| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott Betts is my forum hero. He is more often a voice of rational thought and inquiry than just about anyone else here. He doesn't play Devil's Advocate so much as post facts and fight irrational hyperbole, exaggeration, and misinformation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know you absolutely love to play the devil's advocate, but seriously dude, you're f$*~ing defending the right to trademark common words
Yes, because that's an ability you should have. People trademark common words all the freaking time, and there's rarely (if ever) anything objectionable about the practice. The nature of trademark law ensures that the use of that mark is limited to the scope under which it is registered, so unless you're planning on naming your product after an existing product that is already on the market using the same name (which you shouldn't be doing), you won't have a problem!
As an all-too-topical example of this, here are eight live trademarks using just the word "Crush" - the other half of the Candy Crush title.
EDIT: I just realized that the individual registration links are tied to a specific trademark search session. If you want to see them, go to this website and click on "TESS Search Trademarks", then on "Basic Word Mark Search (New User)".
and then try to bully something that's only vaguely competition out of business.
I am absolutely not defending their attempt to trademark troll.. In fact, I just got finished saying that was a bad thing for them to have done. It's a meritless objection and it ought to be dismissed.
EDIT: Apparently, King agrees - their legal team has stated that they don't intend to pursue any sort of legal action against Banner Saga.
That'd be like me trademarking the word "advocate" and then using it to get you kicked off the forums.
The only people calling me "devil's advocate" here are the ones who don't like what I'm saying because it doesn't line up with how they believe trademarks work (or ought to work). I'm not arguing on behalf of King. By most accounts, they're a pretty shady company. I'm explaining how the trademark system works because apparently half this thread is in the dark.
I can't help but roll my eyes when someone calls trademark law "broken". Of the three primary spheres of intellectual property law in the United States, trademark law is the only one that hasn't been sorely in need of reform!
(Seriously - Google "patent reform", "copyright reform", and "trademark reform" and compare the first page of links.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Predictably, a trademark search for marks including "Scott" reveals dozens of registered marks of simply "Scott". Please, tell us again about how you can't trademark common first names.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else wonder when the story will be updated with their trademark on the word "Crush"?
The fact that dozens of registered trademarks of "Crush" already exist notwithstanding, it's likely that they won't register "Crush" because they're not trading under that mark. "Candy Crush" is a product (or set of products) and it's likely that they intend to develop "Candy" into a brand (releasing, for example, a shooter called "Candy Crisis", a point-and-click game called "Candy Conundrum", and a racing game called "Candy Crash") and want to ensure that competitors don't attempt to trade on that brand recognition down the road.
Again, not defending them, just explaining the likely rationale behind them registering "Candy" and "Candy Crush" but not "Crush".
Heh. I think it's great. After all, the whole IP system is completely insane, and the more visible abuses it leads to, the sooner it can be scrapped in favour of something better. Sad about people getting forced out of business because someone used the system to trademark something like that, but, c'est la vie. Insane systems bring suffering needlessly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I think it's great. After all, the whole IP system is completely insane, and the more visible abuses it leads to, the sooner it can be scrapped in favour of something better. Sad about people getting forced out of business because someone used the system to trademark something like that, but, c'est la vie. Insane systems bring suffering needlessly.
A) This is the trademark system. It's the one side of our IP law setup that isn't completely insane. In fact, it generally works fine.
B) No one is being forced out of business. At all. The "Candy" mark doesn't destroy anyone's livelihood. The "Saga" mark isn't going to have any effect on the Banner Saga whatsoever.
C) People "trademark something like that" all the time. All the time. It happens constantly. No one bats an eye. The only reason anyone is getting upset is because a lot of gamers don't like Candy Crush because they view it as hypercasual trash, a couple of irresponsible news outlets covered the story without doing their homework, and gamers really, really love having strong opinions on topics they know very little about.
Heh. Someone I know tried to make a rather special noir tabletop RPG, called Noir. It had the face of a lady of the genre on the cover, and a flowing red typeface for the title. He got a cease and desist letter from the owners of the FPS computer game BLACK, who considered it a breach of their trademark. They contacted the local authority for it and he had to spend about a year trying to handle the situation at great personal expense. Eventually, it was ruled that he did not have to stop selling the game he had worked on for around ten years.
No. It certainly doesn't work fine. That is, as usual, just ignorance talking.
Heh. Someone I know tried to make a rather special noir tabletop RPG, called Noir. It had the face of a lady of the genre on the cover, and a flowing red typeface for the title. He got a cease and desist letter from the owners of the FPS computer game BLACK, who considered it a breach of their trademark. They contacted the local authority for it and he had to spend about a year trying to handle the situation at great personal expense. Eventually, it was ruled that he did not have to stop selling the game he had worked on for around ten years.
