Hasbro Suing DC Comics for Use of 'Bumblebee' Name

C'mon Hasbro. Don't be stupid.

Like the article says DC's Bumblebee debuted in 1976 Hasbro has no case. besides 1 is a robot the other is a girl that can shriink

Ironic that Hasbro didn't use the name Bumblebee from Beast Wars to Cybertron.

Honestly I think D.C. should win this. Firstly, as stated in the legal bit, D.C.'s Bumblebee debuted a good seven years before Hasbro's 'Bee did. Secondly, I highly doubt that anyone's going to confuse the giant yellow robot who's been a main character in five (soon to be six) major blockbuster films with the relatively obscure shrinking teenage girl who's only had a hand full of appearances outside of the comics. To me this just screams corporate greed/publicity on Hasbro's part. If anything, Hasbro should be glad D.C's not sued them before now.

I remember DC's Bumblebee from the early to mid 2000s Teen Titans cartoon. I couldn't see anyone confusing the two characters unless she started driving a yellow Volkswagen.

Well that's pretty dumb on Hasbro's part, because really? The two characters have almost nothing in common, exept for color scheme and names. They don't even share the same concept, ones a girl that can shrink and the other a transforming alien robot, if anyone could somehow sue DC/Waner Bros, it would be Marvel, because of the similarities between DC bumblebee and Marvels Wasp, they both shrink, fly, have super strength, and both are named after insects. But you don't hear about Marvel sueing them, because Marvel doesn't care since it won't hurt them, just as it wouldn't hurt Hasbro to let this slide,because the two characters aren't even relatable.

Quantum Surge wrote:Ironic that Hasbro didn't use the name Bumblebee from Beast Wars to Cybertron.

If you read Hot Shot's (Armada-Cybertron) wiki you will find out that the name for Hot Shot was originally going to be Bumblebee but they couldn't use the name because of issues with the trademark using that name at the time.

DC and Hasbro both being seperate companies and the two characters, one a male autonomous robot and one a mutant human female...I don't see an issue other than kids or parents getting confused about toys on their Christmas list.

They'd better tread carefully. Who do they think a jury will side with? The african-american heroine, or the alien robot? Hasbro doesn't have exclusive rights to bumblebees. What next, sue the beekeeping industry? Or try to charge them a nickel for every time their bee keepers say the word bumblebee? Then unleash the dogs with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

Something else to note is that not only did DC Bumblebee get introduced in fiction 8 years before the Autobot; but the trademark for her was filed a few months prior to him in 2015 as stated in the articles. I'm curious if not confused and bemused about what case Hasbro decides to bring to the table.

I have a feeling this is a terrible publicity stunt to try to cause controversy. Why else would Hasbro try to fight DC Comics, the two have never had an ill history, to the best of my knowledge.

Honestly, I think Hasbro should've just kept this quiet and Ignored it, Just let both characters exist and live with it. The only thing the two characters have in common is The name and the color scheme of Black and Yellow. Really, it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

This could end up with Hasbro losing the Bumblebee Name. They'll have to go with Autobot Bumblebee.
This could be hilarious.

One key note: the lawsuit is only about the trademarked name in the Toys & Sports category, not the copyrighted character in fiction. The two characters have the same name in fiction, which is fine, but trademark law allows only one company to lay claim on it in a certain category. That's where the clash comes from, the right to use "Bumblebee" for the toys. Just felt like pointing that out.

We've seen naming conflicts all the time in this line. The possible consequences for this case are... pretty mild considering the suggested severity. It boils down to whoever has to file for a new name, so don't be surprised when we get "Autobot Bumblebee" in the future. Don't know how Mattel works with prefixes, I've yet to see "DC <name>" on any of their toys.

