EA Returns Volley Against Langdell, Edge Games

August 31, 2010 -

The flurry of actions between Edge Games, its CEO Tim Langdell and Electronic Arts continues with a new entry in the pair’s battle—EA has filed a countersuit against an action brought by Edge earlier this year, which involved the game Mirror’s Edge.

In June, Edge filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against EA, alleging “willful infringement and unfair competition” over the use of the Mirror’s Edge name. This action followed a Consolidated Petition for Cancellation filed by EA in September of 2009 against Edge trademarks, including “The Edge,” “Gamer’s Edge,” “Edge” and “Cutting Edge.”

Now, according to Industry Gamers, EA’s countersuit claims that the company is “the latest target of Tim Langdell’s decades-long campaign to block anyone from using the word 'edge,' or any variation thereof, in connection with the marketing and sales of video games and related products or services.”

The counter claim calls Langdell a “a one-time designer of video games for such long-since obsolete video game systems as the Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Oric, and Sinclair ZX Spectrum,”  and alleged that the company obtained trademarks through “fraudulent misrepresentations to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO').”

EA’s latest litigation contains language similar to its September 2009 action, claiming that there was “no bona fide use of the mark in commerce,” and argued that even if Edge “ever held a valid registration, they abandoned the mark” due to non-use.
 

Thanks Andrew!


Comments

Re: EA Returns Volley Against Langdell, Edge Games

I'm so glad that EA are taking him on, he's been a menace preying on smaller devs for years and now it looks like he's finally met someone who is going to push back.

Go EA!

Re: EA Returns Volley Against Langdell, Edge Games

Well, this has the potential to finally put things to rest.

This also has the potential to get actual information out there.... one of the things that has made the various 'Edge' suits difficult to comment on is one is never sure when Langdell is telling the truth, exaggerating, or plain making stuff up.

Here, the success of the counter claim will depend on if these 'lisenced users' exist or not, since if there are unconnected companies actually lisencing the trademark then it is still in use.  If they are shells or do not exist at all then it is not. 

It gets trickier if one tries to address the claims that they are 'developing' games for newer systems.  Holding on to a trademark does not require active products (since companies can apply for trademarks for products still in development), but if they can show that none of his projects are real then they might have a case.

Re: EA Returns Volley Against Langdell, Edge Games

Better check ChaosEdge (http://chaosedge.wordpress.com/). The got a lot of articles looking at Langdell's tactics and plenty of evidence that Langdell is nothing but a good old con artist.

They may have published a few games lately (VERY few), but they apparently haven't developped one since they were Softkey (and that was more than 20 years ago). Mirrors (a new game from EDGE) doesn't count since there is no actual evidence that it is actually being made (not mentioned in a single article on the Internet or the press before the lawsuit, not a single piece of information about the game itself anywhere including the official website). All the artwork that has been shown (for Mirrors, at least) were stolen which is a bit suspicious for a game that's supposedly in developpement since 2007.

Re: EA Returns Volley Against Langdell, Edge Games

So, "Edge Games", who is developing a game called '"Mirrors", is upset at EA for naming one of their games "Mirrors Edge"?

If irony were strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_SkunkAnd just to be clear, that remark is firmly tongue-in-cheek, while also echoing statements made by those critical of GamerGate.06/30/2015 - 4:43pm
Goth_SkunkA fair point Andrew, and you are a very reasonable feminist. Though I would suggest that if you don't wish to be associated with the toxic elements present in feminism, I recommend disassociating yourself from them. Maybe call yourself something else? :^)06/30/2015 - 4:42pm
Andrew EisenGoth - By the by, you know how GamerGate doesn't like being painted with a broad brush? Well, I hate to speak for anyone but myself but I'm pretty confident in saying we feminists don't care for it much either.06/30/2015 - 4:10pm
Andrew EisenWell of course. Being a feminist doesn't mean rape can never be depicted in fiction.06/30/2015 - 4:03pm
InfophileIn fiction, it depends on the context. It's very easy to get "wrong," but there are cases where feminists have approved of how it's been shown (eg. the scene with Honor Harrington in the new compilation comic)06/30/2015 - 4:02pm
Andrew EisenThat would be an interesting alternate film though. Ray became a Ghostbuster to get rid of the spooks that had been sexually assaulting him.06/30/2015 - 4:00pm
Andrew EisenHe's not powerless against ghosts. That's very firmly established by that point in the movie.06/30/2015 - 3:57pm
Andrew EisenSo, if in the new movie, McCarthy or one of the other Ghostbusters has a dream where a pretty ghost goes down on her, I don't predict outrage (other than from those silly random no-name numbnuts on Twitter).06/30/2015 - 3:56pm
Goth_SkunkDream or not, it's still a scene that depicts a victim powerless to stop his attacker from engaging in an act of sex upon him. Even if he enjoys himself, it's technically rape. Hypothetically, he could feel traumatized afterwards.06/30/2015 - 3:55pm
Andrew EisenWell, he could always, you know, grab a proton pack and bust that rapey ghost! But again, it's still pretty clearly a dream.06/30/2015 - 3:53pm
ZippyDSMleeSo what dose GG stand for if its not been taken over my bigots??06/30/2015 - 3:52pm
Goth_SkunkI am assuming he's powerless to stop it, yes. I have no reason to believe a ghost would find itself in any way obligated to obey laws of corporeal beings. And it's not just about consent, but also about the means to stop the person engaging the sex.06/30/2015 - 3:51pm
Andrew EisenRape in real life? Absolutely (though "tizzy" isn't the right word). In fiction? Depends on how it's used.06/30/2015 - 3:50pm
Infophile"...it's rape. And that tends to send feminists into a tizzy." You say that as if rape isn't something to get into a tizzy about.06/30/2015 - 3:48pm
Andrew EisenBesides, it's pretty clearly a dream. Ray and the ghost are in some unknown bedroom. Then it cuts to Ray and the other guys in the firehouse beds with Ray rolling over in his sleep and falling off the bed. Looks like Egon is having a weird dream too.06/30/2015 - 3:46pm
Andrew EisenYou're assuming he's powerless to stop it. Maybe saying "no" or something would have stopped the ghost. Anyway, so, in your opinion, sex (oral or otherwise) is rape unless there's explicit consent?06/30/2015 - 3:44pm
Goth_SkunkBut, to be completely fair, that fact never dawned on me until 15 minutes ago.06/30/2015 - 3:43pm
Goth_SkunkAbsolutely. He doesn't consent, and is powerless to stop it because his attacker isn't corporeal. The fact that he's enjoying himself does not change the fact that it's technically rape.06/30/2015 - 3:42pm
Andrew EisenAlways came off as a dream to me.06/30/2015 - 3:40pm
Andrew EisenThat scene really reads to you like Stantz was being raped?06/30/2015 - 3:39pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician