What is the best Arthurian show?

[Duggy]

Three versions of best:

1. Most fun to watch.
2. Best quality production.
3. Most "faithful" to sources.

Notes:
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...

===
= DUG.
===

[Bert Olton]

Post by Duggy
1. Most fun to watch.
2. Best quality production.
3. Most "faithful" to sources.
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...
===
= DUG.
===

Before trying to come up with an answer, or answers, I've got to present
two caveats.

First, I have not kept up with film or television Arthuriana for more
than 10 years. Thus, my answers are going to be kind of dated.

Second, I'd ask if you mean by "show" a series or a single film? Of
course, you might also mean a play...Not trying to be a nit picking pain
in the neck, but there are so many...

Well, on second thought, I guess that is kind of nit picking and stupid.
Who cares, right? So here goes from my ancient perspective:

In category 1. "Most fun to watch", I'd vote for four titles:

the short lived series "Crusade", ditto "King Arthur the Young War
Lord", then the movie "The Natural" and also the movie, "Knightriders",
and more recently (yeah, here's a fifth title), the movie "The Mighty".
Ah, but how can one eliminate Boorman's "Excalibur" from "Fun to
watch", even if only for ragging on it? Or "The Fisher King"? Or,
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?...it goes on and on...


In category 2, "Best quality production", I'm going to bow out on any
input here. Too much of a "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
thing for me to be even remotely definitive about it...


In category 3, "Most "faithful" to sources", wow, again, a lot to
consider, but off the top of my head:

Rohmer's "Perceval le Gallois", Bresson's "Lancelot du Lac",...this list
too goes on and on...

It would almost be easier to enumerate abysmal versions...or perhaps
better yet, just for me to shut up.


Best regards,
Bert

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bert Olton
the short lived series "Crusade",

You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience
of droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

[Bert Olton]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Bert Olton
the short lived series "Crusade",

You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience of
droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

lol...wouldn't have gone that far in castigating anyone, but yup, that
was the one.

Bert

[caspar milquetoast]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Bert Olton
the short lived series "Crusade",

You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience of
droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

Also known as 'Americans'?

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Bert Olton
the short lived series "Crusade",

You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience
of droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

Really? I thought it was massively dumbed down from B5.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Bert Olton
the short lived series "Crusade",

You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience
of droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

Really? I thought it was massively dumbed down from B5.

In some ways, it was, by the direct instruction of TNT executives, who
wanted to kill the show without themselves breaking the contract,
deciding instead to incite Joe Straczynski to kill it with a string of
unreasonable demands. (It all came out several years later.)

But, in a sense, it is pointless to judge the show from the existing
episodes; the first arc episode was never even shot. (The plague was
never the real arc; it was a dummy improvised on the spur of the moment
to satisfy an executive who wanted an easy-to-remember slugline. Had
the show continued, the plague would have been wrapped up about the
middle of the second year.)

The real show that Joe planned is the reason that "Crusade" turned up
in this thread in the first place. It was to be about the process of
creating a new culture. Sheridan and Delenn were Arthur and Guinevere
(more White's version than otherwise), and the crew of the IAS
Excalibur were some of the new Round Table's top knights. The cast of
"Babylon 5" was deliberately scattered in the last few episodes of the
series so that they would be available as guest stars. (There was even
one episode written, but never filmed, involving Bester.)

[Duggy]

Post by Bert Olton

1.  Most fun to watch.
2.  Best quality production.
3.  Most "faithful" to sources.
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...
===
= DUG.
===

Before trying to come up with an answer, or answers, I've got to present
two caveats.
First, I have not kept up with film or television Arthuriana for more
than 10 years.  Thus, my answers are going to be kind of dated.
Second, I'd ask if you mean by "show" a series or a single film?  Of
course, you might also mean a play...Not trying to be a nit picking pain
in the neck, but there are so many...
Well, on second thought, I guess that is kind of nit picking and stupid.
the short lived series "Crusade",

The Babylon 5 spin-off? Surely there was more Arthur in B5 than
Crusade... or does just calling the ship Excaliber count?

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Duggy

Post by Bert Olton

1.  Most fun to watch.
2.  Best quality production.
3.  Most "faithful" to sources.
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...
==> > = DUG.
==>

Before trying to come up with an answer, or answers, I've got to present
two caveats.
First, I have not kept up with film or television Arthuriana for more
than 10 years.  Thus, my answers are going to be kind of dated.
Second, I'd ask if you mean by "show" a series or a single film?  Of
course, you might also mean a play...Not trying to be a nit picking pain
in the neck, but there are so many...
Well, on second thought, I guess that is kind of nit picking and stupid.
the short lived series "Crusade",

The Babylon 5 spin-off? Surely there was more Arthur in B5 than
Crusade... or does just calling the ship Excaliber count?

