EA And Ubisoft Fight Over "Ghost" Trademark

[Quellist]

I have to wonder, what started this? I mean, trademarks I get, but who started this whole trademarking common words thing? And how high are these CEOs that they think they would actually get away with this shit? I mean one day we'll live in a world with no words, because companies have bought all the rights to those words.

Some asshat called Tim Langdell (the CEO of Edge Games, founded in 1990) and the word "edge". Here's a brief history with him and trademark bullshit on Wikipedia, going all the way to 2014. The first instance though I think is in 2001 when Namco tried to get the name "Soul Edge" but had to use "Soul Blade" instead (at least in the UK).

And didn't EA end up suing him and getting him kicked off some Game Developers board over trying to link Mirrors Edge to his own company by announcing (but never making) a game called Mirrors (by) Edge?

You'd think they would have learned from that incident...

 

[Mutant1988]

Only if it's determined that the trademarks are too similar. Which they really aren't (My opinion).

Ghost Recon =/= Ghost. There's a whole one word difference. All that's left now is for paid by commission lawyers to argue about whether it is or isn't too similar.

But keep in mind, this only applies to digital entertainment products/services (Which I assume the Ghost Studio falls under). Neither company has any claim to the word Ghost in any other context.

While you technically may be right, I have no doubt that if EA gets this trademark they'll abuse it. They may not be able to do much to the larger companies, but it will be the death knell of any indie developers who want to use the word ghost.

Here's the thing though, from what I can tell, they already have the trademark and it should have gone into effect 30 days after it was "Published for Opposition" on August 4 2015. So yeah, if I'm reading this right, they've had it since September 3 2015.

I mean, it's good that a big studio (That can afford expensive lawyers) is challenging it and might prevent EA from abusing it, but it's done for a ridiculous reason by Ubisoft.

You'd think they would have learned from that incident...

There is at present no evidence to suggest that EA has abused the trademark. Ubisoft challenging it is because they believe it can be confused with their Ghost Recon property. It's not being challenged for being common parlance (Which wouldn't be valid anyway, since the trademark only applies to two specific contexts - Digital entertainment and digital entertainment online services).

But yeah, the best possible outcome I reckon would be for the trademarks to be altered to name their respective context - Like Ghost Studio, Ghost Online, Ghost Service, etc. That would effectively render it impossible to use it as a weapon against indie developers.

But then again, Ubisoft is challenging EA based on similarity/possible confusion, a claim that which if approved wouldl allow them to shut down anyone using a name even remotely similar (ie, anyone using the word Ghost in the context of games etc).

 

[Weaver]

Ghosts 'n Goblins came out in 1985 and 'ghost' is a ridiculously common word. Good luck EA

 

[FalloutJack]

Any chance Patrick Swayze can swoop in and kick both their asses?

 

[Magmarock]

Hopefully the legal costs will put a huge dent in both companies wallets

 

[moosemaimer]

Odd they didn't go after Activision, really.

 

[Flathole]

Xel'Otath be damned. I thought EA was trying "no seriously" to repair their company's image.

You lasted 3 days EA, 3 days.

They only wanted to gain trust so they could abuse it, like the "honeymoon period" of an abusive spouse. Still surprised at how short that was.

 

[Jacked Assassin]

Can we please stop trying to copyright everyday words? What's next? Nintendo copyright's the word "party" because of its mario party franchise?

There ain't no Party like a Mario Party because a Mario Party won't stop, taking legal actions against every other Party.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

They haven't trademarked the word. Only it being used for a specific game or service.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:y0puy5.2.4
Serial Number: 86568854

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:y0puy5.2.5
Serial Number: 86568852

Ubisoft is actually the one in the wrong here, for their ridiculous claim that the trademark causes confusion with their Ghost Recon property.

This is not comparable to the Fine Bros fiasco and them trying to appropriate the word react in the context of ANY video.

Thanks for being the one smart, educated person in this thread.