[hn_throwaway_99]

What you've described is essentially what led to the Sherman Antitrust Act in the first place ("trusts" in this case were exactly the kind of body of companies in the same industry that you describe). The two most dominant companies in the industry are simply not allowed to collude like this to the exclusion of competitors.

[thaumasiotes]

But there's nothing stopping them from jointly holding a trademark through a trade association. The United Negro College Fund holds a trademark on the phrase "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". It's a group with closed membership. This is just the normal, intended functioning of the system.

The problem with the SUPER HERO trademark is that it's descriptive, not that it's held by a trade association.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The problem with the SUPER HERO trademark is that it's descriptive, not that it's held by a trade association.

No, that's wrong, because the court clearly specified both problems as being reasons for invalidating the mark:

> 6. DC and Marvel claim that no one can use the term SUPER HERO (or superhero, super-hero, or any other version of the term) without their permission. DC and Marvel are wrong. Trademark law does not permit companies to claim ownership over an entire genre. SUPER HERO is a generic term that should not be protected as a trademark.

> 7. Trademark law also does not allow competitors to claim joint ownership over a single mark. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a single source of goods and services.