haws bah gawd Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 My question is simple. When a wrestler is let go by WWE, if they are wrestling by a name other than their real name, should WWE let them retain the rights to that name? For example, who would go see a show featuring Monty Sopp (Billy Gunn), or Andrew Martin(Test)? These wrestlers still have families to provide for, and one would think it would be harder to earn a living when wrestling by your lesser-known real name, than by your better-known, in-ring name. Any other thoughts on this?
Steviekick Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 Basically it sucks to be on the short end of the stick. That's why guys that already have a name like Paul London, Spanky, etc. are the best off. If they get fired, they still have their wrestling character name.
Sideburnious Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 What I heard that is sickening (for the person involved, and if its true) is that supposedly Chris Benoit gave that trademark name to Vince and the WWE. So if he were to ever leave, especially if it was on bad terms he couldn't wreslte under that name unless there was some agreement.
haws bah gawd Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Posted December 30, 2004 That would really suck to have Satan...er...Vince McMahon own the rights to your BIRTH NAME. I hope it isnt true about Benoit.
Sideburnious Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 I dont think Chris Benoit is his birth name...or am I mistaken
haws bah gawd Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Posted December 30, 2004 Benoit isn't his birth name? Thats news to me.
DerangedHermit Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 What I heard that is sickening (for the person involved, and if its true) is that supposedly Chris Benoit gave that trademark name to Vince and the WWE. So if he were to ever leave, especially if it was on bad terms he couldn't wreslte under that name unless there was some agreement. Ya full o' crap
Sideburnious Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 What I heard that is sickening (for the person involved, and if its true) is that supposedly Chris Benoit gave that trademark name to Vince and the WWE. So if he were to ever leave, especially if it was on bad terms he couldn't wreslte under that name unless there was some agreement. Ya full o' crap ...Or mistaken I thought I heard it at the end of one of the interactive interview's interviews. Obviously I was wrong
Guest The Shadow Behind You Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 Did Bret retain the rights to "The Hitman" before coming to WWF? I remember the story about him getting permission from Tommy Hearns (a boxer) for the name, so how come vince never got his hands on the rights to the name?
Scroby Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 Most wrestlers are smart, if they have a name that they used prior to going to WWE and use it while being in WWE, most of them have it trademarked before WWE can, unless WWE makes up a new gimmick for that wrestler, WWE normally gets the name before the wrestler can, so the wrestler can not use it anywhere else unless WWE gives him/her permission. Mr. Thursday night is a good example of this, RVD came into WWE using the Mr. Monday Night name and had it trademarked, but when WWE sent him over to the Smackdown side, WWE jumped all over Mr. Thursday night.
nl5xsk1 Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 That would really suck to have Satan...er...Vince McMahon own the rights to your BIRTH NAME. I hope it isnt true about Benoit. While Vince has definitely been an asshole to a lot of people, he has done a lot of good things, too (people have gone as far as to say that he helpes save the lives of Guerrero & Regal) ... so to call him Satan is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
Cran Da Maniac Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 From what I understand, if the wrestler can show proof that he's used the name prior to joining the WWE, then after he leaves he can keep the name (ie. Chris Jericho). If the wrestler was given the name in WWE then WWE retains ownership of the name (ie Sable)
Naked Snake Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 If it's your birth name, you can use your name when you go elsewhere. The trademark thing is more to prevent ANOTHER PERSON using that name and trying to cash in on the likeness/image created by WWE.
Anakin Flair Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 who would go see a show featuring Monty Sopp (Billy Gunn), or Andrew Martin(Test)? And THAT is the twenty four million dollar question.
Mole Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Was the Rock just lucky by getting to use his name? Since Dwayne Johnson doesn't have movie star written all over it.
Jobber of the Week Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Naked Snake is right. You can't trademark someone's real name. So Chris Benoit could go wrestle anywhere as Chris Benoit, because that's who he is. But some guy who's not named Chris Benoit can't go running around with the stage name Chris Benoit. Real-life examples: Bret Hart leaves WWF for WCW, loses the "Hitman" Chris Benoit (go figure) leaves WCW for WWF, is still Chris Benoit, but trades in "The Crippler" for "The Rabid Wolverine" until Vince buys WCW's trademarks.
haVoc Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Maybe James Bryan Hellwig wasn't that crazy to legally change his name to The Ultimate Warrior?
Karc Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Was the Rock just lucky by getting to use his name? Since Dwayne Johnson doesn't have movie star written all over it. No, WWE has that name copyrighted, and as such, they get a portion of every movie "The Rock" does. Vince also gets an executive producer credit and the cash that comes with it. I think when Rock leaves WWE, he can opt to buy the copyright, but I'm not sure.
