4 ms·
They have to protect their trademark at least, it's use it or lose it.
by hau 3y ago
They have to protect their trademark at least, it's use it or lose it.
- mort96 3y agoIf that's even relevant in this case, surely they would've just asked for the game to be renamed, not taken down? And if trademark was the issue, where does the libultra stuff come in?
- verve_rat 3y agoThey can always grant projects like this a non-commercial licence. Also, the aggressively protect your trademarks or lose them thing is a myth.
- archargelod 3y ago> Also, the aggressively protect your trademarks or lose them thing is a myth. It's not. For example, Bayuer lost their trademark for aspirin due to genericization.[0] For more context about copyright, trademark and patent protection by videogame companies and their motivation - I recommend this excellent on-topic video essay by a real lawyer[1]. [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i13hrynnGNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i13hrynnGNY
- verve_rat 3y agoI am aware of trademark becoming generic words and losing protection. But that is a process of a trademark becoming so wide spread in usage that courts find that it is just a common word now. Courts look a common usage, not a tally of all the times the trademark holder didn't defend the trademark. A trademark might still be generic-ified even if the holder attacks every use of it. If Valve ignores this one, and decides to attack some other project selling something with a Portal trademark on it, the courts won't look at this case and say "but you didn't do anything that time". The whole premise of "defend it or lose it" is a misunderstanding of how trademarks becoming generic.