Photo by Marjan Blan ()

Booker Zhang is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at the University of Manitoba.

Ěý

On February 15, 2022, Spider-Man: No Way Home has hit at the box office, becoming the sixth-highest grossing movie of all time. Building on the massive success of Avengers: Endgame, Marvel has rapidly become one of the most famous and profitable movie studios worldwide. However, Marvel suffered financial hardships in the early years and made tough decisions. One of them is to sell the Spider-Man film rights. In 1999, Marvel with Sony and officially handed over its most famous superhero for $7 million, which created a list of complex copyright issues for the next 20 years.

In 2002, the first well-known movie was filmed by Columbia Pictures, a division of Sony Entertainment. The film generated $800 million at the box office, redefining what it means to be and successfully saving Sony’s Picture Division from a deficit. The popularity of Spider-Man also made Marvel realize that they gave up a money machine. However, Marvel had no right to unilaterally retain Spider-Man’s copyright unless Sony decided to terminate the contract—which seemed unlikely to happen.

A plot twist occurred in 2008 after Marvel released . The film received praise from critics. The American Film Institution selected it as one of the best films of 2008. The Walt Disney Company saw the potential and purchased Marvel in 2009. With solid financial support from Disney, Marvel Ěýhas successfully promoted the “” and earned a worldwide reputation. In the meantime, Sony’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2 released in 2014 was met with criticism, ending the reboot series.

In 2015, Marvel and Sony made an unprecedented that the two companies would share joint-ownership in Spider-Man's copyright. Marvel would film the movie while Sony would take all the box office earnings and be responsible for the investment and distribution. There is no dispute that the new Spider-Man, starring Tom Holland, is a hit.

According to the deal, Marvel was only authorized to have Spider-Man in 5 movies, and Spider-Man: No Way Home indicated the end of the contract. To avoid spoiling, I will not go into details of the plot, but the movie did result in concerns about the future of Spider-Man. Marvel is currently seeking to retain complete control of Spider-Man through a against Sony.

One interesting fact to mention is that Sony only has the film rights of Spider-Man, not the video game rights. Nevertheless, under the authority of Marvel, Sony released on PlayStation 4 — the best-selling video game in 2018. Until Marvel and Sony reach an agreement, Spider-Man's copyright (like his fate) remains up in the air.

The post Spider-Man: Where is Home? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Artem Beliaikin ()

Meena Alnajar is anĚýIPilogueĚýWriter, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,Ěýand a 2L JD Candidate atĚýOsgoodeĚýHall Law School

Ěý

Following its worldwide premiere on November 24, 2021, the biographical film House of Gucci may face for its depiction of the Gucci family. The film is on Maurizio Gucci’s life leading up to his murder by a hitman hired by his ex-wife Patricia Reggiani, played by pop star Lady Gaga. The Gucci family’s heirs spoke out on how the film inaccurately represented the family members as The family stated that they would to protect their name, hinting at forthcoming legal action. Given that the film relies heavily on the Gucci name, there are concerns as to what legal ramifications director and the production company could face.

Who Owns the Name

Since the film discusses both the Gucci family and the Gucci brand, it may be helpful to examine each mark. The Gucci family is attributed to the family members and as such has no technical legal protection. The word ‘Gucci’ however, is also a fashion brand currently owned by the French corporation . Therefore, the family has no legal control or stake in the Gucci name as a brand. Gucci has been trademarking as a fashion brand , garnering over one hundred marks. In addition to registrations for the word Gucci, the brand has several design marks such as its renowned double Gs.

Trademark owners can to the use of their trademark in media and film and file a trademark infringement suit as a result. For the House of Gucci film, the fashion house with the filmmakers to let them use the Gucci wardrobe. There was evidenced consent in the matter, so the film is unlikely to face a trademark infringement suit. Further, most brands reject use of their registered marks because they worry people will get as to who owns the mark. Since the movie’s purpose is to detail Gucci’s ownership of the brand, there is little possibility that audiences would get confused as to who owns the ‘House of Gucci.’ However, the family may still be able to claim defamation for how their likeness appeared on the screen.

What Actions Could the Real Gucci Family Take?

The Gucci family felt in the film, and so they may have grounds for defamation, a civil lawsuit. Though its statutory definition varies between jurisdictions, is generally where one’s reputation has been harmed due to a negative depiction, such as a film that represents them in a negative light. A claimant needs to that the negative depiction is about them, that there were remarks that could cause them serious harm, and that these remarks were circulated to a wider audience. In response, a filmmaker must ground the representations in truth as best as they can. There should be some or fact that would support the claimant’s representation in the film. House of Gucci is based on a non-fiction book by fashion reporter , so the filmmakers could possibly rely on the book as evidence to explain the Gucci family’s depiction in the film.

