B-17 Memphis Belle ® - seriously?

[Jennings]

B-17 Memphis Belle ® undergoes restoration milestones at National Museum of the U.S. Air Force

®?????

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123277314

[G.R.Morrison]

MAYBE they needed to trademark the name to prevent...

Memphis Belle Auto Insurance

Memphis Belle Bacon Bits

Memphis Belle Cat Food

You get the idea. Years ago, Frank Zappa remarked, "It isn’t necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice. There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia." Today, he'd likely add a third: litigation.

GRM

[Jennings]

I'm with Bill Shakespeare:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers..."

[Liberator24]

Now, now....that would never happen.....

and neither would a bunch of butt-licking putz' deface such a historical icon when it was sitting on public display. When he was in Titusville for TICO before he died, I asked Morgan what was his biggest regret about the history of the Belle, he commented.."the way people had treated her when she was on display."

Hey, Memphis Belle Auto Insurance will use the guy in the race suit for their spokesperson too...they could dress him up like a pilot....then drop him from the flying Belle....

-Jim

[CorsairMan]

I'm with Bill Shakespeare:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers..."

Actually you aren't with him at all. Clearly you didn't read Henry VI NOR did you understand what the entire passage meant in the context of the story. Actually, you couldn't have hit further from the mark. Instead of trying to sound intellectual, do a little research for yourself and try again.

As for TM - all you need to do is look it up at the USPTO. One cannot simply trademark a name for all good and services - it has to be linked (and used) in association with either goods or services. In this case, I believe these were filed in the late 1980s and are owned by the National Museum of the USAF. The TM is used in association with PHOTOGRAPHS, POSTERS, LITHOGRAPH PRINTS, COMMEMORATIVE AND SOUVENIR PUBLICATIONS NAMELY, BROCHURES AND PAMPHLETS, AND PAPERWEIGHTS, FUNDRAISING FOR RESTORATION, MAINTENANCE AND EXHIBITION OF A WORLD WAR II AIRPLANE, CLOTHING, NAMELY T-SHIRTS, HATS, NECKTIES, DECORATIVE PATCHES AND BELT BUCKLES ON NON-PRECIOUS METAL...

Without going into specifics, registration provides notice to the world as to the TM and provides some additional enforcement rights for the owner. But one can still likely use 'Memphis Belle Insurance'

[jeffryfontaine]

I'm with Bill Shakespeare:

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers..."

I suspect you will run out of rope before you run out of lawyers ;)

[Slartibartfast]

Without going into specifics, registration provides notice to the world as to the TM and provides some additional enforcement rights for the owner. But one can still likely use 'Memphis Belle Insurance'

Not a lawyer but I believe as long as there is no possible confusion about products, any number of things can use a single trademarked name. Example above is good. Note in CorsairMan's post "...of a World War II air plane".

[Steve N]

The name has been trademarked for years. I think the group in Memphis may have held it until the NMUSAF repoed the plane..I think it basically just gives them exclusive rights to market Belle merchandise.

I belive one of the biggest issues they've had is with the B-17 formerly owned by the late Dave Tallichet, which has been carrying the Belle markings since its use in the 1989 movie. A few years ago the NMUSAF made them paint "The Movie" in small letters above the "Memphis Belle" name. There has been confusion among the public over the years as to which is the real Belle, and some accusations that the group operating the plane not only did nothing to dispel the confusion, but actively encouraged it (I don't know if there's any truth to that or not..I've seen the "Movie Belle" at a few airshows, but never talked to the folks operating her.) The confusion still persists..a recent news article about a visit by the Movie Belle mentioned that she was flying again after a "decade long multimillion-dollar restoration by the Air Force Museum." I chalk that one up to sloppy reporting, but as you can see, if a media organization whose job is accuracy can get it wrong, how likely is Joe Sixpack gonna be to figure out which is which. Most of the general public can't tell a B-17 from a 747.

SN

[Recon]

Going to the museum next week and hope to see her.

Mike

[Steve N]

Have you already reserved a spot on the "Behind The Scenes" tour? That's the only way to get into the restoration shop where the Belle is, and the tours are only offered on Fridays (and are being suspended indefinitely at the end of this month due to the sequester.)

SN

[Bigasshammm]

if a media organization whose job is accuracy can get it wrong,...

Lol @ a media organization caring about accuracy.

This is all about marketing rights. I don't see them having much of a claim about the flying Belle having the name on the nose when none of the current flying 17s have their true names on them. (Afaik) Perhaps the flying Belle needed to purchase the rights to put the name on the nose but that's a different matter.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Bigasshammm

[Jennings]

Sorry, it's a US Government aircraft named by people who were in US military service at the time. That's pretty much the definition of "public domain".

And yes, in fact, I *have* read Henry VI (likely before you were born) and I *do* understand the historical context of the quote. I was using it in a colloquial sense that is in very common and wide usage in English speaking countries (look it up).

[pigsty]

Sorry, it's a US Government aircraft named by people who were in US military service at the time. That's pretty much the definition of "public domain".

