The Comic Con trademark battle keeps spreading

20 JANUARY 2018

If tedious lawsuits are your thing, and you were disappointed by the seeming resolution of San Diego Comic-Con's lawsuit against Salt Lake Comic Con in December, I have good news for you - it's ongoing and more players have jumped into the mix.

Here's where we are currently:

• Salt Lake has spent over a cool million in fees on this case and is now considering crowdfunding to pay it all off.

• There apparently will be a documentary about the case, which I am so here for. 

• Both SDCC and SLCC are dissatisfied with that December outcome and are headed back to court. 

• Salt Lake's reason: asking for a reconsideration on the genericness of the term Comic Con; also that the court precluded evidence and gave the jury improper instructions.

• CCI's reason: they don't like the tiny settlement they were awarded ($20K) and they want a stronger verdict regarding the "willfulness" with which SLCC violated their trademark. They want a new trial, some of SLCC's profits, $4.5 million in legal fees and a pound of flesh - or at least, a recognition that Salt Lake's attorneys engaged in an "all-out war" and "staggering" misconduct in that they "preyed on the sympathies of the jury."

And they may need that $4.5 million for future lawsuits. While other Cons have proactively changed their names to avoid being sued by CCI, one of those Cons, Phoenix Comic Fest (formerly Phoenix Comicon) has filed a motion to strike down SDCC's "Comic Con" trademark and have CCI pay their legal bills. Nervy!

In other words, CCI may lose their trademark, letting Salt Lake and other Cons freely use "Comic Con," "Comic-Con," "Comicon" and any other permutations of the name - setting them back where they started but millions of dollars poorer. It's dizzying to contemplate. Even if they stay victorious in all these lawsuits, it's hard to foresee an outcome where they come out on top of their attorney fees.

In the meantime, we're left with our questions.Will the lawsuit documentary be screened at the SDCC film festival? Will other smaller Cons jump on, burying CCI in lawsuits like velociraptors attacking a T-rex? How will the new trial turn out, if we get one? We'll just have to wait and see.

ReedPOP on the SDCC-SLCC lawsuit

11 DECEMBER 2017

Last Friday a fascinating court case came to an end: the trademark lawsuit between CCI and Salt Lake Comic Con was decided in CCI's favor.


Reactions have ranged from "what a stupid lawsuit" to "Salt Lake was asking for it" to "I thought all Comic Cons were run by the same company" and more. But one of the most dramatic reactions has also been one of the most unrealistic: that this is the beginning of a trademark tidal wave that will force every Con to change its name.

That just isn't going to happen. If you have any inkling of what attorneys cost, you can understand that waging a legal battle for 2.5 years likely cost CCI far more than the paltry $20,000 they got from this trial. There's no way they can take on every Con in the world. And CCI isn't some kind of warlord that wants to crush every other Con under its heel. I suppose they could send out Cease and Desist letters and request events to enter into licensing agreements with them, as some have done already. But we're not going to see a rash of name changes where San Diego is the only Comic-Con left standing.

ReedPOP and all those other Comic Cons

That brings us to ReedPOP, the apex Con master in the world. I'm not saying that to cast shade on CCI, just pointing out that the vast number of events they manage dwarfs everyone else. It's reached the point where if our planet undergoes some kind of massive dying-off that rescrambles nation-states, I fully expect ReedPOP to have their own continent where it's Comic Con all the time.

So I asked them what they thought and if they foresaw any interaction with the naming of their own many Cons. Here's their statement:

"We haven’t seen anything issued from the Court or the jury other than what has appeared in the press. Until there is a final disposition of that case, we will reserve comment.  Nevertheless, we expect there to be no impact on our continued use of the New York Comic Con name for our annual event now well over a decade in existence or use of any of our other proprietary event names."

So yes, we will have other Comic Cons and they will keep growing and multiplying and fascinating us. This lawsuit (which I still doubt is over) isn't going to change anything for attendees. Not anything that matters.

SDCC wins their lawsuit against SLCC - sort of

8 DECEMBER 2017

Surprising many spectators in the Con world, a jury today decided in CCI's favor in their lawsuit against Salt Lake Comic Con. But as victories go, it was mixed.

What did the jury rule? That SLCC improperly used the words "Comic Con." I know, I know - so does ReedPOP 800 times a day, along with other event organizers. However, the jury also found they hadn't willfully violated the trademarks.

The heart of the decision is this: "San Diego Comic-Con's trademark is valid and Salt Lake Comic Con used it without permission." So will other events be forced to stop calling themselves Comic Con? Realistically speaking, I doubt it. But a CCI attorney called other Comic Con events "infringers" and said "We are pursuing the worst offenders first." Tough talk, but I think we all know CCI isn't about to file lawsuits against more 140 other events.

Here's a summary of the trademark issue:

• CCI, owner of San Diego Comic-Con, has a trademark on "Comic-Con" with a hyphen - but they were unsuccessful in their 1995 bid to trademark "Comic Con" with a space. 
• Also protected by trademark: the unhyphenated name "Comic Con International," as well as the event's eye logo.
• CCI insists its trademarks cover the term "comic con" in all forms, hyphen or not.
• Salt Lake Comic Con does not have a hyphen.

So what did CCI win?

CCI originally asked for $12 million in damages, with $9 million of that staked out for a "corrective" advertising campaign. (Imagine the witty taglines, the smooth copywriting, we would have blessed with. Such a loss.) What that figure is allegedly based on - and this is very hard for this SDCC attendee to swallow - is a trial statement from San Diego authorities that "the organization generally spends between $20,000 and $30,000 for a month of advertising."

I'm sorry, what? Advertising? To who? They turn away 10x more attendees than they can handle! Maybe that figure covers salaries for PR and the social media director and graphic designer and the Toucan blog, but those are day to day operations, not special campaign costs. You cannot convince me they would have spent $9 million educating the gullible masses on the differences between themselves and a Utah Con where 80% of the attendees are local.

Anyhow, the jury only awarded them $20,000. Chump change in the scheme of things, and unlikely to even cover CCI's attorney fees. For SLCC, I'd imagine it's the humiliating sting of loss that's going to hurt the most. In any case, they interpreted the small amount in a flattering light: Dan Farr's take was "With the damages being nominal like that, I think the jury was saying, 'OK, we want to protect these marks, but you know what, Salt Lake didn't do any damage here'."

I was hoping for a colorful quote from CCI, now that they're flush with victory - maybe from the eloquent David Glanzer, maybe from their attorney Peter Hahn who threatened more than 2 years ago to have the court "force Dan Farr Productions to comply with the law" - but their statement was formal and restrained. Read it here.

So is it over? I doubt it. 

I'll be surprised if Salt Lake doesn't appeal this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of California, but the low amount of damages may persuade the organizers to put it behind them. They have 30 days to decide which takes them right through the holiday season and into the new year. That can change a person's perspective. But it has to be galling to have to change their name (eventually) when other Comic Cons are occurring every weekend. I know that would burn me.

You can chalk up this verdict to many things - the intricacies of trademark law, the flashy car SLCC drove around San Diego all those years ago, a California jury. In the end, both Cons will go on and they'll both continue to be popular and successful. As attendees, we're not affected that much. But it does show how willing these organizations are to draw blood to protect their image and the dollars we bring them.

See you tomorrow during Open Reg.

The SDCC vs SLCC battle rages on

4 DECEMBER 2017

Just in time to get you in the mood for Open Reg this weekend, we're hearing tantalizing news on the long-running battle between San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake Comic Con - which you'll be thrilled to hear has finally gone to trial.

I know, I know - you thought this was settled somehow, or at least died from lack of interest. It wasn't, it hasn't. If there's one thing we know about CCI, it's that they are indefatigable when it comes to righting perceived wrongs.

