GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

August 9, 2011 -

GamerLaw has an in-depth analysis of the Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls situation that was made public last week by Indie developer Mojang - better known as the makers of Minecraft.

Late last week founder Markus "Notch" Persson jumped on Twitter and his personal blog to say that Bethesda had sent him a "cease and desist letter" concerning his upcoming "Scrolls" game, claiming that it would cause brand confusion with its Elder Scrolls series of RPGS - particularly the upcoming Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. What Persson plans to do at this point is anyone's guess...

The analysis begins with an explanation of trademarks and how game companies tend to use them:

Trade marks are a kind of IP right used primarily to protect the name of your business/products/services. You can use them to stop other people trying to rip you off by copying or imitating you or your business. A well known example of a trade Mark is the famous Apple logo, or say the Tetris logo.

BUT, owning a trade mark doesn't give you exclusive ownership of the thing that's been trade marked, whether it's a name, a logo, a smell (yes, you can trade mark one). It gives you the right to stop another guy IF:

- he is selling identical or similar goods/services in an identical/similar business, AND

- there is a likelihood of public confusion between the two goods/services.

(Caveat: this is the position under English law, which is broadly similar to European laws generally, including the Swedish law to which Mojang is subject - but there may be some differences I'm not aware of).

The post goes on to point out that unless all parts of this "test: are met, the law doesn't recognize a trademark infringement. He then uses an example of a company that uses "apples" to make products like apple pies; no one is going to confuse delicious apple pie with an Apple product like a desktop computer or an iPhone.

So what can the Minecraft developers do at this point? GamerLaw offers three options:

(1) Fight the claim

(2) Capitulate and change the game name

(3) Agree to coexist with Bethesda (ie both use the name Scrolls, potentially in return for Mojang paying Bethesda)

GamerLaw goes on to say that - in a way - Bethesda is doing the right thing:

There's one more key aspect about trade marks you need to know: once you have one, you need to enforce it. There's no point claiming a particular word or phrase etc is vital to your business if you then let everyone use it indiscriminately (that's how the Hoover Company lost their trade marks over their Hoover vacuum cleaners, because they allowed it to become a generic, generally used phrase to describe vacuum cleaners). If you don't protect your trade mark, you risk losing it. This is why we see these kinds of legal letters flying around from time to time.

Finally, they offer some sage advice for anyone developing a game:

- When you next make a game, check the trade mark registries and the Internet for current or forthcoming games with an identical or similar title

- Build trade protection into your game: devise game names, characters etc which are distinctive so that you can trade mark them yourself. Don't just give names to them because they sound cool.

- Once you have a trade mark, you need to protect it rather than just ignore it. Otherwise you risk losing it.

- Remember trade marks do NOT give you exclusive ownership over the thing that's been trademarked: there has to be a sufficient degree of similarity and public confusion for it to be actionable.

- If you can handle this on your own, great, but if in doubt - speak with a friendly lawyer. IP lawsuits have brought down tech companies and developers of all sizes on their own before, so please take them seriously.

You can read the entire thing here. Thanks to Andrew Pfister (@andrewpfister).


Comments

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

Why aren't people foaming at the mouth over this ridiculous lawsuit?  This is no better than Langdell's "Edge" trademark.  This is just as absurd!  The game is named "Scrolls".  Not "Elder Scrolls", not "Skyrim".  Just a very generic word, "Scrolls".

So what if EA sued somebody who made a game called "Mirrors"?  Would everyone just sit back and say "oh yeah, this is what EA should do.  Totally different then Langdell..."

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

"he is selling identical or similar goods/services in an identical/similar business"

Card game is similar to video game?

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

Scrolls is still a video game.  Both games have fantasy settings but that's about it.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

Actually, it's both.

It's a collectible card game running on the computer. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33260/Minecraft_Developer_Mojang_Reveals_Its_Second_Game_Scrolls.php

I really don't see how there's any confusion between that and Elder Scrolls

 

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

Yes, I know but the original poster's phrasing implied that he thinks it's purely a physical card game.  It's not, it's a video game.  Oh sure, the genre is still a card battler, that was never in question.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

No, I'm pretty sure it's a 100% physical card game.

 

(The content below is unrelated gibberish that has been stuck on my commenting account for a couple years and I have absolutely no means to address it.)

 

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

You're incorrect.

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/33261/GDC_2011_Interview__Mojangs_Jakob_P...

Are you thinking about doing a physical, real game card to accompany the digital release?

JP: We're not saying a definite "no" to that, but it's not something that we're considering during the design process for the game. I think just the fact that we make this game digital and playable online and on handheld phones, we can add things to the game that would be very hard to add to a paper game.

So these are things that we can add to the game to improve the game, because it is a computer driven program, and the computer can manage that for you. We're not going to say that we never will - if the game is successful, and if we have a demand for it we will probably look into it, but it's not going towards the design at the moment.

 

Andrew Eisen

P.S. - I went ahead and removed your signature for you.

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

(The content below is unrelated gibberish that has been stuck on my commenting account for a couple years and I have absolutely no means to address it.)

If you are referring to the block of text discussing Earthbound DRM, that is your signature. You can remove it and/or change it by clicking your username in the upper right of the web page, clicking the edit tab in the resulting page and make the changes near the bottom of that page.

Re: GamerLaw Analyzes Scrolls v. Elder Scrolls Situation

Excellent writeup of the legal issues around Trademark and how they intertwine with the game industry.  Hopefully stuff like this will help towards undoing some of langdell's damage...

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician