wonder woman – Techdirt (original) (raw)

DC Comics Goes To UK High Court Over Trademark Granted To Unilever For 'Wonder Mum'

from the mums-the-word dept

Regular Techdirt readers will not be shocked when I say that DC Comics has a long and often ridiculous history when it comes to “protecting” its intellectual property. From trademark bullying over a barbeque joint, to trying to bully a Spanish soccer club for having a bat in its logo, up to waging a brief battle with the family of a dead child because they included the Superman logo on the headstone of the deceased: DC Comics will fight anything remotely like the use of its imagery or naming conventions.

And this isn’t just check the box stuff, with lawyers playing pretend about having to defend certain IP or risk losing it. For instance, in the UK, DC Comics has taken a failed opposition over a Unilever trademark for “Wonder Mum” to the High Court, claiming the IPO got it wrong. By way of background, Unilever sought approval for a trademark for “Wonder Mum” with the UKIPO in 2021. DC Comics filed an opposition, noting that its trademark for Wonder Woman covered many of the same product types as in the application and then arguing that the marks were too similar. You can see the full decision by the IPO embedded below, but it sides with Unilever. With an incredibly over-tortured analysis as to how similar the marks are, the IPO concludes:

A mother or mum has had one or more children, either because she gave birth to them or has brought up children, performing the role of their mother or mum. I consider that to characterise the word ‘mum’ as a subset of the word ‘woman’ and, on this basis, to conclude that they are highly similar is syllogistic reasoning. A woman is a human adult who was born female or who identifies as female. The word ‘woman’ does not tell one anything about relationships with others. In contrast and by definition, the word ‘mum’ means that that person has a particular relationship with another, or others. Its conceptual impact is one of a particular relationship with children, whereas the conceptual impact of ‘woman’ is that it informs others as to the gender identity of an adult human. Whilst both nouns denote a female, many women have had no children, but all mums have had or brought up children.

It went on from there, with the IPO ultimately deciding that there was no likelihood of confusion. The opposition therefore failed. Again, this is pretty common sense stuff. Nothing in Unilever’s use referenced Wonder Woman in any way at all. The idea here was to create a brand that celebrated hard-working moms. While Wonder Woman did apparently have a comic-child with Superman… you know what, I’m not going to even finish that stupid sentence because this is all very dumb.

And, yet, DC Comics wants to take that dumb now to the High Court.

DC is now appealing the decision at the High Court in London, claiming the IPO’s ruling was ‘perverse and unreasonable’.

Lawyers for the comic also argue that the cosmetics line would have damaging consequences and would allow ‘anyone to release a Wonder Woman movie or comic’, claiming ‘Mum’ is a subset of the word ‘Woman’.

That, of course, is not how copyright or trademark laws work. The IPO granting a trademark on “Wonder Mum” doesn’t suddenly make it legal for anyone to go make a Wonder Woman movie just by changing the name to Wonder Mum. That’s beyond silly. Silly enough that Unilever’s lawyers found the time to take a few shots of their own at DC Comics.

Denise McFarland, for Unilever, said there is no risk of the public muddling the two characters, particularly due to Wonder Woman’s ‘distinctive and unvarying features’ – including her minimalistic’ costume complete with high boots, a corset, and lasso and shield.

Ms McFarland added that, if DC’s arguments about ‘conceptual similarity’ were correct, then using phases such as ‘Wonder Aunt’ and ‘Wonder Niece’ would also have to be banned.

Frankly, I wouldn’t put it past DC Comics to try to do just that. But in the meantime, hopefully the High Court will slap DC Comics down yet again on this one.

Filed Under: likelihood of confusion, trademark, uk, ukipo, wonder mum, wonder woman
Companies: dc comics, unilever

Wonder Woman Forces AT&T & Roku To End Their Petty Squabbles

from the gatekeepers-gonna-gatekeep dept

Mon, Dec 21st 2020 05:50am - Karl Bode

At the start of this year, AT&T’s creatively named streaming app, AT&T TV Now (since renamed HBO Max), was unceremoniously pulled from all Roku streaming hardware after a contract between the two companies expired and they couldn’t agree on a new one.

It took more than a year of folks not being able to watch AT&T streaming services for this standoff to finally break, and it required leveraging the strength of Wonder Woman to do so. After being unable to come to an agreement for much of the year, AT&T used its ownership of Time Warner to gain a little leverage on Roku. First, it announced that the anticipated Wonder Woman sequel would be released on Christmas day, but only on HBO Max. Then, it announced a major plan to release most major 2021 theater releases simultaneously on both streaming and in theaters.

As the Wonder Woman 1984 release date approaches, Roku appears to have buckled. The sides this week announced a new deal that will finally bring AT&T’s HBO Max to Roku:

“On Christmas Day, the superhero sequel ?Wonder Woman 1984? from AT&T?s Warner Bros. will premiere on HBO Max on the same day as in theaters. That heightened the stakes for both HBO Max and Roku. The debut will be the biggest moment yet for HBO Max, a bet that a blockbuster film can boost subscribers at a time when the pandemic has shut down many theaters.”

One of AT&T’s major asks of Roku and companies like Amazon is that they stop selling access to HBO apps via their streaming platforms, instead shoveling folks toward AT&T’s HBO Max platform. After a series of missteps and price hikes (caused by merger mania debt), AT&T lost an astonishing 7 million pay and streaming TV customers in just the last three years. It’s now using its Warner Brothers catalog successfully for leverage, given Roku didn’t want millions of U.S. consumers waking up on Christmas day wondering why they couldn’t watch Wonder Woman with everybody else.

Whether this works out as a broader strategy for AT&T remains to be seen. AT&T’s rush to release all Warner Brothers films to streaming has pissed off many mainstream directors like Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve, who say the company didn’t really share its plan with many folks at Time Warner, didn’t give much (any) consideration on how the pivot impacted union employees struggling to survive, and is basically just a stunt to spur AT&T’s lagging subscription numbers:

“There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here. It is all about the survival of a telecom mammoth, one that is currently bearing an astronomical debt of more than $150 billion. Therefore, even though ?Dune? is about cinema and audiences, AT&T is about its own survival on Wall Street. With HBO Max?s launch a failure thus far, AT&T decided to sacrifice Warner Bros.? entire 2021 slate in a desperate attempt to grab the audience?s attention.”

On one hand, releasing films straight to streaming is a good idea given the public health crisis. On the other hand, these directors are right that AT&T’s probably the last company on Earth capable of making such a major pivot with nuance or any serious care of craft, given its repeated bumblings so far. Meanwhile it’s ironic to watch AT&T, largely a gatekeeping bully in telecom, suddenly face gatekeeper restrictions as it’s forced to actually compete. You can expect a lot more standoffs like the AT&T/Roku affair as media and platform giants begin truly flexing their muscles in a bid for platform domination.

Filed Under: streaming, tv, wonder woman
Companies: at&t, roku