From Batman to Sholay, icons that have fought and won the trademark fight

Characters, stars and properties across pop culture have found themselves defending, sometimes violating, intellectual property laws

Batman just added a new name to his rogues’ gallery. This time, it is an Italian clothing retailer that has failed to beat the Dark Knight. The fight was over trademark.

The firm, Commerciale Italiana and Luigi Aprile, had intended to use the image of a black bat inside a white oval frame on its products and tried to prove that people don't always link the bat sign to the Caped Crusader. However, the General Court, Europe’s second-highest tribunal, ruled that the icon is distinctive enough to warrant its trademark on all items.

This is not the first logo battle that DC Comics has won. In May 2019, Indonesia’s legal system ruled against DC in a legal battle with PT Marxing Fam Makmur, a Surabaya-based food and beverage company, over its Superman-themed snacks. Marxing had been using Superman on its products (biscuits, ice cream and chocolate bars) since 1993. But in November 2020, in a new legal appeal, the Central Jakarta Commercial Court ruled in favour of DC, and the comics giant successfully won the trademark cancellation lawsuit. The court ruled that DC, being the original creator of Superman, was the sole trademark owner of the iconic superhero in Indonesia and annulled Marxing’s rights to the Superman brand.

Not all of DC’s legal battles have, however, ended in victories.

The comics brand was for long embroiled in a legal battle with another DC: DC Shoes. DC Shoes, a popular sneaker brand, was launched in 1994 by a professional skateboarder named Danny Way. The brand began with skateboards but expanded into skateboarding boots, terrain footwear and casual shoes for women and children. The brand's logo includes a D and C along with a star, making it nearly identical to the logo of the DC comic book publisher.

The comics giants promptly filed a case against the shoe company. However, while investigating, DC Shoes' lawyers discovered that the logo was never adequately trademarked by DC Comics, causing the latter to lose the case. DC Shoes’ lawyers, meanwhile, countersued the comic book publisher, having trademarked the logo already.

As a result, DC Comics had to pay DC Shoes a significant six-figure sum every year for the rights to continue using their own logo until they changed it in 2012. A decade later, many DC Comics fans are yet to embrace the change.

A more recent example is the legal debate over Warner Brothers’ Looney Tunes staple, the Tasmanian Devil, or Taz. The Australian Football League (AFL), which recently awarded the licence for a 19th AFL team to Tasmania, had filed the trademark application for the names “Tasmania Devils” and “Tassie Devils" and a “Tasmania Devils” logo in May 2019. However, back in 1984, WB had already filed for its first trademark with “Tasmanian Devil.” By 2000, it was granted five more, all with the image of Taz.

While sporting teams and cartoon characters might be in different fields, these two share similar merchandising opportunities. Turns out, you can buy Taz on almost anything, from T-shirts, caps, carry bags and badges to mascots. The matter is before the Intellectual Property Administrator of Australia.

Stars, properties and icons across pop culture, too, have found themselves either defending, or sometimes violating, trademark copyrights.

The Elvis Presley estate successfully sued Scottish brewer BrewDog in 2016, demanding that it drop the name of its beer brand, “Elvis Juice IPA.” 

In 1978, two years after Apple Computer launched Apple Corps, owner of the Beatles’ record label, Apple Records, sued it for trademark violation. 

When wrestling company Titan Sports changed its name to the World Wrestling Federation, it was drawn into a legal fight with another WWF, the World Wildlife Fund. The battle lasted 13 years. The wrestlers eventually gave in and rebranded to World Wrestling Entertainment, WWE.

Closer home, in May last year, the Delhi High Court restrained persons from using the title of the Hindi film Sholay as the name of their website (www.sholay.com) and company. The makers of Sholay – Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Sippy Films Pvt Ltd – had contested the case for 20 years. The court also awarded damages of Rs 25 lakh to the makers of the movie.