The Name Game  

StormWrestling.com - Commentary - September 26, 2005

With all the news about WWE not allowing departing talent to use their names, I have received a ton of email asking me if I will be allowed to use Lance Storm in future, and why is it that some guys keep their names and others don't. I will attempt to explain the process of name trademark and ownership in this week's commentary.

The general rule of thumb, which fans have used, has always been, if the wrestler used the name before entering WWE he can keep it, but if it was created while in WWE the company owns it. This has for the most part been accurate, and the reason WWE has been able to keep the names is due to a simple clause in their standard contract. The clause deals with 'work for hire' and 'intellectual property'. It basically says that during the contract any ideas the company or the talent comes up with are considered property of WWE. This covers not only names but catch phrases, and personas, as well.

Now this may sound unreasonable at first glance; If I come up with a great idea and then use it and get it over with fans why does WWE get to keep it, forever? Look at it this way; if Microsoft hired me to work in research and development and while working there, using their lab equipment, I invent a new microchip. I wouldn't be able to take my new chip and go to Apple with it. They would have a similar clause in their contract saying that anything created while I work for Microsoft becomes property of Microsoft. They are hiring me to do a job and that job isn't just to perform, it is also to created WWE product.

This is why unless they later negotiate the rights to gimmicks, the Billy Gunns and Road Dogs of the world can't use their names in TNA. Those names would fall under 'work for hire' and be WWE 'intellectual property'. I think at one point Bret Hart negotiated the rights to the 'Hitman' name, which is why despite it being created in WWF he has used it elsewhere.

This bring us to the new confusing points with the resent news of The Dudley, Billy Kidman, and Justin Credible not being allowed to use their names. None of these names were created in WWE so how can WWE stop them from using them? Let's start with Justin because this is the easiest. Justin was still working for WWE when he started in ECW. WWE was allowing him to work in ECW while still under WWE contract. His WWE contract would give them rights to the name. There is also the possibility that when he negotiated his release from WWE to be full time in ECW that he signed away the rights to the name, in a way of stopping him from going to WCW, which I know was a concern at the time.

Billy Kidman is in a different situation. While I never saw his WCW contract, I assume it was a very similar to mine, which had a 'work for hire' type clause in it. WCW would then have similar ownership rights to names created in WCW. While WCW never enforced such rights, this doesn't mean they weren't there. When WWE purchased WCW one of the things included in the deal were all trademarked property. Any names or gimmicks WCW owned would therefore now be owned by WWE. Kidman was a WCW creation and thus now a WWE creation. This is why if I ever get my Biography off the ground I won't be using the title "If I can be Serious for a Minute" that was created in WCW and I assume therefore is now property of WWE.

Now the Dudleys are a whole different kettle of fish. The Dudley name was created in ECW. WWE purchased ECW, so the impression is that they now own all of ECW created 'work for hire' property. The interesting thing here is, not everyone in ECW was under contract. During my tenure in ECW I never signed an ECW contract, and I don't believe the one we were constantly negotiating back and forth over, had a 'work for hire' clause. It may have but we were so busy debating other issues I may have missed it. If the Dudleys weren't under contract to ECW at the time the Dudley gimmick was created, they may still own rights to it. Further more if they were under contract but didn't have a 'work for hire' clause in the contract, again they may have claim to ownership. If the Dudleys did have such a clause and were under contract then I think it is completely cut and dry, WWE owns the gimmick.

Regardless of the ECW contract any variation created in WWE would still belong to WWE. The "Whazz Up?" catch phrase, and "D-Von get the tables" I believe were created in WWE and will therefore be off limits either way. There is one other interesting option I thought of the other night. I was watching the "Forever Hardcore" documentary on ECW, which is tremendous by the way, and in it Raven talks about how the Dudley gimmick was his idea. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Raven character was created in ECW and Raven still used that name, so I assume he has ownership rights to it. This means one of two things. He either negotiated those rights away from ECW at some point, or more likely he was not under ECW contract at the time he started the gimmick.

So what happens if the Dudleys were under contract and Raven wasn't? Raven creates the Dudley gimmick to be used in ECW. The Dudleys don't own it if they are under a 'work for hire' type contract, but if Raven isn't, ECW can't lay legal claim to it either, can they? ECW wouldn't have the rights of ownership to Raven's 'intellectual property', and therefore it wouldn't be included in the property WWE purchased. There is a possibility here that Raven could have legal claim the Dudley name, at least the original ECW version of it. If the Duds decide to fight for the name, this could get interesting, depending on what their contractual status was in ECW.

As for me, and 'Lance Storm', I created this name before I had my first match and likely 10 years before signing any 'work for hire' type contract, so it's mine. There was even a page in my WWE contract, which stated I owned the name Lance Storm. If I were to decide to return to the ring in a non-WWE capacity, I could do so as Lance Storm. I could even be from Calgary...(dramatic pause) Alberta, Canada. I could not however use the line "If I can be serious for a minute" or do the cabbage patch, or claim to have an incredibly large penis. I may miss being able to say that line, but the latter two I think I can live with out. But then again maybe I could use them, would anyone truly be able to claim those gimmicks were, "intellectual" property? (LOL)

Till next week

Lance "someone or other"