×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disney Seeks Trademark On 'Seal Team 6'

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the too-soon? dept.

The Military 254

The Grim Reefer2 writes "MediaBistro has learned that the Walt Disney Company has applied for a trademark on the phrase 'Seal Team 6,' the name of the special forces unit that killed the world's most wanted man. Disney now owns the exclusive rights to put Seal Team 6 on 'clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and entertainment and education services.' Disney made the move only two days after bin Laden's death was announced." According to a report in the Orlando Sentinel, "this is not the first time a company has trademarked SEAL Team 6. Previous owner NovaLogic, Inc., abandoned two associated trademarks in 2006. Those trademarks focused on computer and video gaming."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

254 comments

Not the real name (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128834)

The Navy's team is Seal Team Six.

But Disney had better not piss off its founder and namer Richard "Demo Dick" Marcinko, that's one bad ass mutherfucker

Re:Not the real name (4, Insightful)

rhook (943951) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129164)

The team should take that from Disney, this is just beyond insulting and disgraceful. Disney should be ashamed of themselves for profiting off of the actions of our elite special forces.

Re:Not the real name (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129220)

Exactly. All the technicalities, renamings, and classification levels aside Disney is legal whoring for fame and market share on the backs of folks who put their lives at risk. While technically and legally this may be ok, morally it's travesty and one only hopes that the word gets out and Disney gets some immediate boycott action for this one due to their timing and desire to profit off of the heroism some and deaths of others. That said assuming it doesn't, if they're smart they'll wait until any immediate press dies down and release something under the trademark in a few years when they benefit from the collective memory of the event without the immediacy of their whoring being apparent. Did I mention they were effective whores?

Re:Not the real name (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129672)

They are just going to make a stupid CGI movie with seals (the "arf, arf, arf" fishes). Does anyone really think they are trying to trademark away the rights of the USN to use that name?

News For Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36128836)

What the fuck is this doing on slashdot? It's not a military story except in the most tangential way.

Timothy, you are the worst fucking editor here, and that is saying a lot.

Re:News For Nerds (5, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128872)

actually, the Disney capability of running trademarks and copyrights forever, and purchasing laws to enable this is standard slashdot fare.

Re:News For Nerds (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129358)

actually, the Disney capability of running trademarks and copyrights forever, and purchasing laws to enable this is standard slashdot fare.

Indeed, Disney's well known from taking from the public domain only to permanently copyright the result so as to never give back.

Trademarking "Seal Team Six" is just more of the same, but easier for the hoi polloi to identify as dirty pool.

Re:News For Nerds (2)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129608)

What I'd like to know is: How many comedians have already made references to "The US Navy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Disney, Inc." and other similar jokes?

I'll also be looking for the little "TM" superscripts in news stories about the Seals, complete with footnotes like the above.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that people made such jokes. Describing the US Congress as a subsidiary of Such-&-Such Corp goes back a long way ...

Re:News For Nerds (3, Informative)

moonbender (547943) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129072)

This is clearly appropriate for Slashdot since it's an intellectual property thing. And why on Earth would you think military stories have a place on Slashdot? Yikes.

Parasites (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36128860)

Can we just take a can of RAID (or a bat) to these guys like we would any other pest?

Technicality (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128862)

Technically, there is no current unit called "SEAL Team 6". The unit formerly known by that name is now the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, AKA DEVGRU. Further, as DEVGRU is a Tier One Special Operations Force (the other one being Delta Force), they may not officially exist, in that no official records of them are kept. Finally, some sources are saying that the unit has been yet again renamed, this time to something classified. Thus, Disney (and anyone else, probably) could register a trademark on the name, and DoD wouldn't object (as they seem surprisingly versed in the Streisand Effect).

Re:Technicality (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128942)

it was SEAL Team Six, not 6, but it was also was called ST6.

Re:Technicality (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129040)

This is English, not C. "Six" == 6.

