Well, that buggers my plan to conquer the universe...

[ffutures]

One of the "if all else fails and I'm really desperate for an idea" ideas I've had in the back of my mind since Conan Doyle's Euro copyright finally expired is a "World of Sherlock Holmes" RPG. It'd be a sod to write, since actually playing the man would be next to impossible - player characters would have to be supporting cast, Scotland Yard bunglers, etc. - which is one of many reasons why I've never done it.

Good thing too, because I'm reliably informed that a surviving descendent of Conan Doyle has now obtained a European trademark on the words "Sherlock Holmes." Which should, of course, now be written Sherlock Holmes® or Sherlock Holmes^TM.

How they have avoided the "generic description" thing that stopped aspirin and cellophane from remaining trademarks is beyond me, because phrases like "it didn't take a Sherlock Holmes to realise..." aren't exactly uncommon.

What this does for the vast quantity of Holmes films, pastiches, fanfic, articles etc. etc. already extant is unclear; I suspect that sooner or later there will be several VERY lucrative (for the lawyers) lawsuits, since Hollywood etc. has a LOT of money tied up in films etc. Then there are things like the old Sherlock Holmes play, which I think was also out of copyright... but now the title itself and every use of the character's name infringes trademark.

What's clear is that any future material based on this character is going to have to jump through the trademark hoops, at least in Europe. But I suspect that it will simply be dropped, with authors etc. moving on to other projects or changing names sufficiently to protect themselves.

I wonder if I could trademark the words "Greedy Bastards"

Comments

[jonnynexus.livejournal.com]

>confused<

But if it was out of copyright, then does that mean that *anyone* could have got the trademark?

Could I get a trademark right now on "Hamlet" as the name of a fictional prince of Denmark, and then stop everyone in the world from doing a show of Shakespeare's Hamlet unless they pay me a large amount of money?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

No. Trademark law is horrendously complicated and occasionally deeply silly, but as I understand it trademark can only go to someone with some sort of right to ownership, however tenuous.

I did think that the "look and feel" of Holmes belonged to various film companies, as does the "bolt through neck" version of Frankenstein's monster, but apparently not.

I'd be REALLY grateful if someone could point me at the original story, which may say more about what is and is not trademarked.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

"Deeply silly" is a good description.

During one of the Olympics (Montreal or LA, I think, but it might have been another one) the organizing committee got an injunction against Olympic Airlines on the grounds that they were using a trademark without paying for it. There was an Olympic Restaurant (run by a family for 50 years) that was told to shut down or change its name...

I find it odd that this is happening in Europe. After all, even in America trademarks have to be defended or they are lost, and the deerstalker, pipe, name, etc has been floating around the general culture for a long time. Do you happen to know if the chap also got the American trademark?

Mind you, it looks like European law is moving into alignment with American law.

[pauldrye.livejournal.com]

That would be the 1984 Olympics (hmmm). As it happens, though, it's because of a specific law in the US related to the use of the word "Olympic(s)". It's got legal protections that others don't.

MacDonalds vs. MacDonalds

[pwca.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall that the most recent well-known case of name or trademark infringement occurred over the name MacDonalds. The big American company took a family run burger bar (I belive that it was in Scotland) to court for use of the name. From what I remember, the family won because the Judge decided that there was no grounds for confusion betwen the two.

Returning to the idea of creating a Sherlock Holmes RPG, surely one suggestion would be for the players to take the roles of members of the Baker Street Irregulars? Of course, that has been done before in the Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective Game. (When a friend played this, his character was female and a young dolly mop. Not sure that was what the publishers had in mind, really...)

Re: MacDonalds vs. MacDonalds

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Yes, irregulars etc. was what I had in mind. And/or Moriarty and friends, of course. I have a feeling it may take them a while to think of TM-ing Professor Moriarty, come to think of it.

Re: MacDonalds vs. MacDonalds

[pwca.livejournal.com]

Moriarty & Friends, eh?

Would that not make the game, The League of Incorrigible Gentlemen RPG or something? The Un-Gentleman's Club: A School For Cads & Bounders RPG, perhaps?

Re: MacDonalds vs. MacDonalds

[pwca.livejournal.com]

Moriarty & Friends, eh?

Would that not make the game, The League of Incorrigible Gentlemen RPG or something? The Un-Gentleman's Club: A School For Cads & Bounders RPG, perhaps?

Of course, what I should do now, is go off and trademark both phrases. But that will have to wait until after Christmas...

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard anything about America, I suspect that would be a much harder one to pull off.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I keep waiting for some enterprising soul to try and trademark the entire english language.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Can't be done - it's too much in common usage. Same for patenting it.

[houses7177.livejournal.com]

How...enlightening. Never would have thought...

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

There's a mention in the archives of the Robert E Howard Inner Circle egroup of the Holmes trademark. From memory I believe that it was a TM in the US already, because this was a news item regarding a movie or plau based on one of the Holmes stories but not mentioning Holmes in the title. The owners of Sherlock Holmes (TM) sued the producers, but the judge ruled against SH (TM) on the grounds that Holmes wasn't mentioned in the title (though he was, of course, the protagonist) and the story it was based on was out of copyright.

This came up on the REH list in connection with Conan (TM), which is a very similar situation -- virtually all the REH Conan stories are public domain, but Conan Inc owns the character. As I understand it (and I am very definitely not a lawyer) one is far more likely to be able to produce a game, story, etc. based solely on out of copyright materials if one doesn't mention the character's name in the marketing, title, etc. So if you produced a Baker Street Irregulars game, and didn't give it a "Roleplaying in the world of Sherlock Holmes" subtitle or mention Holmes in the marketing, you'd be unlikely to be successfully sued.

Of course, were it I doing such a thing, I would either get expensive legal advice from a specialist IP lawyer or (much more likely) pay £150 or so to create a specific limited company to produce that product alone. In the latter case, if you were unfortunate enough to be successfully sued for TM infringement, at least you'd only lose that company rather than ending up bankrupt.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Thanks - that makes things a bit clearer. Just goes to show; I wouldn't have dreamed it could be a TM until this came up, it's a good thing I didn't write the game first. It's ALWAYS wise to check if you're writing anything based on someone else's work, however old.