Monster Zero x SciFi Japan - Archive Only

In terms of the name, Toho does not believe in "fair use" and would have their lawyers on anything using the name Godzilla. From then on it would be a matter of who had the money to stay in the legal battle the longest.

I'm guessing GINO was far enough that they would not have sued had the movie been named simply "Giant Iguana". When you see GINO go head to head with Godzilla in GFW you clearly see how different they were. Not to mention that GINO was a lot smaller in the 98 movie.

They can't sue over Zilla if it wasnt named Godzilla anymore than they could sue over gorgo.

Toho wants to protect their IP and that means barring any dilution to the Godzilla trademark by creatures that are extremely similar such as have the same roar (well GINO's roar was close but weird). According to one court case Godzilla is interpeted as an nuclear dinosaur that has always been living in the modern era and breaths fire. GINO was an iguana and while his hurricane breath resulted in fire much less so than the nuclear breath of Godzilla. Now Baragon might also fit that definition if it werent Toho's property but we cant say for certain Baragon is a dinosaur. Gamera aint, and he might even be able to get away with parody, at least at one time were the plots the same and the turtle replaced with a dinosaur.

Long story short I think you'd have to replicate the roar, use the zilla name, or have a strikingly similar gigantic fire breathing dinosaur related monster before Toho would for infringing their Godzilla trademark. If you rehash their prior film plots in a serious manner theyd probably also sue for copyright infringement.

I dont think there are any other kinds of IP they can sue you on Godzilla for in the US unless say you choose to sell an object in a Godzilla shaped package- trade dress infringement.

Toho KK owns a number of Japanese patents such as high speed film techniques which are still active but other than barring you from filing an identical thing in the states I'd imagine you could still practice their patented technology without a patent suit.

And unless you work for toho or a subsidiary and steal some info you're sworn never to reveal such as a suitmation technique and use it in your films they can't get you for trade secret infringement either. So that leaves Trademark and Copyright to worry about.

In what may have set a precedent on how far Toho will go with lawsuits, they sued Subway for one of their "Five Dollar Foot Long" commercials which featured a giant reptillian biped (which looked NOTHING like Godzilla) menacing a woman of Asian descent, claiming copyright infringement. I don't know if they won any monetary damages, but they did succeed in getting the commercial pulled. So yeah, Toho can be pretty extreme...

Is "zilla" subject to copyright? Because there are any number of products that have the "zilla" reference in their name.

I remember for the 98 film Toho's five core guidelines were -

- He must be the product of radiation
- He must have three rows of fins running down his back
- He must have four claws on his hands and feet
- He does not eat people
- He cannot die

I imagine there are more but I wonder if those rules, refined in any way, played a part in the new design (which certainly looks more like Godzilla). That, and when Toho spots a knockoff like in that Subway commercial.

I think there was a failure to communicate on the last point.

In fact, I think that's precisely what they did. Loopholes are freaking great, aren't they?