Re:Technicality (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129052)

This is about trademark, and I can assure you under trademark law 6 != six

Re:Technicality (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129308)

That sounds suspiciously like legal advice.

Re:Technicality (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129342)

Only if you're a moron that can't tell the difference between an opinion on a tech website, and advice given to you in a nice comfy lawyer's office by your own lawyer.

Re:Technicality (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129434)

Advice means a recommendation on a course of action. There was no course of action listed that I saw, so it couldn't have been "advice" legal or otherwise.

It's bad enough when people can't get complex technical terms right, but you screwed up the word "advice."

Re:Technicality (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129082)

This is English, not C. "Six" == 6.

Actually, this is trademark law we're dealing with, so the EXACT representation is totally relevant. In this case, 6 is not the same as "Six".

Re:Technicality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129116)

"Delta force" hasn't been called delta force for some time now. They call it CAG Combat Applications Group.

Re:Technicality (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129186)

I know that, but I figured I shouldn't nest a side-comment within another side-comment. Too LISP-ish.

How far? (1)

guygo (894298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128868)

How far can that go? Can they get "101st Airborne"? How about "U.S. Army"? Seems pretty slippery...

Unusual in this age of Political Correctness (2)

qubex (206736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128890)

I cannot help but feel that inviting the possibility of retribution over a matter of intellectual property from a Navy SEALS unit, however remote, should be cause for caution.

I’m also somewhat surprised that a global firm with such an obsession for it’s public image as Disney would do something as unilaterally endorsing as promoting a single nation’s military. Surely some marketer in their ranks is concerned this will affect sales of Mickey Mouse in Saudi Arabia?!

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129010)

I heard that Disney or parent company is invested in pornography. You give the parent company a different name who sells this stuff, and most people won't be any the wiser.

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness (1)

qubex (206736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129118)

I’ve read much the same. Maybe we read Neal Stephenson’s “In The Beginning Was The Command Line” or something like that? Might that be it?

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129362)

Don't know about pornography, but Disney did buy Miramax to release such kid-friendly movies like Clerks, Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, City of God, and many others.

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129036)

One would guess that the number of Disney buying "USA! Fuck yeah!" screaming types outnumber the numberof Saudis buying Mickey Mouse by a ratio of at least 2 to 1....

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness (5, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129124)

"I’m also somewhat surprised that a global firm with such an obsession for it’s public image as Disney would do something as unilaterally endorsing as promoting a single nation’s military."

Considering that Disney created propaganda films for the US Gov't during WWII and Walt was one of the most fervent supporters of Joseph McCarthy, this move is actually very much in line with Disney's track record.

Seriously? (0)

drwhite (456200) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128894)

Disney of all companies...makes me sick. So instead of creating/selling cartoons that promote religious overtones, they want the right to sell clothing that symbolizes snatch and grab commando crap. Really messed up.

Re:Seriously? (1)

qubex (206736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128940)

Yes... and doesn’t it amuse you that somewhere in their ranks, there’s a marketer stewing in anger that his dire warnings of the effect this might have on Mickey Mouse sales in Saudi Arabia have gone unheeded?

What do you expect? (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128996)

What do you expect from a company who's mascot's a fucking rat?

Re:What do you expect? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129228)

What do you expect from a company who's mascot's a fucking rat?

Mickey's not a rat, but is a rodent. More interestingly, Disney supports slavery. Did you ever wonder why the dog Goofy is Mickey's peer, but the dog Pluto is his slave?

Walt Disney? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128950)

What?

Are they planning some sort of characters involving a team of Aquatic Mammals?

Re:Walt Disney? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129058)

It's G-Force all over again. Somewhere there's a niche community of fanboys that will be really upset.

Re:Walt Disney? (5, Funny)

jcwayne (995747) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129232)

It'll all be part of the new Abbottabad Pavilion at Epcot Center. Osama bin Laden will be executed twice Sunday-Thursday, 4 times Friday-Saturday. Following the assault reenactment, dead Osama and Seal Team Six will take pictures and watch porn with the kids.

