EA Own The Word 'Battlefield'. Seriously.

[FullAuto]

I don't think it's necessarily the larger 'aggressive' companies that need keeping in check but as suggested the courts who make the call.

 

But in the cases pointed out, the courts have hardly been involved. And it's not the courts that are the cause of this behaviour.

 

On top of that though it's mostly down to the defendants as surely no court will rule in favour of a prosecutor without a case will they?

 

The thing is, if EA had lost, they could shrug it off, doesn't matter. Legal costs? Pfft. And it would take years for them to lose if they felt like it. In the meantime, Slitherine would be haemorraging money thanks to an injunction stopping them selling the game, and those same legal costs. Even if Slitherine won, by the time they did, the legal costs would bankrupt them (as if they need further financial strain in these wonderful economic times). And if EA won, the lack of revenue, damages, and legal costs, would sink Slitherine.

 

The problem isn't the courts. In any country where you have a half-decent legal system, it works most of the time, you never hear about the majority of cases where justice is served, you just hear about the silly/obviously wrong/outrageous results.

 

The problem seems to be this bullying behaviour, which I'm beginning to think is innate. Perhaps bullying is natural?

[Space Voyager]

The problem seems to be this bullying behaviour, which I'm beginning to think is innate. Perhaps bullying is natural?

Bullying is definitely natural, just as taking advantage of a weaker party, that is why we have the whole judicial system, laws ans so forth to prevent it in a civilized society.

 

The problem is that the ruling "caste" are bullies themselves so appropriate laws are passed. If court could make the suing party pay all the bills for the sued one as well (until the final judgement naturally) when just such cases as we're discussing here arise, it wouldn't hurt the sued party either and there would be no "wearing out" sues. The court can not do that.

[Bomb Bloke]

“We have tried to reach out to talk to Zenimax, but we are always blocked by layers of lawyers,” he said. “We think that is a very unproductive and expensive way of communicating.”

Notch offered to change the name?

These two links suddenly put things in a different light for me.

 

The first reads "we're trying to talk to their legal team, but we don't know legal speak and can't be stuffed hiring someone who does".

 

The second links off to an article which discusses what kicked off the case in the first place - it wasn't that Mojang was making a game called "Scrolls", it was that Mojang wanted total ownership of the term, which would give them every right to block Skyrim from hitting the shelves if they so chose - regardless of whether Mojang would use it, Bethesda would be mad not to contest them having that power.

 

(If I'm understanding the rules correctly, a trademark may be taken from you later simply because you didn't defend it today. Whether or not Mojang would be likely to get the trademark without Bethesda's intervention is irrelevant).

 

So Notch comes out and states that he offered to pull the trademark request. That's all well and good, but has he done that yet? I don't see why Bethesda's lawyers would drop the lawsuit until he does.

 

I just get the feeling that we (and Notch) are missing something obvious here.

 

Edit:

 

Just worked out what's bugging me.

 

Whatever reason they have for suing us, it’s not a fear of us having a trademark on the word “Scrolls”, as we’ve offered to give that up.

He doesn't even know what the case is about. I somehow doubt that "Can someone explain the case to me?" will go down well as an opening statement in court...

[Sunflash]

Last I heard, they offered to pull the trademark request; and they completely ignored that. Didn't bring it back up or say anything about it, even after they came back with a court-case about it. If yer gonna get sued anyway, why WOULD you bother retracting the orignal trademark request? Clearly 'good faith' is no longer a factor, so...

[Space Voyager]

Ha, interesting twist. Nice to see the other side of the medal.

[Pete]

Well yes, it now seems far less of an issue of the big guy versus the little guy with the whole Scrolls saga.

 

So surely all Mojang needs to do is specify what they're trademarking a bit more and re-submit the application? And someone needs to re-factor these stupid laws so that you have to be FAR more specific from the beginning.

 

The EA "Battlefield" one was clearly EA being a bunch of dicks at least, but I'm much less sure on the Scrolls case now.

[FullAuto]

The first reads "we're trying to talk to their legal team, but we don't know legal speak and can't be stuffed hiring someone who does".

 

Sounds to me like Mojang tried contacting Zenimax directly and were rebuffed because A) the lawyers are worried Zenimax will say something an unscrupulous person could use against them in court and B) the lawyers are then redundant. Mojang are not trying to talk to Zenimax's legal team but Zenimax itself.

