NEWS! Public record of VIP's attempts at VALIANT trademarks

k_c_collectibles · Post by **k_c_collectibles** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:58 pm

WOW - lots of interesting reading in those links...

Chris

Byrneout · Post by **Byrneout** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:04 am

See, this is why someone needs to tell us who VIP are.

I can make this a whole lot MORE expensive for them to continue the fight, what with all the medical bills they'd be piling up...

(I kid, I kid... maybe.)

Zaphod · Post by **Zaphod** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:46 am

I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus

like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:00 pm

MProyas wrote:I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus
like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))

You do know we have a pro-wrestler on the boards, don't you?

Zaphod · Post by **Zaphod** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:48 pm

leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus
like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))
You do know we have a pro-wrestler on the boards, don't you?

ummmm, just fyi the contact information for this username was all falsified (and I was slagging the shows, not the wrasslers, btw)

BRING IT!
I used to enjoy the wrestling, I still respect the athletes but I lost the love for it years ago.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:00 pm

MProyas wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus
like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))
You do know we have a pro-wrestler on the boards, don't you?

ummmm, just fyi the contact information for this username was all falsified (and I was slagging the shows, not the wrasslers, btw)

BRING IT!
I used to enjoy the wrestling, I still respect the athletes but I lost the love for it years ago.

The wrestler in question:

Ric Byrne

BrianT · Post by **BrianT** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:43 pm

Finally got around to reading the Bloodshot cancellation petition (printer was out of ink). Interesting read. I knew someone weird was going on with the Voyager/Acclaim/VEI mark when it went from Dead to Live after VIP had filed the application for their Bloodshot mark.

greg · Post by **greg** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:59 pm

Brian Thomer wrote:Finally got around to reading the Bloodshot cancellation petition (printer was out of ink). Interesting read. I knew someone weird was going on with the Voyager/Acclaim/VEI mark when it went from Dead to Live after VIP had filed the application for their Bloodshot mark.

Yeah, in the USPTO search, it looks like VEI filed the cancellation,
but it turns out that VIP is asking the USPTO to cancel VEI's Bloodshot mark.

BrianT · Post by **BrianT** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:06 pm

Yeah, when I looked at the TARR Status of the Voyager/Acclaim/VEI "Bloodshot" mark and saw the cancellation proceeding, I thought it was filed by VEI too, since that's what they look to be doing with their other marks. Guess not in this case.

betterthanezra · Post by **betterthanezra** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:06 pm

Indeed

-Brian

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:07 pm

betterthanezra wrote: Indeed

-Brian

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:45 am

Those VIP vultures just need to give it up. All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. They will lose.

Zaphod · Post by **Zaphod** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:41 am

Daniel Jackson wrote:Those VIP vultures just need to give it up. All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. They will lose.

when it comes down to their investment of $4000 (if I am reading this thread right) and the potential pot they could win if their cards hold out...well in the world of poker, the risk is worth the reward.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:55 pm

MProyas wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:Those VIP vultures just need to give it up. All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. They will lose.
when it comes down to their investment of $4000 (if I am reading this thread right) and the potential pot they could win if their cards hold out...well in the world of poker, the risk is worth the reward.

We've been over this a million times. The only thing they could possibly get is a name. That's all, nothing else.

Harada79 · Post by **Harada79** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:46 pm

Is there any way we can help out with this legal battle?

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:54 pm

Harada79 wrote:Is there any way we can help out with this legal battle?

VIP could help out and drop the whole mess. Other than that, it's up to the trademark folks.

Byrneout · Post by **Byrneout** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:18 pm

leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus
like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))
You do know we have a pro-wrestler on the boards, don't you?

ummmm, just fyi the contact information for this username was all falsified (and I was slagging the shows, not the wrasslers, btw)

BRING IT!
I used to enjoy the wrestling, I still respect the athletes but I lost the love for it years ago.
The wrestler in question:

Ric Byrne

Shh! I was trying to sneak up on him with a chair, but now, I think he's on to me!