As I just said elsewhere on the thread, if the show had not been
aborted by toad-sucking rednecks before even the first episode aired,
it would have become very much a story in the tradition of White's
Arthur, about the building up of a new civilization.

[Duggy]

Post by Bert Olton
Or,
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?...it goes on and on...

Good call.

===
= DUG.
===

[Steve Newport]

Lerner and Loewe's CAMELOT

**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Newport
Lerner and Loewe's CAMELOT

Purcell and Dryden's "King Arthur".

And (although it is on the frontier of Logres) Wagner's "Tristan und Isolde".

And Rodgers and Hart made a contribution, as I recall.

[caspar milquetoast]

Post by Duggy
1. Most fun to watch.
2. Best quality production.
3. Most "faithful" to sources.
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...
===
= DUG.
===

For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
fictional character) than any of the others.

Anyone else remember that?

[Bert Olton]

Post by caspar milquetoast
For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
fictional character) than any of the others.
Anyone else remember that?

Absolutely. That's the one I cited in my initial answer to Duggy as
"King Arthur the Young War Lord" (the title it appears as in the U. S.).
It was excellent.

Bert

[Duggy]

Absolutely.  That's the one I cited in my initial answer to Duggy as
"King Arthur the Young War Lord" (the title it appears as in the U. S.).
  It was excellent.

Dated?

===
= DUG.
===

[Bert Olton]

Post by Duggy
Dated?
===
= DUG.
===

1975. Oliver Tobias as Arthur, Jack Watson as Llud, Michael Gothard as
Kai, Brian Blessed as Mark of Cornwall, Peter Firth as Corin, Gila as
Rowena, Rupert Davies as Cerdic, George Marischka as Yorath...and so on.

Here's a question for you. Why is Rowena the daughter of a Jute in this
tv series, instead of the daughter of a Saxon as Geoffrey had it?

Or, better yet, why did the writers Stewart and Feely choose Llud
instead of Ector as Arthur's foster father? And why change his name
from the more original Lludd? Yup, he retains the silver arm/hand in
the show, but is he still the leader of the Danaans? Is he from Cymric
legend, or Gaelic? Or is this Nudd, or Nuada?

That the show raised such questions made it of value.

Bert

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
Dated?

1975.

Sorry, I meant "is it dated?"

Here's a question for you.  Why is Rowena the daughter of a Jute in this
tv series, instead of the daughter of a Saxon as Geoffrey had it?
Or, better yet, why did the writers Stewart and Feely choose Llud
instead of Ector as Arthur's foster father?  And why change his name
from the more original Lludd?  Yup, he retains the silver arm/hand in
the show, but is he still the leader of the Danaans?   Is he from Cymric
legend, or Gaelic?  Or is this Nudd, or Nuada?
That the show raised such questions made it of value.

Why are any such changes made? The big things (although annoying)
sometimes make more sense than the little.

===
= DUG.
===

[caspar milquetoast]

Post by Duggy
Dated?
===
= DUG.
===

1975. Oliver Tobias as Arthur, Jack Watson as Llud, Michael Gothard as
Kai, Brian Blessed as Mark of Cornwall, Peter Firth as Corin, Gila as
Rowena, Rupert Davies as Cerdic, George Marischka as Yorath...and so on.

Brian Blessed! I forgot about him. Brilliant as Augustus in 'I
Claudius', and as King Richard IV in 'Blackadder I'.

[Duggy]

Post by caspar milquetoast
For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
fictional character) than any of the others.
Anyone else remember that?

Only from a quiz question on the James Bond newsgroup.

===
= DUG.
===

[Dry Gulch Pete]

Post by Duggy

Post by caspar milquetoast
For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
fictional character) than any of the others.
Anyone else remember that?

Only from a quiz question on the James Bond newsgroup.

'Arthur of the Britons' rocks!
Oliver Tobias as Arfur, Michael Gothard as Lud or was it Nosmo King's
son, Hubert?

HTV West circa 1976 - I remember it well and I'm only 26! :-D

The two best Arthurs were that and 'The Adventures of Sir
Lancelot' (1956) starring William Russell as Lance and Bruce Seton/
Ronald Leigh-Hunt as Art!

--
DGP

[Mason Barge]

For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

[caspar milquetoast]

Post by Mason Barge
For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
romance. But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:29:24 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Post by caspar milquetoast

Post by Mason Barge
For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
romance. But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.

