>>120203942>You really don't know your history, casual?The Captain Thunder movie was released in 1930, casual. Whether the intention of a creator was to call him Captain Thunder is immaterial, trademark and copyright still existed in 1940.
>The word 'marvel' was preexisting word predating MMC.This is true.
However in IP law context is king. In this example, as you've helpfully repeated, "Marvel Mystery Comics", or "Marvel ... Comics" is the key use of the word, beginning in 1939. It was this title (casual) which Timely would eventually be re-named in celebration of (not "Captain Marvel" - Marvel Comics didn't debut their own "Captain Marvel" until 1968, five years after the name change from Atlas Comics, formerly Timely Comics).
So for comic book association, "Marvel" has a longer history with Timely/Atlas/Marvel Comics than it does with Fawcett Comics (who also, by your reasoning, cannot claim ownership of it - making it worthless unless, of course, context is king). It also has a more consistent history with Marvel Comics (who have been Marvel Comics since 1963, and published one or more Captains Marvel since 1968).
More to the point, since Marvel Comics is a registered trademark, and Marvel Comics in turn (legitimately, since nobody else held the trademark when they registered it) has owned the Captain Marvel trademark since 1968, more than five years before National Comics tried to steal a march on their competitors by buying up old reprint and trying to sue over it, Marvel Comics can indeed claim exclusive *ownership* of the Captain Marvel and Marvel Comics names. What DC has isn't ownership of anything - it's simply an agreement with Marvel that on the historical basis they can internally refer to Shazam as Captain Marvel within stories, a right which in theory can be revoked.
You're right though nothing stops DC putting out a character called Marvel. They just couldn't trademark it, because it's just a word as you say.
