Author
Message
malemunyon
Boot
Joined: 30 Jul 2007 Posts: 51
[META][SPEC] "Cloverfield" Name Skepticism Remains Trademark not filed With the release of trailer #2, I thought this would be a good time to make another substantial post here rather than lurking.
Studios normally secure trademarks before movies are even greenlighted to avoid other parties from trademarking it first (and potentially suing the studio). Paramount would not risk naming this film without first trademarking the name. Trailer #2 obviously shows the title being "Cloverfield." However, neither Paramount nor Bad Robot (nor anyone else) has secured the trademark to use the name "Cloverfield" for a motion picture. The only filed trademark for "cloverfield" is owned by Cumberland Farms as a name of their bread (trademark serial #75334107).
Seeing that Paramount does not currently own the trademark "Cloverfield," there are two possibilities:
1) Cloverfield is being used as the temporary title. The real title will be announced later. The word "cloverfield" will still be incorporated into the film (refer to the first few seconds of trailer #2).
2) Cloverfield is the real title. The TESS database is updated one week after trademarks are filed. If the trademark HAS been filed within the past seven days it will not yet be in the database. This would be an odd move. We've known Cloverfield was the code name for the project for months now; anyone could have beaten them to the punchline and filed the trademark ahead of the studio.
We'll find out the answer within ~7 days. If Cloverfield doesn't appear in TESS after that, I'll further raise my doubts.
Edit: Tagged and clarified. -SpaceBass
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:17 am
saneman
Decorated
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Posts: 154
Is there precedent for a film releasing its trailer with one title, then actually being released to theaters with a different one?
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:21 am
InAFieldofClover
Unfettered
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 Posts: 375
Well, obviously the promotional campaign is about to kick off big time. Cast members are giving interviews, the official trailer emerges, etc. We're two months away from the film being released, which isn't a long time. The likelihood of still opting to go with a fake title for the time being is slim. Why promote a film for two months leading up to its release only to go with something else and have the general public wondering where the hell "Cloverfield" is on 1/18 after seeing commercials for it being referred to by that title? Abrams might be a mysterious guy, but he's not stupid.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:24 am
malemunyon
Boot
Joined: 30 Jul 2007 Posts: 51
saneman wrote:
Is there precedent for a film releasing its trailer with one title, then actually being released to theaters with a different one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_Away_Home comes to mind.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:25 am
Chump Force 1
Decorated
Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 286 Location: Next in line after 'Client 9'
As of today, the name is Cloverfield. The millions who see the trailer in the theater and online will eventually get used to the name.
If it's changed, its only going to cause confusion with the casual moviegoer and potentially lose business...I can't see Paramount being very comfortable with a name change less then 2 months before the scheduled release date. At the end of the day the studio is in it to make $$, they'll only let this get so edgy.
I'm no expert on the copyright stuff, so don't have a response for you on that…is there a copyright/entertainment attorney in the house?
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:34 am
Chump Force 1
Decorated
Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 286 Location: Next in line after 'Client 9'
saneman wrote:
Is there precedent for a film releasing its trailer with one title, then actually being released to theaters with a different one?
Oh, I just remembered that Star Wars Ep. VI, was changed from "Revenge of the Jedi" to "Return of the Jedi"...I can't recall exactly why and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but the change was done long before "Jedi" was released.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:38 am
clownnation
Decorated
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 160
Im no expert, but as an artist I have created many Copyrights
1. A trademark and a Copyright are two different things
2. A trademark is a name or symbol that you use to describe a buisness or an institution of some sort. For example "Paramount" is a trademark
3. A Copyright is the ownership of a creative, Intellectual work. Like the title of a book, or a poem, or a drawing. Anything you create can be given a copyright. The names of movies are copywritten not Trademarked
You would have to see if a film named "Cloverfield" is copywritten. The owner of the TRADEMARK Cloverfield, is because that seems to be the name of a buissness, which would indeed require a trademark.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:43 am
Red Walrus
Unfettered
Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 589
Chump Force 1 wrote:
saneman wrote:
Is there precedent for a film releasing its trailer with one title, then actually being released to theaters with a different one?
Oh, I just remembered that Star Wars Ep. VI, was changed from "Revenge of the Jedi" to "Return of the Jedi"...I can't recall exactly why and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but the change was done long before "Jedi" was released.
I think it was because they didn't want it to sound too much like "The Wrath of Khan" which came out around the same time.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:45 am
malemunyon
Boot
Joined: 30 Jul 2007 Posts: 51
Let me note that "slusho!" and "you can't drink just six" are already trademarked.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:54 am
Ecks51
Unfettered
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 644 Location: The Snow-covered Meadows
Red Walrus wrote:
Chump Force 1 wrote:
saneman wrote:
Is there precedent for a film releasing its trailer with one title, then actually being released to theaters with a different one?
Oh, I just remembered that Star Wars Ep. VI, was changed from "Revenge of the Jedi" to "Return of the Jedi"...I can't recall exactly why and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but the change was done long before "Jedi" was released.
I think it was because they didn't want it to sound too much like "The Wrath of Khan" which came out around the same time.
[OT]
It was changed because "Revenge" isn't taught by the Jedi Order, and didn't even describe the events in Episode VI; so Lucas changed it. IIRC
[/OT]
_________________
Look out for when you go fishing for clues.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:13 am
Euchre
uF Game Warden
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3342
Ecks51 wrote:
Red Walrus wrote:
Chump Force 1 wrote:
saneman wrote:
Is there precedent for a film releasing its trailer with one title, then actually being released to theaters with a different one?
Oh, I just remembered that Star Wars Ep. VI, was changed from "Revenge of the Jedi" to "Return of the Jedi"...I can't recall exactly why and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but the change was done long before "Jedi" was released.
I think it was because they didn't want it to sound too much like "The Wrath of Khan" which came out around the same time.
[OT]
It was changed because "Revenge" isn't taught by the Jedi Order, and didn't even describe the events in Episode VI; so Lucas changed it. IIRC
[/OT]
DAMN! You beat me to it...
I was just going to say "No paduan, it's not the Jedi way..."
_________________Any sufficiently plausible fiction is indistinguishable from reality.
Any sufficiently twisted reality is indistinguishable from fiction.
Welcome to the new world of entertainment.
©Euchre 2007
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:15 am
Kaliyuga
Veteran
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 Posts: 121
clownnation wrote:
Im no expert, but as an artist I have created many Copyrights
3. A Copyright is the ownership of a creative, Intellectual work. Like the title of a book, or a poem, or a drawing. Anything you create can be given a copyright. The names of movies are copywritten not Trademarked
Titles are not copyrighted.
One cite: http://www.moviemaker.com/articles/item/letters_3224/
Trademarks can be filed, but in terms of copyright, it's the 'idea', not the name.
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:56 am
Euchre
uF Game Warden
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3342
clownnation wrote:
You would have to see if a film named "Cloverfield" is copywritten. The owner of the TRADEMARK Cloverfield, is because that seems to be the name of a buissness, which would indeed require a trademark.
Copyrights aren't registered in a database like trademarks are. You can't search for a copyright. Based on copyright being held by the first to conceive of something, Cloverfield would be Cumberland Farms' because they bothered to come up with it years ago.
It's all about the trademarks, go search some of those movie titles out in the USPTO database, because they are there. (Like search for Forest Gump.)
_________________Any sufficiently plausible fiction is indistinguishable from reality.
Any sufficiently twisted reality is indistinguishable from fiction.
Welcome to the new world of entertainment.
©Euchre 2007
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:18 am
mcompact
Greenhorn
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 Posts: 4
Red Walrus wrote:
I think it was because they didn't want it to sound too much like "The Wrath of Khan" which came out around the same time.
The second Star Trek was originally going to be called "The Vengeance of Khan". Lucas asked Paramount to rename the film because it sounded too much like "Revenge of the Jedi". After Paramount complied Lucas decide to change the name of Episode VI to "Return of the Jedi".
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:27 am
British Guy
Boot
Joined: 01 Nov 2007 Posts: 59 Location: schmocation
would it be a possibility that Cloverfield is a name that cannot be TM'ed or whatever because it is a name that is in the public domain with it having been the name of an airfield?
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:16 pm
Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 1 Week 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Sort by: Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending