|
Post by slickster on Jul 14, 2010 14:37:07 GMT -5
Also, US trademark law states you need to defend a trademark at every opportunity or else you risk losing it. That's why terms like aspirin, escalator, and Thermos are no longer protected via trademark as they once were.
WWE NEEDS to send out C+D letters every single time their IP is used or the courts can use it against them later, saying "You're trying to protect your IP now, but in the past you didn't." Then WWE could lose the ECW or 'Extreme' trademark or not be able to defend it as well.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 14, 2010 14:39:05 GMT -5
I really could care less if WWE uses the rights to the name "ECW" or whatever. They already have an insane monopoly on trademarks and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Jul 14, 2010 14:41:39 GMT -5
A monopoly implies TNA cannot create any new trademarks that don't infringe on WWE properties.
This is provably false.
Don't blame WWE for being successful and wealthy enough to buy up other pro wrestling trademarks and tape libraries.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 14, 2010 14:45:13 GMT -5
A monopoly implies TNA cannot create any new trademarks that don't infringe on WWE properties. This is provably false. Don't blame WWE for being successful and wealthy enough to buy up other pro wrestling trademarks and tape libraries. Monopoly = they own and control the majority. And I'm just saying I could care less if they lose it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 14, 2010 14:52:28 GMT -5
Honestly, Vince sued over the Outsiders because WCW started to kick his rearend and he was clutching at whatever he could get. This was around the time the "Billionare Ted" skits started airing if I recall. Bischoff did the same thing when the roles were reversed. Um, WWE WON the court case re: the Outsiders. They won, not because the judge took pity on them but because WCW was indeed unfairly implying a direct connection to WWE and they were able to prove it in court. Don't make it sound like WWE's Evil Lawyers bribed a judge. I never said that. I never even implied it. What I was saying was that the lawsuit was largely filed because WCW was direct competition. They call it the Monday Night WAR for a reason. My point is if TNA is careful, like by not actually using the term ECW, they may go unnoticed. The WWE never sued over Stone Cold Shark Boy after all and TNA was careful in that instance to never mention who it was that Shark boy was imitating, just that his mannerisms were "familiar".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 14:54:45 GMT -5
A monopoly implies TNA cannot create any new trademarks that don't infringe on WWE properties. This is provably false. Don't blame WWE for being successful and wealthy enough to buy up other pro wrestling trademarks and tape libraries. Monopoly = they own and control the majority. And I'm just saying I could care less if they lose it or not. That's not a monopoly. If WWE made it impossible for other wrestling organizations to become sucessful - for example, only allowing arenas/venues to feature WWE and all non-WWE shows were not allowed, then that would be the kind of stuff that indicates a monopoly. Just owning a bunch of trademarks is not a monopoly. I could care if they lose it too though. Even if TNA had use of the ECW trademark, it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 14, 2010 15:01:11 GMT -5
Monopoly = they own and control the majority. And I'm just saying I could care less if they lose it or not. That's not a monopoly. If WWE made it impossible for other wrestling organizations to become sucessful - for example, only allowing arenas/venues to feature WWE and all non-WWE shows were not allowed, then that would be the kind of stuff that indicates a monopoly. Just owning a bunch of trademarks is not a monopoly. I could care if they lose it too though. Even if TNA had use of the ECW trademark, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. # # In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it ... And to clarify, I was saying they have a monopoly of old trademarks in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 16:22:17 GMT -5
That's not a monopoly. If WWE made it impossible for other wrestling organizations to become sucessful - for example, only allowing arenas/venues to feature WWE and all non-WWE shows were not allowed, then that would be the kind of stuff that indicates a monopoly. Just owning a bunch of trademarks is not a monopoly. I could care if they lose it too though. Even if TNA had use of the ECW trademark, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. # # In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it ... And to clarify, I was saying they have a monopoly of old trademarks in general. I see what you're saying. But you have to understand that a trademark is not a product or service.
|
|
Jimmy
Grimlock
Posts: 13,317
|
Post by Jimmy on Jul 14, 2010 16:24:21 GMT -5
It's not THAT bad. I mean I doubt they're losing $60 million a year. I meant more-so in overall TV and PPV product. To me they're just getting into this bad area where ultimately they will almost have to reboot because nothing is really working and everything is a big mess.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Jul 14, 2010 20:23:34 GMT -5
I really could care less if WWE uses the rights to the name "ECW" or whatever. They already have an insane monopoly on trademarks and stuff. Dont blame Vince for buying up remnants of bankrupt companies
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 14, 2010 20:24:50 GMT -5
I really could care less if WWE uses the rights to the name "ECW" or whatever. They already have an insane monopoly on trademarks and stuff. Dont blame Vince for buying up remnants of bankrupt companies Ugh. I said I could care less.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jul 14, 2010 20:33:47 GMT -5
Dont blame Vince for buying up remnants of bankrupt companies Ugh. I said I could care less. So you admit you do care?
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jul 14, 2010 20:50:47 GMT -5
Dont blame Vince for buying up remnants of bankrupt companies Ugh. I said I could care less. Just because he quotes you doesn't me you have to respond.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 14, 2010 20:55:32 GMT -5
Ugh. I said I could care less. So you admit you do care? I'm from Mississippi. Don't pick on me .
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jul 14, 2010 22:58:12 GMT -5
So you admit you do care? I'm from Mississippi. Don't pick on me . Just joshing with ya....damn....lol. Sorry.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,416
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jul 14, 2010 23:08:30 GMT -5
{Spoiler} Wait, what? That would be like if I said I'd love to buy a car, and the dealer responded "Only if you allow me to lower the price!" Someone is REALLY bad at negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Jul 15, 2010 9:09:15 GMT -5
The main similarity between this and NXT is that when it comes down to it, there is are very few guys in either stable that people actually want to see wrestle. Is anyone interested in matches featuring Raven, Dreamer, Richards, Foley and Rhino?
If they were going to go extreme, it should've been these guys bringing in new guys who wrestle a similar style to what they did.
Also, are they faces? I guess so.
I can't say it would shock my boots off if 'They' ended up including Hogan and Bischoff, and we get WCW vs ECW. That or it's just the voices in Abyss' head. I can't see them bringing in another set of new guys.
Anyway, it's kind of interesting I suppose, and I know a lot of TNA fans will like it.
As for the KO title thing, that is easily the most nonsensical storyline I've ever seen in pro-wrestling. No doubt it'll get worse when inevitably it ends up being face TBP (Angelina, Velvet and LVE) vs Rayne and Tara.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 15, 2010 10:22:31 GMT -5
I think it would be funny if the E steps in and will not let TNA reference ECW. Yet TNA goes ahead with the ECW centeric angle anyway. Leading to stuff like every mention of ECW being censored by Spike TV lol.
|
|
|
Post by Sparvid on Jul 15, 2010 17:54:55 GMT -5
I believe mentioning another person's trademark is fine especially when using in a historical sense. If they talk about what happened in ECW or to ECW, I don't think there's any treading on the trademark. Now, start calling something the "ECW Stable" on air or use ECW to promote anything... then yeah.. then you get a little more dicye on that. Hall and Nash never actually said 'WWF' or that they were sent from there. Vince still sued and they had to specifically state on the GAB that they didnt work for the WWF. TNA is using WWE's trademark to specifically push a storyline and a pay per view. They did mention WWF at least once, at 2:00, specifically mentioning that they weren't from there.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 15, 2010 17:58:44 GMT -5
Hall and Nash never actually said 'WWF' or that they were sent from there. Vince still sued and they had to specifically state on the GAB that they didnt work for the WWF. TNA is using WWE's trademark to specifically push a storyline and a pay per view. They did mention WWF at least once, at 2:00, specifically mentioning that they weren't from there. Did you read the second sentence of the post you're replying to? That's what he said.
|
|