WWE Attempting to Trademark "Adam Cole"
Posted: Aug 9th, '19, 08:12
Source: pwinsider
WWE are in the process of trademarking Adam Cole. They were given an initial rejection on December 6th of last year, as they had to clarify whether Adam Cole identified a particular living individual.
WWE responded on May 6th noting that "Adam Cole" does not identify a particular living individual. The USPTO quickly responded back with evidence from Adam Cole's Wikipedia page (which has his pre-WWE history) to show that it in fact identifies a real person, Austin Jenkins. They also provided the bio page for Cole from WWE.com for futher evidence to prove the name refers to a real person. They noted that WWE should provide written consent from Jenkins allowing WWE to trademark his wrestling name.
On August 6th, WWE through their lawyer Lauren Dienes-Middlen responded with the following: "The Examining Attorney stated that the “name” shown in the mark identifies the stage name or professional name of a particular living individual, and has therefore, required Applicant to submit a written consent from such individual that authorizes the Applicant to register the name. Applicant wishes to advise the Examining Attorney that the “name” in the mark does not identify a stage name or professional nickname. Rather, it is a fictional character name, a “role”, created and owned entirely by Applicant. Mr. Austin Jenkins that is referred to in the Examiner’s Office Action did not use this fictional character name prior to working with Applicant and he cannot use this name if he were to cease working with Applicant. Moreover, Applicant is free to “assign” this fictional character name to any individual it chooses, at any time. Requiring consent by Mr. Austin Jenkins is akin to requiring Christopher Reeve’s consent for the registration of the character name “Superman”, Sean Connery’s consent for the registration of the character name “James Bond” or Val Kilmer’s consent for the registration of the character name “Batman” – these individuals are merely actors playing a role. The owner of these registrations can, and have, assigned different actors to play the same role. Such is the case with the mark in the subject application. Applicant can assign this name to any individual it chooses, at any time. Accordingly, no consent should be required for the subject application."
WWE are in the process of trademarking Adam Cole. They were given an initial rejection on December 6th of last year, as they had to clarify whether Adam Cole identified a particular living individual.
WWE responded on May 6th noting that "Adam Cole" does not identify a particular living individual. The USPTO quickly responded back with evidence from Adam Cole's Wikipedia page (which has his pre-WWE history) to show that it in fact identifies a real person, Austin Jenkins. They also provided the bio page for Cole from WWE.com for futher evidence to prove the name refers to a real person. They noted that WWE should provide written consent from Jenkins allowing WWE to trademark his wrestling name.
On August 6th, WWE through their lawyer Lauren Dienes-Middlen responded with the following: "The Examining Attorney stated that the “name” shown in the mark identifies the stage name or professional name of a particular living individual, and has therefore, required Applicant to submit a written consent from such individual that authorizes the Applicant to register the name. Applicant wishes to advise the Examining Attorney that the “name” in the mark does not identify a stage name or professional nickname. Rather, it is a fictional character name, a “role”, created and owned entirely by Applicant. Mr. Austin Jenkins that is referred to in the Examiner’s Office Action did not use this fictional character name prior to working with Applicant and he cannot use this name if he were to cease working with Applicant. Moreover, Applicant is free to “assign” this fictional character name to any individual it chooses, at any time. Requiring consent by Mr. Austin Jenkins is akin to requiring Christopher Reeve’s consent for the registration of the character name “Superman”, Sean Connery’s consent for the registration of the character name “James Bond” or Val Kilmer’s consent for the registration of the character name “Batman” – these individuals are merely actors playing a role. The owner of these registrations can, and have, assigned different actors to play the same role. Such is the case with the mark in the subject application. Applicant can assign this name to any individual it chooses, at any time. Accordingly, no consent should be required for the subject application."
... right?