Hmm .. Disney copyrights the name (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128964)

But remind me again .. who are the people with the clandenstine hit teams that can go anywhere in the world and visit not-nice-things on anyone?

Re:Hmm .. Disney copyrights the name (5, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129170)

Disney copyright lawyers.

Re:Hmm .. Disney copyrights the name (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129216)

Disney copyright lawyers.

Dammit! I've got mod points, and I cannot figure out whether to mod you insightful or funny... there should be a combo-mod or something that allows both at once... perhaps "+1 Insightfully Funny" or "+1 Humorously Insightful" (which would be the one I think applies to your post).

the WH will need Disney's permission next time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36128972)

Unless a secret agreement was made with Roy Disney after 9/11 to allow Seal Team 6 to undertake overseas kill missions w/o Mouse approval.

US govt products are public domain? (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128992)

anyone who spends enough time on wikipedia will understand that most products of the US govt are public domain under copyright law. im thinking that trying to trademark a US government moniker is going to run right into that issue of IP Law. taxpayers are who put up the money for government entities to exist and thus theoretically they (the public) own it.

Re:US govt products are public domain? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129092)

This is actually a trademark thing, not a copyright one, but since this is the name of an actual organization, I would think they couldn't get strong protection here, if any.

Doesn't Valve Own It? (1)

Interfect (1089721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36128998)

AFAIK, "SEAL Team 6" is already in use. It's the name of one of the character models you can be in Counter-Strike: Source.

Re:Doesn't Valve Own It? (2)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129210)

Trademarks are domain-specific. FPS character models aren't in the same domain as clothing, so that's irrelevant to this application.

Seal Team Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129008)

So, now Penthouse is going to have to make a movie called "Seal Team Sex". Really Disney? Can't we stick to mermaid porn?

My... My... My... (2)

phrackwulf (589741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129050)

The possibilities for creative mayhem with this are just delightful! I hope Charlie Sheen gets to voice Donald Duck in the animated movie! M...I....C.... "Wax you real soon" K... E....Y... "Why, because you're one dead Taliban!" M.....O....U.....S.....E.....!!!!! Got to go, off to think up radio call signs for Goofy, Minnie and Uncle Scrooge.

Re:My... My... My... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129184)

Hmmm ... anyone else wondering if Minnie shaves her pussy?

Re:My... My... My... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129348)

The possibilities for creative mayhem with this are just delightful! I hope Charlie Sheen gets to voice Donald Duck in the animated movie! M...I....C.... "Wax you real soon" K... E....Y... "Why, because you're one dead Taliban!" M.....O....U.....S.....E.....!!!!! Got to go, off to think up radio call signs for Goofy, Minnie and Uncle Scrooge.

This patent has military-industrial brand crossover written all over it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0

No no no.. GOD no! (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129084)

I can't even imagine the kind of crap Disney would pull with "Seal Team 6"

/announcer voice

"When the a cute little Eskimo boy's village is threatened by an evil (russian) mastermind threatening to destroy the Arctic with his oil drilling, the boy finds help the only way he knows how... *cue music and seal sounds* A grand adventure. A story of companionship and peril. Walt Disney Pictures in cooperation with the United States Navy presents: Seal Team 6"

It's not something for the US to be proud of. (-1, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129094)

I f you wanted rid of Osama bin Laden, then do it properly. "Accidentally killed"? "Buried at sea"? Yeah, right. You didn't think that maybe - just, *maybe* - it might have been a good idea to do it properly, have some proper justice, and close the book finally on the guy?

You fucked up, America, and no amount of shouting and chest-beating is going to fix it. You shouldn't be proud of it. Ask the Israelis why.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (2)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129142)

I f you wanted rid of Osama bin Laden, then do it properly. "Accidentally killed"? "Buried at sea"? Yeah, right. You didn't think that maybe - just, *maybe* - it might have been a good idea to do it properly, have some proper justice, and close the book finally on the guy?