(If you're newish in these parts, CCI is suing SLCC for trademark infringement and basically trying to mooch off their SDCC brand magic. This has dragged on for years and has eclipsed the Zombie Walk/car accident kerfuffle as the biggest court case associated with SDCC. You can read a lot of the coverage, court documents and commentary on SLCC's dedicated page.)


                                                         from SaltLakeComicCon.com
 
Opening arguments began last week. And make no mistake, this trial is of interest to every Con out there, since it centers on whether CCI owns "Comic-Con," "Comicon," "Comic Con" etc. despite a jillion different events calling themselves such. And it's of significant interest to Con attendees, especially those of us who love CCI for its special brand of absurdity. Only through this lawsuit have we learned:

• CCI commissioned a study which proved Comic-Con has a higher brand recognition than Jello.
•  People were attending Comic-Cons in the 1960s, before SDCC was even born. Martin Luther King, Jayne Mansfield, Jim Morrison, Robert Kennedy and Sharon Tate could have attended Comic-Con.
• Other Cons like Rose City have struck licensing deals with CCI in a preemptive CYA move.
• Emails from SLCC founders include talk like "leverage San Diego Comic Con to boost our brand here better."
• George R.R. Martin attended the first Comic-Con at the tender age of 15.
• CCI has allegedly been deluged with calls and emails from people complaining about a bad experience with SLCC - people who believed they are associated.

To fully experience the convenient nature of that last point, I recommend reading Bleeding Cool's coverage.

If you're beyond sick of the political maelstrom we're all swirling around in these days, this trial could provide an entertaining distraction. Hopefully we get some scandalous juror interviews. But regardless of what plays out now, I don't see a resolution any time soon - there will almost certainly be an appeal. Stay tuned.

And the CCI soap opera goes on

1 SEPTEMBER 2016





What would we do in the SDCC off-season without lawsuits, municipal battles and feisty debates to tide us over? It's only been just over a month since San Diego Comic-Con bid us farewell, but the snide and contentious debates over its future - and finances - continue. Let's examine.

There's the petition to stop Dean Spano's Measure C for a fancy new stadium. I love how people say "Comic-Con is against it!" to bolster any argument in San Diego, as if CCI is itself a city superhero whose opinions carry moral authority. In fact, the counter argument - which says the proposed "convadium" is a great idea - also quotes CCI as saying they won't leave San Diego if it happens.

Then there's Measure D (you can suss out the difference between the 2 measures here but neither is for a contiguous expansion) authored by the indefatigable attorney Cory Briggs. You know Mr. Briggs, he's been the thorn in our convention center expansion side since the beginning. Now he's come up with the ominous-sounding "Citizens' Plan" as a way of "making sure the rules of the game are fair."

Alas, a city councilman disagrees, calling the measure "poorly written and misguided" and a "recipe for disaster" that could force SDCC to leave town. (The essay doesn't name Briggs, other than to mention "a lawyer who makes his living suing taxpayers" but it apparently drew blood as Briggs left a salty rebuttal in the comments.)  And again, CCI's opinion was held up as the voice of reason: "Comic-Con has stated in the past, and continues to believe, a contiguous, expanded convention center is one that will benefit the city best. It appears this ballot initiative does not favor that scenario."

We know.

The Haus That CCI Built


But the convention center expansion isn't the only CCI news these days. That would be - I can't even type this without laughing - "Barriohaus LLC" which is NOT a Mexican-German fusion restaurant as you might think. It's owned by CCI and it bought 2 office buildings and a warehouse for 6.3 million dollars in April 2015. Good thing CCI didn't waste any extra cash by mailing all badges directly to their attendees!

Strangely, this purchase was not announced on the Toucan blog, but was instead revealed through their recent audit. If you want to delve into all the details of the tax filings and rules for non-profits, there's quite a bit of cynical subtext in this article. Like snidely mentioning that president John Rogers' salary jumped from 64K in 2014 to 208K last year. But hey, that's not what we care about, right? We're wondering...

• Is the new 32,000 square feet of space going to be used for the Comic-Con museum?
• Will it relate to Comic-Con HQ?
• Is SDCC more invested - beyond the literal - in San Diego now?
• Will we devoted attendees be invited to the hauswarming party?

Life as an SDCC loyalist: there's always something to spectate. If you're local, you know all about this - but even if you're not, these debates could affect your Comic-Con future. More will be revealed, I'm sure.

Update on the SLCC vs SDCC lawsuit

8 APRIL 2016



If you've been wondering about the status of CCI's lawsuit against Salt Lake Comic Con, I talked to SLCC founder Bryan Brandenburg today. He said they are "close" to settling and it could happen in the next 2 months, but they're still prepared to take it to the end.

"The settlement agreement boils down to 1 or 2 issues," he said. "We either settle on reasonable terms or we go to trial."

In other words, no resolution yet - and it doesn't sound like CCI has softened at all. But we kind of expected that.

Updated: SLCC does NOT have a $10,000 VIP room

6 APRIL 2016



We've all heard about people who make and sell fake Comic-Con badges, but one guy took it to another level: he impersonated a federal agent at Salt Lake Comic Con, flashing documentation on a wanted fugitive, so he could get into a private VIP room that was $10,000 a head.

Let's digest that. Not the impersonation - fraud, crime, yawn, whatever - but the fact that people pay $10,000 at Salt Lake Comic Con just to be in a room with famous people. Who are these people? What do they get out of the experience? Do they ever calculate all the compound interest squandered with this financial choice?

Anyhow, Jonathon M. Wall faces 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine; it would have been cheaper just to pay the entry fee. His sentencing is 9 June. Don't impersonate federal agents at Comic Cons, kids! Just in case that was one of your strategies this summer.

Updated: I talked to SLCC founder Bryan Brandenburg and they most definitely do not have a  $10,000 VIP room. The impersonator was just trying to get into the green room where the celebrities are. Which sounds more like the Comic Cons we know. Somehow the AP press added that extra flourish, but it just isn't true.

The dueling banjos of the convention center expansion

8 MARCH 2016




Another day, another propaganda piece on how a multi-site convention center expansion "will serve the Comic-Con community in new and exciting ways." That's what they hope to convince CCI of, at any rate. (They also mention future and hypothetical Super Bowls, soccer games, religious gathering and Final Four games to convince everyone else.)

"They" in this case are the Chargers, JMI Reality, environmentalists and "higher education advocates" who want the non-contiguous expansion. The one where you probably have to ride a shuttle just to reach certain panels.

David Glanzer, CCI spokesperson, injects some common sense into the debate: "The ability to have all exhibitors under one roof is considerably more beneficial for attendees and show organizers." Anyone who's ever attended a conference or event where you have to travel between facilities knows this is true. He also speaks with the voice of experience, and relays the "great deal of consternation" that resulted a few years back when some vendors were moved up to the Sails Pavilion. That was just a different part of the same center, so it's obvious that being moved off site would probably cause even more of a disturbance.

He also came up with this scenario: the idea that any event wanting to book the convention center would need to contemplate booking the other site as well, if only to stop the "very real threat of rival events securing that space or ambush marketing that would draw attendees, and revenue, away from the original facility, their programs and exhibitors."

(That is such a CCI line of thought. I wonder if SLCC was ever accused of "ambush marketing" with their flashy car that started that whole lawsuit. But to be fair, I can see that CCI would feel obligated to protect their exhibitors' revenue as much as possible.)

Glanzer closed his piece quite fairly by saying the decision shouldn't be based on one event and that they'd try to work with whatever parameters were given. But overall he made CCI's stance clear and it's one that I believe most attendees share; we'd prefer to keep our Con in one building as much as possible. And some of us are still fantasizing about parties in that rooftop park that was mentioned back in the halcyon days when it seemed the expansion would actually happen.


In an ideal world, we'd have some kind of cage match during SDCC and settle this like civilized people. (Would wait in Hall H line, 10/10.) Failing that, maybe local attendees can work some type of neuro-linguistic programming or Jedi mind tricks to sway the good voters of San Diego. But overall, I'm feeling like those voters are probably as sick of hearing about this as we are and may just want to see the whole issue resolved and off the table.

The good convention center expansion is still in play

25 FEBRUARY 2016

Kind of, it is. Rabbi Laurie Coskey, the chairwoman of the San Diego Convention Center Board of Directors, says the Board "will continue to support a contiguous expansion that will provide the greatest financial and economic value for the city of San Diego."

That last part isn't just her opinion; an elaborate study reached that conclusion.

The Chargers feel differently, of course. Fresh from their rejection by the NFL to build a stadium in LA, they in turn have rejected the idea of a Mission Valley facility in San Diego and are back to requesting a multi-facility convention center expansion downtown. Not that they emphasize that part of it. Instead we're hearing the usual talk about how the facility would be "a permanent home for Comic-Con and a Comic-Con museum."


Well! What nerd could argue with that? All of us, actually, once you get to the part about the convention center "expansion" not actually being attached to our convention center. First-timers: divvying up your SDCC days between different sites may not sound like a huge deal. We already do that somewhat, with panels at the library, the Horton Theatre, the Hilton Bayfront, etc. However, the difference between an annex down the street and an actual increase in floor space is an important factor when it comes to potentially increasing the number of attendees permitted at SDCC.


Expect to see a ballot measure for the November election. In a world where we decide presidential primaries with a coin toss, this issue will apparently stagger on and on for eternity like a bureaucratic zombie. Stay tuned.

CCI & Salt Lake Comic Con may settle by 1 March

25 FEBRUARY 2016




Emphasis on "may." Who knows with these 2 crazy kids, but apparently the organizations are "inching closer" to settling their court dispute over naming rights and trademarks. So far lawyers say they've been able to resolve many disagreements, and now have asked a federal judge for more time to work on an agreement - until 1 March.

In other words, create your betting pool now if you haven't already. What will this agreement look like and who will ultimately have their way? (Obvious answer is obvious, in my opinion, but I'm curious what you think.)

Another twist in the convention center saga

28 DECEMBER 2015

Remember when the Salt Lake Comic Con lawsuit seemed like it was going to provide drama for eons and the convention center expansion seemed like a sure thing? How times have changed.

A few weeks ago, everyone was alerted as to a petition that promised to "keep Comic-Con in San Diego" but actually was trying to eliminate a contiguous expansion of the convention center. Now things have taken another turn for the dramatic. Fifth Avenue Landing - one of the many players in the expansion drama - sent a letter to the City Council saying they were giving San Diego until 1 March to revive an option to acquire for 13.8 million their leasehold on the 6 acres between the convention center and the bay.

If they don't? Then after 1 March, Fifth Avenue Landing will pursue a major development project involving a hotel of 400 rooms or more.

To put this in very clear terms: the contiguous expansion of the convention center was initially protested because various opponents said it would block water views and encroach on that space behind the convention center. (The hullabaloo about the hotel tax came later.) Now some of those same opponents are saying they're going to build something else on that same space.

Just when you thought this couldn't get anymore complicated.

Incidentally, the convention center is projected to bring in a record number of attendees in 2016. But this particular issue is a bit larger than just the center and includes other waterfront development agendas; I suggest reading the entire article. Overall, it paints a grim picture of how slippery this endeavor has become. (Example: "Incidentally, that consultant is the ubiquitous Charles Black, who negotiated the lease in question as the port's development consultant, then worked for the city on the expansion plan and now works for Carpenter and Engel. When it comes to selling advice in San Diego, it pays to be nimble.")

I don't think any of us wanted a new force with its own agenda rising up in this mess, but it looks like that's what we've got. An expanded convention center seems less likely than ever, at least within the time frame it's needed. What is likely - a move to LA, Anaheim, Vegas or staying in San Diego and suffering through the current limitations - is still a matter of debate.

Zombie Walk driver gets probation

12 DECEMBER 2015



In November, Matthew Pocci Jr. - AKA the driver in the infamous SDCC Zombie Walk accident - was found guilty of felony reckless driving resulting in great bodily injury.

Now he's been sentenced to 3 years probation and 60 days home detention with electronic monitoring. He also has to do 120 days of volunteer work and will lose his driver's license for a year.

This may or may not be the end of the story, as last we knew there were still several civil lawsuits pending. But this aspect of the case is settled at least.

Tricky, tricky: read before you sign a convention center expansion petition

11 DECEMBER 2015

courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribute

If you have even half an ear tuned to San Diego Comic-Con, you're probably aware of the various ups and downs of the proposed convention center expansion. Once deemed a sure thing, it's been derailed by various players, including local attorney Cory Briggs who objected on several fronts, including a financing plan involving a hotel room tax.

But a new development bears close attention. There's a new initiative collecting signatures with the heartfelt plea "Keep Comic-Con in San Diego!" It even references hotel owners. If you didn't know better, you'd think this is exactly what we - and CCI - have wanted, right?

Ah, but this is an initiative authored by Cory Briggs himself. Twist! It actually is against expanding the convention center itself: "the measure specifically bars any such project on the waterfront." Not that the signature gatherers are emphasizing that part of it. Instead the campaign acknowledged today it instructed them to specifically mention the measure could keep SDCC in town.

Their defense: "We've known all along that Comic-Con and the large convention center hotels prefer a contiguous expansion on the bayfront. But unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen and regardless of where the expansion goes, Comic-Con needs more space so what our signature gatherers is <sic> saying is absolutely correct."

From CCI's David Glanzer: "We had no knowledge of this effort and as you can imagine, this came as a total surprise to us." CCI also said they weren't "a party to the initiative and its passing will have no effect on the organization's decision to remain in San Diego."

And organization Keep Comic Con in San Diego has disavowed any involvement with the petition as well.

Maybe Cory Briggs will awaken on Christmas Eve to the ghosts of Comic-Con Past, Comic-Con Present and Comic-Con Yet to Come and see what a bleak future we have without a contiguous expansion. In the meantime, be careful what you sign.

SDCC Zombie Walk driver found guilty

4 NOVEMBER 2015

Matthew Pocci, the driver charged with felony reckless driving in the 2014 SDCC Zombie Walk hit and run, was found guilty today.

The two sides put forward different perspectives. According to his defense attorney, Pocci "felt like he was a victim that day and he feels like he's a victim again for simply trying to protect his family."

The prosecutor painted a different picture, one of impatience and frustration. "He didn't want to wait any longer and he didn't want to communicate with the people trying to tell him to stop."

Most likely it was the different videos viewed in court that decided the matter for jurors. Pocci will be sentenced 11 December.

Salt Lake lawsuit scheduled for settlement talks

28 OCTOBER 2015




On 23 November, CCI and Salt Lake Comic Con will meet in a judge's chambers to discuss a possible settlement.

How likely is this settlement? According to Salt Lake Comic Con's founder Bryan Brandenburg: "We're confident that the nature of the concessions and details of the settlement with make things better for our fans.... We're also confident that one of the outcomes of this is that our relationship with San Diego Comic-Con is going to be greatly improved and that we're going to be able to cooperate moving forward."


SDCC's attorney Peter Hahn: "It's going to have to be on terms that are acceptable to San Diego."

So... a licensing agreement? I can't imagine SLCC going home with its tail between its legs and amputating the "Comic Con" part of its name. But we'll find out soon enough.

New video released in SDCC Zombie Walk lawsuit

27 OCTOBER 2015

While most of us have seen the above video of the now-infamous Zombie Walk hit and run - in which a car plowed through a section of the Zombie Walk parade at San Diego Comic-Con 2014, breaking a woman's arm - new and arguably better footage was aired today in court.

Defense arguments posited that driver Matthew Pocci drove forward out of fear, not frustration, and that several people in the crowd motioned him forward. He faces a felony charge of reckless driving and a possible prison term of three years. But that's not the only legal drama afoot; the woman injured is suing the city and the walk organizers along with Pocci, while Pocci and his passenger have their own lawsuit against the city and several parade participants.

Stay tuned.

ETA: The victim in the case has taken the stand.

SLCC vs SDCC: is a truce afoot?

27 SEPTEMBER 2015



If you ever wanted to hear a news anchor say "Comic Con" 7 times in 30 seconds, you should watch this video. No real developments are revealed; all we're told is that our favorite courtroom warriors San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake Comic Con met with a judge and "both sides are working on an agreement but nothing is final."

Will SLCC get its longed-for bromance? More like a legal fist to the jaw, probably. But we'll see if these two crazy kids can work it out.

Waterfront SDCC expansion trumps off-site

1 SEPTEMBER 2015

Remember about 6 months back when we found out there would be a $90,000 study to analyze the pros and cons of various San Diego Convention Center expansion plans? The results are in and they are a complete non-surprise: an expanded center "needs to be on the waterfront." You don't say.

If you haven't been following this years-long saga, it boils down to this: the convention center is too small for San Diego Comic-Con and other conventions, so an expansion plan has been bandied about. Two chief debates have dominated the discourse:

1) whether to actually expand the existing center (the contiguous approach) or to embrace a "campus" approach with additional space built at other locations

2) how to finance the effort

Interested parties include real estate developers, the San Diego Chargers, local hotels, a tenacious attorney named Cory Briggs, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, the California Coastal Commission and others. It's all quite the lesson in how exhausting municipal politics can get. Everyone's pushing their own agenda, with arguments over hotel taxes and water views and the spoils of tourism.

So to break down the latest developments:

• The study is "unequivocal in its conclusion that an enlarged center on the current bayfront site easily trumps a campus-like facility several blocks to the northeast when it comes to the dividends the city will reap." Easily trumps is a great phrase.

• The mayor said the report "is persuasive enough that he plans to begin work anew on a bayfront expansion project, with a goal of putting on the ballot a hotel tax increase to finance it as early as next year." Yep, we're sticking with the hotel tax plan. The current litigation over the former hotel tax financing plan "may well be resolved within the next six months."

• The indefatigable Cory Briggs, who is behind said litigation, has a different take. He "promises continued legal challenges as long as the city attempts to develop the waterfront with added convention facilities." And he predicted smugly (well, the article doesn't say that but I'm interpreting) that his current lawsuits "could take as long as five years to resolve." He then added villainously (more interpretation), "There's no way they can get a two-thirds vote in this town." How very Gotham City of you, Cory Briggs.

• The campus approach would deliver $61.2 million more in conventioneer spending but the waterfront expansion would deliver 2.5 times that; the city would make back the $428 million cost of the campus approach in 7 years, but would only take 3 years to make back the $410 million cost of the waterfront expansion.

Here's what I took out of all of this: 1) I'm really glad I disappointed my parents by not going to law school because oh my god tedious and 2) I'll probably be too arthritic/deceased/off-planet to go to San Diego Comic-Con by the time this all gets resolved. Maybe this will impact our actual SDCC lives someday but that day won't come any time soon.

So much for those tantalizing proposals of a rooftop park and footbridge. Oh well, we still have the Salt Lake Comic Con lawsuit to keep us entertained. At least that court battle is staying feisty and moving at a somewhat reasonable pace.

SDCC doubles down on their Salt Lake lawsuit

16 AUGUST 2015




Maybe they've quadrupled down at this point. I've lost track. At any rate, after Salt Lake Comic Con crowed about its trademark victory last month, CCI is seeking to nullify that trademark with "administrative action" and block them from a logo trademark. But don't expect to see a resolution any time soon; the pretrial conference has been scheduled for 3 October 2016, at which time the actual trial will be scheduled. To put that in our terms, we may have gone through Pre-reg and even Open Registration for 2017 by the time they duke it out in court.

A settlement is still possible; both camps have until 11 August 2016 to submit their final offers. What those offers might look like is a mystery, but we do know that CCI has suggested SLCC just stick to calling itself FanX, the name of its other event. But let's be real; besides the fact that FanX sounds like a porn channel or over the counter medication, it lacks the crucial Con branding that virtually every other event uses for marketing. BookCon, PlumberCon, Cat-Con; there's no way a ginormous pop culture convention is going to relinquish that crucial syllable.

On the other side, Salt Lake hoped to have a "bromance" - that's their word, not mine, just typing it made me shudder - with CCI as recently as earlier this year but apparently that's off the table. I could have told you that, SLCC organizers! CCI is unflinching. This was never going to end with a hug.

Friday night I saw Best of Enemies, which is a powerful testament to how destructive - and ludicrous - a grudge can be after a certain point. While SDCC vs. SLCC is obviously a very different situation, it does make me wonder who's really going to benefit in the end. It's hard to imagine SLCC actually being forced to drop "Comic Con" (or accepting that decision) in a world where so many other events have the same name; and it's hard to imagine what CCI thinks it's protecting. They're already the apex Comic Con. No other Con is as famous or in demand. Even if half the current Member ID holders decamped for SLCC, there'd still be more people clamoring for badges than SDCC could handle. Yes, other Cons are growing fast but San Diego is still the #1 dream for most attendees. I don't see that changing soon.

Maybe this will all get hashed out in court and we'll learn about additional details that are driving CCI to press on. Or maybe it's exactly what we've been told. Either way, it sounds like we'll have to wait a long time to find out.

Now everyone's trademarking everything

28 JULY 2015



 
 
You clearly didn't get enough trademark legalese served up to you over the weekend regarding San Diego Comic-Con vs Salt Lake Comic Con - so here's more.

Bleeding Cool reports that various other Cons are trying to trademark their names, specifically Boston Comic Con, Rhode Island Comic Con and Kansas Comic Con. (Nary a hyphen to be found, you'll note.) And that Grand Rapids Comic Con actually quit trying for a trademark after being rebuffed by the trademark office with a complicated statement that began, "In the case of Comic-Con, applicant has merely added geographically descriptive wording to a registered trademark. Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks..."

Et cetera.

I skipped on over to Salt Lake's exhaustive page about the whole subject and found some interesting claims. Such as:

- "Comic Con" has been a "common expression since 1964," years before San Diego Comic-Con was born. Really? I'm sure they have sources for this, but that's definitely news to me. That means the characters on Mad Men could have gone to Comic Con.

- Wait, yes, they even have a newspaper illustration that says "Attend the 1967 Houston Comic-Con June 16-18!!" This is real. SDCC is not the Lucy fossil of comic conventions.

- Just to drive that home: "San Diego wasn't the first comic con. According to the history books, comic cons originated in New York and the United Kingdom at least 6 years before the first San Diego event."


Salt Lake also dug in by posting Alexa scores and some weirdness about SDCC adding 500,000 Facebook fans from Mexico City. And they included one of my favorite articles about SDCC, which goes beyond panting over celebrities and addresses the actual Con itself.

My point being: it's worth visiting their page and looking through all their historical documentation. Even if you're growing bored with this lawsuit, it's generally interesting stuff. Again, I would love to point people to SDCC's "side" of this for the sake of fairness - but there's nowhere to point.

Which is kind of what makes this all so fascinating. You have two major players committed to battle. One old, one new; one bull-headed and silent, one tireless and expressive. Neither shows any sign of wavering. It's like an old Norse legend or lost George RR Martin manuscript come to life - but in a really tedious way. Who's going to win? How will this affect other Cons? What actually happens in SDCC's most secret High Cabal meetings?

We'll probably never know that last. But this legal grudge match has to end decisively at some point or another. Let's just hope it doesn't turn into another convention center expansion and linger unresolved for years.