Is DC Legally Allowed To Call Billy Batson 'Captain Marvel'

[Timothy Hunter]

From the 70s up until Flashpoint, each comic centering around Billy Batson had 'Shazam' in the title, but Billy's codename was 'Captain Marvel' within the pages of the comic. This all changed from the New Fifty Two onward where 'Shazam' wasn't just the magic word it was Billy's siperhero name too.

[HsssH]

Yes, at some point DC decided that it makes more sense if the character and his book can be called by the same name.

[Jody Garland]

Inside a book? Yeah, they can call him Captain Marvel. The issue is in trademark law, which determines what a product can be sold as. In the case of Captain Marvel, the trademark was snatched up by Marvel back in the 60s and they've followed protocol on it ever since. It's why, in the gap between Mar-Vell and Carol being Captains, they always made sure to have a Captain Marvel book on the stand every few years, even if was a one shot.

DC didn't decide to bring Captain Marvel into publication again 'till the early 70s, and by then it was too late. After Fawcett got out of the comic biz in '53, no one had had kept up the trademark and it'd lapsed. There's no backsies or anything in trademark law, so DC had to just find the next best name for the book.

[Digifiend]

Yeah, the issue is that DC didn't actually own Billy Batson until the 1980s. When he was first revived in the 1970s, it was under license from Fawcett, who'd stopped publishing comic books but was still active as a magazine publisher. They later bought all of Fawcett's comic characters, and merged them into the main DC Universe in Crisis on Infinite Earths. In 1968 when Marvel trademarked Captain Marvel and created Mar-Vell, Fawcett didn't contest it because they were no longer publishing comics, and DC didn't as they didn't yet have anything to do with the franchise which later became known as Shazam. Basically, DC should've taken Billy on a few years earlier.

[DrNewGod]

Yeah, the issue is that DC didn't actually own Billy Batson until the 1980s. When he was first revived in the 1970s, it was under license from Fawcett, who'd stopped publishing comic books but was still active as a magazine publisher. They later bought all of Fawcett's comic characters, and merged them into the main DC Universe in Crisis on Infinite Earths. In 1968 when Marvel trademarked Captain Marvel and created Mar-Vell, Fawcett didn't contest it because they were no longer publishing comics, and DC didn't as they didn't yet have anything to do with the franchise which later became known as Shazam. Basically, DC should've taken Billy on a few years earlier.

As Jody said tho, the big issue was Marvel seizing the name. I've read elsewhere it a was a bit of mania with Stan Lee's publisher predecessor, Martin Goodman.

[MajorHoy]

As Jody said tho, the big issue was Marvel seizing the name. I've read elsewhere it a was a bit of mania with Stan Lee's publisher predecessor, Martin Goodman.

Back in the 1960s, Marvel grabbed up a few other dormant Golden Age character names as well besides "Captain Marvel".

"Daredevil" was another one.

[Digifiend]

As Jody said tho, the big issue was Marvel seizing the name. I've read elsewhere it a was a bit of mania with Stan Lee's publisher predecessor, Martin Goodman.

Which they did as soon as they could expand their line when they stopped using DC as their distributor. DC should've seen it coming and pre-empted it. It was only three years later that they got the rights to publish Shazam.

[Noodle]

Yes, at some point DC decided that it makes more sense if the character and his book can be called by the same name.

It probably didn't help that around the time they planned to re-introduce him in the New 52, they were most likely already at least planning to do the movie. If you're planning a big marketing blitz with things like toys and merchandise, not being able to call the main character his actual name on them can be problematic.

[Holt]

It probably didn't help that around the time they planned to re-introduce him in the New 52, they were most likely already at least planning to do the movie. If you're planning a big marketing blitz with things like toys and merchandise, not being able to call the main character his actual name on them can be problematic.

I distinctly remember when Mortal Kombat vs. DC came out and seeing people confused as to why the character was called Captain Marvel in-game but Shazam in all the marketing. Even the game official website was forced to call him Shazam for promotional purposes, which only added to the confusion of people who weren't familiar with the character.

[Powerboy]

From the 70s up until Flashpoint, each comic centering around Billy Batson had 'Shazam' in the title, but Billy's codename was 'Captain Marvel' within the pages of the comic. This all changed from the New Fifty Two onward where 'Shazam' wasn't just the magic word it was Billy's siperhero name too.

I suspect they can still legally use the name except on the cover and in the title of a comic. But I think that to avoid confusion, they've just given up on the name Captain Marvel, especially with an MCU movie out now so that millions of people now think of another character as Captain Marvel.

I still think of him as Captain Marvel and I think of Carol Danvers as the Captain Marvel of another company.

[DrNewGod]

I suspect they can still legally use the name except on the cover and in the title of a comic. But I think that to avoid confusion, they've just given up on the name Captain Marvel, especially with an MCU movie out now so that millions of people now think of another character as Captain Marvel.

I still think of him as Captain Marvel and I think of Carol Danvers as the Captain Marvel of another company.

DC might be able to put the name on a cover, probably not in a cover's title, and definitely not in the comic's indicia. Of course, DC ain't poking that bear with Disney behind it over one of their B-Listers (even if he did have a hit movie); they've changed the name and moved on.