[...] in 2006, DC sued Andrea Grant over a comic called the Minx. At the time, I thought it was because DC had put out a 1998 series of that name — but now we [...]

good luck to them I say…
thanks
patty leidy

If so, DC would be putting out a bad product. The series had a lot of promise, but extremely low sales got it cut shorter than most struggling Vertigo titles get. A collection of The Minx would contain seven parts setup and a rushed conclusion that didn’t explain all the surreal mysteries the series brought up.

Shane, from my little understanding of trademark, if someone came out with a Near Mint Heroes comic, you could claim trademark infringement, providing you have the time and money to pursue it. The important thing to establish is that the comic leaves people thinking that you’re involved, that readers of the Near Mint Heroes comics blog are being tricked (accidentally or purposefully) into buying the Near Mint Heroes comic book because they think they’re supporting your work. In that case, the comic is causing confusion in the marketplace.

That, of course, is my layman’s understanding. A legal mind could probably correct me quite a bit.

So if I’m reading that correctly, your use of Near-Mint Heroes (or Patty’s of Zero Hour) whether or not it’s officially registered is sufficient to establish your rights. But I’m not a lawyer.

(I think most corporations do abuse the notion of trademark. I think DC’s claim on “superhero” is flat out immoral, and should not be defensible in any reasonable system of justice. But if Milligan and Phillips do own the character, they are ultimately culpable, not DC. And frankly, a blode-haired punk-ish heroine *with the same name* is exactly the type of thing that Trademark *is* supposed to protect the consumer from.)

It’s not greedy and it’s not wrong to hold on to a trademark even if it’s not used currently. You trademark something so you CAN use it when you WANT to use it. Not so anyone can come along later and decide it’s a good name for their series. If you don’t want the name then you let the trademark expire. I’d say DC is in the right here.

If Patty Leidy had Zero Hour trademarked at the time of DC’s publication fo Zero Hour then DC would have been in the wrong there. If Patty Leidy didn’t have that name protected, then DC had every right to use that name.

Near-Mint Heroes isn’t trademarked so if someone decided to make a series on that name I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. They could call their comic that, trademark the name and send me a cease and desist letter. Would I be a little upset, maybe, but I wouldn’t fight it because they would be within their rights. Wouldn’t they?

This, on the other hand, just comes off as an underhanded way of trying to hurt competitors who don’t pose much of a danger.

Sigh. Anybody want to start a pool on how long until DC introduces a superheroine named The Minx? (Who will later serve as fodder in whatever “big” event that comes along.)

And “keeping a trademark active” in the magazine business apparently means publishing something within a gap of up to X years (where X is some number that is really too long, from what I can tell). I’ve been told that this is why Marvel Comics brings out a Captain Marvel comic book periodically without fail, no matter how well or poorly it happens to do in the market, so they can point to it and maintain the trademark on magazines with the name “Captain Marvel” and keep that mark out of DC’s hands.