CD Projekt now owns the "Cyberpunk" trademark in the EU.
- Thread starter deadish
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The U.S. Trademark Electronic Search System [http://tess2.uspto.gov] agrees - they have trademarks for Cyberpunk and Cyberpunk 2077. Interestingly, the Cyberpunk trademarks are quite old, one of them dating back to 1988. So, they probably just acquired existing ones.Dornedas said:
Given that Cyberpunk came out in 1988 and they are making a game based off that particular PnP RPG IP, I'd say that was a fairly accurate guess.Pyrian said:
Under US trademark law ... they aren't going to have the option to not "abuse" it. If you don't defend your trademark in the US, you risk having the courts invalidate it - hell, the fact that it's such a generic widely used term might even quality it for invalidation as it is; i.e. genericized trademark.pookie101 said:
If they don't sue, if someone creates a blatant rip-off, they might lose in court when their opponent points out they haven't been defending the copyright.
This is bad for everyone including them.
They are playing with fire .
Frankly, the Cyberpunk tabletop RPGs aren't exactly mainstream and the trademark has to my knowledge never been tested in court - no one really bothered to rip it off. This will change if it becomes a mainstream video game with a multi-million dollar budget behind it.DoPo said:
Then their brand has not protection ...Worgen said:
What's to stop some shitty developer from creating a piece of crap called Cyberpunk 3077?
Personally I think it's insane that they risking their multi-million dollar game like this.
The former is a myth; not only has this never happened, U.S. courts have in fact ruled the opposite, that you are not required to "police" your trademark at all. I think this myth is propagated by trademark lawyers... For obvious reasons.deadish said:
Genericization is a real danger for them, though.
I got it from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights),Pyrian said:
Granted there is leeway,
It will really come down to how the courts decide - i.e. whether the court finds the infringement "minor" and "inconsequential".
If you think about it, the trademark owner is pretty much gambling with their trademark if they don't sue.
just checked.. in the US it seems r talsorian have cyberpunk registered for rpgs.. i assume tabletop
cd project have "cyberpunk" registered for a lot
they also have "cyberpunk 2077" registered for pretty much everything you can think of
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4807%3A8ti0in.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=cyberpunk&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
side note i want a cyberpunk party hat now ive seen that
cd project have "cyberpunk" registered for a lot
they also have "cyberpunk 2077" registered for pretty much everything you can think of
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4807%3A8ti0in.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=cyberpunk&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
side note i want a cyberpunk party hat now ive seen that
Hmmm. Strange that the quoted section in Wikipedia has no citation. Anyway, as far as I can tell that text is plain wrong; you can only be removed for non-use if you, ahem, don't use it, or fail to renew the registration and certify continuous use (every 5 years in the U.S.).deadish said:
The closest to a penalty for non-enforcement is "Defense of Laches" in which someone argues that they can keep using your trademark despite its infringement because you took too long to inform them of the infringement, but it only applies to the specific defendant, it can't invalidate the trademark for other defendants or delist the trademark.
I tried to do more research ... but I think I need a lawyer. LOLPyrian said:
That said, I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that lawyers are propagating the myth to get work. Primarily because it seems a lot like "lying to your client" which looks like grounds for debarment - or at least should be.
The first time I have heard of "defend it or lose it" was back in the 90s with 3D Realms over Duke Nukem. Some modders started using "Duke Nukem" in the title of their mods, 3D Realms sent them a legal notices telling them to stop explaining that it would weaken their trademark if they didn't stop it.
Is there a specific law they are going off or were they just trying to prevent genericization?
Probably the latter.deadish said:
As I stated before, it can't be that easy to lose trademarks or you'd think Marvel and DC would clamp down on everything in the superhero genre for fear of losing their trademark.
Considering how much companies fuck around with Copyright Law, I just can't see a situation where they'd accept a system that means they have to get potentially litigious to defend their works.
I think CD project Red only intends to use this against misleading naming of video games and such. Things that could cause actual confusion amongst consumers. That is what trade mark law is intended for. Even if they tried to exclude others from using the word cyberpunk when it couldn't plausibly lead to brand confusion they would not get away with that. As long as the law is applied in a sensible manner, I have no problems with this.
Those aren't genres ... those are nouns. They aren't as huge in scope.DoPo said:
"Half-life" is actually a very good trademark. It has next to nothing to do with FPSs making it distinct as a brand name for a FPS.
Go ahead. Try to trademark "Electronics" as a brand for radios. You will be laughed out of the USPTO. This is why I wonder how a descriptive mark like "Cyberpunk" for a cyberpunk game got approved.