No Man's Sky Wins Lawsuit Against "Sky" Trademark Holder

[Strazdas]

Ah, trademark trolling strikes again.

It should be pretty simple. Take a dictonary. Is the word in a dictionary? Yes? Then you cannot claim ownership of trademark.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

More importantly, is this the reason I'm not getting my copy of No Man's Sky tomorrow?

Seriously screw those guys.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

3 fucking years of legal battle?! These law firms must be laughing all the way to the bank! What strange games unregulated capitalism can give birth to.

 

[Jamash]

I wonder if No Man's Sky would prevent a video games of the novel series No Man's World for being made under that name.

I hope it doesn't, since No Man's World is a great story and would make for an awesome videogame, but if a game was ever made from it, then I can't think of a better title than its existing No Man's World...

...Space-Time Travelling Tommies vs. The Occult Insect Aliens From Another Planet doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

 

[K12]

Excuse me while I go and register my new company "The" industries.

 

[StatusNil]

So No Man's Sky will continue to be No Man's Sky (instead of No Man's One), at least until some crackpot claims to own the word "Man".

Alas, too late! They've been at it since literally days ago. Just look at this particularly egregious example of the type:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGingerarchy/status/744016727831363588?p=v

Crocodile tears over the plight of her quarry! Typical Mob MO!

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Excuse me. I need to go file some trademark applications after reading the end of this article (twirls mustache evilly while walking away laughing...)

I have copyrighted the phrase "twirls mustache evilly while walking away laughing". Now to engage in a frivolous lawsuit

OT; Seriously, how are common words not exempt?

 

[Mike000]

America's copyright system

SkyTV is British...do we have any reason to believe the suit was brought in the US?

 

[Jacked Assassin]

So No Man's Sky will continue to be No Man's Sky (instead of No Man's One), at least until some crackpot claims to own the word "Man".

Claiming ownership of the word Man? Nah not gonna happen.

Claiming "No Man's Sky" is sexist, on account of the word Man, and should be changed to the gender neutral "No Person's Sky" seems MUCH more likely.

I now expect Marvel & DC to sue everyone & each other until the rest are force into Political Correctness. Especially when it comes to who ends up being renamed to Wonder Person

... my god, this fucking site. How does a story about some company making outrageous copyright claims somehow spring up a discussion circle-jerk about sexism and political correctness?

I think it was a joke. At least I hope so.

OT: Remember how bad the developers got it when this game got delayed? Imagine how bad it would have been for Sky TV and the Judge if NMS lost.

I'm pretty sure I was being sarcastic.... and joking....
It would bring back memories of why we couldn't get MechWarrior 5.

I wonder if No Man's Sky would prevent a video games of the novel series No Man's World for being made under that name.

I hope it doesn't, since No Man's World is a great story and would make for an awesome videogame, but if a game was ever made from it, then I can't think of a better title than its existing No Man's World...

...Space-Time Travelling Tommies vs. The Occult Insect Aliens From Another Planet doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Spoiler: No Mans Sky could then end up in a 3rd law suit with PS Homes No Mans Land.

 

[BrawlMan]

What is it with every company or individual trying to copyright common words? It didn't work with Fine Bros., and I really wish idiots like them would stop doing that.

 

[Parasondox]

Fuck me, bSkyb is ruthless enough already with high prices and poor customer service. When it rains, you get no coverage.

Wait, has "fuck me" been trademarked?

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

America's copyright system

SkyTV is British...do we have any reason to believe the suit was brought in the US?

It's part of News Corp and they're EVERYWHERE.

 

[Callate]

I mean, I'd like to be happy, but I can't help but notice the word: "Settled" in their victory tweet. This leads me to think that rather than the judge taking one look at the case, frowning before giving the prosecuting lawyer a clip 'round the ear and told to bugger off, it's more likely that the developer's paid for the right to use it, either by a lump sum or worse, royalties...

I was thinking much the same. Any system where a company with pockets as deep as Sky's can drag things out until the other party is forced to settle is rigged against the little guy. I'd like to believe that this "settled" thing means that someone finally saw the light, but there's a better chance it just got extended until it was cheaper to take/pay a lump sum than to continue the legal maneuvers.

