jmac68 said:
Any word can be trademarked if it is attached to a specific industry.
The God Nike has been around for thousands of years but it can (and is) trademarked for "sports apparel". The word "Windows" has been around for hundreds of years but it can (and is) trademarked for "software".
EA can use "Active" as much as they want for gaming, but when they added the ability to log workouts online and used "Active" in their product name they crossed the line and violated the trademark.
The Active Network is hands down the number one online registration provider for major participatory sporting events such as marathons, triathlons, cycling events, etc. If you have ever registered for any of these events online, you have used the Active Networks products. They also allow participants to "log their workouts online" and have for over ten years.
The US protects companies' rights in this regard because they put $$$$$$$$$$$ behind branding these names in their industries. And branding is what allows companies to differentiate themselves from cheap knock off products sold in copyright violating countries such as China.
Soooo, we may love, love, love EA Sports and their products but that just makes us biased, not right.
There are several things that need to be proven in order for anyone to win this case. It goes beyond undermining trademarks and into whether or not someone could confuse the product EA is releasing with Active Network. By simply recording statistics and displaying them for the user, much like Wii Fit, it would be hard for Active Network to convince a judge EA is delving into infringement or creating confusion.
Example: We all know the Beatles, right? They were signed to a label called Apple Records. And we all know Apple Computers, right? They have a very successful service called iTunes. After almost three decades of very notable [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer] lawsuits (with the final lawsuit concerning iTunes), Apple Computers won because iTunes is simply a service within their main branding, which happens to be computers.
This is very similar to what the Active Network vs. EA lawsuit. While the services provided may be similar, EA is a video game company, not a health and fitness company. Therefore, no undermining or confusion is present. Now, that is just my interpretation of the law. I am not the ruling judge on this matter and whomever that may be could see it differently...but I doubt it. My guess is that there will be a settlement and with that there will be a contract which states EA can never enter the health and fitness business outside of their own interactive media.
But before you reply you should know, most of us here really don't give a damn about EA. If they lose, oh well.
