Just a thought... or two...

[kanekilledvince]

I was just thinking about the Jakks contract in 09, and what would be likely to happen.

Well.. I thought, Jakks make WWE money (money, yeah, yeah), and WWE have never had any trouble with Jakks, and Jakks don't bother WWE, so it should be all good in the land of Jakks long after 2009.


But, then i was thinking about other Jakks stuff and i remembered there was a bit of friction between the two a while ago. I couldn't remember exactly what it was, but i remember WWE were trying to split with Jakks for some reason. Upon a few google searches i came across what it was.

"In drama befitting the WWE, WWE former head of licensing James Bell pleaded guilty to mail fraud. In a lawsuit filed against Bell, Jakks and others, WWE alleges that Jakks bribed Bell in the late 1990s to secure videogame rights. The company is seeking to squash its Jakks licensing deal"

- smartmoney (money, yeah, yeah)



So it look like a pretty bleak future for not only Jakks, but Without Jakks.. there is no such thing as Classic Superstars.

So upon further thinking into it, i checked it out, and the name "Classic Superstars" isn't property of anyone.

So, Jakks could take that name and continue to make "Classic Superstars" long after their deal ends. Fair enough, WWE could say that "Classic Superstars" is the intellectual property of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., But it is really as much their intellectual property as it is Jakks.

So it looks like Classic Superstars can live on without the use of the WWE's contract. This would open the doors for Randy Savage and many others. Of course, Jakks would use the line to make knock-offs of future WWE talent, too, as RA Lovers would buy them regardless.


Your thoughts?

[E-Noon]

Hopefully the next company to get a hold a the WWE liscense can make some quality figs...

[kanekilledvince]

hbkrvd7d said:

Hopefully the next company to get a hold a the WWE liscense can make some quality figs...

Doesn't matter how good they are, People will still complain that they're not the same as Ruthless Aggression. I imagine Jakks will sell that figure style to the next company.

[Neekotronus]

Superstars is trademarked by WWE though. If Jakks were to continue to do a line like that I would think it would be called Classic Stars of Wrestling or something of the like that is a step away from.

Also, if WWE does go to Hasblo (please no!) I don't believe Jakks could continue to use line names (Ruthless Aggression, Classic Superstars) for a theoretical line of wrestling action figures that they could produce as those names and slogans are owned by WWE as stated on the back of action figure packages.

[JCF]

All I have to say is that Jakks better not end in 2009. I'd be pretty uspet if they did.

[kanekilledvince]

niko2 said:

Superstars is trademarked by WWE though. If Jakks were to continue to do a line like that I would think it would be called Classic Stars of Wrestling or something of the like that is a step away from.

Also, if WWE does go to Hasblo (please no!) I don't believe Jakks could continue to use line names (Ruthless Aggression, Classic Superstars) for a theoretical line of wrestling action figures that they could produce as those names and slogans are owned by WWE as stated on the back of action figure packages.

Wrong.


All World Wrestling Entertainment programming, talent names,, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, and logos are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. (C)2007 World Wrestling Entertainment , Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(C)2007 JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Malibu, CA 90265. 1-877-875-2557 toll free.


All Rights Reserved. Contents may vary in style, color, shape and decoration from images shown on package or in advertising.

Safety tested for ages 8 and up.


Also, there is no TM or (C) before, after or during the usage of the words "Ruthless Aggression", "Classic Superstars" or "Adrenaline" respectively.

Whereas the TM or (C) is featured after Superstars names, for example "Mike KnoxTM", "Rey Mysterio(R)" etc.

However, you are correct when you say that the term "Superstar" is the property of WWE. However, the manner in which it is used determines whether or not it is gonna lead to trouble.

Jakks have used the term "Superstars" without problem for many years. It would be a tough call, but if brought to court, I imagine Jakks would be allowed to continue with the term "Classic Superstars". Jakks could argue that Nintendo have a video game series titled "Nintendo Superstars", Adidas have footwear branded "Adidas NBA Superstars", there is a world known tournament titled "Poker Superstars", all of which use the term "superstars" without interruption from WWE or its licensing agents.

Jakks would be fine, in my opinion.

