Monday Night Raw trademarked

[Stone Cold Tea]

There's a story on the main page that claims Monday Night Raw has been trademarked by Petco last month.

The article states that the trademark is for “Retail pet store services featuring pet food; promoting the sale of products of others through distribution of free food samples to consumers.

Now I aren't too versed in the rules of trademark law and so forth but surely this must mean that if WWE want to continue to use Monday Night Raw to make money then they would owe Petco money? I mean after all they now own that title for money making purposes right?

So my question is are we about to see some legal issues similar to what WWE suffered in 2002 when they had to change from WWf because of the World Wildlife federation?

Or am I way off here and there is nothing to worry about?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

From what I understand, the official name of the show is, and has been for quite a few years now, simply WWE Raw. Exactly how Petco plans to use the "Monday Night Raw" trademark, I've no idea. However, as long as Petco doesn't suddenly go into the wrestling business with a TV program titled Monday Night Raw, I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

[crossface for ever]

The only thing i can think is how the hell a company that is so petty they'll trademark a hand gesture (kliq) fails to trademark the name of their flagship show pretty funny actually

 

[Logisticalbooker86]

While I tend to agree with Jack-Hammer, I just checked my program guide on Charter and it says "WWE Monday Night Raw". Charter sucks, so this means absolutely nothing.

Still, RAW has had several different titles during its 20 plus years of TV. From the boom period of RAW is WAR to the borderline Japanese gameshow moniker of RAW Supershow, we can rest assured that WWE's flagship program will continue floating with no icebergs in sight.

no matter what the growing continent of wrestling hipster fans believe the WWE titanic may well be unsinkable.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Some quick trademark 101.

A trademark is not "universal" but for certain products/areas of business. It doesn't translate universally unless the company can successfully argue that it would cause confusion with a reasonable member of the public. This is the test the WWF name was lost on. The World Wildlife Fund had used the name for longer and were able to prove that it was costing them donations as the public was confused by there being 2 WWF's in the world. In cases such as this whoever used the name first/longest is normally the biggest determining factor, followed by how they are using it. In some ways Vince was deserving to lose the WWF mark as he flouted agreements, but that is what caused the judge to find against him rather than any legit confusion, people knew the difference between the wrestlers and the panda guys in the real world, but cos they "tried" to make a deal and the charity had high profile patrons, it won.

This would be very different.

WWE would own a mark on "Monday Night RAW" for the use in television, wrestling, merchandising such as T-Shirts etc and things traditionally associated with wrestling whether it's still technically registered or not as there is precedent of them using it. Pet food is not something they have ever sold in WWE or seem likely to, and the marks awarded to PetCo are for a very limited purpose. It sounds like PetCo are trying to do a promotion on Monday Nights to draw people into their store while the show is on to me.

Now here's where it would get murky. WWE wouldn't have to pay PetCo a dime in reality, as they have used the name for over 20 years for their show and "Monday Night RAW" is very much associated with the WWE to the man on the street.

If a court battle ever came of it, WWE would win it almost hands down. If the promotion is like I describe above, WWE could legit go to a court and say "they are using our IP to run against us, as the promotion runs while our show is on the air and this is damaging our business with our own mark we've used for over 22 years" and a judge would very likely stop PetCo from doing it or using the name to do it, just as the WWF stopped Vince using that name going forward. PetCo's defence would be similar to the WWE's, "We're not in the same business or doing the same thing" but if it's taking one viewer/donator... you lose as Vince found to his cost.

 

[OYDK]

First question. Why in the hell would a pet store need to trademark Monday Night Raw? I mean really, they HAD to go with Monday Night Raw?

Secondly, I don't see an issue with this unless Petco decides to make it one, which I can't see why they would. WWE and pet food services will probably never inter-cross, so there is really no need to make the distinction, but I am kind of surprised that WWE didn't trademark the name of their #1 show. Maybe they assumed it was useless because they thought nobody else would ever use the name Monday Night Raw? This is just weird all around.

 

[Bruno's Sanctimony]

Wrestling fans have pets....
WWE should just turn this into a mutually beneficial endorsement deal and be done with it, before it spirals out of control in the manner of WWF.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Could be awkward for Jerry when they bring the Kat back... JYD is out... so is the Shark... not sure you've thought this one through lol