Thread: All Elite Wrestling
View Single Post
Old 01-18-2020, 07:46 PM   #2345
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,919
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Smeat View Post
If AEW was airing or charging to watch old WCW footage then yeah WWE has all the legal right to go after them since they own the rights to the footage.

In terms of the name itself, WWE doesn't own the right to it due to letting the trademark expiring in the early 2000s. Its how MLW was able to get the War Games trademark and some other company trying to get the Halloween Havoc trademark despite WWE owning the footage for those events.

Think Cody still has priority if WWE were to file for the trademark since his filing is still active till this summer despite the refusal.
I'm sure Jerry McDevitt could make the case that AEW are trying to profit off the Bash at the Beach name to boost their TV, which WWE are still using on the WWE Network. It's an old WCW name that they do not own. I don't know if they would need to go back and use old footage to profit off that IP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ View Post
Common law trademark ownership does not necessarily guarantee registration of the trademark with the USPTO or any individual states, and the rights that come with each are different. Most likely, there was either an objection filed by WWE and/or some other party(s), or there is an issue with the application, such as a delay in using the mark in commerce, the mark is too generic or similar to another mark, or some combination of the above.
Thanks for bringing your knowledge in. From my layperson's perspective, I think it's pretty silly to use a trademark that you applied for and got denied if it were live property of a multi-billion dollar organization. Seems "fool-hardy," especially given the animal McDevitt seems to be.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote