you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 190 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

They actually have a decent case here.

They've been a band with a trademarked name for 25 years. Netflix used that same name as part if the movie title. The band can show measurable harm to their trademarked brand, by citing Google search results for Demon Hunter.

I can't imagine Netflix would change the name of the movie, but paying the band for the damage to their trademark, and compensation for having to rebrand and trademark a new band name is a reasonable cost of success for Netflix.

In short, it isn't very Oniony

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 hours ago

    Sort of reminds me of when Apple moved into music, and Apple (music publisher) started dragging out documents that said they couldn't do that.

    Money won that case, and will win this one. Netflix could just pay them to go away, but honestly this case in 2 days has probably got more people hearing about Demon Hunter (the band) than 25 years of touring ever did...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 day ago* (7 children)

    They’ve been a band with a trademarked name for 25 years.

    They trademarked "Demon Hunters" in 2022....

    Their case is shit, its frankly a miracle they were even able to trademark "Demon Hunters" because it's so generic. I see this going nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • They got the trademark as soon as they started marketing their band. They may not have registered the trademark until 2022. Things like trademarks and copyright are implicit to the creator. Registering them just makes it easier for others to find your work and deter infringement and makes filing some paperwork, namely lawsuits, much easier.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    This seems to be a bit mixed in reporting.

    Seems like it depends on what the outlet wants to spin.

    One article cited the trademark for recorded music and merchandise in 2022, but vaguely said there was a separate trademark for performance, but that was left unspecified. That article seemed to want to induce a narrative of opportunistic trademark, but even then that's perhaps a bit of a stretch as they wouldn't have known it would have gone down as a media sensation that soon, though it had been announced as a thing.

    However, another article explained that the performance trademark was registered in 2014. That is pretty unambiguously way before Netflix would have even had it as a thought.

    Their case is shit, its frankly a miracle they were even able to trademark “Demon Hunters” because it’s so generic. I see this going nowhere.

    How many band names would not be considered generic independent of context? The Cure is trademarked, R.E.M. is trademarked, Queen is trademarked... Famously Apple computers ran up against Apple records trademark and it was deemed both ok for Apple Computer to continue without declaring it genericized, just that they were trademark in their respective markets. Until iTunes, then Apple had to change the arrangement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    Yet Apple has Apple. Trademarks are about markets. You can make a purse called Apple but you cant make computer hardware or software called apple without at least a C&D from Apple. Demon Hunters is so less generic than Apple and they probably only have it in music and maybe visual arts because of music videos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Ironically, Apple got the shit sued out of them for the name by the Beatles because it infringed on the name of their record label.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Yes, and it's an excellent example that Apple the record label trademark was valid yet Apple the computer company could use it in a separate context, but had to change when they did iTunes.

    Here it's squarely in the same market. The cited example of customer confusion about a concert event works strongly in their favor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    It does work in their favor, even I personally disagree with the concept that you can trademark existing common terms in a restrictive way. It's been going on for over half a century, so that fight has been lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Demon hunters is not generic. It doesn’t work the way you think. I hold a few trademarks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 19 hours ago

    "What do you do for a living?"

    "I hunt demons."

    "So, you're a demon hunter?"

    "No. Don't be ridiculous. Demon Hunter is trademarked by a band no one has ever heard of. We call ourselves 'Demon Stalkers' to avoid an infringement lawsuit."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 102 points 1 day ago* (10 children)

    The thing they have to fight though is that when you register for a trademark, it doesnt apply to every sector. Apple cannot for example and sue farm conglomerates for using the word apple on their actual apples. They do not hold the trademark in terms of produce.

    For example, Nintendo lost a trademark to a supermarket in I think costa rica named "Super Mario" (it was a supermarket owned by a guy named mario), because Nintendo did not own the trademark rights to supermarkets(however they held one for food products branded it, so the same supermarket could not name their home branded products super mario)

    Its a matter if the band holds the trademark for movies, as the band in the show itself is not called Demon Hunters (its Hunter/x)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    The movie title is referring to a fictional band, so even if you google “demon hunters band” you’re almost certainly going to get K-Pop Demon Hunters nowadays. I wouldn’t even know how to search for them and reliably get them to show up.

