KPop Demon Hunters was a resounding success for Netflix, coming out of nowhere to become the platform’s most-watched movie of all time and spawning several of last year’s biggest pop hits. It was less of a success for Demon Hunter, the Christian metal band that presumably has been getting mogged in the search bar ever…
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
First names literally cannot be trademakred for living beings, but they can for commerce purposes so long as said commerced entity doesn’t also attempt to sue Mario for also using his born name on a non-trademarked product.
A notable high-profile legal defeat over first name usage involves reality star Kylie Jenner losing a trademark opposition against international pop singer Kylie Minogue.
Basically, the name Kylie is perceived by the public as a first name, NOT a brand and therefore is unenforceable in a court of law. They can continue with the trademark all they want, but their limited to only suing other companies, not humans using the name.
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.
“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.”
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.
I don’t see how you could be right on this. It’s not generic and the band has used that mark for decades even if it was unregistered. If you use a brand for commerce that’s your proof you hold that mark. They had it for 25 years. Imo Netflix did cause them harm. I bet they do have a case here.
You keep saying it’s generic, but you clearly don’t understand the term as used with trade marks. Generic means it describes a product. So “Step up” couldn’t be used for a stair company as competitors couldn’t then describe “adding a step up to your front door”, or whatever, without risking infringement.
Genericisation then is when a trade mark becomes used descriptively - dumpster, is a classic example, another is jeep.
“Demon Hunters” would be generic if the business operation was hunting supernatural beasts and a judge determined that to be a real occupation … a singer/songwriter who called themselves “Solo Artist” would be generic.
There’s acquired distinctiveness too, which is why “pianoman” could be a trade mark (I’m not sure if it is, probably still not distinctive enough).
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
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)
It’s hilarious that you use Apple as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
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).
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.
Yes they have proof delivered straight to them that consumers are confused. I think they have a case.
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.
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.
It’s about being able to easily demonstrate harm to their brand by making it difficult to find them with a normal search.
They’re not suing Google though right? They’re suing Netflix.
By using the old ways of search fu.
“Demon Hunter Christian Rock -pop -k-pop -k-pop”
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.
kagi.
I wonder if using just Mario for the food would be fine.
Go to Super Mario’s and then get Mario’s lasagna!
First names literally cannot be trademakred for living beings, but they can for commerce purposes so long as said commerced entity doesn’t also attempt to sue Mario for also using his born name on a non-trademarked product.
I dont understand what you mean by the so long as part?
A notable high-profile legal defeat over first name usage involves reality star Kylie Jenner losing a trademark opposition against international pop singer Kylie Minogue.
Basically, the name Kylie is perceived by the public as a first name, NOT a brand and therefore is unenforceable in a court of law. They can continue with the trademark all they want, but their limited to only suing other companies, not humans using the name.
ah, gotcha. Thanks!
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.
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.
Demon hunters is not generic. It doesn’t work the way you think. I hold a few trademarks.
“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.”
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.
I don’t see how you could be right on this. It’s not generic and the band has used that mark for decades even if it was unregistered. If you use a brand for commerce that’s your proof you hold that mark. They had it for 25 years. Imo Netflix did cause them harm. I bet they do have a case here.
It was probably not registered because it is generic.
You keep saying it’s generic, but you clearly don’t understand the term as used with trade marks. Generic means it describes a product. So “Step up” couldn’t be used for a stair company as competitors couldn’t then describe “adding a step up to your front door”, or whatever, without risking infringement.
Genericisation then is when a trade mark becomes used descriptively - dumpster, is a classic example, another is jeep.
“Demon Hunters” would be generic if the business operation was hunting supernatural beasts and a judge determined that to be a real occupation … a singer/songwriter who called themselves “Solo Artist” would be generic.
There’s acquired distinctiveness too, which is why “pianoman” could be a trade mark (I’m not sure if it is, probably still not distinctive enough).
lol they have no case at all.
I hadn’t thought of that. It’s a compelling point.
You should really become a litigator.