Yeah, Merlin was a bit cutesy. OTOH, the scene where Uther impregnates
Igrayne (sp?) might well be the hottest sex scene ever put on film.

[Duggy]

Post by Mason Barge
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:29:24 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Post by caspar milquetoast

Post by Mason Barge
For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
romance. But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.

Yeah, Merlin was a bit cutesy.

I wouldn't say cutesy. Hammy a little, but with a sinister edge you
don't see enough in the character.

Post by Mason Barge
 OTOH, the scene where Uther impregnates
Igrayne (sp?) might well be the hottest sex scene ever put on film.

Well, when you're directing a sex scene with your own daughter in it
it's always going to be hot.

===
= DUG.
===

[tomcervo]

[Duggy]

Post by caspar milquetoast

Post by Mason Barge
For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
romance.

Fair call.

Post by caspar milquetoast
But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.

I thought that was an advantage.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Mason Barge
For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

I enjoyed it.

===
= DUG.
===

[Michael Black]

Post by Duggy
1. Most fun to watch.
2. Best quality production.
3. Most "faithful" to sources.

Not a tv series, but I always liked the movie "Knightriders", where a
traveling troupe re-enacts the days of the round table, using motorcycles
as horses.

Oddly enough, a few weeks later, "Excalibur" came out, which I liked too,
though it was really the first time I saw the legend in a movie.

"Sword in the Stone" is pretty good too, in a different sort of cartoonish
way.

Michael

Post by Duggy
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...
===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Series:  Merlin (are there any others?)

More than one. More than one under that name.

If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
tops any of the categories.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)

More than one. More than one under that name.
If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
tops any of the categories.

The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
Adventures of Merlin".

[Don Bruder]

In article

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)

More than one. More than one under that name.
If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
tops any of the categories.

The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
Adventures of Merlin".

As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

[Duggy]

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

===
= DUG.
===

[Harold Groot]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.

"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)

aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

[Duggy]

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

The website of the Australian broadcaster:

http://ten.com.au/merlin.htm

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Interesting. I'm in Australian and hadn't seen that title.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.

There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.
There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.
There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
of a TV series.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy
You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
of a TV series.

Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy
You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
of a TV series.

Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
comic books. Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel", but is not allowed to
use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their
customary substitute is "Shazam!".

I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered. I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem
possible.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Duggy
Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
comic books.

No, it's not. Comic book titles aren't trademarked they're register
with the post master or something silly. That's why older comics
changed names or picked up old comic numbering... to continue on a
different name.

Post by John W Kennedy
Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel",

Not lenghty. They purchased the rights when Fawcett when under.

Post by John W Kennedy
but is not allowed to
use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their
customary substitute is "Shazam!".

But not because of Trademark. If the name was trademarked they could
call a character Captain Marvel at all.

Post by John W Kennedy
I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered.

Since it has been called "Merlin" in most markets and especially since
it seems to have been called "The Adventures of Merlin" only in
markets where it was already called "Merlin" it is highly dubious.

Post by John W Kennedy
I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem
possible.

You don't seem to know much.

Generic book, movie and film titles are reused often. And "Merlin" is
a very generic title.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Duggy
Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
comic books.

No, it's not. Comic book titles aren't trademarked they're register
with the post master or something silly. That's why older comics
changed names or picked up old comic numbering... to continue on a
different name.

It is true that Post-Office registration was a reason that new titles
were frequently, by a legal fiction, continuations of other titles, but
a moment's thought shows that that argues /against/ your point, not for
it. In any case, the strategem is no longer in use.

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy
Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel",

Not lenghty. They purchased the rights when Fawcett when under.

No. It is possible that when DC bought the rights to the Marvel Family
in 1991 it had something to do with the leveraged buyout of Fawcett in
1988, but DC had bought the rights to Captain Marvel, himself, in 1972,
and the entire affair had started all the way back in the 1940s when DC
sued Fawcett with the claim that Captain Marvel infringed on Superman.
Fawcett shut down its comics operation in the 50s, and agreed to settle
the case with DC, but it was another generation before someone had the
bright idea to solve the problem by having DC buy Cap from Fawcett.

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy
but is not allowed to
use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their
customary substitute is "Shazam!".

But not because of Trademark. If the name was trademarked they could
call a character Captain Marvel at all.

Arguing in a circle.

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy
I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered.

Since it has been called "Merlin" in most markets and especially since
it seems to have been called "The Adventures of Merlin" only in
markets where it was already called "Merlin" it is highly dubious.

That makes no sense at all.

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy
I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem
possible.

You don't seem to know much.

Are you an IP lawyer? Are you privy to the contracts involved? Do you
know why the show, whether or not it is listed as "Merlin" in
programming guides, actually says "The Adventures of Merlin" in the
credits?

