Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Disney Qualified for Design Patent for Marvel's Captain America Shield
Fans of movies about fictional superheroes are probably familiar with Captain America and his miraculous shield. Recently, however, his shield showed up in a most unlikely place: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Captain America first appeared as a comic book character in 1940, and has since been valuable intellectual property of Marvel Comics, an operating unit of Marvel Entertainment. The Walt Disney Co. acquired Marvel Entertainment in 2009 for $4 billion. Like many entertainment content icons, Captain America's shield is also a valuable piece of intellectual property, and Disney is taking proper steps to protect it.
Intellectual properties are most often protected as patents, copyrights and trademarks. To protect the design of Captain America's shield, Disney chose to use design patent protection. U.S. Design Patent D819,750, appropriately named SHIELD, was recently granted and will run for the usual term of a design patent: 15 years. The patent includes drawings of the shield from multiple angles. As required by U.S. patent law, views are included to completely disclose the shield's appearance (front, rear, left, right, top, bottom). Perspective drawings, while not required, were also included to show the appearance and shape of the three-dimensional aspects of the design.
Why a Design Patent?
Design patents protect “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture,” 35 U.S.C. §171, in contrast to a utility patent that protects “any useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter,” 35 U.S.C. §101 (e.g., think mouse traps). Because the value of Captain America's shield lies in its appearance, Disney chose to apply for a design patent on a newly designed shield for Captain America.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?