I'm getting a lot of e-mail from people — some of them rude to the extreme — who want to argue that the trademark decision in the Comic-Con case is legally unsound. As a matter of following the law, I don't think I know enough to have an opinion on that.
They're also concerned that it will harm or even destroy other conventions around the country. That, I don't believe. There are many, many successful conventions of this variety that do not feel they need to use the term "Comic Con" in their names. I mentioned ones like Heroes Con and DragonCon and there are also others like Wizard World New Orleans, Wizard World St. Louis, Wizard World Cleveland, Wizard World Portland, Wizard World Philadelphia, Wizard World Des Moines, Wizard World Columbus, Wizard World Boise, Wizard World Chicago, Wizard World Madison, Wizard World Oklahoma City…
Yes, "Comic Con" is a handy descriptor or sub-title but, come on. Companies seem to be able to sell flavored gelatin desserts without calling them "Jell-O." Hundreds of firms manufacture facial tissue without calling their product "Kleenex." Donald Trump managed to get elected without any right whatsoever to describe himself as a "human being."
Closer to home, DC and Marvel still hold a joint trademark on "superhero." I'm not saying that's right or legal or fair or anything of that sort. I just don't think it's fatal to others who want to put out comic books about people who wear capes, fly around and fight crime.
Oh, and I think I need to clarify something: I am not an employee — in any sense of the word — of Comic-Con International. I also was in no way a founder of it, despite what reporters (and hosts of podcasts I appear on) keep insisting. I was at best an early supporter of it and I have been a constant attendee and frequent guest. I think it's a magnificent institution and since it sells out each year just as soon as it can possibly sell out, there's at least a chance that I'm not be the only person on this planet who feels that way.
If the court in this one decision was as egregiously wrong as some are telling me, that just increases the likelihood that another court will overturn it on appeal. I just don't think that until that happens — or if it doesn't happen — it's going to destroy every other convention that uses the term. And, really: Don't we have more important, actually life-threatening things in this world today to rant about?
Well, it looks like we're not going to hit 25,000 today here. I have a long "to do" list so there might only be one or two more here before Midnight. This evening, I'm taking Amber to see a play about the guy on the ten-dollar bill. I haven't heard much about it but it was written by the kid some of us first saw back in this somewhat amateurish video back in 2010 so I'm a little skeptical. I hope it doesn't suck. I had to sell my mother's old home to get tickets.