You fucked up, America, and no amount of shouting and chest-beating is going to fix it. You shouldn't be proud of it. Ask the Israelis why.

I'm curious as to what your idea of "do it properly" was?

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129326)

I'm curious as to what your idea of "do it properly" was?

IMO: Even the Nazis got the Nuremberg Trials. Granted several committed suicide beforehand, but the trials still happened.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129502)

First of all, capture. Not kill.
Second, extraction to undisclosed location.
Third, trial
Fourth, execution if convicted
Fifth, burial at sea

Everything videotaped, nothing procedural hidden.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129522)

Since there is standard equipment with video recording for military units, I'd have had those issued, rather than choosing to purposefully have no video of any of the operation.

I'd have notified our allies that to send over a representative so that someone could have independently verified the identity.

I'd have had some Arabic observers around for oversight, and I would have let them watch the live video feeds and verify the identity of the body.

Instead, there was no identification of the body, no report of how he died, no body to have anyone else examine, no stored samples of DNA, no fingerprint cards taken at the time of death, and no proof that anything the US has said regarding the operation is true. And there were lots of ways to fix that and the US chose to do none of them.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129800)

Since there is standard equipment with video recording for military units, I'd have had those issued, rather than choosing to purposefully have no video of any of the operation.

I've read any number of news stories that claimed the Seals had the video equipment and it was running. Dunno whether this is true of not, of course, since I wasn't there. But a lot of news people seem to believe that there are videos of much of the assassination. If so, they might be declassified in 20 or 30 years ...

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129174)

"You shouldn't be proud of it. Ask the Israelis why."

What the do the Israelis know about proper behavior ?

They deserve to be cut loose from US support, period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129432)

Rachel Corrie was a "useful idiot" for the Palestinians and radical Islam who wish to commit genocide against the Jews and carry on Hitler's dream of completely wiping out the Jewish people.

She might as well have been wearing an "American Dupes Support Auschwitz" T-shirt.

She wasn't killed by Israelis. She was killed by her own stupidity & ideological blindness

The Arab countries could have given the Palestinians their own land at any time before Israel was created. They told the Palestinians to get stuffed. But now that there are *gasp* Jews(!!) there, they can't race to support the Palestinians fast enough.

The Palestinians need to STFU before the Israelis decide that they'd rather deal with the ruckus caused by them coming in with tanks, troops, and phalanxes of giant bulldozers and push everything in Gaza and the West Bank into the sea. Frankly, I'd cheer the Israelis on.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129574)

Rachel Corrie was a "useful idiot" for the Palestinians and radical Islam who wish to commit genocide against the Jews and carry on Hitler's dream of completely wiping out the Jewish people.

Yeah, far too many people are unaware that much of the Muslim/Arabic world were allies of Hitler during WW2, due in large part to their shared hatred of and desire to wipe out the Jewish people.

Look up Amin Al Husseini. The Palestinians are simply a cat's paw for Muslim Arabs to attempt to finish the work they and Hitler started in WW2.

I'm waiting for the Liberal/Progressive Western MSM to fire up the propaganda-machine to start spreading the "Gee, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy...he was just a misunderstood victim of Western Zionist propaganda" lies.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129594)

So they run a bulldozer and someone purposefully hiding gets run over, and that's bad? It was a very slow bulldozer heading in a straight line that she sat there and waited for it to kill her. Sounds more like suicide than an international incident to me. They tried 8 times to clear the suicidal rich white Americans out of the area (very far from the white suburbia they grew up in and apparently hated so much they'd rather go to the middle east to commit suicide). She purposefully concealed herself so as not to be removed. And was then run over as she sat in the path of a slow moving bulldozer traveling in a straight line.

Sounds more like an entry for the Darwin Awards than anything that should affect US policy. Or does it not matter when they kill Palestinians, but one cute white American girl and we should go nuts?

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129738)

Sounds more like an entry for the Darwin Awards than anything that should affect US policy. Or does it not matter when they kill Palestinians, but one cute white American girl and we should go nuts?

