Care of an article from Variety.com we can inform that Hasbro and DC Comics Have Settled the ‘Bumblebee’ Trademark Dispute.
Some months ago, two superhero franchises were about to square off in federal court over the right to market “Bumblebee” toys. The suit claimed that the DC “Bumblebee” character (A teenage girl with the ability to shrink) could easily be confused with our beloved yellow Autobot “Bumblebee”. In fact, the DC Bumblebee was introduced in the “Teen Titans” comics in 1977, while Hasbro Bumblebee first G1 incarnation was presented in 1983 and they obtained a trademark on the Bumblebee name in 2015.
Terms of the settlement haven’t been publicly disclosed, but from appearances, it seems that both companies can continue selling toys based on the Bumblebee character name. The Southern District of New York’s Judge Lorna Schofield dismissed the case after DC’s attorneys delivered a settlement notice to the court.
You can read the full article here and then you can share your impressions on the 2005 Boards!
Darth Gonzo
What if the reason we don't know how they got to a settlement, maybe Hsbro & Mattel are working on a merger or a deal of some kind?
stad
View attachment 28060900
Grand Slam
It's too bad part of the settlement didn't involved DC getting the Transformers license away from IDW. I guess we'll have to wait for their seemingly inevitable bankruptcy.
stad
It's been pointed out to him, time and time again at this point. I even typed it slowly for him and broke down his own message, point by point.
Perhaps it's just a reading comprehension issue he has? Ironic, for someone spouting off about others being illiterate.
Nevermore
Well, I guess even those who are digging themselves a hole need a helping hand every once in a while…
Mudslide
Don't you have some ridiculous packaging variants to mark down in a datebase somewhere? Wish I had this kind of free time.
Nevermore
Still waiting. Buuuuullshit.
Eleyre
I also provided a screenshot for you showing that Hasbro has the trademark for the word bumblebee in regards to toys.
Ah well, I think this just proves everyone’s theory that you’re just trolling at this point. I’ll stop the feeding .
SaberPrime
Well illiterate is what it's called when someone can't read. I started out putting things in terms an adult could understand just without the need for a law degree. Now I've had to dumb it down to a picture book for children and they still can't grasp these simple concepts so they're either illiterate or they're trolls arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I noticed one after being proven wrong suddenly just changed his argument. I almost wrote a reply but I've decided to just ignore them from now on. Also I think I might have to post a video when I get home just to prove their links weren't working for me since they want to continue to argue about that now too.
SaberPrime
They don't work for me. Maybe it's my tablet, I don't know but all I got was a page saying your search has expired every single link goes to that same error.
One of the links was literally posted in here as "TESS — Error" that's how the actual link itself appears here's on the forums. Also I litterally just said in my last post that TESS is the exact same web site I used to look up the information myself. Your links just go to that search has expired page but if it go there directly rather than your shitty links it actually works. And your own searches actually support what I've been saying this whole time, I'm not ignoring them, YOU are. Did any of actually bother to read the information on those sites you tried to link to? I think not, which is why I provided quotes to the information you claimed didn't exist.
stad
That probably IS the best choice.
G.B. Blackrock
Just do what I did several days ago. Report him using the board's "report" feature, and ignore him from here on out. He's not arguing in good faith, and there's no reason we should keep engaging him.
stad
Wrong. As you can see, it IS "just" the word Bumblebee. In fact, you can see that several companies have that simple word trademarked, in their own categories.
Except, by your very own search, you admit that you can see several instances where, in fact, that word IS trademarked. Now it seems you're ignoring your own evidence that you've now brought forward, since it disproves your assertion.
There's certainly a fail of monumental proportions here.
You admit, right here, that there are several instances of other people holding the same trademark, most of which is for just that word. You're contradicting yourself in the very next sentence you typed.
Each trademark only applies to a specific category, that is why there is several trademarks, and several trademark holders.
Yet you yourself just looked at the list of trademarks that ARE the word Bumblebee by itself (as well as several where it's part of the trademark) Seriously, you yourself linked to it, and several screenshots have been provided.
DC (through licensee Mattel) tried to use the trademarked term "Bumblebee" for a toy. Hasbro owns the trademark for the term "Bumblebee" in the toy category. THIS is indisputable, as you yourself have now admittedly seen the site – even though it's been pointed out and shown to you repeatedly prior.
I broke this down into small points, and typed slowly in case it's too complicated for you…
Oh, I think a lot of people understand….
And this last point, you are actually correct – no one can trademark use of the term that is not similar to their actual trademark. THAT criteria HAS been met here, however. Hasbro owns the term "Bumblebee" in regards to the toy category. Mattel tried to call another toy "Bumblebee" and DC (being the license holder) was sued for it.
backhawkdown
No, you still don’t understand what you just posted. The trademark is for the use of the word “Bumblebee” in a specific category. Hasbro’s ownership of the mark in the toy category does not prevent someone else from having ownership of the mark for a copy service or any other product. It does prevent DC from having it for a toy regardless of the different design of the toy.
You’re not illiterate, just clearly too stupid to grasp the concepts you are even posting and arguing.
stad
You sure are awful smarmy for someone who has been shown to be wrong here, time and time again.
Yeah, there's several trademarks for JUST the word "Bumblebee" – they are each for different categories, and other companies hold the trademark for their various industries. THAT is why there is several. AND, they are for JUST the word "Bumblebee." You can pretend the links don't work at all (you DO have to initiate a new search) BUT they've also shown you screenshots.
HASBRO has the trademark for the term BUMBLEBEE (just that word, all by itelf!!) for the category Toy action figures, toy vehicles and toy robots convertible into other visual toy forms.
Calling other people "illiterate" – especially when they've proven and shown that they are correct, time and time again, is simply uncalled for. Your own search has shown you that the simple term Bumblebee is a trademarked term, sorry if you misinterpreted why there are several trademarks for it – they're different categories and therefore, different trademarks, albeit for the same term. Hasbro only has to "protect" the trademarked term in their applicable category or categories.
Eleyre
And in case the link doesn’t work:
Digger
Woh dude. Illiterate is a bit harsh. These guys are certainly not fitting of that either. Also I didn’t say much anyway. You just put in more effort and that makes you more susceptible to being picked on.
Eleyre
So you have a link:
Record List Display
And
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
Eleyre
Taskmanager and Nevermore have both posted valid links that work (I’ve tried them). You just seem to ignore them because they don’t support your assertion .
SaberPrime
I knew you understood. Sorry if you ever felt like you were being lumped in with the rest of the illiterate children over there. I've seen you liking my posts and commenting how stupid this whole topic is. Surprised they weren't attacking you too, I guess they just like to single me out for some reason.