BTW, just to clarify, there would be nothing to stop anyone from releasing a "Goldmember" movie -- just don't expect to get the MPAA's seal of approval on it. That's why you rarely hear anyone objecting to the porn films with titles that are clearly parodies of mainstream films. Because they're not seeking MPAA approval for the most part, the system is irrelevant to them (and a trademark lawsuit would be pointless, because the mainstream film companies would almost certainly lose).

The MPAA has its own system separate from the trademark system in order to expedite the process creating films. You can register something like 10 or 15 potential film titles for around $200 with the MPAA.

Then no one can release a film under the name you registered or with a similar name without going through arbitration with the MPAA.

Remember the controversy of the Diablo name because somebody wanted to make a movie that contained "Diablo" in the title, but Blizzard had already registered it? It wasn't a trademark issue there, but rather the MPAA's system.

BTW, isn't this in many ways a huge improvement over the traditional trademark system. Basically you have filmmakers here, many of whom might not be able to afford trademark lawyers and all of that nonsense, getting togther and saying, "lets solve this in-house."

Sure you occaisonally have some companies like Sony and the Blizzard folks get anal retentive about protecting their particular brand, but better the occaional glich that then feeding the lawyer's trough.

I think according to the article that I read that what the problem was they didnt follow the proper submission guidelines with the MPAA of submitting the of the title or some stupid shit like that. Supposedly the MPAA is the end all say all here and they have strict standards on the subject and new line failed to follow procedure, however the article I read also stated something about a june 14th date that they can re submit it, fucking weird.

You know it's really bad business that they're not telling them to get stuffed because they're risking the setting of legal precedents by complicity. Essentially, they're validating their claims of 'unfair use.' I think it's BS.