It's absolutely awful that a company is even allowed to trademark a name that they didn't even come up with. It's just a standard first name...
I'll bet FX has Louie trademarked too
You can trademark such things in relation to a specific concept.
As witnessed in this thread, CBS can enforce the trademark for "Dexter" only for instances where the use of "Dexter" would create confusion, often intentionally, for the consumer.
Which is to say, if someone is trying to use Dexter the word/logotype, or a derivative, to promote something that very much resembles Dexter in the market space revolving around media, or are otherwise attempting to cash in on the brand hype, there are then grounds for trademark protection and court action.
If something is distinctive, it can get different, but that is why there are two entirely separate trademarks for "Apple". They are unrelated and cannot protect against the use of such a common word when the intended market is so far removed from the original trademark.
Disney is currently seeking to enforce their trademark for Empire Strikes Back, because a brewing company by the name of "Empire" has a beer called "Strikes Bock", so a tap head or menu would read "Empire Strikes Bock."
I believe Empire is equally safe from trademark protection due to the fact that the market is so utterly different. It is not as if one orders a "Strikes Bock" expecting anything to do with Star Wars - they are ordering beer. It may be an obvious reference, but it doesn't cause confusion or capitalize on consumer knowledge of a trademark. If it was a fan-film, that wouldn't fly with anyone who is dead-set on enforcing trademarks. But a beer? That won't hold up in court, I suspect. At least I hope.
Facebook
Twitter