You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the main problem is that they don't want SLCC associated with their brand at all. Mainly because it could end up affecting SDCC's image, if people think they're the same company. Especially if they do things at SLCC that CCI objects to (ie. paying for automatic access to certain panels, etc.)I'm not surprised CCI is pretty quiet on that front, or even don't think they can win. A lot of times, cases settle out of court, CCI was probably prepared to pay attorney costs pertaining to the case, to SLCC, from the very first time they seriously considered filing the lawsuit. Maybe they even planned on having to do it in the future.I wouldn't be surprised if it's just an example lawsuit, that they never expected to win or receive damages from. There's been plenty in the past (I was recently researching one back in about 1925, I believe.) I believe the client and attorneys honestly didn't even want to win the case. They attorneys told the client that they didn't expect to win, but it would put the idea into other peoples' minds. They just wanted to get the public and right people (ie. policy makes) thinking about it, and thus thinking twice about doing anything similar or influence officials to work towards changing the law. In fact, in that case the defense attorneys actually asked for a guilty verdict, to move it up the chain of courts to be even more publicized.Honestly, the point might be just, the suit is out there, I'm sure other conventions know what's going on and the point probably is that other conventions will think twice about trying to attempt to advertise, as if they're a continuation of SDCC. I only imagine that CCI doesn't want SLCC highly publicizing it, so as not to turn the public against them. Because if the main point was a statement case, other conventions definitely would've heard from the outset (or at least by now.) Sometimes, from the start, it's not about winning the case. I mean, if this is the case, they very much wouldn't mind winning (and retrieving damages, fines, and attorney's fees,) but it probably sends a message that you don't want to poke the sleeping bear because you might lose the next time.
Thank you for the well thought-out response. Even though it doesn't change my opinion of the lawsuit, it does help me understand why they'd go to the trouble of starting something that it doesn't seem like they'd win.The one thing I still can't rationalize for them, though, is why they'd be worried that people finding out about the lawsuit will turn opinion against them. So they want to sue SLCC over something that is (arguably) iffy -- but they don't want people to think less of them because they sued over that? As the saying goes...you can't have your cake and eat it too. But, I guess there's nothing saying they're not allowed to try.
Comic-Con: This Year's Convention Comes With a Judge's Gag Order July 20, 2017 9:36am PT by Eriq Gardner With a trial looming, a judge expresses concern about what's being discussed on social media.Those attending San Diego Comic-Con this week will hear about fictional fights involving superheroes, extraterrestrials, zombies and more. Noise about one battle for the ages, however, might be more muted. That's because of a suppression order issued on Tuesday by a California federal judge.The organizers of SDCC are on the offensive against other comic conventions throughout the nation. In particular, SDCC could be headed to trial in November against Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenburg, who run the Salt Lake Comic Con. The consequential case could impact the mega-millions business of bringing production companies and fanboys together for a cultural and promotional lovefest. Other disputes have been paused pending resolution of San Diego vs. Salt Lake.A decade ago, San Diego Comic Convention obtained a trademark registration for "comic-con." This happened after the trademark examiner initially refused, noting that the mark was merely descriptive. To show otherwise, San Diego Comic Convention executive director Fae Desmond submitted a declaration that "comic-con" had "been used continuously and exclusively in interstate commerce … for over 36 years."Now facing trademark infringement claims, Farr and Brandenburg are making a fuss over what was represented to the U.S. Trademark Office. They are seeking cancellation and assert that "comic con" is a generic term that's been effectively abandoned with the appearance of other conventions in places like Chicago, New York and Detroit. San Diego Comic-Con, in turn, presents consumer surveys showing that over 82 percent understand that "comic-con" is a brand name. The plaintiff is also showcasing its efforts in policing the mark including 144 cease and desist letters, 289 eBay takedowns, 41 USPTO letters of protest and more.Summary judgment motions have been submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Battaglia, but before any ruling happens and before any possible trial results, the controversy has garnered significant attention. Maybe it's because those who love superhero stories enjoy tales of good and evil and blanch at the prospect of someone coming in to ruin the fun. Or maybe it's because of a coordinated public relations campaign.San Diego Comic-Con suspects the latter.In a bid for a protective order filed earlier this month, attorneys for the popular convention told the judge that their Salt Lake peers had "brazenly engaged" in an effort to "win this case in the court of public opinion," and cited press releases, news articles, Facebook posts and tweets. "Indeed, Defendants boast they have secured more than 200,000 media articles reporting on the case that are 'favorable' to Defendants," stated the court papers. "Additionally, many of the statements made publicly by Defendants are misleading, prejudicial, inflammatory, or false. These include numerous claims that SDCC lied and/or committed fraud on the government in order to obtain its trademarks."With articles out there comparing the San Diego Comic-Con to Superman's nemesis Lex Luthor, the judge heard a demand that the other side be stopped from making certain kinds of statements lest the prospective trial be tainted.Battaglia rejects a move to stop Farr and Brandenburg, and those associated with them, from making any false or misleading statement about San Diego Comic-Con or the merits of the dispute. That would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, the judge concludes.However, accepting evidence that "the venire is being influenced through social media dialogue," the judge is preventing both sides from making statements accusing, suggesting or implying that San Diego Comic-Con lied or committed fraud. Additionally, the parties aren't allowed to discuss the alleged genericness of the term "comic con," how the mark may or may not be descriptive, and whether San Diego Comic-Con abandoned its trademark rights.The parties are being allowed to post court papers, but only in full and without further comment. The judge is also warning that violation of the order will warrant strong sanctions.
