You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think part of what might be urging CCI on is that SLCC/their parties actually filed to have CCI's trademark cancelled AND accused them of fraudulently obtaining the copyright CCI already holds. So basically they're claiming that CCI, knowingly I believe, lied to USPTO to get it. If that's found true, it's punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both; though I'm not in the field so I have no idea how frequently that actually happens even if there is fraud found. Even if it's not taken that far often, it wouldn't be good for CCI regardless.So that could be further pushing CCI to keep pursuing it, giving in on the big trial case would look bad in regard to the trademark dispute.
Ehh, this never would have happened if CCI didn’t sue SLCC to begin with. While I actually don’t agree with SLCC suing them over this, ultimately CCI brought it upon themselves by making the original lawsuit about the name.
Opening Statements in Salt Lake Comic Con vs San Diego Comic-Con, as Rose City Comic-Con Does a DealPosted by Rich Johnston December 1, 2017 0 CommentsThis week saw opening statements in the trademark court battle between San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake ComicCon over the ComicCon trademark.Callie Bjurstrom, attorney for San Diego Comic-Con told jurors that Salt Lake Comic Con hijacked the Comic-Con trademark. That it “remained a small, intimate comic convention for decades” and that it wasn’t until the early 2000s that “the secret was out: Comics were cool........
great write up on bleedingcool You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login-rose-city-deal/
Don't miss out on the early Fast Pass sale for @RoseCityCC Will you be attending #RCCC next year?
List of con's accepting cci Palm Springs Comic ConNew jersey ExpoRose City Comic Con
Last week saw the opening arguments in the court case between San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake Comic Con over the “Comic Con” trademark being watched by all sorts of people. Most of whom run conventions with the words “Comic Con” in the headline in some form or other. We managed to give a summary last week, but a few more details have escaped, at least from the San Diego Comic-Con side that illustrate some of their case against Salt Lake. You can read much of it on Salt Lake Comic Con’s own site, but there are more details that emerged last week.Such as the citing of 2013 e-mail from the organisers of Salt Lake, Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenburg, appearing to trade on the San Diego mark, saying: I wanted to follow up to discuss our opportunity this week to leverage the San Diego Comic Con to help people relate more to our event. - I just feel the more we can leverage San Diego to boost our brand here the better. -- It may be a good time to get us on the news again to discuss the show so they associate us with San Diego.They seem to be treating this as some kind of smoking gun, proving their case. And stating further that: Defendants further spoke freely and openly of their plan to “hijack” the SDCC brand as they ventured onto the comic convention scene, a brand that was created through SDCC’s decades-long use of and investment in its COMIC-CON marks. Mr. Brandenburg went so far as to admit that “hijacking the Comic Con brand” was part of Defendants’ “magic formula.” According to Mr. Brandenburg, the word hijack means “taking something and using it for your own purposes.”Much of the other charges and details can be read in the ICV2 summary, but this seems to be a new tack, with correspondence as evidence. As well as citing the use of a Salt Lake Comic Con-plastered car to drive around San Diego during the show, they also bring up confusion that came their way. Further instances of confusion manifested during and after Defendants’ Salt Lake Comic Con convention held in September 2014. SDCC received several phone calls from persons who attended (or attempted to attend) Defendants’ convention complaining about their abysmal experience. (Id.) SDCC also received numerous emails from disenchanted patrons complaining about Defendants’ convention and asking for refunds. One consumer urged SDCC to “do everything you can have to have Salt Lake Comic Con separate themselves and their version of business from yours. I bought tickets believing it was the original, as did many others.” Another chastised SDCC because “I waited in your Salt Lake comic con line for almost 3 hours tonight, and never even got in the door! What the Hell!! I sent messages to your Salt Lake City personnel and it appears as if nobody here cares!” Yet others asked SDCC for a refund due to their poor experience at the Salt Lake Comic Con convention.”A tactic designed not only to demonstrate confusion in the marketplace but having a side benefit of quoting a few people saying how terrible their experience of Salt Lake Comic Con was. Tricky…
In the trial over ownership of the term “Comic-Con," San Diego Comic Convention, the organization that runs San Diego Comic-Con, rested its case against Dan Farr Productions, which runs Salt Lake Comic Con, on Friday. Monday morning, attorneys representing Dan Farr Productions filed a motion requesting the judge’s ruling that San Diego Comic Convention had not met its burden of persuasion to show that there was likelihood of confusion between the two show’s marks, or harm to the San Diego brands. Among the exhibits supporting the motion was a document in which a $9.62 million price tag was estimated for a marketing campaign for San Diego to “repair the significant ‘brand erosion’” the show has argued it suffered.Pre-trial jockeying was fierce, with one issue going to the Court of Appeals for resolution (see “Salt Lake Wins on Gag Order”), so this latest filing by Dan Farr Productions is par for the course. The trial is expected to end this week.
I looked at a couple of the websites for the cons, trying to see if they are also non-profit (like CCI) but couldn't easily locate that info. I see that New Jersey Expo is owned by Mad Events, which owns Long Beach Comic Con, among others, so... it looks like they are for-profit?
[member=1]alyssa[/member] - I don't connect profit or non-profit status with legitimacy of a convention, and support both kinds. I was wondering if that status affects the decision CCI makes as far as them offering 'official' recognition. I do think, for me, it may muddy the waters if CCI aligns with for-profit conventions. Why? I am not really sure...it just feels a bit odd.
I see(feel) your point LOLThe tipping point for me has been the 'feel' of the for-profit conventions. it is possible to be a for profit and still put on a show that's doesn't treat the attendees as cattleI tend to think the for/non profit status isn't a consideration in CCI's matrix. I think cci uses more of a generalized approach- like 'does this con promote our mission statement.