YouTuber Tries To Register Abandoned MythBusters Trademark; Discovery Is Not Happy With This
from the trademark-farce dept
Last fall, a few people sent me this fun video from YouTuber Allen Pan, which briefly talks about how he ended up with a MythBusters trademark for clothing and apparel. I didn’t write it up at the time because, while amusing, the discussion of the trademark (and, for that matter, copyright) issues was so confused that it was difficult to know what was accurate and what wasn’t.
The story began when Pan made a video in which he built robotic legs for a snake. It’s, well, it’s quite something:
Apparently, CNN posted his video without credit or seeking permission or a license. It’s a little unclear from Pan’s description how CNN framed the story and if they even mentioned him or not, but Pan claims he was told this was legal because of fair use, since CNN is a journalism org. He then goes on a bit of a wild ride in the (confused and mostly inaccurate) belief that fair use only applies to journalism organizations.
So he sets up a “parody” news organization, Canadian Unified Media, or CUM with a logo, that, well, looks like it’s parodying CNN.

Though, as he was working on that video, it appears his complaining about CNN on Twitter resulted in CNN offering him $1,000 to license the video they already had used (which may or may not have been fair use). Pan claims that he took the money and… registered a MythBusters apparel trademark that had been abandoned during the Warner Bros./Discovery merger.

This was all a bit of a closing of the circle for Pan, who had been on the short-lived MythBusters: The Search reality TV show, in which Discovery searched for new MythBusters hosts after the original show had gone off the air. Pan was eliminated in the second to last episode of the series.

And, of course, thanks to the Warner Bros. Discovery merger, now both MythBusters and CNN were under the same corporate umbrella. So, in some weird way, all of this kinda, but not really, made sense.
Either way, he started selling shirts, originally on CNN.legal and then on realbustedmerch.com.

Of course, if you look closely at the trademark I screenshotted above, it says only that Pan is the applicant for the trademark, and also notes that he had to publish it for opposition earlier this year — meaning that his claim to have owned the trademark last year was, not quite accurate. He was working towards getting it, but was certainly not in the clear.
And, it seems that when it was published for opposition earlier this year, Warner Bros. Discovery opposed.
Which leads us to Pan’s latest video, which is again… confusing and not entirely clear where the actual legal arguments lie, or where the “I’m just a nutty YouTuber doing nutty stuff” begin. But, still, it’s amusing.
Basically, Warner Bros. Discovery sent him trademark nastygram telling him he had to destroy all the merch. They also sent his merch company a cease and desist for the CUM shirts (but not the MythBusters shirts). This all seems somewhat confusing, as the CUM shirts seem like pretty clear parody. But, Pan just says he spoke to some lawyers who told him he’d lose, and therefore he’s agreed to capitulate.
He agreed to burn the shirts, and shows himself doing so. Though, somehow, he claims he convinced Warner Bros. Discovery to let him try to sell out of his inventory of MythBusters shirts for another week or so, and that they let him do this (though over the weekend it appears all the merch sold out, even though he was supposed to have it through this week). Again… this doesn’t quite make sense, given the overall situation. It does seem likely that they could block him from getting the trademark. So, it seems like they had no real basis for destroying the CUM shirts, but a real basis for preventing him from selling the MythBusters shirts, and yet the opposite outcome happened.
Pan, of course, is doing what he does best, and turning the whole situation into more content, which is basically how the world works these days, no matter what the reality of the trademark and copyright situations might be.
Filed Under: allen pan, cum, mythbusters, trademark
Companies: cnn, warner bros. discovery


Comments on “YouTuber Tries To Register Abandoned MythBusters Trademark; Discovery Is Not Happy With This”
I was talking to some lawyers in one of my discords about this, seems the sell-off is a not unexpected thing, as it allows them all to close it without having to go all the way to trial and costing even more, especially with the trademark status in limbo like it is.
but yeah Mike, I was in the same mindset as you.
But I was also curious how they let it lapse to begin with, having worked with some of this (amongst other things, I was the safety guy for what became the original pitch of mythbusters) and talking with other people at and working with Discovery, they never usually come close to letting things like this lapse.
Re: There was no safety guy on the original pitch for mythbusters
I know, because I wrote the original pitch whilst working for Beyond Productions in Sydney. We only had a safety guy when Jim Rockwell came along for series 2.
Yay! You looked deeper into this so i didn’t have to. Not that i would have, out ofsheer laziness. But all very amusing!
My first thought: why would anyone bother doing something that’s so obviously going to fail? What a waste of time and money…
Reading the article – ah, it makes sense, to a degree. He already had something of a beef with them for him getting so close to prize on the TV show (and did so without ever being awarded MVP during an episode, something which the other top 6 finalists got – that might have stung). Not how I’d react, but some people are sore losers.
Then, the same network uses video of his admittedly quite neat invention without even attempting to offer payment? Yeah, this is personal now, not simply a self-promoter trying a Hail Mary legal strategy for publicity. Which seems almost refreshing, though it’s still a waste of time and money unless he did manage to get a long-term bump in viewers for his channel.
Re:
Re: Re:
Markdown FTW. 🙁
Myth busted?
Re:
Why insist on a “long-term bump”? If the short-term “bump” brought in more money than this stunt cost, it would be strange to call it a waste of money (though, of course, “waste” is just an opinion, and $30 is damn expensive for a t-shirt). I’m guessing it was profitable, given that the inventory sold out in a couple of days as soon as the story become known.
doesnt seem fair
How do they still have control after they let it lapse?
Re:
Registration is not what defines trademark ownership. Use in trade is, with registration being mostly a way to simplify the relevant legal processes. So, are Warner/Discovery still using the name MythBusters? I suspect they’re still transmitting reruns of the show. That might give them authority to block shirts referencing the show, although the plushie seems to have nothing to do with any trademarks.
Re: Re:
Sure, but look at the Lehman Brothers Whiskey case from last year in the Federal Circuit: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1107.OPINION.6-1-2022_1959264.pdf
An abandoned trademark was used to oppose registration because internal documents at the opposer’s company still referenced the trademark.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
business
website
Allen Pan is entertaining but also annoying that he spreads confusing information about copyright and trademark law.
Re:
checked the posts he alleged. they did Credit him in aug 15 posts where i checked CNN, CNN FB and CNN twitter(cant edit posted content)
Trademark abandonment is convoluted
Mike, Check out the case of the Lehman brothers whiskey trademark from last year. Barclays (purchased Lehman brothers trademarks when they collapsed) stopped them from obtaining registration even though the original registration had lapsed and Lehman Brothers was defunct.
All I know
Is I want a busty plushie. lol
Mainly because it’s cute, but also because someone says I can’t have it.
Re:
Would a busty pillow suffice?
https://www.amazon.com/Tarolo-Decorative-Pillow-Covers-Pillowcase/dp/B0755JWS56
CNN was right
It’s a complete lie that CNN didn’t credit him. I saw the clip they shared and it was a clear case of fair use. It was only 30 seconds long, which closely meets the 10% standard, and they mentioned his name and youtube channel. It most certainly generated views to his Youtube video too as you could see the difference days after CNN shared it
He’s trying to make it out to be the little guy vs a large media corporation but he’s really an attention seeker. He suffered zero damages from CNN and if anything made more money because of it.
Re:
There is no 10% standard; fair use is just case by case. Under some circumstances you could use the entire work under fair use.