If you haven’t been following the “Broken” Hardy case involving the Hardy family and Anthem, then you should know that Matt Hardy and his family have been claiming that they are the rightful owners and creators of the “Broken” gimmick from last year. Impact Wrestling and its parent company Anthem are also taking responsibility for the ownership, and they refuse to let Matt Hardy use the gimmick elsewhere. This prevented Matt from using the gimmick in Ring of Honor, and it’s keeping him from using the gimmick in WWE. Both sides filed trademark applications for the characters several weeks ago, but it appears that Matt may have ran into a serious issue.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office came forward with a statement rejecting Matt Hardy’s trademark application for the character that he filed back in March this year. Things have been heating up on social media between the Hardy family and top TNA officials. Meanwhile, while it is believed that WWE would be interested in using the character, they have chosen not to involve themselves in the situation between the family and Impact Wrestling. This new development could be a turning point in the entire ordeal. Neither side has filed a lawsuit yet, but both sides are fully equipped with attorneys and have said that they would go through with the suit if that’s what it came down to.
The statement put out reads as follows:
“Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, identifies only the name of a particular character/personal name; it does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del., 24 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (TTAB 1991); In re McDonald’s Corp., 229 USPQ 555, 555 (TTAB 1985); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1301.02(b).
The name of a character is registrable as a service mark only where the record shows that it is used in a manner that would be perceived by consumers as identifying the services in addition to identifying the character. In re Fla. Cypress Gardens Inc., 208 USPQ 288, 292 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1301.02(b).
Personal names (actual names and pseudonyms) of individuals or groups function as marks only if they identify and distinguish the services recited and not merely the individual or group. In re Mancino, 219 USPQ 1047 (TTAB 1983) (holding that BOOM BOOM would be viewed by the public solely as applicant’s professional boxing nickname and not as an identifier of the service of conducting professional boxing exhibitions); In re Lee Trevino Enters., 182 USPQ 253 (TTAB 1974) (LEE TREVINO used merely to identify a famous professional golfer rather than as a mark to identify and distinguish any services rendered by him); In re Generation Gap Prods., Inc., 170 USPQ 423 (TTAB 1971) (GORDON ROSE used only to identify a particular individual and not as a service mark to identify the services of a singing group).
In this case, the two Youtube specimens merely name a wrestler. The name of the wrestler, however, is not an indicator of source for the services. Consumers would understand “TNA One Night Only” as the trademark for the wrestling service. The “Moments of Glory” specimen does not appear to advertise the provision of any services at all.
The “Eventbrite” specimen appears to show proper service mark use and function as a service mark. However, the specimen is unacceptable because it is unclear that it shows “use in commerce” that the United States can regulate as the specimen advertises an event in Cork County, Ireland and not in the United States. 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§901.03, 901.04.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by submitting a substitute specimen or amending applicant’s basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) for each applicable international class.”
No word on what exactly the Hardy’s next move will be after the trademark dismissal, but they likely are not going to go down without a fight. Impact President Ed Nordholm recently leaked portions of Matt Hardy’s TNA contract online, as well as an email exchange with WWE where they claimed that they had no interest in possibly acquiring the “Broken” gimmick. We will have to wait and see what happens as this case begins to really take shape with each passing day. Neither Matt nor Reby have responded to the trademark denial as of yet. Check back here as we report on the newest installments and updates regarding the future of the “Broken Universe”.