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Duggy
Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
comic books.

No, it's not.  Comic book titles aren't trademarked they're register
with the post master or something silly.  That's why older comics
changed names or picked up old comic numbering... to continue on a
different name.

It is true that Post-Office registration was a reason that new titles
were frequently, by a legal fiction, continuations of other titles, but
a moment's thought shows that that argues /against/ your point, not for
it. In any case, the strategem is no longer in use.

No, because you could not register a second title.

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy
Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel",

Not lenghty.  They purchased the rights when Fawcett when under.

No. It is possible that when DC bought the rights to the Marvel Family
in 1991 it had something to do with the leveraged buyout of Fawcett in
1988, but DC had bought the rights to Captain Marvel, himself, in 1972,
and the entire affair had started all the way back in the 1940s when DC
sued Fawcett with the claim that Captain Marvel infringed on Superman.
Fawcett shut down its comics operation in the 50s, and agreed to settle
the case with DC, but it was another generation before someone had the
bright idea to solve the problem by having DC buy Cap from Fawcett.

In the 70s they licensed CM, not purchased.

All the extra information is meaningless to the fact that DC bought
the rights.

DC brought the rights to Charlton characters without all the extra
goings on.

Post by John W Kennedy

But not because of Trademark.  If the name was trademarked they could
call a character Captain Marvel at all.

Arguing in a circle.

No. If the name "Captain Marvel" was trademarked, then they could not
use the name inside the comic. "Batman" is trademarked, Marvel can't
use the name. Captain Marvel isn't.

The comic titles are a different issue.

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy
I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered.

Since it has been called "Merlin" in most markets and especially since
it seems to have been called "The Adventures of Merlin" only in
markets where it was already called "Merlin" it is highly dubious.

That makes no sense at all.

Exactly.

In Australia Ten broadcasts it as "Merlin", the DVD is issued as "The
Adventures of Merlin". Someone noted on FTA in the US it was called
"Merlin" on cable it was called "The Adventures of Merlin." Copyright
is not the issue.

Post by John W Kennedy
Are you an IP lawyer? Are you privy to the contracts involved? Do you
know why the show, whether or not it is listed as "Merlin" in
programming guides, actually says "The Adventures of Merlin" in the
credits?

No. No. Yes.

The words "The Adventures of" do not appear in the opening credits:

Please pay attention. The versions with the name change add those
word.

===
= DUG.
===

[caspar milquetoast]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy
You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
of a TV series.

Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
comic books. Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel", but is not allowed to use
the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their customary
substitute is "Shazam!".
I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered. I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem possible.

Surely Captain Marvel is a distinct and invented name of contemporary
fiction, and therefore some kind of legal control could be exercised
over it. The name Merlin however, is an ancient and culturally common
name used in many sources and is not anyone's to own.

[Duggy]

Post by caspar milquetoast

Post by John W Kennedy
I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered. I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem possible.

Surely Captain Marvel is a distinct and invented name of contemporary
fiction, and therefore some kind of legal control could be exercised
over it.

It could, but it wasn't. Or Marvel did and the previous version made
enforcing that untenable.

Post by caspar milquetoast
The name Merlin however, is an ancient and culturally common
name used in many sources and is not anyone's to own.

True.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still play=

ing

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a conditi=

on

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.
There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still play=

ing

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a conditi=

on

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.
There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Maybe, maybe not.

The computer company "Apple" no doubt has their name protected through
every legal process and in every country, but there are still many other
companies using "Apple" in their name (there's an appliance reapir
company just along the road from me called "Apple Appliances", plus of
course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
plus of
course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

Ummm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Apple Corp could only sue Apple once they got into music because Apple
Corp had TMs for music.

Trademarks are for different uses not just generally.

If you could trademark a title (and most proof is you can't) then
"Adventures of Merlin" would be in the same usage area as "Merlin".

Post by Your Name
Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator).

And some words are protected out of the box.

Post by Your Name
There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how this
might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any
tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. ;-)

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how this
might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any
tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too.  ;-)

Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how this
might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any
tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. ;-)

Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.

There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitarium
company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal
called "Weetbix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all
of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
cereal called "Weetabix". :-\

There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
single store, possibly the same importer.

Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the
Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weetbix / Weetabix one too.

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how this
might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any
tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too.  ;-)

Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.

There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitarium
company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal
called "Weetbix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all
of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
cereal called "Weetabix".  :-\
There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
single store, possibly the same importer.
Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the
Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weetbix / Weetabix one too.

I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
Marmite in the story. Silly stuff.

Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

===
= DUG.
====

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how t=

his

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for =

any

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. =A0;-)

Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.

There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitariu=

m

Post by Your Name
company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal
called "Weet-bix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all
of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
cereal called "Weetabix". :-\
There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
single store, possibly the same importer.
Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the
Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weet-bix / Weetabix one too.

I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
Marmite in the story. Silly stuff.

"Silly"?!? If you mean the product, then that's being polite - Marmite and
Vegemite both taste like I imagine horse manure would, and smell like it
too. :-(

Both stories are just Santiarium throwing their weight around as a big
company. They claim having towo similar / same name products would confuse
buyers ... but that's ridiculous since the Britsh product is sold only in
a few specifically "British food" shops.

Post by Duggy
Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now trying
to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ... largely
because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to screw more
money out of Apple.

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
Marmite in the story.  Silly stuff.

"Silly"?!? If you mean the product,

No, the suings.

Post by Your Name
then that's being polite - Marmite and
Vegemite both taste like I imagine horse manure would, and smell like it
too.  :-(

I'm not a fan of it myself.

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy
Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now trying
to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ... largely
because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to screw more
money out of Apple.

That's Apple's version.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now
trying to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ...
largely because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to
screw more money out of Apple.

That's Apple's version.

Given the Chinese company's money problems and the strange legal workings
in China, I'd easily believe Apple.

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
Given the Chinese company's money problems and the strange legal workings
in China, I'd easily believe Apple.

This started before the money problems.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how t=

his

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for =

any

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy

tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. =A0;-)

Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.

There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitariu=

m

Post by Your Name
company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal
called "Weet-bix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all
of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
cereal called "Weetabix". :-\
There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
single store, possibly the same importer.
Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the
Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weet-bix / Weetabix one too.

I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
Marmite in the story. Silly stuff.

"Silly"?!? If you mean the product, then that's being polite - Marmite and
Vegemite both taste like I imagine horse manure would, and smell like it
too. :-(

Both stories are just Santiarium throwing their weight around as a big
company. They claim having two similar / same name products would confuse
buyers ... but that's ridiculous since the Britsh product is sold only in
a few specifically "British food" shops.

Post by Duggy
Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now trying
to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ... largely
because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to screw more
money out of Apple.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Maybe, maybe not.
The computer company "Apple" no doubt has their name protected through
every legal process and in every country, but there are still many other
companies using "Apple" in their name (there's an appliance reapir
company just along the road from me called "Apple Appliances", plus of
course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

Which, in fact, led to considerable legal squabbling when Apple (via
iTunes) went into the music business.

Post by Your Name
Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

"Hoover" has only lost its trademark status in the UK, and "aspirin"
was lost as part of WW1 reparations. But, yes, it is a danger, which is
why certain companies, such as Xerox, Coca-Cola, and Kimberly Clark
(makers of Kleenex) have legal staffs dedicated to watching for and
correcting generic usages.

[Dragon Lady]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Maybe, maybe not.
The computer company "Apple" no doubt has their name protected through
every legal process and in every country, but there are still many other
companies using "Apple" in their name (there's an appliance reapir
company just along the road from me called "Apple Appliances", plus of
course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Post by Your Name
Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

Kleenix is the common example. They did too good a job of marketing the
name, and it became common usage for any tissue used to clear the sinuses.

[Duggy]

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
this logo breaching their trademark:

Loading Image...

===
= DUG.
===

[Dragon Lady]

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Right. Because their customers are so stupid, they'll mistake a company
selling food for one selling computers.

Do you think they realize how stupid it makes them look?

[Your Name]

Post by Dragon Lady

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Right. Because their customers are so stupid, they'll mistake a company
selling food for one selling computers.
Do you think they realize how stupid it makes them look?

Technically Woolworths was originally a supermarket / grocery store which
is meant to sell food ... unfortunately like many greedy businesses
they've also moved to sell some magazines, books, DVDs, toys, stationery,
small electric appliances, mobile phones, etc.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Your Name

Post by Dragon Lady

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Right. Because their customers are so stupid, they'll mistake a company
selling food for one selling computers.
Do you think they realize how stupid it makes them look?

Technically Woolworths was originally a supermarket / grocery store which
is meant to sell food ... unfortunately like many greedy businesses
they've also moved to sell some magazines, books, DVDs, toys, stationery,
small electric appliances, mobile phones, etc.

Lest non-Australians be confused here, Australian Woolworths is a
supermarket/grocery store chain that copied its name from the American
(and elsewhere) F. W. Woolworth department-store chain.

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Right.  Because their customers are so stupid, they'll mistake a company
selling food for one selling computers.
Do you think they realize how stupid it makes them look?

It's Apple, their users do that for them.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

Whether or not that is true, that has no bearing on trademarks today.