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:00 am

Byrneout wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus
like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))
You do know we have a pro-wrestler on the boards, don't you?

ummmm, just fyi the contact information for this username was all falsified (and I was slagging the shows, not the wrasslers, btw)

BRING IT!
I used to enjoy the wrestling, I still respect the athletes but I lost the love for it years ago.
The wrestler in question:

Ric Byrne

Shh! I was trying to sneak up on him with a chair, but now, I think he's on to me!

Sorry I blew it man! You see, it is that those skills learned in wrestling school include 'sneaking up with chair/foreign object'?

californiajeff · Post by **californiajeff** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:16 am

Where is Judge Dredd when you need him?

cobra_commander · Post by **cobra_commander** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:27 am

Harada79 wrote:Is there any way we can help out with this legal battle?

californiajeff wrote:Where is Judge Dredd when you need him?

Just get Judge Dredd and the case is ours

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:28 am

cobra_commander wrote:
Harada79 wrote:Is there any way we can help out with this legal battle?

californiajeff wrote:Where is Judge Dredd when you need him?

Just get Judge Dredd and the case is ours

Robocop can be his bailiff.

cobra_commander · Post by **cobra_commander** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:45 am

Daniel Jackson wrote:
cobra_commander wrote:
Harada79 wrote:Is there any way we can help out with this legal battle?

californiajeff wrote:Where is Judge Dredd when you need him?

Just get Judge Dredd and the case is ours
Robocop can be his bailiff.

Grab Lovitz by the nuts. Toss him out the window.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:55 pm

cobra_commander wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:
cobra_commander wrote:
Harada79 wrote:Is there any way we can help out with this legal battle?

californiajeff wrote:Where is Judge Dredd when you need him?

Just get Judge Dredd and the case is ours
Robocop can be his bailiff.
Grab Lovitz by the nuts. Toss him out the window.

After saying... Dead or alive, you're coming with me.

Zaphod · Post by **Zaphod** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:24 am

Byrneout wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
MProyas wrote:I have only read the thread, not the links but I wonder if the spirit of this is similar to the legalese that occurs between Marvel and DC in regards to the word "Marvel"

magnusr wrote:Just a quick glance shows the weirdnesses already mentioned and more:

"Respondent has not published or distributed the subject goods identified by the "BLOODSHOT" mark for at least the three consecutive years preceding the filing date of this petition."

False, Bloodshot comics have been distributed by VEI.

Several arguments refer specifically to the Bloodshot title only, ignoring other uses of the Bloodshot trademark, such as Unity 2000. I doubt Lovitz himself believes that a comic book character only can appear in his own title. I find it strange for a lawyer to knowingly and deliberately use such weak arguments.

Thanks Greg for finding these documents.

/Magnus
like why Captain Marvel can only ever be advertised as Shazam and why Marvel used to release a Captain Marvel comic periodically (usually at a loss) just to keep their license in play. Another instance I can think of this occuring is a few years ago when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash wanted to bring the names "Razor Ramon" and "Deisel" with them to WCW after they left the WWF and Vince McMahon concocted this lame storyline involving new wrestlers using those names on WWF shows after they had left.

Its all about keeping the intelectual properties in play. I hate lawyers (and wish I had the discipline to be one)

((Also wishes that I could attribute law speak to something sufficiently less "rednecky" than Wrassling shows))
You do know we have a pro-wrestler on the boards, don't you?

ummmm, just fyi the contact information for this username was all falsified (and I was slagging the shows, not the wrasslers, btw)

BRING IT!
I used to enjoy the wrestling, I still respect the athletes but I lost the love for it years ago.
The wrestler in question:

Ric Byrne

Shh! I was trying to sneak up on him with a chair, but now, I think he's on to me!

Just so you know, I was the Backyard Federation PG Chapter Champion for 3 months back in '94. 3 wins, 1 loss.

also, I am Batman

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:51 am

VEI vs VIP over Quantum & Woody trademark back in 2007-2008

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno= ... =OPP&eno=4

Michael L. Lovitz on 8/11/2007 wrote:WHEREFORE, Applicant prays that this Opposition preceeding be dismissed and that Application Serial No. 78/598,997 be allowed to proceed to registration.

Is it common for attorneys to pray in lawsuits?