Hacker News Reader

Comment by zdragnar | Hacker News Reader

There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

> There's not much point to the thought exercise. You wouldn't get the trademark in the first place.

My brother in Jesus Christ paperwork, even now there are already 236 active and formally-registered trademarks which have been granted involving "Jesus Christ", 18 if you limit it to "wordmarks." [0]

Also, as per the concurrent(?) edited-in last paragraph, the basic idea remains even if the scope is, er, less-grandiose.

[0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/

USPTO search reveals...0 trademarks of "Jesus Christ" because its not trademarkable.

There are a number of longer phrases which include the phrase "Jesus Christ" that are trademarked (either as logos or as phrases), but that is a very different thing.

I'm not sure how you got from "the example logo contains Jesus Christ" to "the company name must be this exact string."

But your example just proves that the trademark avenue is not a genuine moat for Disney. If dozens of trademarks have been given for logos containing Jesus Christ, then there can be dozens of logos containing Steamboat Willie.

You can trademark a novel turn of phrase that includes historical figures, but not the actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" and protections against false endorsement.

So, you could start a new church and trademark "Terr's Church of Jesus Christ", as the trademark covers the organization, but you cannot trademark the name "Jesus Christ" itself.

> not the [historical figure] actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity"

IANAL but I don't think it'd be blocked for that reason: "Right of publicity" is a per-state affair, where it exists it may not be posthumous, where it is posthumous it may not include historical figures, and even if it could apply, there's there's no credible estate/heir of Jesus Christ with standing.

... But I gotta admit it would be amusing to watch someone try to fill that role.

As an example, see Pirone v. MacMillan [0], where there was no posthumous "right of publicity" for Babe Ruth's daughter to draw upon. (At least, not back then.)

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/894...

Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule.

Notably, from your link:

> Therefore, a trademark is "not property in the ordinary sense," but only a word or symbol indicating the origin or source of a product.

> Although its registration is limited to the words "Babe Ruth," Pirone would have us read her rights in that word mark to include every photograph of Ruth ever taken. We decline to do so.

The product in question didn't use Babe Ruth's name in any way implying an endorsement or origination of the calendar; it merely included some pictures. The ruling determined that trademark does not apply here.

Pictures have been deemed eligible for copyright, but that's neither here nor there. The name "Jesus Christ" is not eligible for trademark.

> Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule.

That obviously can't apply to use of the name or imagery of Jesus Christ; there is a much more important federal rule that says it is everyone's God-given right to assert directly that they are endorsed by Jesus Christ.

(This comment is imbued with the divine grace of the Messiah.)

A person may assert their beliefs, but those beliefs do not extend to trademark law, most especially in the context of "sue everyone else who uses the name of a historical religious figure that I have decided to take for myself".

Your argument is gibberish. As I read your comments, you say that:

1. It isn't possible to trademark the name "Jesus Christ";

because

2. This might imply that your company is endorsed by Jesus Christ.

But that is clearly false. Those grounds are illegitimate; the government cannot take a position on whether you are or aren't endorsed by Jesus Christ.

There are no "false endorsement" concerns raised by the hypothetical trademark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com