2GOLD 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 Here is the thing with the "more indy wrestlers should own their own gimmick" thing, it assures that you will not get a push in the WWE unless you sign over some sort of rights. And you can bet the WWE would be sitting in the wings like a starving wolf waiting for you to slip up on the copyright. If you own your name, Vince may not even bother to sign you unless he knows he can make a short term buck on just jobbing you down to nothing. Plus now Vince has something to hold over wrestlers in contract talks. He can say, "sign with me for a pay cut or think of a new gimmick/name cause we own the one you have now". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest jkt Report post Posted September 9, 2005 I remember New Jack saying that the WWE tried to bring him in just to get the rights to his name. This isn't going to hurt the promotions as much as it is going to hurt the wrestlers involved. Who is going to want to book Kidman if you can't put his name on the promotional stuff? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 I think this shit sucks, and one of the main reasons is that we're likely to just get more wrestlers who go by their real name to start with. If WWE keeps this up, we might see more and more indie wrestlers just flat out trying to get buy without some new and inventive name, just in case they ever get a way to get into WWE. Then in WWE, we'll get more and more gimmicks keeping people from going by their real names there. I am starting to hope that TNA, or some other group, can really rise up and kick WWE's ass just for the hell of it. They've been on the top all alone for far to long, and the entire industry is feeling the negative effects from it. It's about time a new group is able to show up WWE once again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 ..it always makes me smile. The WWE does this every few years, nothing new. Companies that are able to control most of the message being sent out on their behalf are most likely to be successful, so keeping stuff like trademarks tight is important in business, but so is goodwill. When the WWE goes after fansites for using their name, photos, etc. I think that was a pretty poor move on their part because they are only hurting the ones who support their product and industry. Strategically, it's not a good move. Then again, the WWE isn't and doesn't want to be a fan-friendly company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 Trademark protection isn't that hard to come by, smart wrestlers would apply for it before they establish their name on the indy scene. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 I have to say this though: As far as the taking the gimmick names...hey, didn't work out TOO badly for Scott Hall and Kevin Nash. I know, slightly different scenario. But still, these guys can survive. ...what I'm shocked about is that I always thought Kidman's name really WAS Billy Kidman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlaskanHero 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 I also thought Kidman's name really was Billy Kidman. Live and learn I guess. And could someone clarify this for me? Would Vince really be the one to blame for this or would it be Linda? Vince is just the promoter, a board member, and has the final say creatively. Linda is the CEO, so shouldn't she be in charge of sending the legal hounds after released workers? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted September 9, 2005 It really irritates me that WWE would do this to gimmicks they never created. I can understand making sure "Razor Ramon" & "Diesel" never see the light of day on the competition's show but to take credit for gimmicks they never founded just plain sucks. I wouldn't expect anything less. Oh, yes I can . . . Next week on Raw, Lou E Dangerously (the former Sign Guy DUDLEY) shows up w/ 3 guys named "The Dudley Boyz" and "Justin Credible" to spoof Paul Heyman's ECW. Did I say Raw? I meant Heat. Did I say Heat? I meant it'll be a wwe.com exclusive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *KNK* Report post Posted September 9, 2005 It really irritates me that WWE would do this to gimmicks they never created. I can understand making sure "Razor Ramon" & "Diesel" never see the light of day on the competition's show but to take credit for gimmicks they never founded just plain sucks. I wouldn't expect anything less. Oh, yes I can . . . Next week on Raw, Lou E Dangerously (the former Sign Guy DUDLEY) shows up w/ 3 guys named "The Dudley Boyz" and "Justin Credible" to spoof Paul Heyman's ECW. Did I say Raw? I meant Heat. Did I say Heat? I meant it'll be a wwe.com exclusive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm getting tired of this "Vince can't do this to gimmicks he didn't create" defense. Yes he can. He was smart enough to buy the rights to the names. James Gibson wasn't able to use Jamie Knoble anymore but that didn't prevent him from enjoying tremendous success under his real name. It's not hard to create a new gimmick/name or have success with your own name, The people (i.e Dudleys) complaining are the ones who likely are afraid of being creative or know they can't survive without that gimmick. I host no sympathy for people like the Dudleyz and Billy Kidman because others have reinvented themselfs with new names and gimmicks before, so should they. Kidman can just change him name to Billy Wilson because that's all he was known for the last 3 years. I do fell sorry for the webmasters who took change out of their out pocket for their favorite wrestlers and for WWE to treat them like this. They are the ones who really suffer. Not the wrestlers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Report post Posted September 9, 2005 What I find funny is that it seems to be ok for Vince & WWE to "borrow" or even "steal" well known pop culture likenesses for example with all those Wrestlemania "movie promos". Did Vince pay the movie studios for copying the characters from Forrest Gump, A Few good men, When Harry met Sally, Basic Instinct, Dirty Harry, ect.?? Did he pay Larry King for that Shawn Michaels skit a few weeks ago?? Surley Larry King and his "likeness" is trademarked by AOL/Time Warner. Did he pay Ted Turner & WCW for all of their Billonaire Ted skits?? How much you wanna bet if TNA did some skits to poke fun at WWE like WWF did to WCW a few years ago WWE would have their attorneys ready to go. Seems to be ok for WWE to "borrow" other people's trademarks whenever they feel like it. If WWE paid to use the trademarks for the movie trailers..that's one thing..but did they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2005 WWE pays to use licensed music, so I don't imagine they would cut around corners on stuff like that. I believe parodies don't infringe on copyrights and trademarks anyways. However, something like Jillian Hall and her mole and other derivative bullshit like that could be worth investigating. So, I guess the message is, if a former WWE wrestler wants to parody the WWE, go right the fuck ahead. That, or trademark your own name before anyone else does. Or pull a Warrior and change your name. RRR: Friend to the Indy Worker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slickster 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2005 What I find funny is that it seems to be ok for Vince & WWE to "borrow" or even "steal" well known pop culture likenesses for example with all those Wrestlemania "movie promos". Did Vince pay the movie studios for copying the characters from Forrest Gump, A Few good men, When Harry met Sally, Basic Instinct, Dirty Harry, ect.?? Parody is protected by copyright law. Did he pay Larry King for that Shawn Michaels skit a few weeks ago?? Surley Larry King and his "likeness" is trademarked by AOL/Time Warner. Parody is protected by copyright law. Did he pay Ted Turner & WCW for all of their Billonaire Ted skits?? Parody is protected by copyright law. How much you wanna bet if TNA did some skits to poke fun at WWE like WWF did to WCW a few years ago WWE would have their attorneys ready to go. TNA did already. Remember when TNA made fun of Vince and HHH on PPV? Say it with me now: Parody is protected by copyright law. Seems to be ok for WWE to "borrow" other people's trademarks whenever they feel like it. Seems that you don't know what you're talking about. If WWE paid to use the trademarks for the movie trailers..that's one thing..but did they? Parody is protected by copyright law. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Report post Posted September 10, 2005 "Parody is protected by copyright law." Point taken. If I was some of these former WWE stars I would go around saying they are just doing a parody of their "former" gimmick. Like that would work.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fökai 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2005 And could someone clarify this for me? Would Vince really be the one to blame for this or would it be Linda? Vince is just the promoter, a board member, and has the final say creatively. Linda is the CEO, so shouldn't she be in charge of sending the legal hounds after released workers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I had to "blame" anyone, it would be John Laurinitis, the guy that's in charge of overseeing talent inside and outside of the promotion. It's likely that he also has a grudge against a few of these wrestlers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunter's Torn Quad 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2005 Final blame lies, as it always does, with Vince McMahon. For all the grief that Laurinitis gets, some of it deserved, he’s only carrying out Vince’s orders. Vince has the final say over everything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest nokia Report post Posted September 10, 2005 Just recieved the new observer i the mail yesterday and it says; WWE WILL LET D'VON STILL USE HIS NAME, SINCE HE'S "REAL NAME" IS DEVON BUT BUBBA CAN'T USE ANY VARIATION OF THE BUBBA NAME !! Bubba have asked Indy promoters to promote him as BRD for the time being !!! credit; dave meltzer & the observer news letter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JMFabiano524 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2005 Is this really a new thing? Where were these tears for Rena Mero, Joanie Laurer, Ray Traylor, Ed Leslie, John Tenta, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, and many others? Is this made worse just because they seem so obsessed right now? Oddly enough, at the NWS shows I went to over the weekend, they featured a Doink...WWF name, costume, music, and all (on advertisements they called him the "Wrestling Clown" though). I guess the TNA debut of Doink the Clown isn't seen as much of a major threat or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2005 Your registration of the internet domain name WWW.BIGVANVADER.COM (the "Domain Name") violates WWE’s and Leon White’s trademark rights, constitutes unfair competition, intentional trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false designation of origin. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2005 It really irritates me that WWE would do this to gimmicks they never created. I can understand making sure "Razor Ramon" & "Diesel" never see the light of day on the competition's show but to take credit for gimmicks they never founded just plain sucks. I wouldn't expect anything less. Oh, yes I can . . . Next week on Raw, Lou E Dangerously (the former Sign Guy DUDLEY) shows up w/ 3 guys named "The Dudley Boyz" and "Justin Credible" to spoof Paul Heyman's ECW. Did I say Raw? I meant Heat. Did I say Heat? I meant it'll be a wwe.com exclusive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm getting tired of this "Vince can't do this to gimmicks he didn't create" defense. Yes he can. He was smart enough to buy the rights to the names. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never said he couldn't. It just pisses me off that he does. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2005 so, how long until they sue JCW? IIRC, they've had WWE stuff on their tapes ("Hulk Hogan" appearing on vol. 1, Doink The Clown on vols 1 and 2, etc). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodSpikeJenkins 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2005 That NY indy promotion. NYWC. The picture in the sig use to say "The Dudleys Are Coming!" Now it says "You-Know-Who Are Coming!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