[Neekotronus]

kanekilledvince said:

niko2 said:

Superstars is trademarked by WWE though. If Jakks were to continue to do a line like that I would think it would be called Classic Stars of Wrestling or something of the like that is a step away from.

Also, if WWE does go to Hasblo (please no!) I don't believe Jakks could continue to use line names (Ruthless Aggression, Classic Superstars) for a theoretical line of wrestling action figures that they could produce as those names and slogans are owned by WWE as stated on the back of action figure packages.

Wrong.


All World Wrestling Entertainment programming, talent names,, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, and logos are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. (C)2007 World Wrestling Entertainment , Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(C)2007 JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Malibu, CA 90265. 1-877-875-2557 toll free.


All Rights Reserved. Contents may vary in style, color, shape and decoration from images shown on package or in advertising.

Safety tested for ages 8 and up.


Also, there is no TM or (C) before, after or during the usage of the words "Ruthless Aggression", "Classic Superstars" or "Adrenaline" respectively.

Whereas the TM or (C) is featured after Superstars names, for example "Mike KnoxTM", "Rey Mysterio(R)" etc.

However, you are correct when you say that the term "Superstar" is the property of WWE. However, the manner in which it is used determines whether or not it is gonna lead to trouble.

Jakks have used the term "Superstars" without problem for many years. It would be a tough call, but if brought to court, I imagine Jakks would be allowed to continue with the term "Classic Superstars". Jakks could argue that Nintendo have a video game series titled "Nintendo Superstars", Adidas have footwear branded "Adidas NBA Superstars", there is a world known tournament titled "Poker Superstars", all of which use the term "superstars" without interruption from WWE or its licensing agents.

Jakks would be fine, in my opinion.

"Slogans, Names, Logos" Which would mean, Ruthless Aggression, Adrenaline & Classic Superstars.

WWE owns the name Superstars where it pertains to professional wrestling. That's why TNA can't call their wrestlers Superstars. WWE owns that. Jakks would not be able to use those names.

Sorry, I'm not trying to talk down to you on this or anything but I've dealt with both copyrights and trademarks for 10 years. This is how trademarks work, they are a way to own a name for use in areas of business. There are two ways you'll see them identified, by the R in the circle, which means it's a registered trademark and the TM which means the trademark is pending. Superstars is a WWE trademark, which dates back to the 80's. If there is any other company using the name in advertising or print labeling something or someone as Superstar, WWE would have rights to stopping their usage of it. Now, if someone is called "blank Superstar" on tv or radio, like a sporting event, I don't believe that pertains.

[kingrey18]

Damm we get threads like this at least 1 in 2 weeks.

[kanekilledvince]

niko2 said:

kanekilledvince said:

Wrong.


All World Wrestling Entertainment programming, talent names,, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, and logos are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. (C)2007 World Wrestling Entertainment , Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(C)2007 JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Malibu, CA 90265. 1-877-875-2557 toll free.


All Rights Reserved. Contents may vary in style, color, shape and decoration from images shown on package or in advertising.

Safety tested for ages 8 and up.


Also, there is no TM or (C) before, after or during the usage of the words "Ruthless Aggression", "Classic Superstars" or "Adrenaline" respectively.

Whereas the TM or (C) is featured after Superstars names, for example "Mike KnoxTM", "Rey Mysterio(R)" etc.

However, you are correct when you say that the term "Superstar" is the property of WWE. However, the manner in which it is used determines whether or not it is gonna lead to trouble.

Jakks have used the term "Superstars" without problem for many years. It would be a tough call, but if brought to court, I imagine Jakks would be allowed to continue with the term "Classic Superstars". Jakks could argue that Nintendo have a video game series titled "Nintendo Superstars", Adidas have footwear branded "Adidas NBA Superstars", there is a world known tournament titled "Poker Superstars", all of which use the term "superstars" without interruption from WWE or its licensing agents.

Jakks would be fine, in my opinion.

"Slogans, Names, Logos" Which would mean, Ruthless Aggression, Adrenaline & Classic Superstars.

