shenanigans.
But one thing that I DO hope that will come out of this. A TF X-Over between Bumblebee and Bumblebee. Gimme a fembot with whings who can fly but also transform into a bug beetle!

........no.......

-Kanrabat- wrote:That's some corporate shenanigans.
But one thing that I DO hope that will come out of this. A TF X-Over between Bumblebee and Bumblebee. Gimme a fembot with whings who can fly but also transform into a bug beetle!

That sounds awesome! I'm sure my toddlers would love it!

Prowl4 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:That's some corporate shenanigans.
But one thing that I DO hope that will come out of this. A TF X-Over between Bumblebee and Bumblebee. Gimme a fembot with whings who can fly but also transform into a bug beetle!

........no.......

Why not? Marvel TF Xover was a thing, DC Xover could be a thing too. We could have Bee-Bee, Batman-Megatron, Superman-Optimus, MrFreeze-Oilslick...

Who ever wins this situation have loser call there character bee not bumblebee

Apparently the writer of the article doesn’t know how to check facts, Got some of those he is wrong