Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney Moves to Trademark "Seal Team 6"

This is topic Disney Moves to Trademark "Seal Team 6" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006436

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-17-2011, 05:52 AM:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/disney-moves-to-trademark-seal-team-6-is-this-right

[ 05-18-2011, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-17-2011, 09:01 AM:

Isn't the term "SEAL Team Six" in the public domain because it is paid for by our tax money?

The American flag and the Space Shuttle can't be copyrighted or trade marked. You can't own terms like "United States Army" or "The White House." Anybody can use these terms any time they want as long as they don't commit an act of false advertising or claim that they or their product represents or is endorsed by the government.

So, in other words, I can make T-shirts that say, "SEAL Team Six" on them but I can't claim that my shirts are actually worn by members of SEAL Team Six or that the Navy somehow endorsed the product.

Nobody can stop me from using the name "SEAL Team Six" in any legal way. Nobody has the right to claim copyright or trademark because it's automatically public domain because our tax money paid for it.

As an example, look at the "FDNY" hats and T-shirts that popped up all over the place right after the World Trade Center was attacked. Again, public domain. As long as you don't claim that you actually represent the New York City Fire Department, you can make and sell as many "FDNY" T-shirts as you want. Anybody can. Tax money paid for it. It's public domain.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-17-2011, 12:51 PM:

Well. Besides agreeing with Randy's post, I also think this is a bunch of hooey.

First, if you click on the link to the original story, and then click on the links to the "application," all three of the links are "expired." So if you click to start a new search, and then type in "seal team 6," you get nothing (or at least, I didn't see anything related to Disney in the first few pages of results).

I think this whole thing is a misguided reaction to a new book, called "Seal Team 6," that has just been released. There's an article about it in the new issue of Time magazine. The author is a former Navy SEAL and he wrote this book about the SEALs, and cleared everything with the Navy before it was published.

Supposedly the timing was accidental; according to the article the book was set for publication before the Bin Laden event happened.

If Disney did anything, I would bet that they optioned the rights to the book with the idea of making a movie out of it. With the movie would come promotional tie-in items. It doesn't mean they're going to start production next week. It could be years before they do anything with it.

In short....it's probably another stupid media storm about nothing.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-17-2011, 12:52 PM:

Site Policies 4 and 7 violated. Please fix.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 05-17-2011, 07:11 PM:

Go to http://www.uspto.gov/index.jsp and click "Search Marks" under the "Trademarks" heading, then click "Basic Word Mark Search". Now Search for "Seal Team 6".

First 3 listings are exactly what is described in the article.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-17-2011, 09:49 PM:

OK, I stand corrected -- they applied to trademark the words. But, I still think if anything happens at all, it's going to be a tie-in with that book.

(Or, maybe they're going to replace "Extra Terrorestrial Alien Encounter" with "SEAL Team 6 Bin Laden Encounter." It would have to be an improvement over what's there now.)

Anytime Disney does anything to enhance their bottom line, people say it's "greed." It's not greed, it's a smart company looking for a way to make a buck. CEOs of other companies are probably right now smacking their foreheads and saying, "Crap, why didn't we think of that?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-18-2011, 08:37 AM:

Edit Time Expired, but here is the text. Can't do anything about the title, though; should be something like, The Rodent Tries To Trademark Seal Team 6.

quote:
Entertainment
Disney Moves to Trademark "Seal Team 6" -- Is This Right?

Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you should. Or does it?

Mediabistro is reporting that Disney has applied for trademarks on SEAL Team 6.

The trademark applications came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed Bin Laden… and two days after “Seal Team 6″ was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.

Disney’s trademark applications for "Seal Team 6″ cover clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and “entertainment and education services,” among other things.

Digging deeper within the trademark application we see that Disney has some wide-ranging plans for the Navy SEAL merchandising. They have requested trademark protection with the intent to make and sell the following;

Toys, games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles (except clothing); hand-held units for playing electronic games other than those adapted for use with an external display screen or monitor; Christmas stockings; Christmas tree ornaments and decorations; snow globes.

SNOW GLOBES?

Of course, Disney also filed an application for a trademark on a SEAL Team 6 movie. There is little doubt that within hours of the attack that killed bin Laden many Hollywood studios fired up the old action-adventure engines, dusted off scripts that were pro-U.S. military, and pushed those rom-coms off to the far corners of the production calendar. Disney just seems to have beaten them all to the punch.

Therefore, the question remains: just because you can do something, should you?

I am with Randy on this -- I would think this is in the Public Domain as well, but we have seen the distain the studios have for PD; everyone thought IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was in the Public Domain too. And just because they CLAIM copyright or trademark, doesn't mean it can't be challenged. Problem with PD is that while the studios have battalions of lawyers to fight for their trademarks and copyrights, the public only has Congress. See the problem?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-19-2011, 10:08 AM:

The name "SEAL Team 6" is actually no longer in use. It is still used heavily by the media, but not by our government. It has been replaced with "United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group" so the former name would be up for grabs I suppose.

wiki link

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-20-2011, 11:17 PM:

Even if the name "Seal Team 6" is outdated in use by the US Navy and the Navy Seals it still is an item of historical interest.

Disney did NOT invent the term "Seal Team 6."

I meant to make that bold to underscore the point Disney has ZERO claim of ownership for that term. If they can suddenly trademark a term invented by a totally different organization then I should be able to flip through pages of a dictionary and file trademark applications on whatever words I want to claim. My dictionary example is 100% absurd, but so is Disney's claim. They seriously need to shut up. The Navy Seals are a US government funded operation, not a Mickey Mouse funded operation.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-22-2011, 12:32 AM:

You're wrong about that, Bobby. I'm not sure of the exact legal aspects, but you can trademark unique terms despite their origin. Pat Riley trademarked the term "three-peat" even though he was not the first one to use it.

wiki article

You really think Disney wouldn't have checked into the legality of this? A multi-billion dollar company wouldn't think of it? Come on, use your head a little.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-22-2011, 12:45 AM:

And of course Disney has never lost a single case relating to decisions they've made. [uhoh]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-22-2011, 12:50 PM:

Disney made the filing. It doesn't mean they will be granted the trademark on the words, does it?

You can sue anyone you want to for any reason you want, but it doesn't mean you'll automatically win.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-22-2011, 01:05 PM:

I think it would be wrong for the government to grant trademarks/patents for something that does not actually exist yet.

At best, I could see granting a patent for a LOGO to be used on all the stuff they "intend" to create, but I don't think they should be able to trademark the actual words/phrase if it already existed. If it's a name they came up with themselves, that's a little different (but still not necessarily a slam-dunk in my opinion).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-22-2011, 01:54 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
You really think Disney wouldn't have checked into the legality of this? A multi-billion dollar company wouldn't think of it? Come on, use your head a little.

Try using yours. Major corporations use the legal system as a poker game, not something based on "justice" or right and wrong. They count on judges seeing things in shades of grey and making decisions that are very subjective. If they can push things farther and farther in a certain direction to make more money they're going to try doing it.

Even if Disney manages to trademark "Seal Team 6" I'll still consider the move to be disgraceful. I'm not changing my mind about that either.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-22-2011, 02:19 PM:

Maybe they're planning a movie about real seals. Look at all the success Dreamworks had with the Madagascar penguins! (Nothing is lost on Disney, y'know.)

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2011, 04:34 AM:

Sorry, exploitation for profit of people who put themselves in harms way for our safety, to me, seems beyond dispicable. Like when you drink really sour milk and you can't get that bad taste out of your mouth for hours.

For a company that purports itself to laud the highest of American patriotic values to go and stoop this low....well, let's just say nicknaming them The Rodent House seems an undeserved disservice to members of that innocent phylum everywhere. And I bet the majority of the public would agree with me if only they knew about it. But I am sure this isn't something corporate is shouting chim-chimeny-chim-chim-charoo from the rooftops.

