All Elite Wrestling trademarks filed

[DavidB6937]

Most of the reports I've seen stated it as his first non-WWE booking in the US, but they probably added corrections.

[King Pitcos]

Hasn't he done non-WWE bookings over the last several years anyway? His "you know, Jesus, you know" interview doesn't look like something WWE would sanction, and there was a spell (maybe after the Bray Wyatt or Roman Reigns match) where he did a few adverts or bike shows or something as Mark Calaway.

[chokeout]

4 minutes ago, unfitfinlay said:

Nah. They just have more money.

It's not like we're talking about Stardust or "Dashing" here. The "Cody Rhodes" character is literally Cody Runnels, using the surname that his Dad used for decades. WWE can claim what they like but the IP over the Rhodes name clearly belongs to Dusty and his family.

Trademarks aren't a race. You can't just register someone else's stuff and then demand they stop using it. 

If they had bought him in and called him Ben Rhodes would he have the right to use that name, because he's really Dusty's son? Even though it's not his real name?

By your logic Kevin Steen could use that name after he left WWE because it's basically him and the name has a family connection to him.

And as far as the second comment, there are literally thousands of examples of that happening with trademarks and copyright

[Carbomb]

This debate about Cody prompted me to read his Wiki. Obviously it's not gospel, but it does provide some citations for reference. According to that, his going under the name "Cody" is actually out of a desire to avoid any kind of conflict with WWE, because he changed his name by deed poll to "Cody Rhodes" when he was 17, so he's perfectly within his rights to use it, and it seems he's used it a few times in his indy bookings.

[AshC]

1 hour ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Well, you thick leek-munching cunt. 

So shots at the Welsh are still fair game?

[wordsfromlee]

According to The Observer, Undertaker is charging $60,000 for a 3-hour appearance at Starcast and charging fans $150 a photo. 

[garynysmon]

I’d always guessed that Mark Callaway’s association with the Undertaker’s gimmick was what stopped WCW ever making a real play for him. 

They always seemed to be associated with every big name but never him, which I always assumed was because he was worth so much less as Mark Callaway as they could never use the gimmick that made him famous.

This is a company that stopped Nailz wrestling as "the prisoner" so you can imagine that Jerry McDevitt would have been straight on the phone had Mark even been seen anywhere near a black cloak and hat. Meanwhile, Shawn Michaels could have continued wrestling as Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart (actually did) continue as the Hitman.

Curt Hennig never being able to use the Mr Perfect name or Haku wrestling as Meng wasn’t half as problematic as their characters weren’t anywhere near as defining of their status.

Edited February 15, 2019 by garynysmon

[Brewster McCloud]

6 minutes ago, AshC said:

So shots at the Welsh are still fair game?

As long as my "promo" was good enough, as a heel on the UKFF,  yes. That's my point. A Wesh person couldn't possibly be offended by what I said because I was just trying to provoke a reaction. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Brewster McCloud

[IANdrewDiceClay]

13 minutes ago, garynysmon said:

Meanwhile, Shawn Michaels could have continued wrestling as Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart (actually did) continue as the Hitman.

Because Piper told them both "when you're contracts are up, demand your name, because they will be so desperate to keep you." Which they both did when they signed those superlong deals in 1996. Undertaker should have done the same.

Hall and Nash would have gotten the Razor and Diesel names if they stayed in 1996. Vince would have given up the rights to get them to stay.

Edited February 15, 2019 by IANdrewDiceClay

[unfitfinlay]

1 minute ago, chokeout said:

If they had bought him in and called him Ben Rhodes would he have the right to use that name, because he's really Dusty's son? Even though it's not his real name?

Nope. They could argue that "Ben Rhodes" was a unique character. Same as if Charlotte left, they could stop her being "Charlotte" or "Charlotte Flair" but they couldn't (or shouldn't) be able to stop her being "Ashley Flair".

Quote

By your logic Kevin Steen could use that name after he left WWE because it's basically him and the name has a family connection to him.

I realise you mean Owens.

And, no, that's not my logic at all. What I am saying is that there are no unique characteristics of the "Cody Rhodes" character that WWE can claim to have developed or own. All they did was stick the surname his Dad established for decades, and which they acknowledge that they don't own and which will always be associated with him, onto his legitimate first name.

By your logic, I could register "Aurora-Rose McMahon-Helmsley" for use in wrestling right now and prevent her from ever using that name in WWE. After all, it's not her real name either. 

Quote

And as far as the second comment, there are literally thousands of examples of that happening with trademarks and copyright

Oh, it does happen. It shouldn't though, and I gave a couple of examples of the claims being overturned when challenged in court, though I'll admit Honky might well be making his one up. WWE's a very different place than in those days as well, which is my point. Cody would win if it went to court, but it wouldn't be worth the money it would take to actually get there. They'd bleed him dry.

Ultimately, though, if you create something, it belongs to you. Trademarking and copyrighting it helps PROVE its yours but it still belongs to you, and there are other ways of proving your ownership.Like MLW registering "War Games". They can own the trademark but WWE owns decades worth of footage that predates MLW as a Promotion, much less their use of the match. There's no way a Judge would look at that and rule that MLW's trademark was legit.

[DEF]

All this talk has had me thinking about how it was reported the Revival trademarked Forever The Revival then asked for there release. I'm no lawyer but it struck me as unrealistic to walk away from the WWE to All Elite with that name and it flying. Could they actually do that?