 

From the linked article:

Here, too, the trademark application covers everything. Meaning that anyone making any kind of game that contains the word "scrolls" could be the target of legal action by Mojang. Including companies who've been using the word "scrolls" in their games for years. Yes, even Zenimax/Bethesda. And if you're Zenimax/Bethesda, as soon as you read that your balls start to creep into your throat.

 

Russ Pitts isn't a trademark lawyer (neither am I) but AFAIK this is wrong. Trademarking "Scrolls" does not then prevent another trademark with "Scrolls" in it being used, e.g "Elder Scrolls". Especially since one predates the other. Both "Scrolls" and "Elder Scrolls" can be trademarked and live happily side by side. The potential for confusion is practically nil, unless you are an idiot, but the US Patent Office declined Mojang's trademark application on those grounds.

 

From part 2 of the linked article:

If Zenimax doesn't fight now they may not be able to do so in the future, when someone may intentionally try to damage Zenimax's brand by releasing a game called, for example, Eldritch Scrolls X: Skyrim the Love Dragon. Or Morrowind from the Nether Regions, an Elder Rolls Game. Or...you get the picture.

 

Poor examples, here. The issue is solely about the word "Scrolls" so that gets rid of the second example, and in the first, you have not just "Scrolls" but "Skyrim" which AFAIK is a unique identifier in games. A better example would be, well, a game with just the word "Scrolls" in the title, anywhere, e.g. Manly Scrolls.

 

Although Notch admits that a game called "Mine Craft" "might be an issue."

 

Because it's the same title as one of his existing games. That's like arguing Zenimax might have an issue with The Elder Scrolls V : Skyrim as a title for someone else's game solely on the basis of the extra space, not because it is functionally identical.

 

Nice to see a different view but Kotaku coming down firmly in Zenimax's corner doesn't fill me with faith.

[Bomb Bloke]

Sounds to me like Mojang tried contacting Zenimax directly and were rebuffed because A) the lawyers are worried Zenimax will say something an unscrupulous person could use against them in court and B) the lawyers are then redundant. Mojang are not trying to talk to Zenimax's legal team but Zenimax itself.

Exactly. But it's silly for Mojang to complain about this:

 

Mojang: "Hey, we wanna discuss legal stuff with you!"

Zenimax: "Ok, here's our legal team..."

Mojang: "No, we want to discuss legal stuff with your guys who don't understand it!"

Zenimax: "..."

 

Russ Pitts isn't a trademark lawyer (neither am I) but AFAIK this is wrong. Trademarking "Scrolls" does not then prevent another trademark with "Scrolls" in it being used, e.g "Elder Scrolls". Especially since one predates the other.

I'm not an expert on this either, but... isn't that like saying if EA have a trademark on "Battlefield", they won't be able to complain about a game such as "BBC Battlefield Academy", well after its release...?

 

Even if Slitherine would've won that case, EA would've been able to get an injunction in place for the duration, preventing them from selling the game while the legal proceedings were ongoing. What I'm assuming is that Bethesda didn't want that happening to them.

 

But then, I wasn't aware that the trademark request had already been declined, so I've absolutely no clue as to what the case is about. Recovering legal costs maybe? Dunno.

[Space Voyager]

Well, since you both admit you are not experts I can actually say something and not look like a total idiot. Still, I will not take my chances.

[FullAuto]

More coverage on RPS.

 

We still have our concerns on that and I understand from guys at Mojang that they have no intention of preventing others using the word “scrolls” in connection with games and other things – so long as it is not in a way that “rips off” Mojang. As we has seen historically with words like “Dungeons”, “Dragons”, “Magic”, “War” etc. co-existence is common and the use of those words and others do not create any confusion in the minds of consumers.

 

I'm not an expert on this either, but... isn't that like saying if EA have a trademark on "Battlefield", they won't be able to complain about a game such as "BBC Battlefield Academy", well after its release...?

 

Correct.

[Bomb Bloke]

Given that that's exactly what seems to me to have happened, something's gone well over the top of my head, then. I'm guessing it's got something to do with the differences between trademark and copyright laws?

[FullAuto]

Mojang win first round.

[Bomb Bloke]

[FullAuto]

A summary of the Edge/Langdell nonsense on NeoGAF.

 

A more detailed thread.