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: , , ,
Companies: dc, disney, marvel, superbabies

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Superbabies Petitions TTAB For Default Judgement Claiming DC/Marvel Failed To Respond Over ‘Superhero’ Trademark Cancellation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
21 Comments
spodula says:

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..)

Call me Al says:

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Why just save some money when you can make yourself look good [too]?

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Any money spent on lawyers to determine whether to fight or not is spent regardless of how Disney responds.

[Citation needed]

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…

[Citation needed]

…and even if you had to get legal involved, Disney’s lawyers are staff and paid salaries.

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.

Reviewing the statement doesn’t cost Disney anything.

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?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...