In a better world, Sky would have to pay Hello Games' legal expenses and publicly apologize.

 

[JayRPG]

More importantly, is this the reason I'm not getting my copy of No Man's Sky tomorrow?

Seriously screw those guys.

That was my first thought when I saw the tweet.

Of course, it was only a couple of weeks ago that Sean also tweeted about NMS finally having Lipschitz continuity, so it may have just been a mixture of everything.

Maybe they could have scrambled to have the game fully ready for the launch but then they saw the case with Sky still sitting there and just thought.. well fuck it, let's postpone it 5 weeks to be sure everything is in order.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Okay, we really need to make it that companies cannot copyright common words like "Sky" and "Play".

See, "SkyTV" would be a perfectly valid trademark, since it's very distinct. But just the word "Sky"? That's when we know you're trolling. Under no circumstances would a normal person confuse "No Man's Sky" with "SkyTV"; the entire purpose of trademarking is supposed to be keeping other entities from undermining or taking advantage of your brand's name.

You can trademark it. But it doesn't mean you will win, in fact you will almost definitely lose, if the other party isn't in the same business as you.

Frivolous lawsuits like this are not about winning or losing or even protecting one's property, it's about trying to get settlement money or crushing the little guy who don't have the money to fight back for everything they got just to keep them out of the game. Protecting a creator's property stopped being the point of Copyright and Trademark law a VERY long time ago, if it ever was in the first place.

Edit: In fact, with trademarks you are obligated to sue just to be on the safe side as you can lose your trademark if you don't defend it.

One thing that by itself if removed would stop a lot of these lawsuits from ever happening in the first place. Like all of Trademark and Copyright law being forced to defend a Trademark just so you won't lose it is an idiotic restriction that only exists because big businesses lobbied to bring it into existence so they could take advantage of it and it continues to exist because they still are, not for the sake of the consumer or even the businesses as a whole.

Good lord. If this isn't further proof that trademark law needs to outright die, I don't know what is.

Trademark and Copyright law shouldn't have ever existed to begin with, it's of no benefit to the consumer and hardly even to the actual creators who 9 times out of 10 has it stolen out from under them or otherwise cheated out of their share, and it sure doesn't do anything to promote competition, fair prices, or quality in any way, quite the opposite. Legally permitted monopolies are all Trademark and Copyright law bring about, with all the detrimental effects that come with that.

 

[TelosSupreme]

Good lord. If this isn't further proof that trademark law needs to outright die, I don't know what is.

Trademark and Copyright law shouldn't have ever existed to begin with, it's of no benefit to the consumer and hardly even to the actual creators who 9 times out of 10 has it stolen out from under them or otherwise cheated out of their share, and it sure doesn't do anything to promote competition, fair prices, or quality in any way, quite the opposite. Legally permitted monopolies are all Trademark and Copyright law bring about, with all the detrimental effects that come with that.

Copyright law does have some use. Original works do need to be protected from theft and plagiarism. However, the form it currently exists in (at least in the U.S.) is severely outdated in regards to modern technology and media. It needs to be updated to both protect creators as well as those creating critique or transformative work.

Trademark law on the other hand, is basically of no benefit to either creators or consumers. You can't just trademark a phrase or image and be done with it. You are expected to vehemently defend it in order to keep it, and that just isn't sensible. Trademarks, like patents, are most used these days for attacking other creators and maintaining control. Honestly, things like titles and logos should just be covered under an updated copyright law, specifically covering whole titles rather than individual words.

Just my two shekels on the matter.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

I mean, I'd like to be happy, but I can't help but notice the word: "Settled" in their victory tweet. This leads me to think that rather than the judge taking one look at the case, frowning before giving the prosecuting lawyer a clip 'round the ear and told to bugger off, it's more likely that the developer's paid for the right to use it, either by a lump sum or worse, royalties...

I read that too. Three fucking years? And even then they couldn't rely on the judge to do jack-shit?

Now I'm wondering how much they had to pay them to leave them alone. But then again that's the entire point of copyright trolling, isn't it?