Earlier this week, BOOM! Studios announced the new name for their all-ages imprint; the payoff to their “BOOM! Kids 2.0″ teaser first released last September: “kaboom!”
Well, some, including Pipeline columnist Augie De Bileck Jr., remembered that there was a comic by Jeph Loeb and Jeff Matsuda in the late’90s called Kaboom (sans exclamation point), published under Rob Liefeld’s Awesome Comics.
Someone else who remembered? Rob Liefeld, who tweeted thusly, in response to Augie:
And yes @augiedb my lawyers are drafting a complaint. Busy week. Shouldn’t be an issue since we released the KABOOM! HC and trade last year.
BOOM! Studios declined comment on the matter at this time.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
As someone who’s had to deal with a comic IP situation myself recently, let me say that if Liefeld’s lawyers actually file a complaint, I’d be surprised, unless Liefeld holds a trademark on “Kaboom” under the category of comic book publishing imprint. He might retain the rights to the name of a comic book or series, but NOT ANY usage.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Aw, and I was hoping Liefeld was going to do some variant covers for Duck Tales and Peanuts…
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:10 pm
“Aw, and I was hoping Liefeld was going to do some variant covers for Duck Tales and Peanuts…”
No…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:27 pm
The folks at Boom are doing some of the best quality family-friendly books out there and Liefeld – well, Rob is such a big dick that to masturbate all he has to do is rub his own shoulders – so here is to hoping Rob “one-trick-pony-that-was-old-ten-years-ago” Liefeld’s legal attack to try to bring himself some PR fails!
February 24th, 2011 at 5:06 am
Playing Devil’s advocate, it’s fair (if wrong) for him to try and protect the public association of comics and the word “kaboom” (an impossible goal, as that particular example of onomatopoeia has been a staple of our medium for a while). He doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on – PJ Perez is absolutely right about the imprint trademark, which I can’t imagine Liefeld has.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:11 am
So if “Kaboom” was used as a visual sound effect in a cartoon would he try to sue for that too? This just reeks of desperate opportunism to try to get himself some attention. I think the name of an imprint vs an actual comic book title is TOTALLY different. Hopefully this will just amount to RL wasting his own money and no one elses.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:19 am
I think that Rob is actually on shaky ground here. Kaboom! is obviously a derivation of Boom!, the copyright of which rests with, well, Boom! If Boom! filed for Boom! and usage of forms thereof, then it’s not as simple as Rob states. Additionally, it’s pretty hard to copyright a title, anyway (witness all the various songs named “I Can’t Wait” or “Talk to Me” for example). Boom! is using Kaboom! as a brand, not a title or character; the exclamation point would actually be rather significant, too, as it follows the derivation of Boom! and Rob’s Kaboom lacks an exclamation point.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Rob has no legal standing since he doesn’t own the trademark (publishing wise) to Kaboom!, Activision does:
Registration Number 2066953
International Registration Number 0857226
Registration Date June 3, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT) ACTIVISION, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 3100 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90405
(LAST LISTED OWNER) ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 3100 OCEAN PARK BLVD. LEGAL DEPT. SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90405
February 24th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Let us not leave “Kaboom” brand cereal out of this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaboom_(breakfast_cereal)
February 25th, 2011 at 8:35 am
How is Liefeld still working?
February 25th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Does that mean that Milestone Media should sue Disney/Marvel over Marvel’s Icon imprint? If memory serves me correctly, I don’t recall such a lawsuit, but using Liefeld’s logic, Milestone (via DC Comics, current licensor of the Dakotaverse characters) published an Icon trade (featuring a character owned by Milestone) a couple of years ago based on the character around the same time Marvel launched the Icon imprint. Considering Icon was both the lead character and title of a comic book and Icon is a comic book imprint, Milestone has justifiable cause to sue Disney/Marvel for infringing on the name.
Of course, I could be wrong.