Mole Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Was the Rock just lucky by getting to use his name? Since Dwayne Johnson doesn't have movie star written all over it. No, WWE has that name copyrighted, and as such, they get a portion of every movie "The Rock" does. Vince also gets an executive producer credit and the cash that comes with it. I think when Rock leaves WWE, he can opt to buy the copyright, but I'm not sure. Ahh, I remember reading that the Rock got full rights to his name. And I believe it was Meltz who said it. EDIT: Well the Rock is in "Be Cool," and is credited as the Rock. Vince isn't credited as an Executive Producer, so me thinks that the Rock does have rights to his name.
Guest CronoT Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Maybe James Bryan Hellwig wasn't that crazy to legally change his name to The Ultimate Warrior? With a name like Hellwig, wouldn't you do it, too?
Guest LooneyTune Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 The Copyright/Trademarking only counts when the gimmick is 100% made up by the WWF/E creative department. For example... Vader can wrestle as Vader wherever he chooses because WWF didn't come up with the name and because more often than not, the wrestler owns the rights to the name. Andre Martin cannot wrestle as Test because WWE most likely still has it trademarked because it's their creation. If WWE stops paying for the names rights (like the name Brutus Beefcake they stopped paying for a few years ago), the he CAN wrestle as Test wherever he pleases.
Masked Man of Mystery Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Naked Snake is right. You can't trademark someone's real name. So Chris Benoit could go wrestle anywhere as Chris Benoit, because that's who he is. But some guy who's not named Chris Benoit can't go running around with the stage name Chris Benoit. Real-life examples: Bret Hart leaves WWF for WCW, loses the "Hitman" Chris Benoit (go figure) leaves WCW for WWF, is still Chris Benoit, but trades in "The Crippler" for "The Rabid Wolverine" until Vince buys WCW's trademarks. But I'm pretty certain that Bret wore tights that said Hitman on them in WCW and he's called Hitman in the Legends Of Wrestling games(for that matter, Benoit wore tights that said Crippler on them for months and they're even in No Mercy)
Guest LooneyTune Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Bret has always had the name "Hitman" trademarked himself. WWE doesn't own the rights to it.
Guest CronoT Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Naked Snake is right. You can't trademark someone's real name. So Chris Benoit could go wrestle anywhere as Chris Benoit, because that's who he is. But some guy who's not named Chris Benoit can't go running around with the stage name Chris Benoit. Real-life examples: Bret Hart leaves WWF for WCW, loses the "Hitman" Chris Benoit (go figure) leaves WCW for WWF, is still Chris Benoit, but trades in "The Crippler" for "The Rabid Wolverine" until Vince buys WCW's trademarks. But I'm pretty certain that Bret wore tights that said Hitman on them in WCW and he's called Hitman in the Legends Of Wrestling games(for that matter, Benoit wore tights that said Crippler on them for months and they're even in No Mercy) Bret Hart completely owns the trademark on his character. It's one of the many reasons Vince is waiting for Bret to die, so he can piss on his grave.
Toshiaki Koala Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 I wouldn't go to a show featuring Monty Sopp or Andrew Martin; but then, I also wouldn't go to a show featuring Billy Gunn or Test. If you look at the cover of his DVD, there is indeed a "TM" next to Chris Benoit's name. Kind of sucks for him - I suppose he could wrestle as "Captain Crossface" if he got fired.
The Metal Maniac Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 The WWE puts TM after every single person's name, but I don't think it really means much. As previously stated, Chris Benoit is allowed to use that name wherever he goes, because it's his real name. You CAN'T stop someone from using their real name. That's why The Warrior is allowed to use that name; the WWF owns the rights to The Ultimate Warrior, but that man's name now is LEGALLY Warrior, so he is allowed to use it just as I am allowed to use my name in whatever I do. Besides, there's a legal difference between TM and the R with a circle around it (which some wrestlers do have; I believe the Undertaker does, and a few others). As I understand it, TM is more or less the company saying "We assert that this name/thing is our creation and our property, so if you use it, we can and will sue you" whereas the R (Registered Copyright) means they've filed out all the paperwork and whatnot so that they're not ASSERTING that they own the rights; they really DO own all the rights to it and you are in deep shit if you use it. So really, a TM isn't as big a deal as an R. Assuming I remembered that properly.
Slickster Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 The Metal Maniac speaks the truth.
Guest LooneyTune Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Vince McMahon is the devil! He owns peoples real names, thus not allowing them to get a job anywhere under that name. What a bastard! *High Level of Sarcasm*
Mole Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 I think Mike Tyson's name is actually .
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now