Post by Duggy
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

More specifically in relation to computer things. When Apple entered
the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
trademarked "Apple" in relation to music. A settlement was reached, and
the computer company paid money.

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

Whether or not that is true, that has no bearing on trademarks today.

Post by Duggy
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

More specifically in relation to computer things. When Apple entered
the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
trademarked "Apple" in relation to music. A settlement was reached, and
the computer company paid money.

Oh, they knew about Apple (Beatles). They had been through it before,
long ago, when it was resolved by declaring that Apple wouldn't sell
music and the Beatles wouldn't sell computers.

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

I suspect this is one of those trademark suits where Apple will be just
as happy if they lose, provided that the loss is on the grounds that
the two logos aren't similar enough; it satisfies their burden of
defense.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy
I suspect this is one of those trademark suits where Apple will be just
as happy if they lose, provided that the loss is on the grounds that
the two logos aren't similar enough; it satisfies their burden of
defense.

I think it's a long-term thing.

Woolworths, is a grocery chain, are using the shown "fresh food"
logo. It (and it's major rival) are doing 2 things at the moment:
Filling shelves with cheaper goods with the store name on it to
control and expanding by buying/establishing other chain stores
(record shops, hardware places, etc).

Apple is afraid if these 2 thing collide they that logo will be on
Woolworth Electronic Goods.

Or so they claimed.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

Post by John W Kennedy
Oh, they knew about Apple (Beatles). They had been through it before,
long ago, when it was resolved by declaring that Apple wouldn't sell
music and the Beatles wouldn't sell computers.

Right, and that changed when Apple started selling music.

[Duggy]

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by John W Kennedy
Oh, they knew about Apple (Beatles). They had been through it before,
long ago, when it was resolved by declaring that Apple wouldn't sell
music and the Beatles wouldn't sell computers.

Right, and that changed when Apple started selling music.

So you're changing your story?

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

The Woolworths logo isn't even remotely the same as the Apple logo, but
apparently the lawyers think people will get confused. More likely the
greedy lawyers couldn't think of anything better to do that week to "earn"
they over-bloated pay packets. :-\

The exact same Woolworths logo is being used in New Zealand for the
Countdown supermarkets. The company which owns the New Zealand supermart
chains Countdown, Foodtown and Woolworths, is now re-branding all the
stores as Countdown ... but I don't think they have any connection to the
Australian Woolworths.

On the other side of the coin, all the Shell petrol stations in New
Zealand were bought by another company which doesn't want to pay to
continue using the international logo and name, so they are re-branding
the petrol stations as "Z".

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine.  If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue.  What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

The Woolworths logo isn't even remotely the same as the Apple logo, but
apparently the lawyers think people will get confused. More likely the
greedy lawyers couldn't think of anything better to do that week to "earn"
they over-bloated pay packets.  :-\

Agreed. I think that Phillip is blind. Or stupid. Or both.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Your Name

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

The Woolworths logo isn't even remotely the same as the Apple logo, but
apparently the lawyers think people will get confused.

/Or/ they think that some third party might be able to make a case that
people could be easily be confused and that Apple didn't respond.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy
/Or/ they think that some third party might be able to make a case that
people could be easily be confused and that Apple didn't respond.

It will also be a very public warning for people to stay away from
things that look like their logo.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article

Post by Duggy
Agreed. I think that Phillip is blind. Or stupid. Or both.

Should I publish my street address and a description so that you can
send the people over to kill me? Might as well get it over with.

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Agreed.  I think that Phillip is blind.  Or stupid.  Or both.

Should I publish my street address and a description so that you can
send the people over to kill me?  Might as well get it over with.

You could just do it yourself.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

Whether or not that is true,

It is. I did Old English at university.

Post by Your Name
that has no bearing on trademarks today.

Agreed.

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

More specifically in relation to computer things.

A lot of companies will try to trademark it in as many things as
possible.

Post by Your Name
 When Apple entered
the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
trademarked "Apple" in relation to music.

No, they already knew. There was already an agreement between Apple
Corp and Apple Inc.

Post by Your Name

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine.  If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue.

That's not Apple's logo. That's a "W" (for "Woolworths" shaped like
an apple, but without the bite.)

Post by Your Name
 What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

Please go on stating the already agreed upon facts.

===
= DUG.
===

[Dragon Lady]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

Whether or not that is true, that has no bearing on trademarks today.

Post by Duggy
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

More specifically in relation to computer things. When Apple entered
the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
trademarked "Apple" in relation to music. A settlement was reached, and
the computer company paid money.