WWE owns the name Superstars where it pertains to professional wrestling. That's why TNA can't call their wrestlers Superstars. WWE owns that. Jakks would not be able to use those names.

Sorry, I'm not trying to talk down to you on this or anything but I've dealt with both copyrights and trademarks for 10 years. This is how trademarks work, they are a way to own a name for use in areas of business. There are two ways you'll see them identified, by the R in the circle, which means it's a registered trademark and the TM which means the trademark is pending.

Whilst i do agree with you about not being able to use the term superstar when it comes to Professional Wrestling, Jakks as a toy company would probably get away with it, considering there are many generic wrestling figures you'd see in pound shops (or dollar stores i believe they're called in the USA) with the term "Superstars" on the packaging.

It would be a tough call, and obviously not something Jakks would risk anyway.

As for the other point you made about the use of "Ruthless Aggression" etc. in the form of a slogan, name or logo.. well, they would be the property of Jakks, as Jakks use those names to market their action figure line. The only connection WWE have to the term "Ruthless Aggression" is that promo vince cut in 2002 when he told wrestlers they lacked aggression, and continued to tell them they needed to get some "ruthless aggression".

WWE dont use the term classic superstars. They use the term "Legends". They dont have any connection with the names of the other lines, with the exception that Jakks use said names to promote and sell Action figures which just happen to be wrestling figures belong to WWE. There's no such thing as "WWE Ruthless Aggression". It is merely "Ruthless Aggression". Looking at a current RA box, the WWE logo is positioned at the bottom of the packaging, where the superstars name is, whereas the Jakks logo is positioned above, and close to, the words "Ruthless Aggression".

If anything, the line should technically be referred to as "Jakks Pacific presents: Ruthless Aggression".

[Neekotronus]

kanekilledvince said:

niko2 said:

"Slogans, Names, Logos" Which would mean, Ruthless Aggression, Adrenaline & Classic Superstars.

WWE owns the name Superstars where it pertains to professional wrestling. That's why TNA can't call their wrestlers Superstars. WWE owns that. Jakks would not be able to use those names.

Sorry, I'm not trying to talk down to you on this or anything but I've dealt with both copyrights and trademarks for 10 years. This is how trademarks work, they are a way to own a name for use in areas of business. There are two ways you'll see them identified, by the R in the circle, which means it's a registered trademark and the TM which means the trademark is pending.

Whilst i do agree with you about not being able to use the term superstar when it comes to Professional Wrestling, Jakks as a toy company would probably get away with it, considering there are many generic wrestling figures you'd see in pound shops (or dollar stores i believe they're called in the USA) with the term "Superstars" on the packaging.

It would be a tough call, and obviously not something Jakks would risk anyway.

As for the other point you made about the use of "Ruthless Aggression" etc. in the form of a slogan, name or logo.. well, they would be the property of Jakks, as Jakks use those names to market their action figure line. The only connection WWE have to the term "Ruthless Aggression" is that promo vince cut in 2002 when he told wrestlers they lacked aggression, and continued to tell them they needed to get some "ruthless aggression".

WWE dont use the term classic superstars. They use the term "Legends". They dont have any connection with the names of the other lines, with the exception that Jakks use said names to promote and sell Action figures which just happen to be wrestling figures belong to WWE. There's no such thing as "WWE Ruthless Aggression". It is merely "Ruthless Aggression". Looking at a current RA box, the WWE logo is positioned at the bottom of the packaging, where the superstars name is, whereas the Jakks logo is positioned above, and close to, the words "Ruthless Aggression".

If anything, the line should technically be referred to as "Jakks Pacific presents: Ruthless Aggression".

No, you see this is work Jakks produces for WWE. Everything they produce under the WWE Brand name is owned by WWE, and produced by Jakks for them.

[King Shocker the Monumentous]

niko2 said:

kanekilledvince said:

Wrong.


All World Wrestling Entertainment programming, talent names,, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, and logos are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. (C)2007 World Wrestling Entertainment , Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(C)2007 JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Malibu, CA 90265. 1-877-875-2557 toll free.


All Rights Reserved. Contents may vary in style, color, shape and decoration from images shown on package or in advertising.

Safety tested for ages 8 and up.