That is dumb and stupid it's jackass law suit all over again random guy sued MTV for stealing his name called there hit tv show jackass another dumb lawsuit are going to go after marvel if there use transformers name on one of there characters

How long did it take them to come up with stupid law sui pretty sue dc bumblebee character has been around for some time for almost over two years

They look nothing alike. Seems like a waste of time to me. I don't think DC is trying to do anything wrong.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:One key note: the lawsuit is only about the trademarked name in the Toys & Sports category, not the copyrighted character in fiction. The two characters have the same name in fiction, which is fine, but trademark law allows only one company to lay claim on it in a certain category. That's where the clash comes from, the right to use "Bumblebee" for the toys. Just felt like pointing that out. >:

This needs to be quoted again in the hopes people actually read it and understand what this is about ...

Another thing I'd like to point out:

Strictly speaking, it shouldn't matter how long the characters in question have been in existence, just how the "Bumblebee" trademark was used in the category it was registered under, and whatever company used it. Usually the company who used it more takes priority, in this case Hasbro has used it for over 10 whole years straight, whereas DC Licensee Mattel seemingly hasn't laid any claim on it within that time period, if the lack of DC Bumblebee is any indication.

I will admit Hasbro going after DC Comics is brazen, yet smart as they're the owner of the character, yet silly as DC only deals with comics, not toys

Rodimus Knight wrote:This could end up with Hasbro losing the Bumblebee Name. They'll have to go with Autobot Bumblebee.
This could be hilarious.

Or Bumblebee could die in the next movie and we get back mah boi Hot Shot! jAaM!!!

Burn wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:One key note: the lawsuit is only about the trademarked name in the Toys & Sports category, not the copyrighted character in fiction. The two characters have the same name in fiction, which is fine, but trademark law allows only one company to lay claim on it in a certain category. That's where the clash comes from, the right to use "Bumblebee" for the toys. Just felt like pointing that out. >:

This needs to be quoted again in the hopes people actually read it and understand what this is about ...

It would be curious to look, because I believe there was a Bumblebee Toy in the crappy Teen Titans Toy line back with the original Cartoon series around 2005. It would be funny if it was trademarked back then, and no one realized it and it was still active.

I almost hate to say it, but I do hope Hasbro loses this one.

Black Hat wrote:C'mon Hasbro. Don't be stupid.

Exactly. I backed Hasbro 100% when Harmony Gold tried to make a frivolous lawsuit against them a couple years back because of a supposed Veritech likeness in one of their Jetfire toys (which we know has been sketchy since the beginning).

But the DC character of Bumblebee has been around for much longer than Transformers. She has been featured in at least 3 animated series in the past decade that have all supported merchandise of said character (Teen Titans, Young Justice, and now DC Girls) Hasbro has no case here.

Rodimus Knight wrote:This could end up with Hasbro losing the Bumblebee Name. They'll have to go with Autobot Bumblebee.
This could be hilarious.

He looks like a Gold bug, so that's who he'll be from now on, Goldbug!

Burn wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:One key note: the lawsuit is only about the trademarked name in the Toys & Sports category, not the copyrighted character in fiction. The two characters have the same name in fiction, which is fine, but trademark law allows only one company to lay claim on it in a certain category. That's where the clash comes from, the right to use "Bumblebee" for the toys. Just felt like pointing that out. >:

This needs to be quoted again in the hopes people actually read it and understand what this is about ...

And a 3rd time because it looks like people do not get what this is about at all.

o.supreme wrote:

Black Hat wrote:C'mon Hasbro. Don't be stupid.

Exactly. I backed Hasbro 100% when Harmony Gold tried to make a frivolous lawsuit against them a couple years back because of a supposed Veritech likeness in one of their Jetfire toys (which we know has been sketchy since the beginning).

But the DC character of Bumblebee has been around for much longer than Transformers. She has been featured in at least 3 animated series in the past decade that have all supported merchandise of said character (Teen Titans, Young Justice, and now DC Girls) Hasbro has no case here.

You guys aren't getting what this is about. Please read the story again and then read the text I quoted directly above this post.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:I will admit Hasbro going after DC Comics is brazen, yet smart as they're the owner of the character, yet silly as DC only deals with comics, not toys

This is to help protect the name "Bumblebee" on other products that DC provides a license for, such as brick toys and presumably other areas such as collectible statues and figures or whatever.

