They both can't use their original name because of marvel

>they both can't use their original name because of marvel

Attached: Shazam-Miracle-Man-DC-Comics-Marvel.jpg (960x500, 116.3K)

Miracleman is unironically a better name considering he’s meant to be a god essentially that guides the entire world and changes society forever

the MarvelMan/Miracleman one is very confusing since Marvel owns the character but continues to call the character Miracleman

DC can use Captain Marvel, just not on covers. Plus they don’t want brand confusion. I like SHAZAM better anyway

And don't you forget it

Attached: 1470365188387.jpg (600x600, 295.93K)

The Marvelman thing sucks but the Captain Marvel one's their own fault
>sue Fawcett for years and then tell them to stop doing Captain Marvel comics
>Marvel bring out a new Captain Marvel after the name lapses
>DC buy OG Captain Marvel three years later from Fawcett to claim it's because they're nice guys and care about preserving the original character, even hiring CC Beck who they froze out of comic work by suing Fawcett (even if Beck was successful but a no-name in commercial art in the interim)

And obviously Marvel aren't going to let the Captain Marvel name lapse which is why they gave it to Carol after Monica became harder to use in 616, and it's possible they'll transfer it to another character when they need to. Mar'vell dying was a complication brought on by Starlin's dad dying influencing his work and I think The Thing got a line referencing Monica taking the name from absolutely nowhere

yeah like what were they thinking iirc the captain marvel (shazam) publisher were small if you compare it to marvel dc and the character is huge sucess why dont marvel like idk maybe some head of marvelcomic back then trying to make a deal with them, hey you using our trademark why dont you guys just join us

Marvel had nothing to do with DC's decade long butchery of the character.

Afaik, the only people who could allow Captain Marvel (Billy Batson) to be used post-lawsuits were National. I could be wrong but I don't think they were allowed to make that purchase. It'd be an attempt at circumventing terms on Fawcett's part. Not that the situation was a good thing.

Marvel was timely at the time, and captain america was really the only superhero book that sold in big numbers. Kids liked monster comics way more

Not true. CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES sold more than one million copies each month, beating out Superman. Captain America was further down the list,

Super-heroes were the dominant genre in the 1940s. Horror comics (and Westerns) took over around 1950.

DC didn't buy rights to the Captain Marvel/Billy Batson character until 1972. Nobody was using the "Captain Marvel" name for for than a decade, which is why its trademark lapsed.

In 1967, Marvel Comics snatched up the unused name and trademarked it for its Mar-Vell character. Marvel has kept the name in use ever since only to make sure no one else uses it.

not that user but nonetheless it's a moot point. Captain America was cancelled due to low sales in 54, about a year after Fawcett stopped fighting National legally. The lawsuits (from 1951 to 1953) would have held up any purchases attempted during litigation, because that's how things work. Attempting to offload the responsibility by saying
>well, we sold him to Timely now so technically *we* aren't publishing him also wouldn't have worked
Marvel were able to use the name because the rights to the name weren't in question the way taking the character wholesale might have been. The fact that DC had to purchase CM is a big indicator of that.

Fawcett was a major publisher in the 1940s, way ahead of Timely (which became Marvel in the 1960s). Marvel didn't grab the unused Captain Marvel name until 1967.

DC bought rights to use the Billy Batson/Captain Marvel character in 1972. But because Marvel Comics had claimed Cap's name, they can't use it on covers or promotional material. That's why "Shazam" has been played up.

>Nobody was using the "Captain Marvel" name for for than a decade, which is why its trademark lapsed.
That's what I said. Since Mar'vell it's been to kept to retain the name, but Mar'vell's own comics were mostly positively received.
Whoops
*from 1941 to 1953

DC has a clumsy, heavy-handed way of ruining every character they buy from other publishers. Blue Beetle, Captain Marvel, Blackhawk, Plastic Man... DC just doesn't get it.

Fawcett stopped fighting the lawsuit because the sales on CM had been flagging every year since 1945 and it wasn't worth it to keep fighting National. They were a serious competitor and in a better position than Timely or National in the 40s but seemingly by their admission not the 50s

and yeah, pretty much every superhero comic was flagging in comparison to horror in the 50s but in this case it had a direct effect on the litigation.

Also, there was never any interest from Timely (at that time, usually called Atlas) in buying rights to Captain Marvel in the 1950s. Martin Goodman wasn't much for licensing or buying characters, he'd order an imitation and save money,

As I recall, Fawcett was likely to have dropped comics any way by the early 1950s,. They were doing very well with slick magazines like FAMILY CIRCLE and Gold Medal paperbacks.

That's true too but even if there had been interest they would have had to do it within the year between his first Whiz appearance and the National lawsuit.