No. It certainly doesn't work fine. That is, as usual, just ignorance talking.
I have a feeling this has something to do with the fact that Archon Gaming canceled the Noir trademark in 2004, two years prior to the video game Black hitting the market in 2006.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which does not matter one whit. Cases like that should have been completely ignored. Noir is an established term, the game Black has nothing to do with it, the products are in entirely different areas of gaming... Sum total, thrown out without comment. But no. And there, dear Scott, is the problem. So many people need to spend time defending their works and products against frivolous trademark complaints, we lose many new, interesting products we could have had due to it, small companies can't afford entering many markets because of it... All in all, it acts as a tool for trolling and a way to limit competition. And before you say it, it doesn't even solve the problem it was designed to fix, given that big selling products still get plagiarized, only with a slight name change. I find it surprising that Cranky Poultry is not a thing yet, to be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I think it's great. After all, the whole IP system is completely insane, and the more visible abuses it leads to, the sooner it can be scrapped in favour of something better. Sad about people getting forced out of business because someone used the system to trademark something like that, but, c'est la vie. Insane systems bring suffering needlessly.A) This is the trademark system. It's the one side of our IP law setup that isn't completely insane. In fact, it generally works fine.
B) No one is being forced out of business. At all. The "Candy" mark doesn't destroy anyone's livelihood. The "Saga" mark isn't going to have any effect on the Banner Saga whatsoever.
C) People "trademark something like that" all the time. All the time. It happens constantly. No one bats an eye. The only reason anyone is getting upset is because a lot of gamers don't like Candy Crush because they view it as hypercasual trash, a couple of irresponsible news outlets covered the story without doing their homework, and gamers really, really love having strong opinions on topics they know very little about.
Except the Saga mark has already had an affect on The Banner Saga, as their trademark registration has been delayed multiple times because of King's objection. King may now be backpeddling on it (or possibly just saying they are), but they did first try to use their muscle, and their objection to The Banner Saga at the trademark office remains, to my knowledge.
Which does not matter one whit. Cases like that should have been completely ignored. Noir is an established term,
What the hell does "established term" mean? They had a trademark, and they let it lapse (or deliberately canceled it).
the game Black has nothing to do with it, the products are in entirely different areas of gaming...
Distinctions are not made between "areas" of gaming. Which is probably the correct call, given how frequently games transition between "types".
Sum total, thrown out without comment. But no. And there, dear Scott, is the problem. So many people need to spend time defending their works and products against frivolous trademark complaints, we lose many new, interesting products we could have had due to it, small companies can't afford entering many markets because of it...
You have one example from nearly a decade ago involving a product that its creator apparently didn't care enough about to keep its trademark registration active, which would have protected it from exactly this.
You can't say "The system is broken!" when someone refuses to operate within the system and suffers the consequences.
All in all, it acts as a tool for trolling and a way to limit competition. And before you say it, it doesn't even solve the problem it was designed to fix, given that big selling products still get plagiarized, only with a slight name change. I find it surprising that Cranky Poultry is not a thing yet, to be honest.
See, I don't know anyone actually working in IP law who believes that the trademark system doesn't solve the problem it was designed to address. There are huge pushes for reform for both patent law and copyright law. There is no huge push for reform for trademark law, because pretty much everyone thinks it's working fine.
Aside from the whole C&D thing.
B) No one is being forced out of business. At all. The "Candy" mark doesn't destroy anyone's livelihood. The "Saga" mark isn't going to have any effect on the Banner Saga whatsoever.
Businesses send C&Ds all the time. They are the legal equivalent of a courtesy letter. They are not a lawsuit. If you are confident you are in the right, they can be ignored. You are not obligated to do anything in response to a C&D.
Despicable. Do you think we could convince Dr. Pepper/7-Up (Crush soft drink brand) to trademark the word "crush" and then have their legal department start sending snarky letters to King?
I missed this one on my first scan through the thread.
"Crush" is already trademarked dozens of times by dozens of companies, including, I'm sure, by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group.
Its actual status is Opposition Pending, from the December 27th filing from King, who previously filed a request to extend the timeframe for filing oppositions in July. Live just means that it hasn't been denied yet. You have made the claim King getting a patent on Saga would have no effect on The Banner Saga, but it would in fact seriously strengthen King's claim of infringment if the general Saga patent were granted.
Trademarks. Not patents.
The fact that the registration is pending opposition has no effect on the product itself. The opposition is baseless, it should not have been made, it will be sorted out, and no disruption to the game or to the company (beyond, perhaps, some legal fees, but that's the way the courts work) will occur.
It doesn't mean it will have no effect, as you claim. Lawsuits cost money, and even the threat of one costs The Banner Saga. Defending their trademark application unless King drops its opposition will cost them time and money.
It will cost them money, but that's how the courts work. That's not a problem with trademark law, that's a fundamental issue with our basic legal system - that civil legal disputes must involve lawyers, and that lawyers cost money.
It shouldn't cost them time - or, at least, no significant amount of time. Production can move forward, they have filed their trademark and so are protected against others infringing, and they're not in any real danger of losing their mark to King.
Looking into trademarks more, I have to agree with you that these should probably be allowed. But how King has already used them to bully non-related games makes me hope someone puts them in their place.
The public outcry over their shotgun approach to trademark enforcement will hopefully encourage them to avoid it in the future.
Despicable. Do you think we could convince Dr. Pepper/7-Up (Crush soft drink brand) to trademark the word "crush" and then have their legal department start sending snarky letters to King?I missed this one on my first scan through the thread.
"Crush" is already trademarked dozens of times by dozens of companies, including, I'm sure, by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group.
Responding seriously to my tongue-in-cheek post provides a net return of zero humor.
Responding seriously to my tongue-in-cheek post provides a net return of zero humor.Despicable. Do you think we could convince Dr. Pepper/7-Up (Crush soft drink brand) to trademark the word "crush" and then have their legal department start sending snarky letters to King?I missed this one on my first scan through the thread.
"Crush" is already trademarked dozens of times by dozens of companies, including, I'm sure, by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek, I just wanted to reiterate that trademarking simple words is so common that you wouldn't have had to "convince" Dr. Pepper to do anything - they took care of that trademark a long time ago.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek, I just wanted to reiterate that trademarking simple words is so common that you wouldn't have had to "convince" Dr. Pepper to do anything - they took care of that trademark a long time ago.
Well then the "convincing" part would have to be showing them how it would be an advantageous PR move to strong-arm a company with a product that has no direct relation or threat to the market-share of their own to prove a point to another company basically doing exactly that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt it. It was sold in Sweden, my guess is a thousand copies or so. That was enough, because the BLACK guys considered the french word for "black", that also is the word for a rather specific genre, on a book that was not a computer game, was a breach of their trademark. They sent a C&D letter to him, and ran the case through the Swedish trademark authority, which lead to him having to spend quite a bit of money and defend his position over the course of about a year.
But hey, we can keep arguing that since this is not an American product, it doesn't exist, and we really are talking about Archon Gaming's game from the mid nineties?
|
I know you absolutely love to play the devil's advocate, but seriously dude, you're f@*&ing defending the right to trademark common words and then try to bully something that's only vaguely competition out of business. That'd be like me trademarking the word "advocate" and then using it to get you kicked off the forums.
Hmmm.........
you wouldn't be able to do that, first you'd have to have product with that name,
second I don't think he's even used the word personally you used it to describe him, but I don't think he has used it|
|
Does anyone else wonder when the story will be updated with their trademark on the word "Crush"?
F@%% it, I'm gonna start a game company, name my game "Kthulhu Game", trademark the term "GAME" and then shove WotC and Paizo off the hill.
You should receive a cease and desist letter from The Game.
You will lose.
I doubt it. It was sold in Sweden, my guess is a thousand copies or so. That was enough, because the BLACK guys considered the french word for "black", that also is the word for a rather specific genre, on a book that was not a computer game, was a breach of their trademark. They sent a C&D letter to him, and ran the case through the Swedish trademark authority, which lead to him having to spend quite a bit of money and defend his position over the course of about a year.
But hey, we can keep arguing that since this is not an American product, it doesn't exist, and we really are talking about Archon Gaming's game from the mid nineties?
It's not that it doesn't exist because it's not American.
The issue is that you're using an example of a Swedish trademark case to criticize the United States trademark system.
The fact that the drama unfolded in Europe makes perfect sense - trademark reform is a huge deal in the EU! There are real problems with it there!
Those problems are not shared with the United States trademark system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know you absolutely love to play the devil's advocate, but seriously dude, you're f@*&ing defending the right to trademark common words and then try to bully something that's only vaguely competition out of business. That'd be like me trademarking the word "advocate" and then using it to get you kicked off the forums.
Hmmm.........
you wouldn't be able to do that, first you'd have to have product with that name,
second I don't think he's even used the word personally you used it to describe him, but I don't think he has used it
Bayer already owns the mark for use in flea control. You'll be wasting your money.