San Diego Comic-Con vs Salt Like City Comic Con for all the trademarks! As you know SDCC has been suing the Salt Lake show for misusing the term Comic-Con, which Comic-Con Iternational does own a trademark on.This case has been dragging on for a long time and it looks like it might be going to trial. As much as I love a good legal scrap, this is another case that has devolved into the minutiae of trademark law.On Tuesday, a Southern District Court of California judge ruled that a survey provided by Comic-Con International: San Diego that reported 80% of people thought Comic Con’ is a specific brand name was valid — paving the way for a jury trial. Credit: Comic-Con International: San Diego Salt Lake City Comic Con’s organizers filed a counterclaim in 2017, and has outlined their position on their website.“Our position is that the phrases ‘comic con,’ ‘comicon’ and even ‘comic-con’ are generic and are abbreviations for the term ‘comic convention.’ This has been a common expression since 1964, six years before San Diego Comic-Con even existed. When used with another set of words such as ‘Salt Lake,’ ‘Big Apple,’ ‘Chicago’ or ‘New York,’ they become a name that has protection and exclusivity.”According to AP, over 100 events in the United States utilize the term ‘comic con’ (or a variation thereof).
[member=314]Transmute Jun[/member] - thank you for the news. I am sad about this whole mess, but still interested.
Pretrial issues are being resolved as the long-running lawsuits between the organizers of San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake Comic Con (originally filed in August 2014, see “San Diego Comic-Con Sues Salt Lake Comic Con”) head to trial, with a couple of wins for the SDCC team. U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia has ruled that Salt Lake Comic Con organizers violated his orders regarding public statements about the litigation. While also ruling that the SLCC organizers were not in contempt of court, his order sanctioned SLCC, ordering it to “remove all [emphasis his] references to the pending litigation, except the disclaimer ordered by the Court, on their websites and social media. This includes their personal Twitters and Facebooks and similar social media, as well as the Salt Lake Comic Con websites and associated social media platforms.” The order also required the SLCC organizers to pay SDCC’s fees to file the motion on the issue. The court orders the SLCC organizers violated were issued in July, after Salt Lake Comic Con distributed a press release stating that San Diego Comic-Con had obtained its trademarks by fraud (see “Salt Lake Comic Con Accuses San Diego Comic-Con of Fraud”). The orders limited what SLCC organizers could say about the case, and required that the SLCC website and social media accounts display a disclaimer that announced that the court was setting those limitations. The judge also ruled on both sides’ motions for summary judgment, denying all but one. The judge issued a summary judgment that San Diego Comic-Con has not abandoned its trademark rights as SLCC organizers had argued, resolving one issue before trial.Numerous other issues remain to be resolved in what’s scheduled to be an eight day trial. Witness lists include executives of both companies (SDCC’s Fae Desmond, Damien Cabaza, David Glanzer, and John Rogers; and Dan Farr Productions’ Bryan Brandenburg, Daniel Farr, Danielle Follett), Christina Angel of Denver Comic Con, Matthew Solberg of Phoenix Comicon, Alexander Callego of Palm Springs Comic Con Convention, Keith Tralins of Comikaze Entertainment's Stan Lee's Los Angeles Comic Con, and others. If this case does go to trial, it will provide a fascinating history of comic conventions and determine key features of their future. Stay tuned.
I agree, it's sad. And it's been dragging on for waaaay too long.