Joystiq reports (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/16/rebellion-sues-stardock-for-its-use-of-the-word-rebellion/) that our magnificent benefactors are suing Stardock over their use of the word "rebellion" in the latest Sins of a Solar Empire expansion.
The word is so generic (especially in terms of sci-fi and conflict), and the 2000 AD publishers are so cool, that this can't possibly be true can it?
It might not be down to how 'cool' you are, it might be a necessity to protect their trademark. Often companies don't want to sue but are obliged to if they want to uphold a trademark
This does seem a bit silly, but as long as we get a half-page strip where the Kingsleys sit down with representatives of the Trader Emergency Coalition to explain the distinction to all SoaSE players I'll be happy.
Quote from: James Stacey on 17 August, 2012, 10:37:53 AM
It might not be down to how 'cool' you are, it might be a necessity to protect their trademark. Often companies don't want to sue but are obliged to if they want to uphold a trademark
I can save you both trouble and lawyer's fees by stating they didn't call it "Rebellion" in order to capitalise upon Rebellion's IP one iota. It's a suitably generic word, used in this case to describe the defining characteristic of the expansion's new gameplay.
Progressive indie developers like Rebellion and Stardock should be sticking together. Rebellion's action - if true - risks creating a backlash or 'Streisand Effect'. Indeed, the comments on the Joystiq article aren't particularly flattering.
@Molch-R: Still seems odd, given that Rebellion is a company name for 2000 AD's owners, not a (or part of a) product title. Reminds me of Tim Langdell of Edge fame suing any games that had 'edge' in their titles. Plus plenty of games have 'rebellion' in the title, so will they all be sued? Would be interesting to get more context about why this particular product has triggered a lawsuit.
EDIT: Actually, this isn't really a Langdell moment, given that he's trolling and Rebellion is clearly still a major force in gaming. Still a little odd to see though. Showcases more than anything that trademark laws and requirements are idiotic, forcing companies to do things that don't to mere mortals make a great deal of sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Rebellion)
Name was changed to Supremacy in the UK and Ireland... wonder if that's a similar deal?
PAGING DOCTOR X!
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
Quote from: James Stacey on 17 August, 2012, 10:37:53 AM
It might not be down to how 'cool' you are, it might be a necessity to protect their trademark. Often companies don't want to sue but are obliged to if they want to uphold a trademark
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 August, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
"These aren't the droids you're suing us for."
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 August, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
Yer kiddin. Jesus...
Quote from: Link Prime on 17 August, 2012, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 August, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
Yer kiddin. Jesus...
Did anyone else use the term 'droid' as opposed to 'android' before Lucas? If not, why shouldn't he ?
Having read the article, I have to say it's sensible enough.
What if they'd called the game Sins of a Solar Empire: Valve, or Sins of a Solar Empire: Rock Star?
Quote from: CraveNoir on 17 August, 2012, 12:13:03 PM
What if they'd called the game Sins of a Solar Empire: Valve, or Sins of a Solar Empire: Rock Star?
What if they had? Those are perfectly cromulent words. If they'd called it
Sins of a Solar Empire: Dredd vs Death I'd have been first in line to kick them in the RTS.
Anyhow, bottom line here is that Rebellion come across as a very sensible down-to-earth crowd, and if they think they need to do this I'm sure they know what they're doing - a hell of a lot more than we groundlings do at any rate.
Quote from: Trout on 17 August, 2012, 12:35:36 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 17 August, 2012, 12:32:26 PM
Those are perfectly cromulent words.
:lol:
be glad he didn't say - Those are perfectly coruscant words. Then you'd be in trouble.
Funnily enough, I saw an article headline for this and thought it was a Rebellion game. That's exactly the kind of attention grabbing thing I believe this case would be about. Case closed :D
I was about to buy Sniper Elite in the Steam sale and I was shocked to find that it's made by Rebellion and not Elite systems. I feel totally misled, someone should sue them.