Narrative films often embellish and exaggerate to captivate audiences, but the filmmakers for House of Gucci may face legal consequences for their creative decisions. The real Gucci family may not have grounds to sue for the Gucci mark, but they could move forward with a defamation suit for the many faces behind the double Gs.

The post House of Gucci: A Name Worth Suing Over appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Max Bender ()

Olaoluwa Oni is a published author and a graduate research student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Her debut novel, , isĚýNigeria’sĚýfirst legal drama novel.Ěý

A new movie in the James Bond franchise – – was recently released worldwide. The plot of the new film follows the Bond-movie archetype: the MI6 agent is sent on a crime-fighting mission, working with an attractive woman – a “Bond Girl” – to defeat villains who – and this is the subject of this article – are facially disfigured.Ěý

The phrase is a registered trademark for, among other things, “entertainment services by way of motion picture”. This suggests that all Bond movies are produced under a Trademark license that permits the filmmakers' use of the Bond Mark in their films. The Bond Mark is also registered for a host of other goods and services from laundry detergents to briefcases.

The James Bond movie franchise has now fallen into disfavor with advocates for ending appearance-related discrimination who note that the filmmakers .

In this article, I examine how the filmmakers’ exercise of a cinematic device could impact the economic integrity and viability of the Bond Mark.

The Bond Movies use of the Disfigurement Trope

Following the release of “No Time To Die”, They note that most Bond villains have facial scars/disfigurement that serve no real purpose in the story other than to identify them as villains. The latest Bond film has three villains, all with disfigurements that, critics argue, are not necessary to the film’s narrative.

Michael G. Wilson, one of two producers of the 2021 Bond movie has the film’s decision: “It’s very much a Fleming device that he uses throughout the stories... He had that as part of the characters that he devised.”

It is true that Fleming, the creator of the James Bond character and writer of the James Bond books, upon which the films are based, wrote some of his characters with facial scars. However, it should be noted that Fleming also described Bond as bearing a scar on his cheek. Yet, in all the movies released as adaptations of the book, Bond has been depicted without visible facial scars.Ěý Why, then, was it necessary to adhere to Fleming’s vision for the villains? ĚýDisfigurement clearly serves as a marker of villainy in the Bond series.

In light of the backlash that this cinematic device has engendered, we must consider how the filmmakers’ actions as licensees of the Bond Mark threaten the continued existence of the mark and the rights of its co-licensees.

Trademark Licensing and Tarnishment

As a preliminary matter, it is worth mentioning that marks that recall or promote subject matter that are scandalous, obscene, or immoral are considered “” and excluded from Trademark registrability. It is also worth stating that, per , “A scandalous word or design is one which is offensive to the public or individual sense of propriety or morality or is a slur on nationality and is generally regarded as offensive.”

A combined reading of the above provisions suggests that where a word, in the public’s understanding, encourages the villainization of persons living with disability or disfigurement, then such a mark will be considered scandalous and inherently unregistrable. But what happens if the discriminatory connotation is formed after the mark is registered, as with the Bond Mark? This is where the concept of Trademark Tarnishment comes in.

Trademark Tarnishment refers to the use of a mark in a way that harms the reputation/viability of the trademark and the goodwill associated with the mark. While Tarnishment accusations are typically brought against trademark infringers (i.e., unauthorized users), but nothing precludes the doctrine from being extended to licensed users.Ěý In fact, I would argue that implicit in a license to use a Trademark is the condition that such use will not diminish the value of – that is to say, tarnish – the mark.

The Movies’ and Tarnishment of The Bond Mark

The makers of Bond movies continue to engender real-world harm to persons living with disabilities and disfigurement. Their actions in this regard associate the Bond Mark with discrimination against a vulnerable group, and this association has economic consequences for the mark’s continued viability.

When we consider that trademarks commodify a brand’s goodwill, which allows the brand to trade with its reputation, and that the brand’s value associated rises or diminishes with public perception, we can appreciate the implications of the Tarnishment of the Bond Mark.Ěý The Bond filmmakers are one of that have paid for the license to associate the reputation of the Bond Mark with their products and services. As such, one licensee’s Tarnishment of the mark has significant business and economic implications for the licensor’s contractual arrangement with its other licensees.

Conclusion

Clearly, the fear of trademark tarnishment does not dissuade the Bond filmmakers from continuing the harm that the Disfigurement-villainy trope causes to vulnerable persons. Perhaps they will be motivated to change artistic directions if the economic implications of their actions are laid bare.

Here, I set the question to them: “Is the Villainous Portrayal of Disfigurement really worth the price of the “James Bond 007” tradema°ů°ě?”

The post Is the Villainous Portrayal of Disfigurement Really Worth the Price of the “JAMES BOND 007” Trademark? appeared first on IPOsgoode.