Superbabies Petitions TTAB For Default Judgement Claiming DC/Marvel Failed To Respond Over ‘Superhero’ Trademark Cancellation
from the wait-really? dept
Some stories just don’t end the way you expect, and the way this one supposedly might is fairly surprising. Earlier this year, we discussed how the creator of the Superbabies comic, Scott Richold, filed for cancellation for the trademarked term “Super Hero” and several variants, all jointly owned by DC and Marvel with the USPTO. As that post noted, the fact that the term is still trademarked at this point is absurd all on its own.
But when Richold’s company applied for a trademark on his comic series, the idea that DC and/or Marvel could tell him that his application for what would be a fairly unique trademark would result in trademark infringement is bonkers. “Super Hero” and its variants are plainly generic, to the point of being the term for entire genres of film and fiction in a variety of formats.
When Superbabies Ltd. put together its cancellation request for the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB), it submitted the filing with all kinds of uses of the term that had gone unpoliced by either DC or Marvel. In fact, the filing even included several instances of employees of DC and Marvel using the term in a way that demonstrates its generic nature.
Now, I figured there was a couple of ways this would play out. The most likely was that DC and Marvel would throw its enormous legal warchest at Superbabies Ltd. to try, and perhaps succeed, in making this all go away due to the cost of the fight. The second, far less likely outcome would have been DC and Marvel admitting the mark is too generic to be worth fighting over and simply agreeing to rescind those marks.
What I never expected was for DC and Marvel to simply fail to respond to the TTAB. But that’s what Superbabies Ltd. has indicated happened in its petition for default judgment earlier this month.
Petitioner Superbabies Limited (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this motion for default judgment. In support of its motion, Petitioner states as follows:
1. On May 14, 2024, Petitioner filed its cancellation petition in this matter.
2. Under the Notice of Institution, Respondents (DC Comics and Marvel Characters, Inc.) were required to answer the petition by June 24, 2024. 2 TTABVUE 3.
3. On June 14, 2024, Respondents filed a motion to extend their Time to Answer to July 24, 2024. 4 TTABVUE. The motion was granted. 5 TTABVUE.
4. On June 20, 2024, counsel for Respondents entered a notice of appearance. 6 TTABVUE.
5. As of the Date of this Motion, Respondents have not filed an Answer to the Petition, nor have they requested any additional extensions of time to respond. Respondents have defaulted.
When I saw this and then conferred with our own Cathy Gellis, I had to go to the USPTO site and look up the cancellation case myself. I’m still wondering if there isn’t some sort of mistake here, or miscommunication, or failure to log a document, but the history of documents in this case does not show any response from DC or Marvel after the request for extended time.
If that’s how this story ends, it’s nearly as incredible as any super hero comic that either company has produced. And I would imagine that there are some executives very unhappy with their legal counsel. Though, also, even if there’s a default judgement, Marvel & DC could likely re-engage. But for now, it appears they have not.
And if it frees the obviously generic term “Super Hero” from the restrictions of trademark law, well, perhaps this isn’t the outcome we expected, but it’s the outcome we deserve.
Filed Under: default, super hero, trademark, ttab
Companies: dc, disney, marvel, superbabies


Comments on “Superbabies Petitions TTAB For Default Judgement Claiming DC/Marvel Failed To Respond Over ‘Superhero’ Trademark Cancellation”
One could hope this suite of trademarks dies with not even a whimper.
New Kryptonite
Filing deadlines! Gasp! Choke! My only weakness!
Re: Kryptonite
You win the internet today.
Re: Re:
Thanks. It seems I won the Editor’s award for the week, as well.
Re:
Hey, it worked for Steamboat Willie…
Re: Re:
In no way were filing deadlines a cause of steamboat willie becoming public domain.
Re: Re: Re:
Unless you count Disney failing to file bribes to congresscritters to extend the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act once again.
Re: Re: Re:2 Failing to bribe.
It was probably unfortunate for Disney that the renewal came up around the same time as they are really annoyed a load of the Republicans (For stupid reasons, but even so), so they probably realised buying a bunch of representatives wouldn’t work this time.
(Either that or they did ask and got told to spin..)
Because when it comes right down to it, not only is the term “superhero” so generic that you couldn’t trademark it, but the only real caped crusader that matters is everyone’s favorite intellectual property themed underwear pervert Captain Copyright.
Not responding at all seems cheaper than getting lawyers to write a response and file it with the court. Is there anything that would require Marvel and DC to respond if they didn’t think that fighting the cancellation was worth the cost ?
Re:
This was my thinking too.
Re:
but then it seems they are missing out on a positive spin. They could make a brief announcement saying on review they now agree that the term super hero should be open to all, reflecting its pre-eminence in modern popular culture.
Why just save some money when you can make yourself look good to?
Re: Re:
Perhaps DC and Marvel want to save some money and make themselves look good by allowing the default judgment, and then making a public announcement through their spokespeople. You do know that a company making itself look good doesn’t require it spending any money on lawyer fees, right?
Re: Re: Re:
Any money spent on lawyers to determine whether to fight or not is spent regardless of how Disney responds. A press release proactively affirming that regardless of the historical validity of the trademark, its clear on review that Super Hero is generic in modern usage and publicly dropping opposition gives much better PR than claiming the high ground for simply not fighting a lawsuit after losing by default, and even if you had to get legal involved, Disney’s lawyers are staff and paid salaries. reviewing the statement doesn’t cost Disney anything.
Re: Re: Re:2
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
No, Disney’s lawyers are not members of Disney’s staff (as you seem to be implying). They are members of the law firm’s staff, and the law firm is held on retainer by Disney.
As I have already stated, Disney’s law firm is held on retainer. That retainer only puts the lawyers on call, with any work they actually do costing the regular fee on top. Do you not even know how legal retainers work?
Re: Re:
The problem is, if they announce that “Super Hero” is now trademark free, people will immediately ask, “It was trademarked?”
Re: Re:
Would that positive spin convince anyone who isn’t spending money on their products to change their mind ?
How likely are their words to be quoted against them when it comes to some IP that they want to protect ?
Huh?
Could somebody splain to me what that means.
Re:
TTAB = Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
VUE = sounds like “View” i guess?
Notice of Appearance = simple filing saying “I am the lawyer for this party in this case”. No argumentation, just administrative facts.
Re:
TTABVUE seems to be the official name of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System. As the other AC said, TTAB = Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, but I don’t think VUE has any specific meaning.
1