Much in the same vein, these people for quite awhile were putting a statement at the end of their films in the credit crawl that said "For purposes of Copyright, the country of origin of this work is the United Kingdom." So they are willing to claim they are not Americans just to get some kind of copyright gain by claiming the film originated in the UK, which of course is a lie on its face. But like Bobby says, they will push it as far as they think they can go with the a good deal of confidence that no one is going to challenge them. I bet even kindly ole Walt wouldn't have renounce his American citizenship just to get some obscure benefit in the way the UK copyright law is written.

Overheard at a cocktail party after a Disney premiere (can't recall the film): it was around the time the copyright was about to expire on FANTASIA -- at that time the law was 50 years. A group of people including a Disney exec were conversing in a group when someone mentioned that they were coming up to Public Domain status for FANTASIA. The exce paused and laughed a little and said, "You really don't imagine that Disney is ever going to allow FANTASIA go into Public Domain, do you?" Everyone laughed. And of course, so far, he is right. They have plied Congress with wine, women (hookers) and probably hustlers rather than song, to get the copyright laws changed over and over in their favor. Now they've got it to 100 years plus the life of the author! Whatever THAT means. What's the "life" of Disney Productions?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2011, 09:13 AM:

I remember when the first Tron movie came out, Disney went around filing suit against any company with "Tron" in its name (I think FuseTron may have been one). Don't think they won any, but as Bobby says, they use the legal system as a poker game.

They can probably get away with Trademarking a unique logo for Seal Team 6, and then just use their deep pockets to club any "infringers" into submission.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-23-2011, 10:23 AM:

I'm not in any way defending Disney's decision to try to trademark the name. I always thought it was a pretty cool name and therefore decidedly anti-Disney. I was only trying to explain why and how they can and likely may get the name.

I know one requirement of trademarks is that they must be maintained through active use. Obviously the NAVY was no longer using it and was probably never using it for trade, so that doesn't apply.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2011, 11:40 AM:

The government is not allowed to trademark or copyright anyway.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-23-2011, 01:12 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
they can and likely may get the name.

While I'm being a little bit pedantic here:

What does it mean to say that something will be likely to maybe happen?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2011, 01:30 PM:

Here in the South that would be phrased "might could" [Wink]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2011, 01:31 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
The government is not allowed to trademark or copyright anyway

Are you sure about that, Martin? All that promotional stuff they use in tv spots and posters like "An Army of One" and all their identifying emblems and insignias, surely no one can usurp those symbols. While they may not be trademarkable, but surely if someone tried to use, say, the FBI insignia, you can be sure very nasty things would happen to them.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-23-2011, 02:20 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
exploitation for profit of people who put themselves in harms way for our safety, to me, seems beyond dispicable.

So you must be against every non-documentary movie featuring the military ever made -- especially comedies, eh?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2011, 03:48 PM:

Frank: Last I checked (and it has been awhile) yes.

There are laws against using government symbols for private purposes, but they are not trademarked or copyrighted. As far as I know, all the promotional stuff is technically public domain.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2011, 08:44 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So you must be against every non-documentary movie featuring the military ever made -- especially comedies, eh?

Yes....yes I am.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-24-2011, 01:51 AM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
There are laws against using government symbols for private purposes, but they are not trademarked or copyrighted. As far as I know, all the promotional stuff is technically public domain.

Each of the armed forces have a trademark and licensing office/program.

And at least the USAF's website for this specifies the Air Force's symbol as a registered trademark (I assume the other branches do the same; I just looked this one up).

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-25-2011, 10:47 AM:

Chris: I stand corrected on the trademark. I knew the gov't was finicky about their symbols, but didn't know they were trademarked. Must see if this is a recent development.

Frank: you (and Disney) are going to love this;>
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118037559

quote:
Sony locks up Osama bin Laden pic
U.S. distrib rights for untitled project goes to Columbia Pictures
By JEFF SNEIDER
Columbia Pictures has acquired U.S. distribution rights to Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal's untitled film about the black ops mission that killed Osama bin Laden.
Bigelow and Boal have been developing the project since 2008, long before bin Laden was killed during a high-stakes raid on his compound in Pakistan earlier this month, a seismic event that the duo plan to incorporate into the film, as Variety first reported (Daily Variety, May 3).