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

That might make sense if the logo actually looked like Apple's logo, which,
if I'm not mistaken. looks like an apple with a bite taken out of it. This
thing doesn't look anything like that.

[Your Name]

Post by Dragon Lady

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

Whether or not that is true, that has no bearing on trademarks today.

Post by Duggy
They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

More specifically in relation to computer things. When Apple entered
the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
trademarked "Apple" in relation to music. A settlement was reached, and
the computer company paid money.

Post by Duggy
Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

That might make sense if the logo actually looked like Apple's logo, which,
if I'm not mistaken. looks like an apple with a bite taken out of it. This
thing doesn't look anything like that.

The Woolworths logo looks like an apple peel curled back up to vaguely
resemble an apple (or more precisely a letter "W"). :-)

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Basically, you can trademark it as long as it does not refer to an
actual apple. In that case, your objection applies. But someone
INVENTED the idea of Apple Records, or Apple Computer, so in that case
it is trademarkable.

Post by Dragon Lady

Post by Your Name
Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

Kleenix is the common example. They did too good a job of marketing the
name, and it became common usage for any tissue used to clear the sinuses.

Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

[Don Bruder]

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Basically, you can trademark it as long as it does not refer to an
actual apple. In that case, your objection applies. But someone
INVENTED the idea of Apple Records, or Apple Computer, so in that case
it is trademarkable.

Post by Dragon Lady

Post by Your Name
Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

Kleenix is the common example. They did too good a job of marketing the
name, and it became common usage for any tissue used to clear the sinuses.

Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

A company has to walk a fine line between protecting its trademarks and
being perceived as too draconic to do business with. If they aren't
vigorous enough in their enforcement efforts, the courts will tell them
they're out of luck, and they'll lose the trademark. If they're too
vigorous, they'll alienate the customers that make the trademark worth
having. At least one court ruling has said that NOT being so draconic
you drive customers away is proof that you're not enforcing your
trademark rights vigorously enough.

[Your Name]

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by Dragon Lady
I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

Basically, you can trademark it as long as it does not refer to an
actual apple. In that case, your objection applies. But someone
INVENTED the idea of Apple Records, or Apple Computer, so in that case
it is trademarkable.

Post by Dragon Lady

Post by Your Name
Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common
place in the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator).
There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how
this might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name
for any tablet device.

Kleenix is the common example. They did too good a job of marketing the
name, and it became common usage for any tissue used to clear the sinuses.

Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.
A company has to walk a fine line between protecting its trademarks and
being perceived as too draconic to do business with. If they aren't
vigorous enough in their enforcement efforts, the courts will tell them
they're out of luck, and they'll lose the trademark. If they're too
vigorous, they'll alienate the customers that make the trademark worth
having. At least one court ruling has said that NOT being so draconic
you drive customers away is proof that you're not enforcing your
trademark rights vigorously enough.

This is the recent Associated Press article about how the iPad may become
a generic name for all tablets:
<http://www.theeagle.com/nation/Will-iPads-go-the-way-of-aspirin-and-Kleenex---7087012>
One of many links around the Internet to the same basic news item.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term? That's what
we're talking about. Other companies can't use it as a generic term.
OK, if they did, and the owner didn't complain, then maybe that could
lead to loss of legal protection, but that is not what one generally
means by "becoming a generic term". As far as I know, no other company
calls their tissues "Kleenex" but nevertheless it is still a generic
term and, as far as I know, still a trademark.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.

And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please?  How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.
And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#section-4

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by Don Bruder
Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.
And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

Yes, but what about just "people on the street" using it as a generic
term, which is what the discussion was about before people started
saying I was blind and stupid.

[Duggy]

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Don Bruder
Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please?  How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.
And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

Yes, but what about just "people on the street" using it as a generic
term, which is what the discussion was about before people started
saying I was blind and stupid.

No, just me, and because you thought the Woolworths logo looked like
the Apple logo.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Don Bruder
Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please? =A0How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.
And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

Yes, but what about just "people on the street" using it as a generic
term, which is what the discussion was about before people started
saying I was blind and stupid.

No, just me, and because you thought the Woolworths logo looked like
the Apple logo.

Actually, if you read my posts, you will see that I NEVER SAID ANYTHING
ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT THE WOOLWORTH LOGO LOOKS LIKE. If I did, provide a
reference. Put up or shut up. You have already suggested I kill
myself. Don't you have anything better to do than troll on usenet. Get
a life!

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy
No, just me, and because you thought the Woolworths logo looked like
the Apple logo.

Actually, if you read my posts, you will see that I NEVER SAID ANYTHING
ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT THE WOOLWORTH LOGO LOOKS LIKE.  If I did, provide a
reference.  Put up or shut up.  You have already suggested I kill
myself.  Don't you have anything better to do than troll on usenet.  Get
a life!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.legend.king-arthur/msg/b2f5457288b2f325

"If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not authorized by
Apple, then of course Apple can sue."