I agree with you on the principle. But the fact that the name has been trademarked must mean that the law allows it, which in turn must mean that "public domain" has no bearing on it.

[CorsairMan]

Sorry, it's a US Government aircraft named by people who were in US military service at the time. That's pretty much the definition of "public domain".

And yes, in fact, I *have* read Henry VI (likely before you were born) and I *do* understand the historical context of the quote. I was using it in a colloquial sense that is in very common and wide usage in English speaking countries (look it up).

Sigh... its the association of the name (and likely artwork) with specific wares and fundraising that is trademarked. There is no general reservation of the words "Memphis Belle"

And no, I don't buy it. I sense backpedaling though.

[Jennings]

Just because someone does something successfully doesn't automatically make it legal. No one has yet told me how it's legal for the US Coast Guard and NASA to trademark their emblems, since both are part of the US Government, and the US Government doesn't copyright or trademark anything it does. Both are now demanding licensing fees for use of the logos (not from me, I assure you).

[pigsty]

Just because someone does something successfully doesn't automatically make it legal.

It's a registered trademark if that ® is correct. So it must have been done by some sort of central body that administers such things according to the relevant law. Unless the States has gone absolutely barking mad and privatised trademark registration?

[Jonathan Mock]

Free market 101 - if you can brand it, you can sell it.

[mawz]

It's a registered trademark if that ® is correct. So it must have been done by some sort of central body that administers such things according to the relevant law. Unless the States has gone absolutely barking mad and privatised trademark registration?

No, but the Trademark Office has a history of granting Trademarks in situations which are not trademarkable. These won't stand up in court, but who wants to go that far.

Similar issues happen regularly with patents. It's a simple case of filling out the paperwork correctly and the office not caring beyond that.

[pigsty]

^^ In that case I suspect the problem is not really the Memphis Belle.

[niart17]

Something I ponder. It says "The most famous plane from that conflict"..It's probably true but I do have to wonder if Enola Gay might be at least close?

I suspect it's all about marketing. They will probably at some point make it where if you use the restored plane to make a model or decals or anything else like that, you'll have to get permission...at a cost probably. I don't think they could prevent someone from using public domain photos etc... to research making any other products. But I suppose they could with the right lawyers and such. It's a shame to me when a museum becomes more of a business than an educational and archival establishment. I understand they need funding to operate and they probably are sorely lacking in some cases. But there are other ways of making it if this is what they are thinking.

Bill

[B-17 guy]

Plus it wuld matter where a decal company is based, would it not? For example, kits-world decals based in england has produced decal sheet for aircraft based in the US and has the museums logo on the decal sheet, both the commemorative air force, and EAA. I dont see how either of those groups would be able to go after kits-world, even though they are essentially getting free advertising.

EDIT: Make that 4 uses of the name of museums, Collings foundation(nine O nine), Fuddy Duddy, (wings of eagles, complete with her civil regristration number), Aluminum overcast, (EAA), P-51 "Gunfighter" (CAF tramp stamp included).

Edited April 12, 2013 by B-17 guy

[EDWMatt]

The name has been trademarked for years. I think the group in Memphis may have held it until the NMUSAF repoed the plane..I think it basically just gives them exclusive rights to market Belle merchandise.

I belive one of the biggest issues they've had is with the B-17 formerly owned by the late Dave Tallichet, which has been carrying the Belle markings since its use in the 1989 movie. A few years ago the NMUSAF made them paint "The Movie" in small letters above the "Memphis Belle" name. There has been confusion among the public over the years as to which is the real Belle, and some accusations that the group operating the plane not only did nothing to dispel the confusion, but actively encouraged it (I don't know if there's any truth to that or not..I've seen the "Movie Belle" at a few airshows, but never talked to the folks operating her.) The confusion still persists..a recent news article about a visit by the Movie Belle mentioned that she was flying again after a "decade long multimillion-dollar restoration by the Air Force Museum." I chalk that one up to sloppy reporting, but as you can see, if a media organization whose job is accuracy can get it wrong, how likely is Joe Sixpack gonna be to figure out which is which. Most of the general public can't tell a B-17 from a 747.

SN

Went for a flight in 'the movie Memphis Belle' last weekend. It's currently being operated by the Liberty Foundation, and they make it very clear that it is the movie airplane, not the real Belle.

The confusion (which I believe was intentional) goes back to when MARC (Tallachet's outfit) still had the airplane. They repainted the nose art from the movie version to something closely resembling the wartime art, until they were told to stop by AFM. The airplane now carries the movie nose art again (with the cursive, vs. block lettering)

[Steve N]

Yeah, all the controversy I heard about was from her MARC days, when (as you mentioned) she was carrying a replica of the original Belle nose art.

Interestingly, when the USAF Museum paints the real Belle she won't have all those crew names we're used to seeing in photos, as they were added post-combat for her War Bond tour. The Museum is painting her as she appeared on her 23rd mission, as that is the best-documented photographically.

SN