[Dngrsone]

I know what a trademark is. I am saying that 'Sherlock Holmes' is not an imprint for a business (unless it's a housing development somewhere), and shouldn't be trademarked. It should have been copyrighted, and the author, being sufficiently dead now, has no need to hold exclusive rights to that story.

Holding on to it is either a elderly child, grandchild (or other relative) or corporate entity that a) did not create the characters and/or story, and b) harbours no reasonable right to hold those properties in abeyance.

Rather than maintaining an iron grip to the past, why not build new characters for the future?

I think I know the answer-- they haven't the talent. And rather than try to cultivate that talent, they will exercise what resources they do have to retain control of those ancient properties...

Think about it-- if the entity that held Sherlock Holmes were able to secure that property back, then every descendant of any talent would fight to do the same: free lunch.

Can you imagine some scion of George Washington wanting to get some miniscule percentage out of the use of their ancestor's image? The US Government alone would have to pay out the nose.