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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgeyes.05/05/2015 - 6:30am
MattsworknameOn some days conster, i've wanted to rip into subjects like theres no tomarow, but some times, it's just not the time for it.05/05/2015 - 6:00am
MattsworknameConster, thats fine, and I understand what your saying, Im just saying that right now, baltimoore it not a subject to get into right now.05/05/2015 - 5:59am
ConsterMy comment was meant as "maybe people have done less hateful things 'in the name of GG' lately because they've moved on to other hateful activities", not a dig at GG itself.05/05/2015 - 4:29am
ConsterSecond, I based my remark on an actual article about trolls pretending to be Baltimore looters on Twitter using old photos, and their accounts having references to (among others) GG.05/05/2015 - 4:24am
ConsterIanC, EZK: there is nothing 'sick' or 'uncalled for' about what I said. First of all, I specifically said "*The trolls hiding behind* GG", which seperates the people making death and rape threats from GG, which is precisely what GG'ers want.05/05/2015 - 4:22am
MattsworknameHey, just a question, but did GP report on the UK teachers union threatening to report parents for letting kids play 18 plus games?05/05/2015 - 3:30am
Mattsworknamehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVLIgsf6qcs Jason comes to MKX, And you know what, yeah, he is right at home!05/04/2015 - 11:35pm
Mattsworknameequally importat reaons . I find it strange that worf says something i agree with so much, yet i know people who woudl fight bloodily about it. Kinda silly05/04/2015 - 10:56pm
MattsworknameI mysef love both of them, Im a huge fan of wars and trek, and It was a big part of my childhood for different, but e05/04/2015 - 10:55pm
MechaTama31I really liked the first reboot Trek. Of course, I have generally liked other Abrams movies. The newer Trek movie had its moments, but wasn't as good, imho.05/04/2015 - 10:43pm
Craig R.Wife is a huge Wars fan, doesn't think much of Abrams either. So, we've found some common ground...05/04/2015 - 10:39pm
Craig R.I'm more of a Trek than Wars fan, but haven't watched either reboot film, don't care for Abrams05/04/2015 - 10:38pm
MechaTama31RE: Trek vs. Wars, I've always liked both, and although I often hear it said that the fanbases are at odds, I have never seen a shred of that in real life. Online, sure, but the internet amplifies that kind of thing, we all know that.05/04/2015 - 10:23pm
MechaTama31Because GG "tainted" those other opinions, and you couldn't express them without also implying support for all the other crap the jerk faces did.05/04/2015 - 10:19pm
MechaTama31Any GG-related discussion I got involved in, if someone expressed anything even tangentially supportive of anything GG supported, that person was guilty by association of everything GG did (whether they mentioned GG or not).05/04/2015 - 10:18pm
MechaTama31"There's no need for anyone who's not a jerk face to admit to vile actions they didn't commit." That's a nice thought, AE, but that's certainly not how it goes down, even here.05/04/2015 - 10:17pm
Goth_SkunkI for one do agree with him. I always have, as a fan of both franchises. Hopefully with J.J. Abrams doing both the Star Wars AND the Star Trek films, that'll help mend this silly rift between fanbases.05/04/2015 - 9:50pm
MattsworknameWell said MR worf, well said, but I doubt the treks and the star wars fans agree05/04/2015 - 9:44pm
PHX CorpMichael Dorn tells Star Trek and Star Wars fans that both fanbases are all part of the same Scifi family https://twitter.com/akaWorf/status/59528225364038860805/04/2015 - 9:29pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician