You Can't See...this lawsuit.

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


O-Blaze

Minion #420
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
219,608
Reaction score
78,267
Points
128
Age
33
Location
Crawford County, GA
Favorite Wrestler
chrisjericho
Favorite Wrestler
MOLAnG4
Favorite Wrestler
edge
Favorite Wrestler
homd3TG
Favorite Sports Team
gLxCq87
Favorite Sports Team
WrE8t1L
Favorite Sports Team
lurU13l
Favorite Sports Team
HHst8yg
Yeah it was about a few years ago or so.

I was like WTF because Vince does not even own the rights to that word.
 

O-Blaze

Minion #420
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
219,608
Reaction score
78,267
Points
128
Age
33
Location
Crawford County, GA
Favorite Wrestler
chrisjericho
Favorite Wrestler
MOLAnG4
Favorite Wrestler
edge
Favorite Wrestler
homd3TG
Favorite Sports Team
gLxCq87
Favorite Sports Team
WrE8t1L
Favorite Sports Team
lurU13l
Favorite Sports Team
HHst8yg
Well I mean the words been around alot longer then Vince has.

That would be like me going on and trademarking the word hamburger and forcing all places that had them to change the name to like something else.

Plan and Simple Vince is stupid and I find this whole lawsuit funny.
 

★Chuck Zombie★

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
St. Bernard/Cincinnati, Ohio
But hamburger is the name of the food, and as you can tell, the different restaurants name their hamburgers. Superstar is a given name for their performers/wrestlers/entertainers (those words can't be trademarked since that's what they are, no matter what company). A pro-wrestler/entertainer/performer won't be found in the definition of superstar, so superstar can be (and has been) trademarked to apply to all wrestling companies.

So basically WWE Superstar=McDonald's Big Mac. Any other company can't use that term, so they use "Classic Double," "Whopper," etc.
 

O-Blaze

Minion #420
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
219,608
Reaction score
78,267
Points
128
Age
33
Location
Crawford County, GA
Favorite Wrestler
chrisjericho
Favorite Wrestler
MOLAnG4
Favorite Wrestler
edge
Favorite Wrestler
homd3TG
Favorite Sports Team
gLxCq87
Favorite Sports Team
WrE8t1L
Favorite Sports Team
lurU13l
Favorite Sports Team
HHst8yg
But what I'm saying is Superstar has been around for ever.

There is a movie with the name..why didn't Vince go after the movie.

I've seen things since then use Superstar and Vince does not do anything...Its just because it was TNA using it and Vince wants to be an asshole so he finds any reason to attack TNA.

But hey ok but see they have every reason to wanna sue for the song since part of there song is in Cena's and the wrong person or w/e signed off on it.
 

★Chuck Zombie★

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
St. Bernard/Cincinnati, Ohio
No, you don't get it. When you trademark something, you trademark it to specific items. Since WWE is a wrestling company, superstar was/is trademarked to only be used for WWE related products when it comes to wrestling and only when it comes to wrestling. Any pro-wrestling based product (be it PPV's, TV shows, video games, board games, DVDs, CDs, action figures, other toys, or anything else) no other WRESTLING company or non-wrestling company making a wrestling related product can use the term superstar. Anyone else can use it, as long as it is not another wrestling company or used in a wrestling based product. The movie Superstar was made by a movie company with no affiliation to wrestling and the movie itself isn't about wrestling, so there isn't a violation of the trademark.

You're obviously thinking why a word can be trademarked even though the word was around before the company. It's just like in "the real you" thread....Showstopper was wearing a shirt that said Affliction, had Affliction designs on it, and cost less than a regular Affliction shirt, but it wasn't officially an Affliction shirt. So in essence Showstopper bought a shirt that was a worse quality than the original and that company made money off of Affliction's name. They stole Affliction's designs and "drawing power" to get money that was intended to go towards Affliction itself, thus they stole they money from Affliction. Now, International copyright laws are complicated which is why they can do that, but if it was in the U.S. that company would face a hefty fine and probably even be forced to shut down. The whole point of trademarks are to protect other people's products from being ripped off and thus ripping off consumers.

In WWE's case, they don't want wrestling fans to hear the word Superstar, think of WWE, and watch a different product than WWE puts out, but relate it to WWE because of that word, so their opinion of THAT product would then be their opinion of WWE. Also, superstar was trademarked by WWE before Jeff Jarrett and Vince Russo even left WWF to destroy WCW, let alone before TNA's conception.
 

O-Blaze

Minion #420
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
219,608
Reaction score
78,267
Points
128
Age
33
Location
Crawford County, GA
Favorite Wrestler
chrisjericho
Favorite Wrestler
MOLAnG4
Favorite Wrestler
edge
Favorite Wrestler
homd3TG
Favorite Sports Team
gLxCq87
Favorite Sports Team
WrE8t1L
Favorite Sports Team
lurU13l
Favorite Sports Team
HHst8yg
Well alright then.

But the point still stands this is not a dumb lawsuit IMO.

and I laugh still at it because really they got a case.
 

★Chuck Zombie★

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
St. Bernard/Cincinnati, Ohio
Actually, no. If someone from their company signed the rights away, they don't have a case, regardless if the company allowed that person to sign it away or not. It's not WWE's fault that the label can't properly train it's employees.