Star Trek: Copyrights and Trademarks

[Barry]

 When we discuss items such as “Star Trek Continues” we get into the issues of copyright and trademarks.  And I had a great lesson  on this by a judge who helped write the decision and the law.
 
First, I learned hat when legislators wish to compose a law, especially one this detailed and technical, they often ask judges and their staff to assist in writing it. Then, later, when the court has to write a decision the judge knows what the law’s intent was.
 
The case I brought up was when a small store that sold comics called itself, “The Batcave” and DC went after them.  Why would such a bug company go after such a small store.
 
The judge explained. First, the government does NOT “police” copyright and trademark infractions. That is up to the individual  rights holder, who may first ask for a cease and desist and then bring the matter to court. But, and this is the important point.  It is all or nothing!!! The rights holder cannot be selective, he must go after all or the courts will not entertain such requests.
 
Very technical:
The judge explained how the actual law is written. And here will not discuss matters of proof, just the law. The rights holder MUST go after the offenders in the order they are discovered. So they must go after “violator #1” before they go after “violator #2.”  If they don’t the second violator. Technically, cannot be brought to court until the first one is.
 
This means that the rights holder has to go after everyone they are informed of.   And it does not matter if the group is Non-profit. So, in this case, Paramount licensed the “Continues” movement, but then put huge limitations are them.
 

[Paul Heroy]

I've read that several times before, Barry. If they let the TM be encroached in even small ways, it can lead to a big loss later where it actually matters. Sometimes they will set a profit line as in the ST example you mentioned and allow a limited use but I've seen cases reported where even "fun" use was not allowed. 

There's an interesting case for me out there right now. Less than 2 years ago of the courts ruled that college athletes must be allowed to monetize their own "Name, Image and Likeness", and there is a player at my alma mater who's pushing to trademark a variant of an existing brand. (More info here if you care to read.) I don't think it will be allowed due to exactly what Barry's said.

Trademarks can be a real pain. I've run the local alumni chapter for 15 years and we have been denied using a couple of well known logos on t-shirts, simply because they are trademarked by the athletic department. So even in a case where it's ultimately in support of the organization and money would go back to them (in this case, a scholarship donation) it was denied.