It's clearly not the Apple log. If you think it looks like it is,
you're blind or stupid or both.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article

Post by Duggy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.legend.king-arthur/msg/b2f5457288b2f325
"If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not authorized by
Apple, then of course Apple can sue."
It's clearly not the Apple log. If you think it looks like it is,
you're blind or stupid or both.

Did I say anything about what the logo looks like? No. I said IF...
THEN.... This was a general comment. If I had seen it (I haven't) and
if I thought it was the same then I would have said SINCE they are
using....

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.legend.king-arthur/msg/b2f5457288b...
"If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not authorized by
Apple, then of course Apple can sue."
It's clearly not the Apple log.  If you think it looks like it is,
you're blind or stupid or both.

Did I say anything about what the logo looks like?  No.  I said IF...
THEN....  This was a general comment.  If I had seen it (I haven't) and
if I thought it was the same then I would have said SINCE they are
using....

So you commented on the logo without looking at the logo.

So not blind. Just stupid.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

Post by Don Bruder
Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.
And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

Yes, but what about just "people on the street" using it as a generic
term, which is what the discussion was about before people started
saying I was blind and stupid.

What appears in writing, or other forms of permanent record, is about
twelvety-'leven times more important as evidence.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still play> > ing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a conditi> > on
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.
There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Not necessarily, since the /character/ Merlin is public-domain.

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Duggy

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Harold Groot
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

Post by Duggy

Post by Don Bruder
As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still play> > ing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a conditi> > on
of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.
There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Not necessarily, since the /character/ Merlin is public-domain.

Exactly.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Duggy
And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Not necessarily, since the /character/ Merlin is public-domain.

Public Domain is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue.

Most of Tarzan is public domain (out of copyright) but the name is
still trademarked. You can republish ERB's "Tarzan of the Apes" but
you can't put "Tarzan" on the cover.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Your Name
In article

Post by Duggy

Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)

More than one. More than one under that name.
If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
tops any of the categories.

The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
Adventures of Merlin".

As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

Of course, being a British show, the British title is the correct one, but
even there the title seems to change depending on where you look and what
season it is ... maybe "The Adventures of Merlin" was too long for TV
listings (especially on-screen listings).

[Duggy]

I believe the UK title is Merlin. There was no copyright issue in America,
just some Syfy channel programming executive who insisted on adding
The Adventures Of to the title card. In guide listings it's just Merlin.

Like so much that goes on when it comes to TV programming, some idiot's
whim would be just as likely a suspect as copyright/IP issues, I
imagine. I can't remember where I read it, but something is tickling in
the back of my head that there actually WAS a reason (however lame it
might have been...) for the title change, and the "tickle" gets even
stronger when I think the reason had to do with copyright/IP/trademark
issues.

As NBC studios had a hand in the 1998 miniseries "Merlin," I can see
them particularly not wanting folk looking for_it_ to grab a 2008 BBC
production by mistake.

I suspect we're talking about two different shows.
The one absolutely certain detail I can remember that should distinguish
the one I'm thinking of from any others that could be getting "talk
time" in this thread was the CGI dragon, voiced by John Hurt. Most of
the rest of it is kinda hazy - I mostly saw it while doped up on
heavy-duty painkillers whilst recovering from the six broken ribs and
assorted bruised and contused innards that a somewhat less than
cooperative horse had bestowed upon me. Since that particular "life
milepost" was roughly 3-4 years ago, the miniseries you speak of is
definitely out of play as a possibility.

You're talking about the current series "Merlin" (2008) also known as
"The Adventures of Merlin" (it appears)

There was a 1998 mini-series also called "Merlin".

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Like so much that goes on when it comes to TV programming, some idiot's
whim would be just as likely a suspect as copyright/IP issues, I
imagine. I can't remember where I read it, but something is tickling in
the back of my head that there actually WAS a reason (however lame it
might have been...) for the title change, and the "tickle" gets even
stronger when I think the reason had to do with copyright/IP/trademark
issues.

But titles cannot be copyrighted. How do you trademark a character you
didn't even create?

Don't ask me. I'm just stating what I recall reading.

Where did you read it?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Your Name
In article

Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)

More than one.  More than one under that name.
If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
tops any of the categories.

The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
Adventures of Merlin".

I've never seen it with that title.

===
= DUG.
===

[Remysun]

1.  Most fun to watch.
2.  Best quality production.
3.  Most "faithful" to sources.

The PBS Kids version from Marc Brown.