Court Battle over Hulkamania

[Innovator]

The federal government couldn't pin Vince McMahon to the mat, but how will he fare against the Amazing Spider-Man?

Comic book collecting website Newsarama.com reported today that World Wrestling Entertainment and comic book publisher Marvel will take part in a case management conference on 9/17 in regards to the rights to the name "Hulk Hogan" as well as the rights to the terms "Hulkster" and "Hulkamania."

World Wrestling Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Marvel Comics last month, seeking to maintain the rights to the "Hulk Hogan" name as it launches its WWE 24/7 Video on Demand service as it needs the Hogan name in order to market and distribute the WWF, WCW, and WWE matches they wish to use as part of the Video on Demand service.

According to an article that ran on the Bloomberg News wires last month, Marvel is claiming that WWE's rights to the name expired this month. WWE claims it owns the rights until March 2005, and according to the Newsrama article, WWE is now claiming it agreed to a Marvel royalty because it didn't want to be bogged down in a fight over the rights during their national expansion.

WWE originally licensed the rights from Marvel in 1985 when the comic book company came forth during the national WWF expansion, citing that Hogan's ring name was infringing on the rights of their "Incredible Hulk" character that was created in the 1960s by Marvel patriarch Stan Lee. Marvel claims that the agreement has expired, stating that the license of the terms began on 7/9/84 and would run for 20 years or until Hulk Hogan left wrestling. WWE claims that the date of the agreement was actually 3/25/85.

The agreement called for the WWE to never allow the word “Hulk” to be larger than “Hogan;” any logo created for Hulk Hogan not to resemble Marvel’s logo for the Incredible Hulk character, that WWE couldn't register the Hulk Hogan name as a trademark and agreed that Marvel owned that trademark and would not challenge it, and that Hulk Hogan would not appear in comic book form.

In return, Marvel was paid $100 per wrestling appearance by Hogan if he used the "Hulk" name, 0.90 of 1% of the reported gross on projects involving Hulk Hogan (merchandising, action figures, etc.) as well as 10% of WWE's percentage of their projects with the Hulk Hogan character (appearances, etc.)

Marvel was also prohibited on making any claims against WWE or Hogan until then, which according to the article, did happen in an April 2003 communication between attorneys for each side. Marvel sent a cease and desist request to WWE, who reminded them of the original agreement. Marvel then backed off the claim.

WWE lawyers are hoping to prove that the agreement ends this March, not last summer and they hope to get a legal declaration that they own the rights to the Hulk Hogan names and terminology, not Marvel.

In a separate case, Marvel has filed a suit against Terry Bollea, who has performed as Hulk Hogan for several decades, claiming trademark infringement. That case is scheduled to hit the courts on 10/31.

You can read the complete article as well as reaction's from Newsarama.com's readers, by clicking here.

credit: Mike Johnson PWInsider.com

[The One]

...Amazing...he wins against the United States Government, but loses to some Pandas, and now looks to lose to a skinny little white guy named Stan Lee... :lol:

Maybe WWE can win the lawsuit and Terry can lose it and they take his house and all of his crapy shit!

[Funky Fly]

lol One, you are a bastard. :love:

[The CyNick]

It seems like its in both of their interests to make a new agreement.

[Batsu]

This is as anal as every other trademark charge that's gone against WWE.

Unless Terry Bollea goes around painting himself green and what have you... anyone with two functional eyes can see the difference between Hulk Hogan and The Hulk. WWE always emphasized that he was "Hogan" more than he was "Hulk" anyway, ditto w/WCW...

[.44 Magdalene]

Welcome, true believers, to another spine tingling tale of televised testosterone, dropping trow to tribute and tantalize the true takers of the trademark. The pandas were powerful and the Marvel is--erm--marvellous, but the vicious Vinnnie Mac has massive mounds of mayhem up his steroid-stretched sleeve! Little does the Expensive One know that his two terribly envious enemies have combined their forces, into one bloated, boastful blast of bamboo munchers and Marvel menaces!

Will our hero be able to take on this new wave of Amazing Spiderpandas and Incredible Koaluks? Or will everyone's favorite chairslinger succumb to the succulent, savory flavor of fitful failure? Will your friendly monoplyhood master bastard manage his mainstay out of this mess? Or will the WWF and Marvel Comic's combined powers be too much for our unlikely hero of the day? And how the hell does Stan Lee actually talk like this on a regular basis?