Seibertron wrote:This is to help protect the name "Bumblebee" on other products that DC provides a license for, such as brick toys and presumably other areas such as collectible statues and figures or whatever.

Right here folks..

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a Bumblebee toy from the original Teen Titan toy line? I could have sworn I remember one. Though this could turn into a case of letting sleeping bees lie or you might get stung. Yeah, I just did that.

As a matter of fact there was a Teen Titans Bumblebee toy https://www.google.com/search?q=teen+ti ... 6BsIhD1eAM:

No we totally get it, and it seems as though things are overlapping. is there a chance that although the TM was registered to Hasbro, perhaps its true owners (DC) could have been overlooked?

Still there are other questions...

Why did Hasbro not use the name Bumblebee from 1995-2005(ish...)? I thought it was because they had lost the right to use the Bumblebee name?

What about Buumblebee Tuna? Is Hasbro going to sue them as well?

Unfortunately this is not a first for DC...Somehow they lost the rights to the name "Captain Marvel" even though they (through Fawcett comics) had it long before Marvel. Now he is simply referred to as Shazam (which was the Wizards name originally...but whatever...


Legally Hasbro may have an obligation to protect their IP name, but it's still not wise IMHO...I guess it just comes down to which companies have the best lawyers and the most $$$, unfortunately it's not about right or wrong in this case.

Allow me to say that Hasbro is the stupid one here. Not only they will pass themselves as assshat, but DC Bumblebee is at least as old as me, meaning born in 1976. Years older than Autobot Bumblebee.

Also, Bumblebee is a FREAKING COMMON NOM FROM A FREAKING COMMON BUG.

So, let them settle this stupidity out of court by renaming officially the super heroine "DC Bumblebee" and the transforming robot "Autobot Bumblebee". Of course, in fiction the characters would be just plain "Bumblebee".

Now I'm leaving before my eyes roll so far back that I could see my anus.

Ebonyleopard wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a Bumblebee toy from the original Teen Titan toy line? I could have sworn I remember one. Though this could turn into a case of letting sleeping bees lie or you might get stung. Yeah, I just did that.

You're the second one to mention that, which prompts me to investigate...

And there is, in one instance she came in a two-pack with Hot Spot (so that's who stole the Protectobot's name), by Bandai and not Mattel in 2004:

Bumble Bee & Hot Spot on She's Fantastic.

Both "Bumblebee" and the parsed "Bumble Bee" was used.

The main question is, who is the legal owner of the current trademark? Was it DC comics who registered it in that field and lets any licensee use it, or was it Mattel? That would affect the possible outcome with precedent.

-Kanrabat- wrote:So, let them settle this stupidity out of court by renaming officially the super heroine "DC Bumblebee" and the transforming robot "Autobot Bumblebee". Of course, in fiction the characters would be just plain "Bumblebee".

AMEN to that.

DC has no right to this Hasbro please just end this frivolous argument. Bumblebee belongs in Transformers and it is there he will stay.

o.supreme wrote:No we totally get it, and it seems as though things are overlapping.

You're absolutely NOT getting it, based on your comments above.

o.supreme wrote:Legally Hasbro may have an obligation to protect their IP name, but it's still not wise IMHO...I guess it just comes down to which companies have the best lawyers and the most $$$, unfortunately it's not about right or wrong in this case.

It absolutely is about what's right and wrong, and your comments show very clearly that you are not understanding what this is about. Without rehashing everything, this is about whether or not two "action figure" toys can both be called Bumblebee and whether or not a brick based character can be called "Bumblebee", etc. This is NOT about whether or not DC Comics can have a fictional character in their comic book universe named Bumblebee. It is all about whether or not DC can have an action figure or other type of toy named Bumblebee while Hasbro has the trademark.

tbh im surprised this didnt happen sooner but whatever,I wonder what the outcome will be

You have to sue to sue orienting the copyright or others can use it and show you've never gone after others for using the name.

