Rebellion Sues Over Rebellion
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Wow...the fact that a game that is know as "Rebellion" has caused Rebellion studies "substantial harm"? Some dork on youtube getting things confused was THAT detrimental to Rebellion's business? I can only imagine they have further evidence of this harm....but it just seems laughable to me.
Like the dumb ***** who is now suing the Dallas Cowboys because she sat in the stands at their training camp and the black marble seat in 100 degree weather was - of course - considerablly hot. She now has 3rd degree burns on her ass and is suing them because "There weren't any signs that the seat could be hot!"
That's right folks, if you're someplace with some way to hurt yourself in a ridiculous/stupid way and there's no signs posted that say "Don't be a fucking dumbass" you can sue and get paid. That's the only true lesson in life.
Like the dumb ***** who is now suing the Dallas Cowboys because she sat in the stands at their training camp and the black marble seat in 100 degree weather was - of course - considerablly hot. She now has 3rd degree burns on her ass and is suing them because "There weren't any signs that the seat could be hot!"
That's right folks, if you're someplace with some way to hurt yourself in a ridiculous/stupid way and there's no signs posted that say "Don't be a fucking dumbass" you can sue and get paid. That's the only true lesson in life.
I'm fairly sure this is the filing http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:eelmon.2.1. It lists the owner as Jason Kingsley who I believe is the president of Rebellion Studios.Zachary Amaranth said:
It's equally retarded that such cases actually make it to court.Adam Jensen said:
If I could make such calls, I'd present them with a different word: 'door'. Followed by the advice to make use of it. Maybe add in a fine for holding the court in contempt.
That session expired (an annoying feature of TESS), but I found the one you're talking about, I think. It lists Kingsley.chimeracreator said:
Their filing is pretty broad, and I'm not sure it'd hold up under court. The word "rebellion" is too common to hold much water as a damage to their mark. I'm pretty sure a court would rule against them because of the generic nature.
True, but because it has been on the books for long enough without being challenged (that I know of) it might need to go to court simply to prove that the mark is overly generic. As such I don't think a dismissal is that likely, but a victory in court is a near certainty provided a decent attorney and sufficient funding.Zachary Amaranth said:
That said they MIGHT have a shot getting it dismissed arguing that Rebellion is not the primary component of the game that is being sold thus there is no likelihood of confusion and that the filed trademark would not apply, but I can't say that I'm well enough versed in trademark law to comment on that.
Unless they intend to start suing for control of a word, I don't think they're going to get very far; Apple tried to sue for exclusive use of the word 'pod' in trademark, but the problem is, that's still part of the English language. I confess I don't know copyright and trademark law in full, but I'm pretty sure that common dictionary words can't be trademarked this way under law because of their ubiquity. That's why Hasbro had to stick "Autobot" in front of Hound, Jazz, and Tracks to actually get anywhere with them; they would be considered too generic to hold on to otherwise.
I fail to see how people becoming confused and thinking that your studio made an awesome game that it didn't constitutes damages.
Seriously, this is the name of their studio not another game. If two games have similar names I can kind of see the point. But this? This just sounds moronic.
Seriously, this is the name of their studio not another game. If two games have similar names I can kind of see the point. But this? This just sounds moronic.
So, if Rebellion (the studio) wins this, does that mean LucasArts can sue them for infringing on the trademark of their Star Wars: Rebellion game?
Edit: Assuming it has a trademark still active... Did a quick search and didn't see it, but quick search means I skimmed through the place and clicked on a couple links.
Edit: Assuming it has a trademark still active... Did a quick search and didn't see it, but quick search means I skimmed through the place and clicked on a couple links.
I had to look up this company to know who they were.
O, look, they're the retards because the PSP version of BattleFront AND the "meh, it's a rental", Neverdead...
O, WAIT!
These are they folks that made ROUGE SOLIDER.
Wow...um...they're still in business?
Even HAZE was better then that PoS of a game.
O, look, they're the retards because the PSP version of BattleFront AND the "meh, it's a rental", Neverdead...
O, WAIT!
These are they folks that made ROUGE SOLIDER.
Wow...um...they're still in business?
Even HAZE was better then that PoS of a game.
How can a YouTube comment possibly be considered evidence for confusion among customers? At least half the comments on any YouTube video are so idiotic the only way I can deal with it is by assuming YouTube is the training grounds for trolls who aren't yet ready for the big leagues.
This has nothing to do with copyright law. A quick refresher: there are 3 major kinds of intellectual property law regarding public works (thus excluding trade secrets).Two-A said:
Patents: These protect functional works and discovers for a limited amount of time, but require that the work be disclosed to the public so it can be used elsewhere once the patent expires. These last 20 years in the US.
Trade Marks: These protect the marks and names used to identify distinct businesses and products to help consumers by avoiding confusion. A trade mark remains active as long as it is used, but it's scope of protection can vary widely depending on how well known the mark is and how unique it is. A trade mark is ALWAYS allowed to be used when showing a product as itself in the media. Trade marks cannot include anything functional.
Copyright: These protect creative works for a limited time that is far far too long and the Supreme Court has ruled can be extended and for new corporate works extends for over a century while works made by a person are protected for Life + 70 years. Copyright can never cover functional components of a work as such an invention is never protected by copyright. However a specific piece of code can be as it is considered a literary work. Thus a computer game, which is functional, is protected by copyright law.
However for generic games without a plot you could still legally recreate a game with the exact same mechanics because copyright can't protect these and original artwork as long as you coded it yourself and your code was inherently different from the original and created without you reverse engineering it.
So once again, the major issues with copyright law have nothing to do with this trademark issue. While it is clear that copyright law is all kinds of messed up right now, trademark law is still mostly sound as the Internet really hasn't done much to change the dynamics of trademarks. If anything it has made them work better as unique trademarks lend themselves Internet searches.
I love how one can actually sue a company for using a word that confuses stupid customers. Reminds me of those interviews with people standing in line for PS3s when they released and people were going to get the hot new game "Residence" (Resistance dammit!). Darwin must have gotten something wrong or overlooked the human stupidity factor.
captcha: "check your coat" I haven't worn a coat in years I don't even know where any of mine are....
captcha: "check your coat" I haven't worn a coat in years I don't even know where any of mine are....