    …well except this news story has gone viral so now they DO show up on top. The internet is weird man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    search engine SEOs are a separate issue than trademarks though. there isn't any law that im aware of that requires search engines to be neutral on how searches are organized (or even if something shows at all). If Demon Hunter wants to fight against not being able to be found, theyd essentially for example, be fighting against every corporate who uses DMCA powers to force google to remove some links from being indexed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    By using the old ways of search fu.

    "Demon Hunter Christian Rock -pop -k-pop -k-pop"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    What search engine do you use that respects that type of search now? I’ve found that for years now Google just ignores the -pop or sometimes just ignores the “-“ and adds the thing I’m trying to avoid directly to the search query.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    What search engine do you use that respects that type of search now?

    kagi.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I hate monthly subscription anything, though. I don't want to pay $5 a month to search for things. Duckduckgo is fine, and it also works with -

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I don't think Kagi are unfair charging a subscription, it means they have financial incentives which aren't mass cyberstalking like the adtech search providers. If a commercial service is free, you are almost certainly the real product.

    I'm happy with their pricing and service level, while I prefer to self-host good luck self-hosting a search engine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    You are right, but this isn't a video game versus a grocery store chain comparison here. It's a real life band vs a movie of a fictional band. The question of trademark infringement is not necessarily even about direct competition or intentional use. It is about whether a reasonable consumer of their product might confuse the two names/logos.

    Were the movie just about some typical warriors fighting demons and otherwise just sharing a similar name, I doubt that they would have much of a case due to lack of overlap. But as the film is about a band (even if the band itself has a different name), and the actual soundtrack for this fictional band is immensely popular and carries the film name, and they're selling live shows with the artists who created the actual music under the same name. I think they could make a really good case about consumer confusion.

    Edit: They even demonstrate actual consumer confusion that has already occurred in their court filing.

    To prove their point, included in the filing is an email from a person who spent $500 on top-tier tickets to a Demon Hunter concert in Albany, thinking they were purchasing admission to a KPop Demon Hunters event for their children, aged five and six.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    I think they are or did also sue Apple Theaters even tho Apple Theaters was operating long before Apple TV.

    It’s like the Buc-ees gas station suing an underwear company because they had a squirrel logo (Buc—ees logo is a beaver).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    That's probably why they chose Apple as an example in the first place. Apple Computers was allowed to continue using the name because their computer business didn't overlap Apple Corps' music business.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 19 hours ago*

    yeah, the trademark wouldn't extend to the movie, but it definitely could extend to concerts. they just need to adjust the name a little and make it clear which is which, which could legitimately involve both adjusting the names of their concerts in an amicable agreement. you'd think the kpop would be enough differentiation tho, but my wife educates the littles. i won't say we've met some stupid parents, but we've met some exhausted parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago (1 child)

    Watch the Legal Eagle video on John Oliver Vs. Buckee's. There's a huge uphill battle here for this band no one has ever heard of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Yes and no. While they have the older brand, the term "Demon Hunter" could easily discounted as a generic and therefore not worthy of protection.

    Microsoft skirted this issue with Windows (which is officially "Microsoft Windows"), and they can easily prove that their brand is associated with their product. But a third class niche band? I would not bet on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Netflix didn't give the movie its title, how do you figure they are liable at all?

    Even if the movie had been a Netflix production, how is netflix liable for the behaviour of a third party algorithm?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    Netflix is the distributor. They do approve the title it's sold under.

    It's not about the search rankings directly, that's just a signal of the effect of the trademark dilution for the band. It's proof of the damage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    I see what you mean and I understand how it's more serious than it sounds as first. However, a band shouldn't be able to lay claim to every version of demon hunter in media. Will they go after Wow for the class named such? How about the various animes with some variation in their title? Sure they can protect brand in a musical space, but that extends over to movies? When the movie title quietly literally describes exactly the protagonists?

    You're right. They might be able to win this case, but shouldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)