Does CM Punk Get To Keep His Name?

[Sora/roxas]

So the biggest thing was that WWE wanted CM punk's name. So did CM Punk get to keep "CM Punk"?

I hope he did because he built that name to what it is. WWE didnt create that name they didnt create his character so why should they make any mony off of it?

 

[Driver]

So the biggest thing was that WWE wanted CM punk's name. So did CM Punk get to keep "CM Punk"?

I hope he did because he built that name to what it is. WWE didnt create that name they didnt create his character so why should they make any mony off of it?

Well with all due respect to WWE, they have made Cm Punk one of the most branded and well known superstars to ever set foot in a ring in wrestling on a global scale.

I can only assume that his name will still be trademarked to him, but to go as far as saying that WWE shouldnt make money off something they have built up to be one of the hottest commodities in wrestling in years is a bit far-fetched.

 

[H33LTurn]

A performer who can confidence in himself sees no problem in handing over his name. If hes being made so many offers to stay in the WWE then he has to know that hes in good graces with them. Why shouldnt he give his name to them. They're making him the biggest star hes ever been right now and apparently plan to keep him for a long time.

 

[madrox]

I'd hope so considering the trouble it caused although it's always a shame when a wrestler who comes up with something or is better known as something goes to WWE and isn't allowed to use that name any more (just ask the Dudley Boys, can't use their original names and then Cena started using their 3D hand sign) or Test when he had to literally change his name by deed poll to Andrew Test Martin so he could use that name elsewhere (even though WWE created that for him).

Nobody works for WWE forever and just think if TNA were like that and the guy had to change his name after leaving that company because they trademarked it for merchandise reasons in 2004?

 

[Syd Liberty]

A wrestler is an independent contractor, according to WWE. Therefore, they need their name. If WWE gives you a name, it's theres I suppose. That's fine. But Punk was a minor star before WWE, as CM Punk, a name he has used for years. WWE has no right to it. Plain and simple. And he definitely gets to keep the name. He's too smart to have given it to them, when he really could've left.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

CM Punk owned his name before Roh and long before WWE. WWE never repackaged him.CM Punk owns his name and while I am sure WWE tried to buy it Punk still owns it. Punk is smart and has a lot of pride, the name will die with him.

 

[TM Punk]

They don't own John Cena, Ted Debiase, Cody Rhodes, or Randy Orton, so why do they need to own CM Punk? All owning his name does is ensure them that if he were to leave, or get fired that he wouldn't be able to use it anywhere else. Now look at it the other way. If CM Punk owns his name and the WWE wants to make a dvd of him do they still get to? I'm pretty sure they do, because they own the footage and things of that nature. Correct me if im wrong please.

 

[Peep]

Well with all due respect to WWE, they have made Cm Punk one of the most branded and well known superstars to ever set foot in a ring in wrestling on a global scale.

I can only assume that his name will still be trademarked to him, but to go as far as saying that WWE shouldnt make money off something they have built up to be one of the hottest commodities in wrestling in years is a bit far-fetched.

Completely disagree with this.

First of all, the WWE didn't make Punk a superstar. They did give him the means to do so though. I may get flamed for this by some Punk-haters, but the reality is that Punk's own talent and charisma has made his recent surge of popularity possible. Not just the story WWE creative has written for him. In the wrong hands, this thing could've flopped - but that's just my opinion.

Second, "CM Punk" is, has been and hopefully always will be Phillip Brooks' intellectual property. The WWE did not create his ring name and thus, they have no claim to it. As one poster noted, because wrestlers as the WWE says are "independent contractors" (in a loose definition), someone like Brooks dearly needs to keep ownership of that intellectual property. It's his claim to... Money. In the event Punk leaves the company (not now, but for some unforeseen reason in the future) simply having ownership of the name CM Punk exponentially increases his value and thus his livelihood. He'd be a fool to sign away the ownership of that name to the WWE, even if it meant a slightly sweeter contract.

 

[saw411]

I remember a few yrs back the reason why we didn't see ricky the dragon steamboat on tv is because he was in the middle of a divorce where his wife wanted half of everything, and the rights to the name of the dragon and steamboat. Wwe couldn't put ricky youngblood on tv because no one knew who youngblood was, but they know who steamboat is. Imo cm punk either owns his name or he made wwe pay so much for it that it wuld be dumb for him to refuse. But ultimately all a wrestler has is his name.

 

[Mustang Sally]

CM Punk owned his name before Roh and long before WWE.

I remember reading that after Bruno Sammartino left WWE, he wasn't allowed to appear under his own name at shows staged by other professional wrestling promotions. I don't know if it was true or not, but it puts the Punk situation to shame since it was Bruno's real name he wasn't allowed to use. Can you imagine?

When WWE was negotiating with Punk, ownership of his ring name was probably something they agreed to give up. After all, it makes no real difference to them since they weren't going to call another wrestler "C.M. Punk" in the future, were they? As long as they have the right to showed archived footage of him and to use his name in printed material, I would think they agreed to give up the trademarked rights to his name. Seems like a small price to pay to keep Punk as an attraction.

 

[GameOver]

They have every right to it if it was part of his contract that they own the rights to use it and he signed said contract.

If it was part of his contract that it's still his sole property and they are just allowed to profit from the use of said name then that's different.