Bigelow and Boal will produce along with Annapurna Pictures principal Megan Ellison, while Greg Shapiro will exec produce. Bigelow, Boal and Shapiro previously produced "The Hurt Locker" for Summit. That pic won seven Oscars, including best picture.

Production is scheduled to start later this summer, and the film is skedded to hit U.S. theaters in the fourth quarter of 2012. Pic will likely be one of Sony's major awards contenders, as the only other film the studio currently has dated for the last quarter of next year is "Bond 23."

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 05-26-2011, 01:07 PM:

quote: Fox News
Well, that was quick: Mickey Mouse has waved the white flag and surrendered to the real SEAL Team 6.

Disney is withdrawing its applications to trademark the name of the elite Navy squad responsible for killing Usama bin Laden, the Navy said on Wednesday.

"The Navy is committed to fully protecting our trademark rights as it pertains to this matter and will continue to examine all our legal options," Navy spokeswoman Amanda Greenberg told FoxNews.com, adding that the military continues to broaden Navy's existing portfolio.

Disney did not return numerous requests for comment.

A spokesman for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office also did not return calls and email requests for comment.

Earlier on Wednesday, FoxNews.com reported that U.S. Navy had countered Disney's trademark applications with filings of its own.

Two days after the not-so-secret-anymore elite unit took out bin Laden, Disney filed trademark applications expressing intent to use the name "SEAL Team 6" for purposes including: entertainment and education; video games, toys, Christmas ornaments, snow globes; clothing, hats, shoes.

Ten days later, on May 23, the Navy fought back with trademark applications of its own, the first for anything indicating membership in a military organization, the second for use in the category of clothing, footwear and headwear.

But a battle of the century never materialized, as just hours after FoxNews.com's original article was published, Mickey Mouse said G-O-O-D-B-Y-E to "SEAL Team 6."

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-28-2011, 07:05 PM:

Guess the Rodent's publicity department realized it would be bad PR to look like you are the conglomerate looking to steal from the nation's heros and even willing to go up against them in court. Guess they started to hear the old cry of, "Is Nothing Sacred?" Next thing you know, they'll be trying to trademark the American Flag.

At least someone over at the Rodent House recognized really bad vibes when they saw it and backed off.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-28-2011, 08:01 PM:

Nothing Disney does, especially with their alternative labels, surprises me. I'm sure it's not the Disney Walt envisioned. He'd probably jerk his name off it if he could reach it from where he is. RIP Walt.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-29-2011, 06:16 PM:

I just noticed that the copyright statement at the end of Pirates 4 -- has been changed yet again from the one I had been seeing a few years ago. This new one reads:

For the purposes of the United Kingdom copyright, Disney Enterprises, Inc. was the owner of copyright in this film immediately after it was made.

Huh? Is there something screwy going on with the copyright law in the UK? First off, I'd love to know exactly what that legal jibberish really means and second, is not Disney Enterprises, Inc. the owner before, during and immediately after the film is made no matter if it's in the US, the UK and every continent on the freakin PLANET and until the end of time?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-29-2011, 11:08 PM:

I think that might have something to do with "if" the property gets sold to somebody else and there is legal trouble with it of some kind (like some sort of lawsuit over content), that notice lets everybody know that Disney is to blame for the movie, not the current owner (if a different entity).

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 06-01-2011, 03:21 AM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
I remember when the first Tron movie came out, Disney went around filing suit against any company with "Tron" in its name (I think FuseTron may have been one). Don't think they won any

They didn't. In the credits and packaging for the Tron 2.0 and Tron: Killer App video games it says:

"TRON® Is a registered trademark of Cooper Industries and is used under license."

I do believe that Cooper later sold rights to the 'Tron' name to Disney between the games releases (about 6-7 years ago) and the present, as no disclaimer as above appeared in the feature release or any of the promotional materials for Tron: Legacy...

-Aaron