Back to the "Hasbro lost the rights" topic on G1

[sweetstuff]

I just picked up the Baby Rainribbon shirt at Shopko and I noticed the awesome MLP tag that has the TAF ponies on it. Then I noticed the tag said "My Little Pony Brand" and it says these are trademarks of Hasbro...

So why do we keep hearing they lost the rights to the G1 ponies? It seems like the G1 artwork is popping up all over the place. I'm just wondering if the lost rights pertain to the names of the original ponies and not the ponies themselves.

[Clipper]

they still have the rights to them. they just aren't re-releasing any G1 molds or characters.

They have images, artwork that they license out to other companies to print.

[Bebopgroove]

But what I can't understand is why some of these G1 characters couldn't have been used for the FiM show (like some of Faust's early concept art)?

I guess that's not to say it won't ever happen, I mean Hasbro has never seen MLP peek in popularity like this before, ever. So we could see old characters in the future. At least I hope so.

[moonflower]

I've thought that maybe Hasbro lost the rights to use the characters in the show? But it doesn't seem valid to me.

[Spectrum]

I just truely, think the 'hasbro lost rights' thing is a bunch of cow poo in my opinion. ._. It's kinda fishy to lose all the rights to a gen of a pony except for -one- (AJ)

The only reason in my opinion, Pinkie Pie isn't Surprise and Rainbow Dash isn't Firefly, is just because Hasbro put so much into the two, especially Pinkie Pie. I can't really blame them, I wouldn't want to put out so many toys of one character and then toss them out a few years later.

(I'm not saying that Rarity wasn't well established in her G3 era or anything.. xD)

[hathorcat]

Personally I think its not as simple as "loosing the rights". And I think we also need to be careful as to how we define the pony "name" and the pony "appearance" - these are 2 different things. The "name" is trade marked the "appearance" isnt. Hence all the images of these ponies - from Sundance to Gusty to Princess Sparkle - seldom are we seeing an actual name on any of these items, occasionally yes but most of the time it is just the original Hasbro supplies vectors from the early 00s.

First Hasbro clearly would see value in continuing characters like Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash - a lot of time and effort in G3/3.5 went into merch of these characters - bringing them into G4 allows for a continuity of the line, ensuring colours/symbols/characters are recognisable. Thats the main reason they are in G4 most likely and not 6 completely new characters.

One word names especially those which have "meaning" in language are tougher to trade mark - "Surprise", "Firefly" - not impossible just harder. Hence the sudden "Twilight Sparkle", "Fluttershy" - essentially words or word combinations that dont mean, dont represent anything else. I am not saying this is the case for every character just the reasoning behind a lot of them [Lyra Heartstrings? Trixie Lulamoon?]. The glaring contradiction of course being Rarity. This is also greatly beneficial to companies which have international marketing as if names have no literal/logical translation they get away with keeping the same name no matter the packaging or the country without any potential nasty translation nightmares or errors. If they had gone with Surprise I would suspect she would have ended up with a double barrelled name "Surprise Flash" or similar.

Also 30 years have passed...names which may have been trademark-able in the 80s may not be now - the company have obviously continued the renewal on names which they have continued to use in some way - Apple Jack was a G3 pony as well remember. Whereas we hadnt seen a Surprise or a Firefly since the early 80s. Perhaps another toy manufacturer or toy in the same line has names too similar for their comfort. In addition big companies are much more protective and possessive over their exclusive rights to use names now than they have been in past - although even in the 80s toys from one Hasbro line [Storm & Frosty in MLP] could find themselves renamed due to a clash with other products [this time in other HB lines].

I think it all comes down to a combination of what Hasbro thought was retainable and unique as well as, after no doubt significant market research, characters worked for their "little girl" market.

[LadyMoondancer]

Whereas we hadnt seen a Surprise or a Firefly since the early 80s.

Actually, Hasbro DOES have the rights to the name Firefly . . . they are continually using it for one of their G.I. Joe characters.  Here is a toy that is in Hasbro Toy Shop right now, this very minute:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I am going with the "cow poo" theory. 

[Taxel]

I think Hasbro just plain lied to Faust or made her agree to say X when asked. They just wanted to keep using the G3 names they used for so long, and probably didn't want to use G1s.

[hathorcat]

Whereas we hadnt seen a Surprise or a Firefly since the early 80s.

Actually, Hasbro DOES have the rights to the name Firefly . . . they are continually using it for one of their G.I. Joe characters.  Here is a toy that is in Hasbro Toy Shop right now, this very minute:
I am going with the "cow poo" theory. 

Yup...and this is the reason I dont think they would suddenly do a pony Firefly as well...are kids going to confuse a pony and a GI Joe...I hope not! But likewise in the 80s they werent going to think Storm [i.e. Thundercloud] was one of the Misfits but his name was still changed. For a company who rely on names as identifiers for multiple items within each line, how confusing if suddenly 2 items from 2 different lines hold the same name. Not completely improbable that it will happen but I guess something they prefer to avoid.

[StarlightGaze]

As soon as you stop using a TM, you lose the rights to it. Maybe Hasbro has the copyrights but not the TMs. Also, I'm confused what happened to the rights of the cartoon MLP & Friends. It was done by Marvel or something.

[LadyMoondancer]

Whereas we hadnt seen a Surprise or a Firefly since the early 80s.

Actually, Hasbro DOES have the rights to the name Firefly . . . they are continually using it for one of their G.I. Joe characters.  Here is a toy that is in Hasbro Toy Shop right now, this very minute:
I am going with the "cow poo" theory. 

Yup...and this is the reason I dont think they would suddenly do a pony Firefly as well...are kids going to confuse a pony and a GI Joe...I hope not!

Ehhh, I don't think they really worry about that, they've have had "crossover" names before.   Like Beachcomber--hippie Transformer or baby sea pony?  Firefly-the-Joe-villain was around in the 80s too.

The most egregious example, though, is Hasbro's "My Pretty Mermaid" line.  Do these names sound familiar?

Water Lily, Crystal Starr (from Moondreamers), Wavedancer, Sunblossom, Moondancer, Diamond Dreams, Surf Rider, Sweet Sundrop, Beachcomber (AGAIN!!), and more, including . . .

 . . . SEA PONY.  Yes, a mermaid named Sea Pony.  Oh Hasbro.  Oh Haaaasbrooooo.

StarlightGaze, Hasbro currently has the full rights their entire Sunbow catalog of animated features, including MLP & Friends and MLP Tales (and Jem and Transformers, etc).  They bought the whole set for several million dollars.

[hathorcat]

As soon as you stop using a TM, you lose the rights to it. Maybe Hasbro has the copyrights but not the TMs. Also, I'm confused what happened to the rights of the cartoon MLP & Friends. It was done by Marvel or something.

The cartoon was done in association with Marvel not by Marvel - it was a Sunbow Production and the rights for MLP episodes were retained by Hasbro when they bought the Sunbow back catalogue in 2008 before then they had passed through various hands including Sony.

Yes trademark can be lost but it is a complicated area of the law. Trademark registration rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify goods or services. The term of a federal trademark registration is ten years, with renewal each decade. However, around the sixth year after the date of initial registration, an affidavit of use must be filed to keep the registration alive and essentially "extend" the registration for a further decade. It is likely that Hasbro did not decide to pay for the continual trademark of a lot of names - however it is also likely that a lot of the names were not actually registered to begin with and plus there is nothing stopping HB applying for trademark again if they wanted to...after all they register trademarks for new toys on a daily basis is seems.

It seems they could if they wanted to re register so the excuse of "we lost them" is for me just a nice and clean one which has enough potential truth to be almost believable.

Post Merge: July 26, 2012, 05:03:02 PM

@LadyM - I know there have been crossovers I am not saying there never have been and am referring to now rather than the 80s. They had two toys named Diamond Dreams therefore the name was never trademarked - they could not have registered it for use on 2 different toy lines. So all I am saying is that if in the current commercial environment trademark is so important to Hasbro they cant reuse the names Therefore the presence of another toy named "Firefly" prevents the reuse of the name in the MLP line IF they wish them to be trademarked. If they are not bothered about whether the name is registered then they could use it for both of course.

[LadyMoondancer]

Therefore the presence of another toy named "Firefly" prevents the reuse of the name in the MLP line IF they wish them to be trademarked.

I am not so sure.  Technically speaking, aren't two different "versions" of Optimus Prime two different toys in the eyes of the trademark people, just as much as "a pony and a Transformer" are two different toys?

I mean, Hasbro rereleased G1 Starscream in a collector's edition at the same time that they sold a different Starscream from their current cartoon, and they look nothing alike, aside from "they both turn into planes."  (Not even the same type of plane or color of plane.)   My impression is that Hasbro can use any name they have in their "name bank" for any of their toylines.

This would fit in with the way they trademarked names right and left during G3, yet never used many of them.  I don't think any of those names had a pony design attached;  I think Hasbro was trying to "reserve" the names.

[shabbychicdee]

we need to grab one of those hasbro exclusives, give them some truth serum and shine a touch in there eyes and get them to tell us the truth   
i think we are still riding on the shirt tails of the G3 and they can't be bothered bring back some G1 for us, all but TwiSpark are G3 characters even ApJack, or they are being lazy, sorry i should not be so nasty im just a huge G1 and G4 fan and want to see the odd one come into the G4 line of toys

[hathorcat]

Therefore the presence of another toy named "Firefly" prevents the reuse of the name in the MLP line IF they wish them to be trademarked.

I am not so sure.  Technically speaking, aren't two different "versions" of Optimus Prime two different toys in the eyes of the trademark people, just as much as "a pony and a Transformer" are two different toys?

I mean, Hasbro rereleased G1 Starscream in a collector's edition at the same time that they sold a different Starscream from their current cartoon, and they look nothing alike, aside from "they both turn into planes."  (Not even the same type of plane or color of plane.)   My impression is that Hasbro can use any name they have in their "name bank" for any of their toylines.

This would fit in with the way they trademarked names right and left during G3, yet never used many of them.  I don't think any of those names had a pony design attached;  I think Hasbro was trying to "reserve" the names.

Its the "name" allocated to a good or service that is the important part and the designation of that name...

For example Pinkie Pies trademark designation is simply "toy ponies and accessories for use therewith"

For example Optimus Prime's trademark designation is simply "Toy Robot Convertible into a Miniature Vehicle"

Its wide enough that they can do pretty much anything within the line but limited that the name isnt transferable across different lines. Does that make sense?