7 ms·

Sounds like a simple case of if you don't defend it, you lose it. Epic doesn't have a choice here.

by cridenour 5y ago

CogitoCogito 5y ago
Of course Epic has a choice.
- kahrl 5y ago
  They can chose to lose their own trademark?
  - grammarnazzzi 5y ago
    No. They are choosing to steal someone else's trademark
- zinekeller 5y ago
  US laws and case precedents says otherwise. If it's in another country, especially in EU, this is frivolous but US IP laws and case precedents are messy as hell. They could lose this case, but the legal bill is worth it as it allows them to allow future lawsuits which misuses trademark homonyms in a genuinely damaging manner to them (like for example a game engine that sounds like "Unreal") since the defendants can't use Nreal's trademark as something they have deliberately left undefended and argue that the "Unreal" has genericised enough that they should use a similar homonym. Similarly, Epic haven't defended their "Unreal" trademark in China against Nreal because trademark laws there are actually sensible: sure, if someone counterfeit their engine it is unlikely that there would be a case against it (which contrary to first impressions counterfeiters tends to be a small operation and can quickly shut down when there's signs a legal trouble) but if a Chinese company flagrantly displayed the Unreal trademarks against Epic's wishes, they can sue it (and it happened already and prevailed a couple of times there).
  - laumars 5y ago
    You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      > You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark. "arguable" "might decide" So...they have a choice? There is nuance to all legal cases. There is nothing in trademark law that says you have to sue anyone who arguably might be infringing on your trademarks. Everything is a balance. Everything is a choice. This case is no different. Unreal absolutely did not need to do this. I understand why lawyers who might want your billings might tell you otherwise. I don't understand why random uninterested parties on the internet would though.
      - laumars 5y ago
        Using “real” in a company name making virtual reality products is entirely understandable given “real” is exactly the type of jargon people use when describing how effective and immersive a particular product in VR is. Yes, Epic had a game called Unreal, but so many games exist using common terms. It would be ridiculous if every company went after every dictionary term like this. It’s hard enough naming things as it is and the problem is only going to get worse. All cases like these do is harm smaller projects and start ups who don’t have the resources to fight.
  - 5y ago
grammarnazzzi 5y ago
They're defending something they don't own. Nobody on the face of the Earth would confuse NReal with Unreal.
- saurik 5y ago
  That sarcasm is some of the most subtle I have seen in a while; I applaud you, my good sir ;P.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  If you hear those said outloud you could totally confuse them
- tmccrary55 5y ago
  Forreal

Sounds like a simple case of if you don't defend it, you lose it. Epic doesn't have a choice here.

CogitoCogito 5y ago

Of course Epic has a choice.

kahrl 5y ago
They can chose to lose their own trademark?
- grammarnazzzi 5y ago
  No. They are choosing to steal someone else's trademark
zinekeller 5y ago
US laws and case precedents says otherwise. If it's in another country, especially in EU, this is frivolous but US IP laws and case precedents are messy as hell. They could lose this case, but the legal bill is worth it as it allows them to allow future lawsuits which misuses trademark homonyms in a genuinely damaging manner to them (like for example a game engine that sounds like "Unreal") since the defendants can't use Nreal's trademark as something they have deliberately left undefended and argue that the "Unreal" has genericised enough that they should use a similar homonym. Similarly, Epic haven't defended their "Unreal" trademark in China against Nreal because trademark laws there are actually sensible: sure, if someone counterfeit their engine it is unlikely that there would be a case against it (which contrary to first impressions counterfeiters tends to be a small operation and can quickly shut down when there's signs a legal trouble) but if a Chinese company flagrantly displayed the Unreal trademarks against Epic's wishes, they can sue it (and it happened already and prevailed a couple of times there).
- laumars 5y ago
  You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    > You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      > I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark. "arguable" "might decide" So...they have a choice? There is nuance to all legal cases. There is nothing in trademark law that says you have to sue anyone who arguably might be infringing on your trademarks. Everything is a balance. Everything is a choice. This case is no different. Unreal absolutely did not need to do this. I understand why lawyers who might want your billings might tell you otherwise. I don't understand why random uninterested parties on the internet would though.
    - laumars 5y ago
      Using “real” in a company name making virtual reality products is entirely understandable given “real” is exactly the type of jargon people use when describing how effective and immersive a particular product in VR is. Yes, Epic had a game called Unreal, but so many games exist using common terms. It would be ridiculous if every company went after every dictionary term like this. It’s hard enough naming things as it is and the problem is only going to get worse. All cases like these do is harm smaller projects and start ups who don’t have the resources to fight.
- 5y ago

grammarnazzzi 5y ago

They're defending something they don't own. Nobody on the face of the Earth would confuse NReal with Unreal.

saurik 5y ago
That sarcasm is some of the most subtle I have seen in a while; I applaud you, my good sir ;P.
vineyardmike 5y ago
If you hear those said outloud you could totally confuse them
tmccrary55 5y ago
Forreal