Ok, here's a step-by-step explanation, detailing what's actually going on, for the people who think Hasbro want the DC character nixed:

Parties
Toy manufacturer Hasbro and comic book company DC Comics

Setting
Each of the two companies have created a character named "Bumblebee". One is an alien transforming robot, most often in the form of a yellow compact car or a Chevrolet Camaro in the Live Action Movies, the other is a Super Heroine, styled after a bumblebee.

Conflict
One word: merchandising. While two characters sharing a name in-fiction even though each is owned by a different company is perfectly legal AFAIK, it's the trademarks used for marketing the goods of those two characters that pose the problem. Current trademark law does not allow the same trademarked name to be used by two different companies in the same category. For this case's sake it's mostly Toys & Sporting Goods, as well as other areas the companies are active in (someone at the trademark office must have had an off day).

Precedents
Hasbro has used the trademark in the periods 1984-1995 (not including hiatuses) and 2006-present, whereas DC comics has hardly had any toys made of the character in those time frames AFAIK. Feel free to correct me on that. The only thing worth mentioning are the Teen Titans figures made by Bandai, in the interim no less. Currently the DC character has made the top-tier character jump with plenty of merchandising in multiple toy lines to boot, while Hasbro's Bumblebee has been a favorite in every line he appeared in for the past 10 years. DC Comics Bumblebee may be older by a good number of years, and DC Comics may have applied for the trademark sooner, but precedent of use will play a factor on who eventually gets sole ownership of the name in any category.

Possible Outcomes
No matter how the case goes, it's fairly certain one of the parties will have to search for an alternative trademark for marketing the character it owns. Either one will still be named "Bumblebee", it's just the name on the toy packaging that will be different.

You know what's sad? Until now I hadn't even heard of DC's Bumblebee

Still, it used to be that common-use terms could not be trademarked. Only in the past several years has a case like this been possible, now that our justice system is geared only towards the biggest paycheck. So--what--now if my kid wants to buy an anatomically accurate insect bumblebee from the Discovery Channel toys or some other animal toy line, it won't simply be called a bumblebee because of Hasbro's greed? It's f-ing ridiculous. And it's sick.

Halfofme07 wrote:Still, it used to be that common-use terms could not be trademarked. Only in the past several years has a case like this been possible, now that our justice system is geared only towards the biggest paycheck. So--what--now if my kid wants to buy an anatomically accurate insect bumblebee from the Discovery Channel toys or some other animal toy line, it won't simply be called a bumblebee because of Hasbro's greed? It's f-ing ridiculous. And it's sick.

Well, no. Hasbro have no really "greed" in this. It's because the copyright laws are weird and convoluted that Hasbro have no choices but to sue. Why do you think so many Transformers names have been changed over the years? Often by just adding or to the name? Because of this.

Here's an excellent article about trademarks that will help clarify what's going on for most of you who are extremely confused about what a trademark is: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _roll.html

Not to mention, where is all of this anti-Hasbro rhetoric coming from? That seems really uncalled for, especially considering that most of you don't understand what the article was about in the first place.

And here's another excellent article that more closely applies to the situation with Bumblebee, as it pertains to the many different trademarks of the word APPLE.

https://secureyourtrademark.com/can-you ... s-phrases/

Whatever

Hasbro are you f**king serious?

What is this ? An attempt to recoup some money they lost on the Last Knight toyline?

TConsidering the lack of similarities between the two characters, how can Hasbro prove that the existance of this character is costing them money or sales?

Case dismissed. Hasbro pays the court fees.

Seibertron wrote:This is to help protect the name "Bumblebee" on other products that DC provides a license for, such as brick toys and presumably other areas such as collectible statues and figures or whatever.

Let's just keep copypasting this, shall we?