Oh no, not at all.

The world gets it's collective panties all in a knot when a Palestinian launching rockets at civilians or a Liberal/Progressive American idiot supporting them gets killed.

Israeli families and children being murdered is OK however, no matter the means or circumstances.

Frankly, I'm amazed the Israelis have shown the restraint they have by not completely and utterly wiping out the West Bank & Gaza.

How do you think that'd work out if the Israeli/Palestinian roles were reversed? I'd be betting there would be a Wiki entry for the "Second Holocaust".

Strat

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of. (3, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129422)

It's not about pride, it's about cashing in, or preventing a rival from cashing in, or both. We saw that last week when Karl Rove went on the air criticizing Obama for taking credit for the work of the SEALs, then going on to brag that he had a "personal relationship" (yuck) with some members of SEAL Team Six. Disney is just as unseemly but predictable here.

In any case, I haven't heard anybody official claim Osama was "accidentally killed". Nor have I seen any explanation of the orders and rules of engagement the commando team was operating under. Nor have we any idea whether the man who shot Osama was following those orders. Not that orders excuse anything, but they can shed light on a thing. For example, if the orders were, "kill, even if he surrenders," then I think everyone involved would be guilty of murder. But we have no reason to believe that. I do think the orders with respect to killing Osama should be made public; the fact that they haven't make me think that either (a) they would cause diplomatic or political problems or (b) they weren't followed correctly but nobody wants to deal with that.

The SEAL who shot certainly showed presence of mind in wounding Osama's wife rather than killing her, but I wouldn't ask anyone to put his life at risk for Osama, no matter how small that risk was. Not unless he had put himself in our custody. So if the orders came down to "... if he doesn't surrender immediately, shoot him," I'd be completely OK with that.

I wonder if anyone ever trademarked this ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129098)

People working at Disney used to call it "Mouseschwitz". I wonder if anyone ever trademarked that? You could sell a lot of t-shirts to ex Disney people.

Easy Solution (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129102)

Send Seal Team 6 'round to Disney to have a bit of a chat about it. I'm sure that'd sort it RIGHT out.

Beautiful South - One God (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129110)

This reminds me. [youtube.com]

Like a toupee on a fading fame,
Final whistle in a losing game,
Thick lipstick on a five year old girl,
Makes you think that’s it’s a plastic world.

Plastic world were all plastic too,
Just a couple of different faces in a dead-mans queue
The world is turning Disney and there’s nothing you can do,
You’re trying to walk like giants but your wearing Pluto’sshoes.

And the answers fall easier from the barrel of a gun,
Than it does from the lips of the beautiful and the dumb.
The world won’t end in darkness it’ll end in family fun,
With Coca-Cola clouds behind a Big-Mac sun.

Howling scream in a church asleep,
Rusting bicycle in the ocean deep,
Like an earring on a newly born,
Strong perfume on a winters morn.

The world is perfumed and were perfumed as well,
Petals from a flower that blossomed in hell.
You can’t breathe the air through the thickness of the smell,
And you can’t see the hair through the grease or the gel.

And the answer falls easier from the barrel of a gun,
Than it does from the lips of the beautiful and the dumb.
The world won’t end in darkness it’ll end in family fun,
With Coca-Cola clouds behind a Big-Mac sun.

Re:Beautiful South - One God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129582)

You keep humping that chicken, now, y'hear

Geez.... (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129136)

You guys do know that the Walt Disney Company encompasses far more than just things labeled Disney, and not all of those endeavors are G-rated, right?

Re:Geez.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129154)

Ever heard of Touchstone and Jerry Bruckheimer?

I can see exactly where this is going.

Disney Being Disney (0)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129198)

Disney's entire business plan has been based on taking other people's work/ideas/creations and capitalizing on them for their own profit. They've been that way since the beginning. (Go ahead, go count all the original ideas Disney itself has ever had. I'll wait.)

So that being said, I can't say I'm surprised by this, although I do think this is a new low (based on the obvious bin Laden connection), even for them.