As has been mentioned, it's a generic word, so why not use something else with exactly the same meaning and avoid this bother? Apart from the fact that grow-ass adults should have known full well about using the name of one of their competitors in the title of their game and then trying to copyright it, I find it odd that they plumped for "Rebellion" at all. It has a quite sedate sound to it when you say it out loud - why not something more descriptive or harsh-sounding like "Insurrection", "Revolution", "Civil War", "Schism", or "Resistance" - oh wait, that last one is already on a lot of videogame covers and is a clearly recogniseable trademark and it would be daft to use one of those on the front of your games.
This kind of thing is not unprecedented, either: Stan Lee once sued Marvel comics to stop them using the word "Excelsior" as a title for one of their books, despite "excelsior" being an existing word that means "loose gravel used for gritting icy roads", but in the context of comic books it was a recognised Stan Lee trademark and he'd have to be an idiot to let someone else nick it from him.
You know, this thread makes me recall the best piece of advice I've ever been given which was - You don't have to have an opinion about everything.
What, not even who should win X Factor?
Quote from: Lee Bates on 17 August, 2012, 01:41:24 PM
You know, this thread makes me recall the best piece of advice I've ever been given which was - You don't have to have an opinion about everything.
You're on the wrong board. People here used to review the
adverts in the comic.
Quote from: Professah Byah on 17 August, 2012, 02:04:20 PM
What, not even who should win X Factor?
Well, obviously not the
important things.
You will be happy to know I have no opinion on X Factor.
Ooh. Just seen this and can't let a chance to pontificate pass me by.
Rebellion has a trademark in its logo. Trademarks are registered in classes, which are basically categories where the owner wants to use the logo (for example, food and drink, clothing, computer games). There are loads of different classes.
I suspect that Rebellion have registered their mark for computer games and entertainment etc. If I could be arsed, I'd look. It's in the public domain.
Anyway, the point is that the cumulative effect of not taking action to protect your mark when someone uses it can be to create the situation where someone argues the mark has been abandoned. That's the extent of my knowledge, there are probably some standard use tests that are applied.
Dunno the details here, as it all gets very complicated, but if Stardock were referring to their game as "Rebellion" (say, on message boards or in the press) then you can see why Tharg might get uppity.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 August, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
Remember, he only owns the word droid AS A TRADEMARK. So he has the right to publish works titled with the word 'Droid' in it. Also has the right to promote his brand with the word Droid.
He does not OWN the WORD Droid. You can still use the term in your story as much as you want. You just can't title or promote it using that word. Because Lucas has that exclusive right (that he pays for).
That's how Trademarks work. That's why I can't create a comic/movie called Mr. Dredd or something. Not because Rebellion OWNS the word Dredd (you can totally have a character named Dredd in your story, as long as you aren't cribbing copyrighted material) but the use of the word Dredd in a title, or promotional material is the exclusive right of Rebellion.
Its really important that people understand the distinction and purpose of Copyright and Trademark law. They cover two very different things. And broad statements like 'George Lucas owns the word Droid', or 'Marvel & DC own the word Super-Hero' are VERY misleading.
In this case, Rebellion puts their logo on the cover of all their video game releases. They use it as a sales tool in branding. So someone using the word Rebellion on the cover of their game is no different. So Rebellion has a case.
Now, this isn't to say Rebellion will WIN their case, they are just suing (as they must). A judge may rule that the difference between a title and a publisher logo is enough to not cause brand confusion. But Rebellion must make the attempt to insure their asset is protected similarly in the future. When it really matters.
Quote from: The Adventurer on 15 September, 2012, 09:16:16 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 August, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
Remember, he only owns the word droid AS A TRADEMARK.
Yep, it's why I didn't say he owned the word.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 September, 2012, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: The Adventurer on 15 September, 2012, 09:16:16 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 August, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Lucas owns trademark on the word droid (http://www.geeksugar.com/George-Lucas-Owns-Term-DROID-Motorola-Pays-Fee-License-6051336)
Remember, he only owns the word droid AS A TRADEMARK.
Yep, it's why I didn't say he owned the word.
Woops. Okay, you did say that. Still, people clearly took it out of context. Because the distinction between copyright protection and trademark protection isn't as obvious to some.