KPop Demon Hunters was a resounding success for Netflix, coming out of nowhere to become the platform’s most-watched movie of all time and spawning several of last year’s biggest pop hits. It was less of a success for Demon Hunter, the Christian metal band that presumably has been getting mogged in the search bar ever…
Trademark is not copyright or patent. Copyright and patents exist to protect the rights of a creator. Trademarks are more about provenance. It protects brands, but also protects consumers of those brands by preventing confusion.
Trademarks are pretty specific. Dr Pepper’s trademark on sugary drinks isn’t infringed by a company selling black pepper because nobody will confuse the products.
Wal-Mart can sell sodas that are similar to popular drinks like Mountain Dew and Dr Pepper, but they call them something like “Mountain Lightning” and “Dr Thunder”. They’re clearly meant to be similar products, but they’re also clearly not the name-brand stuff. But Walmart can’t start selling a knockoff low-calorie soda and call it “Low-Cal Dr Pepper” because it may mislead customers into thinking it’s related to Dr Pepper.
And that’s essentially what’s being claimed here. The band has a trademark on Demon Hunters that specifically covers a band named Demon Hunters selling tickets for live music events. And while there’s going to be some understandable confusion given the popularity of the film, the band alleges that the concerts related to the film should be marketed differently. This is especially true when the band from the film already has a different established name.
The commercialization of Christianity this band takes part in upsets me, but they may also be in the right here. They don’t want their fans buying tickets to a K-Pop show instead of theirs, and K-Pop fans will also be pretty upset when they buy tickets and go to a show only to get preached at.
That’s exactly what trademark doesn’t cover. If it’s different industries with no overlap it’s fine.
I have a Delta scroll saw at the house, and I’ve flown to Atlanta on Delta. They’re different companies sharing a name, but that’s okay because their products don’t overlap.
A more interesting example is Apple. Apple Records and Apple Commputers got info a trademark kerfuffle in the 2000s when Apple Computers started selling music on iTunes.
The term “demon hunter” has been in use for hundreds of years as a generic term but how long was it in use as a something related to music before the metal band Demon Hunter started using it?
Based on what I know of trademark law they have a case. Also, they have sue to protect their trade mark they can loose it.
They have a bit of a case, but not really because “demon hunter” is a generic term that predates their band by hundreds of years (LOL).
Trademark is not copyright or patent. Copyright and patents exist to protect the rights of a creator. Trademarks are more about provenance. It protects brands, but also protects consumers of those brands by preventing confusion.
Trademarks are pretty specific. Dr Pepper’s trademark on sugary drinks isn’t infringed by a company selling black pepper because nobody will confuse the products.
Wal-Mart can sell sodas that are similar to popular drinks like Mountain Dew and Dr Pepper, but they call them something like “Mountain Lightning” and “Dr Thunder”. They’re clearly meant to be similar products, but they’re also clearly not the name-brand stuff. But Walmart can’t start selling a knockoff low-calorie soda and call it “Low-Cal Dr Pepper” because it may mislead customers into thinking it’s related to Dr Pepper.
And that’s essentially what’s being claimed here. The band has a trademark on Demon Hunters that specifically covers a band named Demon Hunters selling tickets for live music events. And while there’s going to be some understandable confusion given the popularity of the film, the band alleges that the concerts related to the film should be marketed differently. This is especially true when the band from the film already has a different established name.
The commercialization of Christianity this band takes part in upsets me, but they may also be in the right here. They don’t want their fans buying tickets to a K-Pop show instead of theirs, and K-Pop fans will also be pretty upset when they buy tickets and go to a show only to get preached at.
Surely, consumers will be confused as fuck when they try to purchase a demon hunter service and they end up with some weird metal band.
If anyone’s confusing the market it’s the band!
That’s exactly what trademark doesn’t cover. If it’s different industries with no overlap it’s fine.
I have a Delta scroll saw at the house, and I’ve flown to Atlanta on Delta. They’re different companies sharing a name, but that’s okay because their products don’t overlap.
A more interesting example is Apple. Apple Records and Apple Commputers got info a trademark kerfuffle in the 2000s when Apple Computers started selling music on iTunes.
deleted by creator
Cool, the word “Queen” is generic so I should be able to start a band named that, no problem.
Turns out that ‘generic term’ is contextual, and in fact many generic terms are trademark protected especially in the musical group area.
What doesn’t help your argument is that it seems Netflix ran the concerts under “kpop Demon Hunter” not “Demon Hunter”
Also it doesn’t help that there are 65 entries of bands with “Queen” in their name in the metal genre alone.
https://www.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=Queen&type=band_name
deleted by creator
The term “demon hunter” has been in use for hundreds of years as a generic term but how long was it in use as a something related to music before the metal band Demon Hunter started using it?