Anderson and Gallows trademarking stuff like the Good brothers and Biscliz makes a bit more sense seeing as at least they can say they were doing that stuff back in New Japan.

[chokeout]

40 minutes ago, unfitfinlay said:

Nope. They could argue that "Ben Rhodes" was a unique character. Same as if Charlotte left, they could stop her being "Charlotte" or "Charlotte Flair" but they couldn't (or shouldn't) be able to stop her being "Ashley Flair".

I realise you mean Owens.

And, no, that's not my logic at all. What I am saying is that there are no unique characteristics of the "Cody Rhodes" character that WWE can claim to have developed or own. All they did was stick the surname his Dad established for decades, and which they acknowledge that they don't own and which will always be associated with him, onto his legitimate first name.

 

Yep, sorry I meant Owens

Trademarks don't need unique characteristics. They don't need to relate to the character.

Fictional surnames aren't passed through blood relation. You don't get an automatic right to use your dads fictional surname, 

If the wrestling character of Cody Rhodes never appeared or existed before it was registered by WWE why does Cody legally (not morally) have more right to it than them?

Edited February 15, 2019 by chokeout

[unfitfinlay]

8 minutes ago, DEF said:

All this talk has had me thinking about how it was reported the Revival trademarked Forever The Revival then asked for there release. I'm no lawyer but it struck me as unrealistic to walk away from the WWE to All Elite with that name and it flying. Could they actually do that?

Not if WWE wanted to stop them, no.

It's like the Dudleys registering trademarks for stuff like "Brother Ray Deadly". It's too close to their WWE gimmick.

Of course then you get shit like "U-Gene" or "Goldustin" which WWE could've stopped but obviously couldn't be arsed with..

Just now, chokeout said:

Yep, sorry I meant Owens

Trademarks don't need unique characteristics. They don't need to relate to the character.

Fictional surnames aren't passed through blood relation. You don't get an automatic right to use your dads fictional surname, 

If you are claiming ownership of something then you need to have something specific to claim ownership of, and it needs to be unique enough it doesn't infringe on anyone else's intellectual property. You can't just take two names that you don't own, stick them together and then claim it as your own. You also don't immediately own something just because you say you do. I could apply to trademark "Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson" right now. I'm fairly confident that I would lose any subsequent lawsuits however. 

You get the right to use your Dad's fictional surname if your Dad created it, never sold it to anybody, and no one else in your family has any objection to it. WWE isn't claiming to own the Rhodes name after all - Brandi is using it. They aren't claiming to own "Cody" either. They are only claiming the magic combination of "Cody Rhodes", which is ludicrous. Especially since, if what Carbomb said is true, he's been using that name legally since he was 17.

I don't know if it's been mentioned before on here but Dustin registered both "Dustin Rhodes" and "The Natural, Dustin Rhodes" in December. I'm not going to go all "HE'S JUMPING TO AEW!" but it does seem like really odd timing.

[BomberPat]

8 minutes ago, unfitfinlay said:

Not if WWE wanted to stop them, no.

It's like the Dudleys registering trademarks for stuff like "Brother Ray Deadly". It's too close to their WWE gimmick.

Of course then you get shit like "U-Gene" or "Goldustin" which WWE could've stopped but obviously couldn't be arsed with..

If you are claiming ownership of something then you need to have something specific to claim ownership of, and it needs to be unique enough it doesn't infringe on anyone else's intellectual property. You can't just take two names that you don't own, stick them together and then claim it as your own. You also don't immediately own something just because you say you do. I could apply to trademark "Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson" right now. I'm fairly confident that I would lose any subsequent lawsuits however. 

You get the right to use your Dad's fictional surname if your Dad created it, never sold it to anybody, and no one else in your family has any objection to it. WWE isn't claiming to own the Rhodes name after all - Brandi is using it. They aren't claiming to own "Cody" either. They are only claiming the magic combination of "Cody Rhodes", which is ludicrous. Especially since, if what Carbomb said is true, he's been using that name legally since he was 17.

I don't know if it's been mentioned before on here but Dustin registered both "Dustin Rhodes" and "The Natural, Dustin Rhodes" in December. I'm not going to go all "HE'S JUMPING TO AEW!" but it does seem like really odd timing.

A lot of this stuff is down to marketing/merchandising though.

WWE owned the rights to produce merchandise of the name Cody Rhodes. Cody doesn't own that. Because, legal name or not, the merchandise-able property "Cody Rhodes" is a WWE creation. In Brandi's case, she never used the name Rhodes in WWE - she was either Brandi or Eden Stiles, so they never owned or attempted to own it. Dusty didn't create the surname "Rhodes", he created and owned the name "Dusty Rhodes" just as WWE created and owned the name "Cody Rhodes". Is it a dick move? Sure. But is the law on WWE's side? It's probably going to lean that way.

 

[IANdrewDiceClay]

I dont think WWE ever wins these things in court if you have the money to stetch them out. Its all about if you feel its worth the time and effort. Undertaker is like Hogan I imagine. Marvel owned "Hulk" for years for all types of entertainment use, and then one day he was like "fuck this, there's obviously no confusion between the two" and got the rights to use it as it pertains to wrestling. Now he doesnt need permission from Marvel. The Undertaker has been the Undertaker for 30 years. If this went to court (which I doubt) and he was willing to drag it out, he'd probably get the rights to it.

Austin was mad not to go after the Stone Cold name. Its on every DVD they've released that it was his wife that created the name. That should not be theirs to own.

Edited February 15, 2019 by IANdrewDiceClay