LONDON, Sept 21 — There was a disturbance in the force for a Star Wars-loving family as they planned their vacation. British soldier Christian Mowbray, 48, and his wife, Becky,...
Private corporations tying the hands of governments with copyright BS? If I want to name my daughter Khaleesi Skywalker Gandalf Bethooven SpaceJam that's none of the governments nor some random corporations business. You can't trademark a fucking name, wtf is this bullshit? You don't get to decide what my name is, and you definitely don't get to hamstring official government agencies in their duties because you're butthurt about my sharing a name with your fictional character. Go fuck yourselves, disney. You slimy litigious fucks, this is why your brand is sinking.
There are rules around names for children with food reason, if you name your child Hitler and Unwanted you can expect government intervention because it can be perceived as child abuse by putting undue stress and difficulty on the child.
Which I believe is fair
This name doesnt quite hit that mark but I would defend government intervention when naming children for outlier cases.
All fair and good, but that kid has been named without government interference, so the name is legally given. So they shouldn't be able to then deny an identification document later.
And Jedi is actually recognised as an official religion in the US. And there’s plenty of people who identify as Jedi in the UK as well. So one could certainly argue that it’s violating someone’s religious beliefs by not allowing that name. At least Luke Skywalker has some evidence of existing…
I'm an atheist and even I know that's a weird comparison. You can't copyright the name Jesus. Or Loki even cause they're deities. But Skywalker as a name is for sure made up by Lucas. Maybe in 500 years when star wars is a recognized religion, but the star wars people need to do some conquering and crimes against humanity to qualify for that
Something as short as "Skywalker" can't be copyrighted. You don't need permission to use a trademark as long as you don't harm the brand or confuse the customer. Since trademarks are often family names, there are a number of unrelated companies that operate under the same name but in a different business.
Sure, but, also, that it's an existing brand is simply irrelevant to a personal name. You don't need to establish that it doesn't damage the brand, it can even directly damage the brand in fact, it still doesn't matter because people aren't products.
Man, that's a stupid name. Poor kid permanently tied to a pop culture reference. Two, if the Loki is referring to Marvel. Naming a kid is not an opportunity to express yourself. If you want people to know you like star wars, get a tattoo. Or a bumper sticker. And then I'll judge you. But leave the kid out of it.
If you can find a time machine, the braydens, jaydens, aydens, aidens, alicias, felicias, aleeshas, leEverythings, and every intentionally-misspelled version of a normal name, will be spared a lifetime of "it's like this but spelled like that because my mom sniffed glue" discussions.
That part really gets me. Why the fuck would you name your kid a name you can't fucking spell. And before paperwork is submitted there should be a law that steps in and stops the naming.
It's probably a reference to Marvel. In the Germanic tradition you a) don't name kids directly after gods, though gods may make up part of the name, say Thorgeir, Thor's spear, and b) not after Loki. Between fucking a horse (and getting pregnant) and tying a goat to his balls he really should be off limits.
It is incredibly stupid that the Passport office thinks that this is a copyright issue, but the parents logic is also baffling...
“We understand that Loki’s middle name is copyrighted, but we have no intention of using it for personal gain."
So you gave a child a name that they themselves won't be able to use for "personal gain" when they grow up? Acknowledging the inherent limitations of a name like this just sounds like you willfully set your kid up for failure.
Sounds to me like a case of parents treating their child like an accessory. You're not raising a child, you're raising a future adult. Maybe don't give them a legal name that is also a corporate brand name?
My son happens to have the name of one of my favorite comic book characters. However, it's only one of his names, and also it's a name that's real and normal so nobody would think twice about it.
I wouldn't name him such an obvious name that is only tired to the one character
I have a somewhat unusual name, that could me male or female. I really didn't like it growing up. Now i don't care anymore, moat people call me a wrong name anyway that sounds similar. But damn, growing up i just wanted a normal ass name.
He was later permitted. The delay being one bureacrat somewhere was being a corporate bootlicker, possibly based on some bootlicking regulation but maybe just a blanket misinterpretation of a law.
I think this is the second time this has happened in recent months. I am wondering if the UK bureaucracy has some sort of training about not violating trademarks generally, or some sort of software filter to avoid trademarked terms. Regardless, it seems like a fairly petty annoyance that affects a tiny number of people and can be worked around.
Or hell, maybe it's the same clerk and Gareth from Slough is sticking to his guns.
People have been choosing made up names from fiction for hundreds (thousands?) of years and as far I know, no one has died from it yet. Jessica is just a character from a play.
Are we talking about the weekly updates on Trumps healthcare plan? Look: he'll get a plan and we'll like it. There's no need to keep nagging him every year.
I'd say if you are appropriating a name from a fictional character for your child (which seems an odd choice, but which I think people should be able to do) it probably doesn't matter much whether you take further creative liberties with it in that way.
And Loki is a Nordic god, so nothing to worry about (except if those gods get angry, then good night). The name Skywalker might be the bigger issue here. But even then, no copyright infringement, except if they try to sell their son I guess.