But this is why they change the name of alot of "stars" when they go onto any of the big promotions, change the name and it's something WWE/WCW or TNA doesn't have to contest for ownership since they trademarked it. Only top money spinners would get the right or have the balls to insist that there character name is there's and get royalties most of the proceeds going to them

hell The Rock didn't even own his nickname, and he was among the top stars of all time, he obviously can use Dwayne Johnson but "The Rock" was owned by WWE and they allowed him to use it for years as a movie star til it stopped profiting them.

Wheras Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan to name 2 own the rights to there character names not WWE despite WWE being the place that put them on the world map and vice versa.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I totally disagree with the guys who are suggesting that CM Punk should keep the rights to his name because he had established himself prior to his WWE days. Personally I think that's nonsense. CM Punk has only become established as a bonafide international superstar known across the globe because of the WWE machine. There's no denying Punk's talent, charisma, etc., and of course he himself deserves a lot of the credit for that. But simple fact of the matter is, if he had all of that in ring talent, mic skills, charisma, and whatever else but was still toiling in obscurity in ROH, the name CM Punk would not be worth a fraction of what it is today. If the IWC comprises 10% of the wrestling fanbase, as I think Bischoff recently stated, or at least something to that effect, then ROH maybe comprises <1% of the fanbase. Had he stayed in the gymnasiums and small arenas of ROH, with minimal exposure, his name would have zero value.

I'm not criticizing ROH, but these are the facts. If it weren't for these forums, I would have never even heard of ROH, and I certainly would not know who CM Punk, or Bryan Danielson, or any of the other indy guys even were, and amongst mainstream casual wrestling fans, I don't think I'm alone. Say what you like but WWE made CM Punk the global entity he has become, they gave his name heightened value and meaning and as such, they should own his name. Let him go back to the indies or even TNA for that matter, and see how his career flourishes there, with or without the name CM Punk. I think we all know what the end result of that would be.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

I remember reading that after Bruno Sammartino left WWE, he wasn't allowed to appear under his own name at shows staged by other professional wrestling promotions. I don't know if it was true or not, but it puts the Punk situation to shame since it was Bruno's real name he wasn't allowed to use. Can you imagine?

When WWE was negotiating with Punk, ownership of his ring name was probably something they agreed to give up. After all, it makes no real difference to them since they weren't going to call another wrestler "C.M. Punk" in the future, were they? As long as they have the right to showed archived footage of him and to use his name in printed material, I would think they agreed to give up the trademarked rights to his name. Seems like a small price to pay to keep Punk as an attraction.

I can guarantee that never happened because it's illegal. You can not hold someone hostage in any fashion including trademarking a real name and preventing use. If Samartino went along with that it was his choice or he was hit on the head one too many times.

I'm sure WWE tried to take Punk's name, and he is intelligent so he prob told them that any deal like that was off the table. He is one of the few in WWE that owns their own name and likeness, have to respect that.

 

[TruOperations]

In short, yes. Unless he signed his name over to them in his original contract, which it doesn't seem like that's the case(why would there be an issue this time if he had already signed it over?), then since he used "CM Punk" before he came to the WWE, it is his creation and he can use it as he pleases, much like how Christian could use the name "Christian Cage" because he had used it before coming to The WWE.

With that being said, from what I've read, WWE does own Merchandising Rights to the name, which means they can use it on their merchandise(obviously) and whichever way they want to make money off of it. Punk still owns the rights to the name, but The WWE owns the right to use that name to make a profit.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Matisyahu]

As noted before, WWE recently trademarked Punk's name for merchandising which indicates they are planning on putting out a new line of products for him. Punk giving WWE the rights to his name was an issue in the past, so that could be a hint that both sides have reached some kind of agreement, even if it's not a new contract.

Even though WWE has trademarked the name, Punk can still use it anyway he wants once he leaves the company because he brought the name with him when the business relationship between he and WWE began. Punk created the intellectual property but WWE now has the right to merchandise the CM Punk name and likeness.


This is courtesy of TWNPNews.


So yeah it looks like both sides win on this one

 

[RevZero]

CM Punk has only become established as a bonafide international superstar known across the globe because of the WWE machine.

The question of how big of a star is not the issue. You could be a major, worldwide star, or a local guy wrestling in local gyms. If you come up with an original name, you can trademark that name. (while I'm not sure what is involved in the trademark process, I'm sure you need to have a reason why you need the trademark.)
This issue, or something similar, came up when Christian went to TNA. If I remember correctly, WWE tried to stop him from using the name Christian Cage, since it was so close to his WWE name (which I'm sure they hold the trademark for). However, it was proved that Jason Reso wrestled under the "Christian Cage" name before he came to WWE. So, he was allowed to use it in TNA.

The point? The mass majority of the wrestling community had never heard of Christian before he came to WWE. But since they never trademarked the "Christian Cage" name, he's allowed to use it outside of the WWE. Same with C.M. Punk. He wrestled under that name before he came to the WWE (and not just once or twice, but for quite some time.) The WWE made the decision to let him wrestle under that name in WWE. If they wanted to own his name, and he was not willing to sign the rights over to WWE, they should have given him a new name, ala Daniel Bryan/Bryan Danielson, Seth Rollins/Tyler Black, etc. The only names that they can not trademark are those wrestlers that go by their real names.