Jump to content

All Elite Wrestling trademarks filed


MPDTT

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
8 minutes ago, wordsfromlee said:

Didn't Vince want to change CM Punk's name but then Paul Heyman convinced him otherwise? I'm sure I remember hearing that Vince wanted to have Punk be the poster boy for WWECW when they restarted it and Heyman convinced Vince to let him keep his name because "it's what the original ECW would have done and it's keeping it's spirit alive". 

I knew Heyman was behind him keeping it, but I didn't know that that was what happened. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Statto said:

If Cody has a legal right to perform as "Cody Runnels Rhodes" but has chosen to be known just as "Cody", I have questions about his ability to co-run a major company.

Just "Cody" is a dreadful name.

He’s spent the last two years building recognition with it, and when needed to use a surname gets Brandi in to be “Cody & Brandi Rhodes”. He gets the best of both with Just being Cody for now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
6 hours ago, BomberPat said:

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.

 

No, I get that.

My point is that it's very hard to argue that WWE "created" the Cody Rhodes" name in any way, shape or form.

It's not like they were sitting in a booking meeting trying to work out who should play the character of Dusty Rhodes' son, and then went "Oh shit! We've got his actual son in developmental! What a coincidence!". They took the son of Dusty Rhodes and brought him in as the son of Dusty Rhodes. It's similar to Warrior's lawsuit. He won because he could prove that the Ultimate Warrior character wasn't an original creation.

At the very least, I'd argue that he's got a strong fair use claim considering his Dad created the name and is the sole reason that it has any value. That's very easily proven.

Off the subject slightly, I remember reading a story in an old Observer about a wrestler who sent in tapes of him performing as "The Repo Man". The WWF liked the gimmick, but hated the guy so trademarked it and sent him a cease and desist. Poor guy must've been gutted when Darsow started using it.

50 minutes ago, Statto said:

If Cody has a legal right to perform as "Cody Runnels Rhodes" but has chosen to be known just as "Cody", I have questions about his ability to co-run a major company.

Just "Cody" is a dreadful name.

He does, in theory, but he'd almost certainly need to fight WWE in court, which would cost a fortune and a shit load of time and effort. Maybe the Khan's will take on the case if AEW gets off the ground, though I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...