Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nerfect
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.
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.
|
It hasn't been denied though. Not yet anyway.
You can't obtain protection or USPTO registration prior to using the mark in commerce. You can file an USPTO intent to use application but your registration is not actually granted until after the mark is used by the applicant in commerce. You must then use the mark in commerce (usually) no more than 6 months after the intent to use (ITU) application. The reason to file an ITU application is because your registration date (if later granted) will be effective from the date you filed the ITU application and not the later actual date of first use or actual approved registration.
WWE let the original Bash at the Beach trademark registration expire. Merely owning the copyrights (logos, graphics, animations, videos of PPVs) (and licensing those copyrights among a group of others to the public) that contain a former registered trademark may not necessarily meet the proper legal definition required of use in commerce. Use in commerce is one of the elements required to receive and maintain trademark registrations and rights, either for USPTO, state, or common law protections. If WWE was still putting out Bash merch, selling Bash at the Beach DVDs or individual old Bash streams, or putting on new Bash events/PPVs, then that would definitely be use in commerce. Simply having the old PPV events still available to stream on WWE Network may not be enough, though WWE should and will likely argue it is.