Bethesda sues Minecraft creator over title of upcoming game.

[Czernobog]

This is appalling. It makes me sick that people/companies want to own words and make others pay to use them.

It's the tricky part of trademark law. Most people would agree that Bethesda has a right to protect their ability to control who uses the phrase "The Elder Scrolls" so that other people don't try and use that name to promote their own works which are unaffiliated based upon the brand recognition. But then you have to account for common shortenings of long trademarks. And you get into grey areas like this.

True, but I don't much like the idea of companies owning short phrases regardless.

[MrPopo]

This is appalling. It makes me sick that people/companies want to own words and make others pay to use them.

It's the tricky part of trademark law. Most people would agree that Bethesda has a right to protect their ability to control who uses the phrase "The Elder Scrolls" so that other people don't try and use that name to promote their own works which are unaffiliated based upon the brand recognition. But then you have to account for common shortenings of long trademarks. And you get into grey areas like this.

True, but I don't much like the idea of companies owning short phrases regardless.

I'm trying to nail down your position. Are you against trademarks entirely? The Elder Scrolls is a short phrase, but it contains the same meaning as Star Wars (when used to refer to EU material). It's different from a slogan (which also can be protected).

[Czernobog]

[
I'm trying to nail down your position. Are you against trademarks entirely? The Elder Scrolls is a short phrase, but it contains the same meaning as Star Wars (when used to refer to EU material). It's different from a slogan (which also can be protected).

I haven't given much thought to it before now but find it unsettling. My position isn't really entirely cemented yet. I'm thinking I'm against them when they're short, as in less than four words. It also depends on the intentions behind the use of the phrase.

[flamepanther]

Hmm. I don't think many people are against trademarks entirely. However, I think it's pretty easy for most people to see that the system currently in place in the United States could use some rethinking and improvement.

[MrPopo]

Hmm. I don't think many people are against trademarks entirely. However, I think it's pretty easy for most people to see that the system currently in place in the United States could use some rethinking and improvement.

My contention is that it is impossible to hammer out the edge cases. You're always going to have conflicts that will be taken to a court and argued and a given judge will find one way while a different judge would rule the other way. Really the biggest problem is the disparity between the legal abilities of a large corporation and a small company. In civil suit you don't have the same right to an attorney that you do in a criminal trial, so if you want to defend yourself you need to foot the bill. Most trademark conflicts never get near a courtroom; the claimed rights holder dispatches a C&D and the small party decides that they don't have the resources to take it to court and either desist or sign a licensing agreement. I think if you want to improve how IP rights work you'd be better off putting everyone on equal footing in terms of pursing a solution through the courts.

[flamepanther]

My contention is that it is impossible to hammer out the edge cases. You're always going to have conflicts that will be taken to a court and argued and a given judge will find one way while a different judge would rule the other way. Really the biggest problem is the disparity between the legal abilities of a large corporation and a small company. In civil suit you don't have the same right to an attorney that you do in a criminal trial, so if you want to defend yourself you need to foot the bill. Most trademark conflicts never get near a courtroom; the claimed rights holder dispatches a C&D and the small party decides that they don't have the resources to take it to court and either desist or sign a licensing agreement. I think if you want to improve how IP rights work you'd be better off putting everyone on equal footing in terms of pursing a solution through the courts.

The "edge cases" seem all too common lately. Anyway, that disparity you mention is one major problem (one that affects all types of civil lawsuits, not just trademark suits). However, I think there are other issues that can and/or do cause a lot of unnecessary trouble. I can think of at least two offhand:

Trademark law needs to follow the example of possibly the only good change that's been made to U.S. copyright law in recent decades, and one of the few things that hypothetically should be working in our patent laws: prior art needs to trump the date of trademark registration. As it is, companies can (and do) "snipe" unregistered trade and service marks that have already been in use for a long time. The goal of these laws is to protect consumers from market confusion and conterfeit products, not to give larger companies a way to inconvenience their smaller competitors with a bribe to the USPTO.

Another area where trademark could stand to learn from copyright is mutual international recognition. While it's probably very uncommon in the United States, it is possible to register the trademark of a product that is popular overseas in order to engage in trademark squatting. The squatter can demand the company pay outrageous prices to buy up their own trademark, or that they pay continually to "license" it from them. Otherwise, the company either cannot market their own product here, or must change the branding and lose the benefit of any media buzz the product might have managed to stir up from overseas. It might seem outlandish, but it's real. Go look up the reasons none of the newer Macross anime have been published in the United States.

[MrPopo]

Trademark law needs to follow the example of possibly the only good change that's been made to U.S. copyright law in recent decades, and one of the few things that hypothetically should be working in our patent laws: prior art needs to trump the date of trademark registration. As it is, companies can (and do) "snipe" unregistered trade and service marks that have already been in use for a long time. The goal of these laws is to protect consumers from market confusion and conterfeit products, not to give larger companies a way to inconvenience their smaller competitors with a bribe to the USPTO.

I wasn't aware that there wasn't a prior art clause for trademarks. I agree, that's something that should be put in place. As for your claim of hypothetical in patent law, it's one of those things that depends on the given clerk/court at the given time. I know the water bed was denied patent because of prior art in Stranger in a Strange Land, for example.

Another area where trademark could stand to learn from copyright is mutual international recognition. While it's probably very uncommon in the United States, it is possible to register the trademark of a product that is popular overseas in order to engage in trademark squatting. The squatter can demand the company pay outrageous prices to buy up their own trademark, or that they pay continually to "license" it from them. Otherwise, the company either cannot market their own product here, or must change the branding and lose the benefit of any media buzz the product might have managed to stir up from overseas. It might seem outlandish, but it's real. Go look up the reasons none of the newer Macross anime have been published in the United States.

While I haven't personally heard of squatting, I know that's why it was Dragon Warrior when first released here in the States.

[pakopako]

This is appalling. It makes me sick that people/companies want to own words and make others pay to use them.

It's the tricky part of trademark law. Most people would agree that Bethesda has a right to protect their ability to control who uses the phrase "The Elder Scrolls" so that other people don't try and use that name to promote their own works which are unaffiliated based upon the brand recognition. But then you have to account for common shortenings of long trademarks. And you get into grey areas like this.

True, but I don't much like the idea of companies owning short phrases regardless.

Do you think it's... Fartech'd? Wait, no, I meant to add the-- TELLMYWIFEANDCHILDILO

[The Last Horseman]

I'm still wondering wether or not Bethesda will accept Notch's Quake III challenge.... I hope they do.

[Pichu]

I'm still getting Skyrim on Day 1 but man this pisses the shit outta me.