DC Comics and Warner Bros. announced the DC Super Hero Girls franchise in April 2015 as a partnership with Mattel. The TV series began airing in October 2015. The series features younger versions of DC superheroes, including Batgirl and Harley Quinn, as they attend high school. The Bumblebee character is a tech wizard with super strength and the ability to shrink. The original Bumblebee character was first introduced in the DC “Teen Titans” comic series in 1977.

Hasbro filed for a trademark on the “Bumblebee” name on July 15, 2015, and the trademark was registered on Dec. 22, 2015.

ok so timeline....

1st. Warner Bros. announced the DC Super Hero Girls franchise in April 2015
2nd. Hasbro filed for a trademark on the “Bumblebee” name on July 15, 2015
3rd. The TV series began airing in October 2015
4th. the trademark was registered on Dec. 22, 2015

So...like I said earlier...the timelines overlap....The DC line was announced before Hasbro filed, and was airing, and I assume toys produced, before the actual Trademark Registration.

I guess the legal question is...Can another company produce toys of two completely different characters that happen to have the same name in-between the copyright filing & registration time period?...

On a practical note however...there is no likeness between DC & Hasbro toys and brick based sets both bearing the name Bumblebee.

Rated X wrote:Hasbro are you f**king serious?

Yes they are.

What is this ? An attempt to recoup some money they lost on the Last Knight toyline?

It's an attempt to retain sole ownership of the "Bumblebee" trademark, nothing else.

Considering the lack of similarities between the two characters, how can Hasbro prove that the existance of this character is costing them money or sales?

Nothing to do with that. Current law only allows one company possession of the "Bumblebee" trademark for toys, so Hasbro and DC Comics will be duking it out for it.

Rated X wrote:Hasbro are you f**king serious?

What is this ? An attempt to recoup some money they lost on the Last Knight toyline?

TConsidering the lack of similarities between the two characters, how can Hasbro prove that the existance of this character is costing them money or sales?

Case dismissed. Hasbro pays the court fees.

Knee jerk comment before reading anything deeper.
I'm guilty of that too.

Halfofme07 wrote:Still, it used to be that common-use terms could not be trademarked. Only in the past several years has a case like this been possible, now that our justice system is geared only towards the biggest paycheck. So--what--now if my kid wants to buy an anatomically accurate insect bumblebee from the Discovery Channel toys or some other animal toy line, it won't simply be called a bumblebee because of Hasbro's greed? It's f-ing ridiculous. And it's sick.

You cannot trademark the name Bumblebee for a toy of a bumblebee. It's too obvious. That's part of why there were never any Beast Wars characters named as such. But a yellow compact car or sports car that is also a robot named Bumblebee? You can trademark that, because it's not common enough to be colloquial.

All I'm seeing here is that nobody really understands trademark law, which is okay, it's not something that comes up everyday and it's full of gray areas and ambiguity.

King Kuuga wrote:
All I'm seeing here is that nobody really understands trademark law, which is okay, it's not something that comes up everyday and it's full of gray areas and ambiguity.

For lawyers, it's the most tender and juicy steak to feast upon.

So Hasbro is spending money on lawyers instead of, you know, making good toys? I could get it if someone named their character Optimus Prime or Megatron, but Bumblebee? Seriously? It's a common name for a common bug. These people gotta think their customers are all blind and stupid to mistake a bug lady for a car robot. Man I hate suits. Way to insult our intelligence, jerkfaces.

King Kuuga wrote:All I'm seeing here is that nobody really understands trademark law, which is okay, it's not something that comes up everyday and it's full of gray areas and ambiguity.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable though.

This case will most likely end in either company having to look for an alternative, right? Now, if the unlikely thing happened, that both companies are allowed continued use of their "Bumblebee" trademark, what would the effects be in the long run? I'm talking about future cases of similar nature, in which one company has willfully registered a trademark that another company already owns, with the intent of using it next to the already existing one, and using this court case as example of precedent. Wouldn't that make the original intent of trademark law (and by extension copyright law in general) rather moot?