Only time will tell, true believers.

[Quick1]

Yeah I was at best buy and decided to see if spider man was any good of a game then I hear "Welcome, true believers!" get embarassed and walk away.

[Kane Knight]

This is as anal as every other trademark charge that's gone against WWE.

Unless Terry Bollea goes around painting himself green and what have you... anyone with two functional eyes can see the difference between Hulk Hogan and The Hulk. WWE always emphasized that he was "Hogan" more than he was "Hulk" anyway, ditto w/WCW...
Except, you know, for the whole "hulking up" thing, the playing him up on his strength...

And I do hope you understand that there can be differences and still be trademark issues.

[Kane Knight]

Look at one of the Captain America ripoffs that came out. Court ruled it was okay for this guy to put out a comic with a star spangled hero with a shield. The determining factor? It wasn't tm violation if he didn't rhow his shield. :|

Trademark laws are fucking weird.

Still, the WWE has brought many of their own troubles onto themselves, and suing to continue your rights is hardly the way to endear yourself.

Note who's filing against who, too.

[Corkscrewed]

Wasn't this posted a few months ago? :D

Anyway, I don't care either way. If they win an extension, they still need to work a deal out early next year. Just renew the license or something.

[Sephiroth]

lol One, you are a bastard. :love:

[Loose Cannon]

Just listening to BTR and they talked about how this whole thing started in 1982. One of the hosts said the WWF did an angle where The Fink got layed out and he rolled under the ring. Then Terry Bolea (Hogan) rolled out from under the ring with ripped pants and a ripped shirt and was painted all Green. Marvel saw this and was like "Woah, WTF?" And that angle was put to rest fast.

[Kane Knight]

Wasn't this posted a few months ago? :D

Anyway, I don't care either way. If they win an extension, they still need to work a deal out early next year. Just renew the license or something.


On both accounts.

I copied something on this from the newsboard a while back. I think someone else has too.

And yeah, the short-term win might be okay, since what they really want it for is the launch of the WWE on demand thing, but suing now will dick them in the long run.

but come on. These are guys who can't plan ahead in a mtter of weeks.

How the fuck are they gonna suddenly plan ahead all the way to next YEAR?

[Kane Knight]

Yep.Just listening to BTR and they talked about how this whole thing started in 1982. One of the hosts said the WWF did an angle where The Fink got layed out and he rolled under the ring. Then Terry Bolea (Hogan) rolled out from under the ring with ripped pants and a ripped shirt and was painted all Green. Marvel saw this and was like "Woah, WTF?" And that angle was put to rest fast.
Damn. Didn't know that.

[YOUR Hero]

They used to announce him as "The Incredible Hulk (short pause) Hogan"

[Kane Knight]

They used to announce him as "The Incredible Hulk (short pause) Hogan"
Yup. no trademark issues there. Batsu's right. The WWE are poor whipping boys.

[Batsu]

Yup. no trademark issues there. Batsu's right. The WWE are poor whipping boys.

please refrain from using me in your punchlines.

I didn't know this, nor the other thing that LC posted up earlier.

[Kane Knight]

You also didn't seem to know that the WWE were the ones filing the lawsuit.

You didn't know a shit of the ESTABLISHED facts in the WWE/WWF suit.

You've got a hardon for trying to paint the WWE as a poor victim, or, I dunno. Something. Whatever your motivation, you've seemed dead set to charge in with no information.

And you wonder why you're the punchline.

[Batsu]

And you have a hardon for being the higher-than-thou know-it-all, belittling people for the sake of "argument". If you have a problem with me, take it to PMs. Don't be an ass, just because you have a bunch of green squares under your name due to a lot of other posters licking your ass at every given moment.

For the record, I did know the facts of the other WWE case, and my opinion still stands. I never pointed out WWE as the innocent victim, and if you bothered to pay attention, my problem with the outcome of the case was not that WWE had to change their name, or them even losing the case altogether, but the blurring of logos, blanking out of the old name as if it never existed in the years 1998-2002. If you would get off your own genitals for one moment, and stop worrying about other people's opinions so much for the sake of your own ego, maybe some of those little "green squares" under your name would be worthwhile.

I admit, I didn't know those pieces of information until I had read this thread, as the information given in the article in the first post did not state either of those two items. I do now, and while I figured WWE was up to their usual tricks, it's still anal. If you have a problem with that opinion, or the person behind it, PM that person and be done with it.