The recent rumors which seem to confirm a Guardians of the Galaxy motion picture seem to have been foretold by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  A search for “Guardians of the Galaxy” shows twenty registrations, many of them made since 2010.  (Here’s an example.)  The most recent was made June 15, 2012, for

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Computer services, namely, creating an on-line virtual community for registered users to participate in and hold competitions, showcase their skills, improve their talent, participate in incentive award programs, get feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, trade, buy and sell virtual goods, conduct virtual tours, facilitate interaction among users, rank users, engage in social networking, and participate in on-line discussion boards; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software to enable viewing, previewing, sharing, manipulating, and creating blogs regarding computer games via global computer networks and electronic communication networks for use in connection with computers, mobile computers, media players, cellular phones, wireless devices and portable and handheld digital electronic devices; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software to enable viewing, previewing, sharing, manipulating, enhancements for computer games, online games, and game applications and information relating to computer games and game enhancements via global computer networks and electronic communication networks for use in connection with computers, mobile computers, media players, cellular phones, wireless devices and portable and handheld digital electronic devices

Sounds a bit like the recent Avengers Facebook game…

If one searches for “Marvel Characters, Inc” as the owner, then all of Marvel’s filings appear.  What, besides GotG show up?  Why are they significant?

Well, a trademark does protect a title and character name from being used by another company, like “Captain Marvel”, especially in licensing and marketing.

So, if there are numerous filings, then it’s probably something big, which will generate lots of merchandise, like a movie.  If it’s just one or two filings, then it’s probably to claim a title.  If it’s for toys, clothing, or other merchandise, especially for a specific title or character, then it’s probably due to appear on the big and little screens.

The USPTO uses this classification for comic books:

IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Comic books; Printed periodicals in the field of comic book stories and artwork.

Such as for the title “Villains for Hire” (filed November 2, 2011).


Mark ImageThis is interesting!  Usually, Marvel just registers a name.  This logo was filed on August 9, 2011, for what seems to be a media logo. [IC 041. US 100 101 107.]  Also for IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038; IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050; IC 028. US 022 023 038 050

Might this be a new “Marvel” logo for a new product line?  It’s a bit over-the-top… a triumphant eagle on top of the world, with that “bow tie” letter on the bottom.

Nope…  Google searched it, and found it’s the Strikeforce Morituri logo.  That site says:

Strikeforce Morituri® is copyright 2011 by Carl Potts and is a registered Trademark of Carl Potts. Material is used here with his permission.

Which means that Mr. Potts and his attorneys may wish to oppose Marvel’s registration.  (Wikipedia states it was created by Peter B. Gillis and Brent Anderson.) It was published by Marvel, not Epic, and has Marvel universe designation Earth-1287.  It’s a great concept (aliens take over the Earth, a process gives soldiers superpowers, the new powers result in death within one year), and wouldn’t surprise me if Disney spins this off as a non-Marvel movie.

There are nine listings for “MORITURI” in the PTO database.  Two have been registered (4145694 ; 4142825).  They are the logo and the name, for electronic comics publications.

What else?

How about the Micronauts?  (Or at least those properties not owned by Takara-Tomy)  No application for comic books, but for games and toys.

  • STEVE COFFIN (A Captain Universe)

Has Marvel published anything from the Microverse lately?

Other recent entries:

  • ANT-MAN [toys] (January 14, 2011); (January 14, 2011); [clothing] November 8, 2010; [housewares] November 8, 2010; [backpacks] November 8, 2010
  • AKA JESSICA JONES (five entries)
  • POWER PACK (three entries)
  • RUNAWAYS (two entries)
  • BLIP.COM (abandoned, probably because of BLIP.TV; replaced by MARVEL ARCADE?)
  • MARVEL ARCADE (two entries)
  • KA-ZAR (two entries)
  • Damage Control (two entries)
  • BIG HERO 6 (six entries, rumored to be in development as a Disney animated feature)
  • SILVER SAMURAI (four entries, linked to Big Hero 6)
  • HOWLING COMMANDOS (four entries)
  • MARVEL XP (Part of Marvel’s Facebook games portal)
  • DEADPOOL (one big massive filing, most likely triggered by his appearance in the Wolverine movie)
  • YOUNG ZOMBIES (filed on June 18, 2011, yet no indication the comic book was ever published)

And then there are other marks…

Marvelous and Marvel Super Hero Kids were never used.  Marvelous was filed in 2003, and looks like it might have been a girl’s clothing line.  MSHK dates from 2005.  Both are abandoned.


  1. So nowhere in this article or in the DC one do you give credit to Bleeding Cool for the idea to dig up such info? Tsk tsk.

  2. Nope, Mikael. They did a fine job of reporting on the DC logo, but I’ve been playing around with the USPTO before they reported on that. (I was curious about the “superhero” trademark DC and Marvel share.)

    As a librarian and a former student employee in a government documents collection, I’ve always been fascinated about comics ephemera found at government agencies (such as P.S. Weekly, the Swann Collection, and the Comics Code Senate Committee archive).

    I don’t BC visit everyday, so if they ran an item within the past week, I haven’t seen it.

    Even if that wasn’t the case, I don’t give credit to anyone who might have taught or encouraged me to do something, as I either have forgotten, or it gets a bit ridiculous. ESPECIALLY on the Internet, where influence can get crazy.

    Citations, on the other hand, are given.

    Of course, Bleeding Cool has a feature about swipes and homages. I don’t think they’ve ran an article on other websites copying their reporting style, although they may have run comparisons of text.

    Personally, I think Rich Johnston is a nice guy, and support his journalism.

  3. Regarding Morituri…

    Article is dated July 19th, 2011

    IMDB shows a release date of January 2013, but there’s no cast or director attached, and it’s listed as in pre-production.

    I wonder what sort of deal Disney/Marvel signed with Waterman? Probably something similar to what Legendary Pictures does with Batman.

    Peter Waterman was an executive producer for the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, as well as for Stuart Little and Mike Hammer.

  4. A colleague pointed out this entry to me.

    Taking research done on the Web for granted is a dangerous thing! I do not own or control Strikeforce: Morturi and never have.

    I was the editor of the Strikeforce: Morturi series. I did not create it or have any ownership of the property. As far as I know, the property was/is owned by Marvel. Perhaps that is not the case since the film project is not being produced by Marvel’s film division.

    Strikeforce: Morturi was a concept dreamed up by Peter B. Gillis. I teamed Peter up with artist Brent Anderson and they developed the concept and produced the comic’s initial run together.

    For those interested in more info on Strikeforce: Morturi’s genesis, they can visit this old blog entry:


Comments are closed.