Education services? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129230)

I can see people being gung-ho and wanting to wear "official" SEAL Team 6 clothing with Disney's Princess Castle in the background, but what's up with "education services"?

... the fuck? (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129234)

copyrighting something that already exists as an entity wholly separate and apart from the holder of the copyright.

Neat.

So I suppose someone could file a copyright on "FBI"? Or "POTUS"? And that would fly?

Nothing broken here, nope, nothing at all.

Re:... the fuck? (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129316)

That's what I've been trying to figure out. How are they able to Trademark this? Has Disney or its affiliates at any time in the last 25+ years made anything in reference to ST6. I remember when I was a teenager in the early 90's reading or hearing about ST6. So how can you trademark that name?

Trademark != Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129780)

You gain copyright when you create something that counts as a work of art. You gain trademark when you announce that you (might) intend to create a product/productline/etc. relevant to some name, want exclusive rights to do so and are willing to pay the assosciated fees. You don't need to invent something in order to trademark it.

That said, I doubt this trademark would hold in court. Even if you own a trademark, you lose it when enough people begin associating it with the type of product in general, not just your company (see "aspirin [wikipedia.org]"). I think that it would be easy enough to prove that most people assosciate Seal Team 6 with something entirely else than any Disney product if it would ever be taken to court. At least, that's the case at the moment. If disney makes a movie called Seal Team 6, it's entirely reasonable that others won't be allowed to make a movie under that name or sell merchandise relevant to that movie...

Re:... the fuck? (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129812)

Has Disney or its affiliates at any time in the last 25+ years made anything in reference to ST6.

Does Apple have an orchard? - Trademarking ST6 is more a matter of bad taste than bad law.

If anybody, Marcinko owns the name (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129268)

If anyone is entitled to the name, it's Dick Marcinko [wikipedia.org]. He was the first commanding officer of the team he named SEAL Team 6. (There were only two teams at the time; naming it 6 was a deception.) After he left the Navy, he wrote a number of novels about SEAL-type exploits.

Disney is way out of line here.

Re:If anybody, Marcinko owns the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129758)

That's not true at all. Since he was a servicemember at the time of the creation of Seal Team Six, the DoD would have more legitimate right to the name. Just like how none of the members of Operation Neptune's Spear will see the bounty for OSL.

Re:If anybody, Marcinko owns the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129764)

Disney is way out of line here.

Hahahahaha! Like they care. But Disney have a lot of the right people in their pocket... so this may just fly. And then they'll try to extend it to anything with "SEAL" in it, you watch and see.

Other than that, after the Bin Laden operation, the phrase "SEAL Team Six" has become world-famous, and is thus generic, and thus un-trademarkable. But who is going to spend the time and effort to contest it?

What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129416)

A company shouldn't be able to obtain a trademark on something like this. Nor should an individual, for that matter.

So will they sue some Trek fans? (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129454)

Because there's some Trek fans who had designed a fanon Maquis Seal Team 6 [trekmovie.com] logo that (inadvertently) appeared on German TV before Disney got their grubby rat paws on anything related.

Mind your own business Disney (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129550)

Tell you what Disney, when your executives are ready to put their lives on the line to kill terrorists, then you can have a trademark for whatever you call your elite unit. Unti then, just stick to making cartoons and mind your own business.

Excellent market positioning (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129572)

When you think of brains splattering against the wall, think of Disney!

How can they do this? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129690)

How can disney trademark an existing, already established name?

Its like disney trademarking the phrase "President of the United States"

What gives Disney the right to be able to trademark something that is OWNED by the US government and its people?

Disney is already planning (1)

Boawk (525582) | more than 2 years ago | (#36129752)

a fifth sequel to their yet-to-be-released aquatic mammal basketball flick.

New venture. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36129754)

Disney will now be associated with para-military group and armament.
Kids will love their M16 with the Disney logo on it!
And for girls, there is still the pink flamethrower.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...