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

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenAnd I still don't see how articles like Polygon's "An awful week to care about video games" can be construed as an attack.07/31/2015 - 4:25pm
Andrew Eisen18 total? I've seen several lists and the total has never been above 14. The most popular collection seems to be 9 on Aug. 28 then three more on Aug. 29, Sep. 2 and Sep. 3.07/31/2015 - 4:24pm
Infophile@Goth_Skunk: Your distaste for TMS is noted and given exactly the respect it deserves. The fact that you don't like a site doesn't mean they can't be right. In the linked article, they are.07/31/2015 - 4:06pm
Goth_SkunkAnd the worst volleys are the ones being fired by the kind of people who should be standing up and saying 'Hey! This isn't cool! Stop that!'07/31/2015 - 4:05pm
Goth_SkunkNow let's come full circle: One such confrontationally titled article is easy to dismiss. Within a day, nine similarly titled articles are written. Within 4 more days, nine more articles are written. This can't be ignored. This is a blatant attack.07/31/2015 - 4:04pm
Andrew EisenAnd that's totally fine. I too often skip articles and videos based solely on an unappealing title.07/31/2015 - 3:56pm
Goth_SkunkPersonally, I would not waste time reading an article with such a blatantly confrontational title.07/31/2015 - 3:52pm
Andrew EisenGoth - Depends on how the article was written and what it actually said.07/31/2015 - 3:49pm
Goth_SkunkThis is like going fishing and castign a HUGE net that captures tuna, dolphins, sharks, cod, and salmon when all you really want to capture are clownfish.07/31/2015 - 3:48pm
Andrew EisenPerm - If the specific make and model are made clear, I have no problem with the article saving space by refering to them as "these cars" or whatever.07/31/2015 - 3:47pm
Goth_Skunk... Hasbro's widening horizons..." would it not make sense that some would object there is no distinction being made between a reactionary brony and a stable-minded brony?07/31/2015 - 3:47pm
Big PermCars are being recalled because they explode. Editors Note at the end: Not all cars, only this specific make and model07/31/2015 - 3:46pm
Andrew EisenI still feel it was clear that they were admonishing a particular and very specific type of gamer. It's why I had no problem with any of the articles (especially since about half of them weren't really about "gamers" anyway).07/31/2015 - 3:45pm
Goth_Skunk@Andrew: If a columnist had written a "Bronies Are Dead" article, but in the article stated: "Note: I'm not talking about every guy who watches MLP or who self-identifies as a brony, just the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by..."07/31/2015 - 3:45pm
benohawkYou would if you didn't care.07/31/2015 - 3:43pm
Big PermIf you're referring to a certain subset of gamers, you wouldn't refer to that subset under the umbrella term of gamer. Or at least I wouldn't, because I think that's ridiculous.07/31/2015 - 3:42pm
benohawkI buy it, I think they honestly have no problem with most gamers. But it was more important to get links and page views, so gamers were a whipping boy for the media again.07/31/2015 - 3:41pm
Big PermI won't defend people going too far with harassment or email campaigns, but I also won't say they're in the wrong for feeling hostility towards their identity.07/31/2015 - 3:41pm
Andrew EisenI do. I felt the articles made it very clear who specifically the authors were referring to.07/31/2015 - 3:41pm
Big PermIt's an attack on an identity. I don't buy "but we're not talking about you, we swear" for a moment.07/31/2015 - 3:40pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician