From BBC news (April 6, 2009):
“The money made by UK artists overseas increased by £20m last year, the organisation that collects and pays their royalties has said. It said international tours by big UK acts including The Police and Iron Maiden had boosted income.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7985461.stm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15003737/Iron-Maiden-Holdings-Limited-v-Iron-and-the-Maiden-LLC-Morgan-Rose-LLC-and-Jason-Rubin-Case-No-09cv3102-CD-Cal-Filed-May-4-2009-

Page 10 gives insight as to why the band most likely decided to sue.

“Popeye the Sailor also has no relation to Popeye’s Chicken. ”

Obviously. Chicken is what what real people eat. Popeye eats spinach.

You mention Apple Computers. Apple, Inc (computer maker) and Apple Publishing (often called Apple Music) had a trademark fight over the word Apple. The resolution of that Trademark dispute centered around Apple Computers staying out of the music business. Which goes back to what we’ve been saying about marks crossing industries. It’s the same situation with the word Whopper that you discuss in your post.

And of course, when Apple Computers got into the music business, that fight started up again, as well it should have. I’m not sure how that case ended up, if it is even yet resolved.

Fortunately for the publisher, much of establishing a trademark in publishing comes down to actually PUBLISHING material using the mark. The fact that other bands have published comics does little to help Iron Maiden’s claim to the mark on a comic book.

Defending marks is part of retaining the right to the mark. Of COURSE they have defended it… you HAVE to if you want to keep it. That doesn’t change the fact the the mark “Coca-Cola” was not an existing term before it was created for use as the company’s mark.

Now, on the subject of Trademark Dilution – dilution is a law used to protect a mark from use in other industries in order to prevent that mark from losing identification with a single source. To qualify for protection under the trademark dilution law, the mark must be so strong that the name is uniquely identified with a certain product, service, business, etc. Ordinary words in language (i.e. pre-existing terms such as “Iron Maiden”) and surnames do not qualify for dilution protection. LEGO, Kool-aid, Xerox, Chevrolet, these are the types of trademarks that qualify for protection from dilution.

No matter how you cut it, the fact that the term “iron maiden” pre-dates the band by hundreds of years is completely material to the case.

What may get the comic off the hook is the fact that the comic exists in a different format (i.e. – books/comics) than the band (music). One of the posters above hit on this when comparing Whoppers candy with the Burger King burger known as the Whopper. However, the fact that there is some history of bands within this very genre (metal) crossing over into comics (Kiss certainly comes to mind) may actual give Iron Maiden’s claim some legal traction – it’s reasonable to envision how a fan of the band may actual think the comic is associated with the band given the history of metal bands dabbling in the comic industrty. I think it can also be argued that metal fans are often comic fans as well, which could contribute to the band’s argument that this constitutes a bona fide case of trademark infringement.

Could be wrong. Just my thoughts.

‘Arrow and the Smith’ would gather legal attention?

probably.

1. Cool!

2. I wonder if the band ‘Iron Maiden’ is pissed?

The truth is, Coca-Cola has successfully held onto its trademark by vigorously going after people for a century. They even have trade dress protection on the shape of their bottle! This is the only reason “it has recognition solely as the mark of coca-cola product.” It certainly wasn’t a worldwide brand back in 1886.

The second part of your comment just isn’t the law in this country. Trademark dilution explicitly protects famous marks from being used in non-competing industries. Iron Maiden (the band) will have to argue it’s worthy of such protection (I don’t think it is) but again, this is why we have courts.

Iron Maiden can ARGUE that it will make it difficult for their own comic all they want. They might even be right. But that doesn’t matter. It MIGHT make a difference if they’ve published an Iron Maiden comic before. Have they? I dunno, but the fact that such a thing hasn’t even been suggested here, would also play into the “product confusion” argument even if it has since no one seems to remember it. The fact that they used the term “Iron Maiden” in business does not grant them over riding rights to use it or derivations of it across other industries.

Chances are this will be settled out of the courts – the most Aspen should have to do is alter the logo slightly so the words “and the” are more prominent. Even that, though, doesn’t make the band’s claim any less silly.

Iron Maiden (the band) will just argue that this will make it difficult to market their own comic book, video game, etc. in the future and they have a case. They can even point to the KISS comic as evidence of rock bands crossing over.

My point was the Aspen spokesperson’s comment was just silly and superfluous. If this case makes it to court (big, big if), it will come down to whether there is likelihood of confusion. Not whether the term “iron maiden” predates the band Iron Maiden. Duh, of course it does. If that’s their best defense, they need to get new lawyers.

(I don’t think there’s much likelihood of confusion, btw, but that’s me. At least a few posters above seem to think there might be. And I don’t think their logo design helps. But this is why we have courts.)

Legally you don’t get to claim a trademark on a commonly used term and derivatives thereof across all businesses.