Also, there is no TM or (C) before, after or during the usage of the words "Ruthless Aggression", "Classic Superstars" or "Adrenaline" respectively.

Whereas the TM or (C) is featured after Superstars names, for example "Mike KnoxTM", "Rey Mysterio(R)" etc.

However, you are correct when you say that the term "Superstar" is the property of WWE. However, the manner in which it is used determines whether or not it is gonna lead to trouble.

Jakks have used the term "Superstars" without problem for many years. It would be a tough call, but if brought to court, I imagine Jakks would be allowed to continue with the term "Classic Superstars". Jakks could argue that Nintendo have a video game series titled "Nintendo Superstars", Adidas have footwear branded "Adidas NBA Superstars", there is a world known tournament titled "Poker Superstars", all of which use the term "superstars" without interruption from WWE or its licensing agents.

Jakks would be fine, in my opinion.

"Slogans, Names, Logos" Which would mean, Ruthless Aggression, Adrenaline & Classic Superstars.

WWE owns the name Superstars where it pertains to professional wrestling. That's why TNA can't call their wrestlers Superstars. WWE owns that. Jakks would not be able to use those names.

Sorry, I'm not trying to talk down to you on this or anything but I've dealt with both copyrights and trademarks for 10 years. This is how trademarks work, they are a way to own a name for use in areas of business. There are two ways you'll see them identified, by the R in the circle, which means it's a registered trademark and the TM which means the trademark is pending. Superstars is a WWE trademark, which dates back to the 80's. If there is any other company using the name in advertising or print labeling something or someone as Superstar, WWE would have rights to stopping their usage of it. Now, if someone is called "blank Superstar" on tv or radio, like a sporting event, I don't believe that pertains.

...BigTime, is that you?

[kanekilledvince]

niko2 said:

kanekilledvince said:

Whilst i do agree with you about not being able to use the term superstar when it comes to Professional Wrestling, Jakks as a toy company would probably get away with it, considering there are many generic wrestling figures you'd see in pound shops (or dollar stores i believe they're called in the USA) with the term "Superstars" on the packaging.

It would be a tough call, and obviously not something Jakks would risk anyway.

As for the other point you made about the use of "Ruthless Aggression" etc. in the form of a slogan, name or logo.. well, they would be the property of Jakks, as Jakks use those names to market their action figure line. The only connection WWE have to the term "Ruthless Aggression" is that promo vince cut in 2002 when he told wrestlers they lacked aggression, and continued to tell them they needed to get some "ruthless aggression".

WWE dont use the term classic superstars. They use the term "Legends". They dont have any connection with the names of the other lines, with the exception that Jakks use said names to promote and sell Action figures which just happen to be wrestling figures belong to WWE. There's no such thing as "WWE Ruthless Aggression". It is merely "Ruthless Aggression". Looking at a current RA box, the WWE logo is positioned at the bottom of the packaging, where the superstars name is, whereas the Jakks logo is positioned above, and close to, the words "Ruthless Aggression".

If anything, the line should technically be referred to as "Jakks Pacific presents: Ruthless Aggression".

No, you see this is work Jakks produces for WWE. Everything they produce under the WWE Brand name is owned by WWE, and produced by Jakks for them.

I can see where you're coming from, but I imagine that Jakks, being as big a company as they are, that those terms would be their intellectual property. It is more Jakks' property than it is WWE's. Albeit, its a WWE superstar that comes in the package, but its a Jakks product. WWE is a brand name under Jakks. Not the other way around.


Also, you edited your second post..

[naparo01]

Yeah its a small glimpse of hope. But realisticly. Jakks could only do non WWE owned charcters. Limiting them to things liek the legends seires. So you woudl see no WWF gimics only ones owned by the individuals. So you doulcnt see elmadadore tito santan only more boring titos. Know what i mean.

I just hope WWE can see that the problemt hey had was with jakks thq video game division not the boys action figure division.

[Neekotronus]

kanekilledvince said:

niko2 said:

No, you see this is work Jakks produces for WWE. Everything they produce under the WWE Brand name is owned by WWE, and produced by Jakks for them.

I can see where you're coming from, but I imagine that Jakks, being as big a company as they are, that those terms would be their intellectual property. It is more Jakks' property than it is WWE's. Albeit, its a WWE superstar that comes in the package, but its a Jakks product. WWE is a brand name under Jakks. Not the other way around.


Also, you edited your second post..

Dude, did you not read what I wrote above thoroughly enough?

THE WORK THAT JAKKS DOES PRODUCING WWE MERCHANDISE IS OWNED BY WWE. JAKKS CREATES THEIR WORK, FROM THE FIGURES TO THE PACKAGES TO ALL THE ACCESSORIES ARE WORK CREATED BY JAKKS FOR WWE UNDER A CONTRACT AS WORK FOR HIRE. WWE ARE PAID MONEY FOR JAKKS TO MAKE WWE MERCHANDISE. WWE OWNS ALL RIGHTS OVER SAID MERCHANDISE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

[person]

noo

[supercrazydragon]

Not that this hasn't all been covered before, but here we go...

1) If Jakks in fact does lose the WWE license in 2009, it'd be interesting just to see what company takes over and what style of figures they produce. I'm not saying I'd buy them, where as if the RA line continues I will continue to buy figures, but it'd be much more interesting than Jakks just "staying the course".

2) If Jakks and WWE do part ways like Paris Hilton and talent, it could still leave Jakks room to do future RA styled figures. Oh, what a world it would open up. Jakks owns the RA style (See: Rocky), so it'd be interesting if they made RA styled figures for The A-Team, Logan's Run, Heroes or any number of other things. (I really want an RA style Chris Tucker and Ice Cube to go with my new Zeus. But then I also wouldn't mind Jet Li, Jackie Chan and/or Bruce Lee in an RA style. Not to mention Chuck Norris.) Could Jakks continue to make classic wrestling figures? Why not. If WWE won't let Jakks sign Randy Savage, this maybe our best chance at getting him.

I love how people HATE the idea of Jakks and WWE splitting, yet they want Savage so bad. Don't they see this might be our only shot at getting Macho Man?

Jakks could also invest in some "Future Superstars" by putting up for sale at indy shows and online. If IE's now go for $14.99 (For a single figure, like Val Venis back in the day) then wouldn't you pay that for an RA style Bryan Danielson or Chris Hero? What's more so is, the companies could sell some at shows. (Why not? ROH already sells CS figures at their shows) That'd help it sell more. So, sure, Jimmy Jacobs might not sell in RA form if he was to be thrust upon the world of mass retail ala someone like The Undertaker. But if he's an IE (And sold at wrestling shows) and limited to 3000, then sold for $14.99 a pop... I think it'd be well worth it.

And I mean, a number of indy wrestlers actually go around from promotion to promotion. So you could send, let's even just say 50 of the figures to each promotion. You got ROH, CHIKARA, CZW, IWA-MS, NWA-Pro (Or what have you), FIP, Shimmer... That's 7 right there. That's 350 figures. They could even limit it to 1/1000 or 1/2000 or something. But it'd be really nice to see some "Future Stars Of Wrestling" made in RA form. At mass retail they wouldn't work, but at live events and online, heck yeah they'd work. It'd be great, Jakks!!

[WCW-Figure-Fan]

niko2 said:

THE WORK THAT JAKKS DOES PRODUCING WWE MERCHANDISE IS OWNED BY WWE. JAKKS CREATES THEIR WORK, FROM THE FIGURES TO THE PACKAGES TO ALL THE ACCESSORIES ARE WORK CREATED BY JAKKS FOR WWE UNDER A CONTRACT AS WORK FOR HIRE. WWE ARE PAID MONEY FOR JAKKS TO MAKE WWE MERCHANDISE. WWE OWNS ALL RIGHTS OVER SAID MERCHANDISE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

If you are suggesting that the part tooling done by Jakks is owned by WWE, you're not only mistaken but you are quite obviously mistaken. While parts tooled to specifically represent a WWE superstar or trademarked attire would be effectively useless without a WWE license, the core parts and accessories are Jakks' work and can be used outside of the WWE contract.

