WWF vs. WWF was atrademark dispute involving theWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and theWorld Wrestling Federation (WWF) over the use of the "WWF" initials. From April 2000, the Fund pursued the case in theHigh Court of Justice inEngland throughinternational arbitration, as the Fund was based inSwitzerland, and the Federation was based in theUnited States. The court ruled in favor of the Fund on August 10, 2001, and the Federation abandoned their attempt to seek leave to appeal in theHouse of Lords on May 6, 2002.[1]
The World Wildlife Fund registered the "WWF" initials as a trademark in 1961, despite changing its name to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature in 1989, the fund retained use of the "WWF" initials as its logo and in-print.[2]
In 1979, the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) rebranded as the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). The business primarily conducted operations in the United States.[3]
On September 6, 1989, the Fund had filed for extensions of time to oppose a trademark application by the Federation for "WWF", on the grounds of potential confusion with their own registered "WWF" trademark.[4]
On September 12, 1989, the Federation sent a letter to the Fund addressing its federal trademark application for the "WWF" mark in International Class 41 (for wrestling entertainment services). This marked the beginning of formal discussions between the two parties regarding the use of the "WWF" initials.[5]
On September 26, 1989, both parties reached an agreement that the Federation would not use the "WWF" mark in theTimesRoman typeface when the mark appeared alone, without the Federation's logo. In exchange, the Fund agreed not to oppose the Federation's federal trademark registration for "WWF" in Class 41.[6]
By 1993, despite the 1989 agreement, both parties had been involved in further disputes, as the Federation had grown in popularity across Europe. Both the Fund and Federation had contested international trademark applications the other party had made. The Fund obtained an interim injunction against the distributor of the Federation'sWWF Magazine in Switzerland.[7]
On January 20, 1994, the Fund and the Federation formed a new agreement, including that the Federation would stop using the "WWF" initials in printed, written, or visual form in connection with its business, though allowances were made for pre-approved merchandise and publications.[8]
The Federation was also prohibited from filing any new trademarks with the "WWF" initials and had to cancel existing registrations, except for those associated with the Federation's “block logo.” The federation was allowed to occasionally use the initials in oral contexts, such as referring to the “WWF champion,” but was otherwise expected to avoid using them. Other terms included that business partners were required to exclusively refer to the company as the "World Wrestling Federation".[9]
On April 17, 2000, the Fund commenced proceedings against the Federation at theHigh Court of Justice inEngland throughinternational arbitration, claiming that the Federation had violated the 1994 agreement, particularly with their use of WWF.com and other Internet-based endeavours using "WWF".[10]
On August 10, 2001, the court ruled in favor of the World Wide Fund for Nature.[11] The World Wrestling Federation filed against the decision in England'sCourt of Appeal in October 2001.[12]
On February 27, 2002, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Federation's challenge to the High Court of Justice's decision. However, the Federation was granted a stay by the Court of Appeal.[13] The Federation announced on the same day that it would seek leave to appeal in England'sHouse of Lords.[14]
On May 6, 2002, the Federation announced that it would abandon its attempt in seeking leave to appeal in the House of Lords, and would rebrand from World Wrestling Federation (WWF) to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).[15] The WWE would be able to still use its block 'WWF' logo in some contexts, as well as the term 'World Wrestling Federation', but would be prohibited from using the 'WWF' initials moving forward, as well as the 'WWF scratch' logo introduced atSurvivor Series 1997. The WWE would also have to censor any "WWF" spoken references and the former 'WWF scratch' logo in any previous footage.[16]
In the same statement,Linda McMahon, CEO for WWE, said that the rebranding allowed for the company to emphasize its focus on entertainment, and the company also launched its "Get the F Out!" marketing campaign.[17]
On April 7, 2003, the Court of Appeal partially overturned their decision to allow the WWE to sell interactive software published byTHQ/Jakks Pacific that contained the former WWF scratch logo within the gameplay, as the WWE argued that censoring the "WWF" logo and initials would be impractical due to the configuration of the software.[18] The re-released titles included thePlayStation Greatest Hits/Platinum versions ofWWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role andWWF SmackDown! Just Bring It, as well as theXbox Platinum Hits re-release ofWWF Raw. However, whilst the internal gameplay of these titles were the same, the external cover artwork was amended on all to display the WWE logo.[19]
On February 16, 2006, the Fund sought damages against the WWE in the High Court over the entire dispute.[20] On April 2, 2007, the High Court sided with WWE, mainly due to the Fund's abuse of process and inconsistent legal strategy.[21][22]
On May 6, 2002, WWE promptly changed its website from WWF.com to WWE.com, but other updates took longer. TheWrestleMania X8 video game that was released onGameCube on June 10, 2002 had any typical WWF logo placements on its case artwork replaced with "World Wrestling Federation" typography, as the manufacturing and shipping took place toward the end of the legal battle, but before "WWE" was introduced; later versions of the game were released with WWE logos on the case.[23] TheNew York Stock Exchange ticker symbol remained as WWF until August 7, 2002, and some championship titles continued to feature the WWF logo for a while after the agreement until they could be redesigned.[24]
The BritishWWE Tagged Classics DVD re-releases of WWF programming released between 2004 and 2012 were without censorship of "WWF", as the court order only pertained to prohibiting the usage of the 'WWF' initials outside of the United Kingdom.[25]
On December 1, 2002, the WWF.com web domain name expired. WWE had allowed the domain name to expire, as there was no legal obligation to transfer the asset to the Fund. The domain was quickly acquired by Frank Baach, who sold it to Gregory Ricks from Texas, who used the domain for his 'Web Wrestling Forum' in the year following.[26] On November 17, 2006, it was announced that the Fund's attempt to obtain the domain name through theWorld Intellectual Property Organization'sUniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, on the grounds that it was registered inbad faith, was unsuccessful.[27]
The WWE and the Fund formed a new agreement which meant that the WWE would no longer have to blur or censor 'WWF' logos and spoken 'WWF' references in previous footage, however as part of the deal, the WWE would be prohibited from using the original 'WWF' block logo in new footage, as well as any references to "World Wrestling Federation" in new footage. The first instances of the WWF logo being unblurred was in archival segments on theWWE Raw 1000 television special broadcast on July 23, 2012.[28]