More to the point, they HAVE been used outside of that contract. Do the Scorpion King and Rocky figures ring a bell? You misunderstand the nature of the business relationship here. Jakks isn't being hired to produce a product WWE owns. Rather, Jakks has paid WWE for a license to produce toys using WWE's intellectual property and trademarks. Their work, from sculpting to packaging design, is THEIR work. WWE can seek out another company at the end of the contract, but they can't take Jakks' work with them. That new company would start from scratch. While it is conceivable to some of Jakks work has contractual limitations on it, those limitations have to be in the contract and we've seen evidence that those limitations are at least not very broad. Jakks isn't working for WWE, strictly speaking. They've paid WWE to make and sell WWE products.

Could Jakks make unlicensed wrestling figures? Maybe. It depends on the contract, but its not impossible that there could be a no-compete clause that prevents Jakks from producing wrestling figures for a period of time after the contract expires. If they can produce wrestlings, there is no guarantee that they would want to. Without the WWE brand, it would be difficult to maintain retail interest in the product. Not unprecidented, though, as ToyBiz/Marvel Toys has shown us with their Legendary Heroes line. Those toys, frankly, had no business being offered at mass market but Marvel was able to sell them to the big toy retailers. At the same time, if its not successful, it could make those stores dubious of Jakks even if they had a potentially better product to offer.

Given that WWE has strongly positioned "Superstars" as its unique name for its wrestlers, I doubt they could maintain the name of "Classic Superstars". It may seem generic, but that sort of thing is upheld all the time and I suspect is a valid trademark. They key is how its being used as the protection would only apply to a wrestling context, but that is the context being discussed here. Anything derived of "Ruthless Aggression" is even more clearly protected by trademark and statute so those names would be out the window, too. Besides that, if they continued making figures, they would obviously want to brand them as a nostalgia line stemming from the CS line and not RA, DA, Adrenaline, etc. They might just opt for "Classic Wrestlers" to emphasize that they are wrestling figures. I don't see this happening, but it would be an option available to Jakks and given how much they have invested in parts during their WWE contract, the cost of starting a line like this could be quite attractive.

[Deleted]

I posted somewhere on the board that if Jakks does end its relationship and a new company makes the figures different from RA that would probably be what gets me to stop collecting. I dont play with them so scale is not the issue its just something about starting over with another company in a different style that turns me off. I guess the only way I would continue is if they were exactly RA style or TNA style only because I collect TNA also.

[WCW-Figure-Fan]

supercrazydragon said:

Jakks could also invest in some "Future Superstars" by putting up for sale at indy shows and online. If IE's now go for $14.99 (For a single figure, like Val Venis back in the day) then wouldn't you pay that for an RA style Bryan Danielson or Chris Hero? What's more so is, the companies could sell some at shows. (Why not? ROH already sells CS figures at their shows) That'd help it sell more. So, sure, Jimmy Jacobs might not sell in RA form if he was to be thrust upon the world of mass retail ala someone like The Undertaker. But if he's an IE (And sold at wrestling shows) and limited to 3000, then sold for $14.99 a pop... I think it'd be well worth it.

While an intriguing business model, I think you underestimate the costs involved with distributing figures like this. If Jakks did this, they would probably have to make the figures on contract to the Indie wrestler being portrayed who could then bring them around himself or sell them on a personal website. It'd be like when Ringside takes an exclusive. The problem here is that the entry costs would probably so high that few if any indie wrestlers could take the risks of moving forward on that. It would be worth exploring, but there would be good reason to think that the market just wouldn't exist for that kind of "vanity" action figure release.

[Rabid Heat]

It just won't work. You don't realise how much stroke WWE has in this field. The only people Jakks could probably release figures of would be down and out wrestlers who were bitter towards WWE. The rest have Legends contracts etc. and I'm sure feel somewhat loyal to Vince now, and would just agree to have their figures made by whichever company WWE goes with for their figures from 2009. WWE can carry on with a Classics line with another company, albeit the figures will look slightly different (i.e. Marvel Legends).

Jakks wouldn't want to get into a costly lawsuit with WWE by intentionally rubbing them up the wrong way either.