4 ms·

A lot of the statements here don't even make sense. For example: " We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga but we had to oppose their applicati

A lot of the statements here don't even make sense. For example: " We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga but we had to oppose their application to preserve our own ability to protect our own games. Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play. " Except, that is exactly what they're doing.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sgdesign 13y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that if they didn't sue (or oppose the trademark, or whatever it is they're doing), they're afraid somebody else could create a "XYZ Saga" that is copying King's game and use the very existence of Banner Saga as a precent to why XYZ Saga is entitled to using the word "saga" as well. What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect their IP without harming Banner Saga. For example, could they sue Banner Saga, but then settle out of court and allow them a special exception?
- RossM 13y ago
  That's my understanding as well. For trademark law to be enforceable you have to have shown that you've acted defensively in the past.
- grabeh 13y ago
  When it comes down to it, it is a matter of whether or not the consumer is likely to be confused by the usage. King's statement seems to say that it is the combination of the usage of the 'Saga' suffix and a similar game mechanic that would give rise to confusion. The question therefore arises as to what should be done with the 'Banner Saga' application. If King let it go, then this could serve as evidence that they are not concerned about the 'Saga' suffix. If they oppose, then they are seen to be attempting to take control of the 'Saga' suffix regardless of the game mechanic it is applied to. The main problem is that the trade mark application would be unlikely to specifically identify the specific game mechanic that will be used. It is more likely to include reference to 'computer games' for example. If King therefore let the application through, 'Banner Saga' could potentially be used with any game mechanic (and therefore serve as evidence that any game could use the 'Saga' suffix). King could have taken this approach and restricted Banner Saga's use via a coexistence agreement (mentioned below)(or by amending the classification), but negative PR aside, there is not much incentive for them to do this. Further, although they could rely on the above strategy of showing confusion via a similar game mechanic AND the usage of 'Saga', this would be more difficult to prove if they permitted the registration. King are in a stronger position if they are able to say they are actively opposing applications, even if in certain cases this will result in negative PR. On your last point, companies often enter into coexistence agreements, acknowledging that both parties can use an identical or similar marks (registered or unregistered) but under limited circumstances. This could be the case with Banner Saga for all I know...
  - Justsignedup 13y ago
    Good point: If they show strong opposition and then the courts allow an exception then it is grounds in a future case that they do not simply take all .* Saga games as non-competing. They must actively attack opposing trademarks or have their claims invalidated. That's how the laws work. They can easily make a no-fee agreement with Stoic, but the law will still see that this was a c2c compromise and not a legal release of the Saga trademark.
  - lowmagnet 13y ago
    I think they'd have to show that saga is something their titles can't live without. Candy Crush, Pet Rescue, Bubble Witch, etc. all stand on their own. Saga doesn't add anything that makes any of them more specific. It makes them all sound like they're part of the same series, which makes them sound more generic, if anything.
- VLM 13y ago
  "What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect their IP without harming Banner Saga." I believe the term you're looking for is trademark licensing. So the trademark licensing contract would read something like: 1) Pay us $1 2) Plus legalese for "only valid as long as you don't disparage us in public" and "you are not to even joke about impersonating us" and "include a phrase similar to trademark used under license by King, somewhere in the ads/docs deep in the fine print." 3) Equals you get to use our "* saga" trademark, perhaps just this one game or just for a decade or whatever wiggly (Note: The disney company has not sued every tee-shirt company they've ever hired to make a mouse tee shirt... this about the same kind of transaction, more or less)
  - Justsignedup 13y ago
    Well said. Depending on their intention their lawyers will either make a very favorable licensing deal, or will ruthlessly attack Stoic. The point is there MUST be a strong opposition from King in order to protect the trademark in the future.
frogpelt 13y ago
Banner Saga can still be released without a trademark, right? I thought that was their point, however misguided they might be.
- eponeponepon 13y ago
  Why should they have to? As far as I understand it, they actually applied to trademark 'The Banner Saga' before King decided to apply for 'Saga'. To my mind, their point amounts to 'we are bigger and richer, so we should get our own way'.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    In trademark, generally what matters is when the mark is used in commerce, not filing date. This is because trademark is all about consumer association. From what I can tell, Candy Crush Saga came first.
    - ramy_d 13y ago
      going by the information on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Crush_Saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Crush_Saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banner_Saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banner_Saga Candy crush saga came out april 2012, while the banner saga's kickstarter campaign had already begun in march of 2012. People were already throwing money at them and investing in their application. Does that matter at all?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Interesting, I didn't know they had a Kickstarter. It's a novel question, because trademark is established by "use in commerce." Is a Kickstarter page "use in commerce" before a product exists? On one hand, you can't just lay claim to a name saying "we intend to make a product in the future with this name." That's not use in commerce. But a Kickstarter is a lot more concrete than that.
ryoshu 13y ago
King should sue Square retroactively for the use of SaGa 25 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaGa_(series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaGa_(series)
- halo 13y ago
  I'm surprised Square-Enix isn't getting involved in this mess, since it's not hard to imagine them wanting to resurrect the SaGa brand at some point in the future, if only for phone ports.
rayiner 13y ago
It's a little bit subtle but that's not quite what they are doing. From what I understand, King has a series of casual games with the name "<something> Saga." "Banner Saga" fits into that mold, and is in the same market segment, casual gaming, which creates the possibility that customers could be confused and assume the game is associated with King. Think about it this way: here's a list of games, which one doesn't belong? Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Pet Rescue Saga, Farm Heroes Saga, Banner Saga? Just by looking at the names, a casual consumer might assume they're all from the same company. That doesn't prevent someone else from using the word "Saga." For example, "LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga" is sufficiently different that it's much less likely that someone would confuse it with one of King's games. Of course a quick Google search suggests that King's "<something> Saga" mark is pretty weak to begin with, because there area lot of games that are called "<something> Saga", although mostly in the console market rather than the casual online gaming market. But it's still proper for King to file the objection, because trademarks are "use it or lose it." And in a market like casual gaming, the mark really matters because customers are unlikely to do a lot of research into who publishes a game before dropping the $3.00 or whatever they cost. And remember, this is an objection not a lawsuit. An objection is just a statement saying "we think this mark will cause confusion with our mark," so the PTO can take it into consideration in deciding whether to award the mark.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  > Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Pet Rescue Saga, Farm Heroes Saga, Banner Saga? Just by looking at the names, a casual consumer might assume they're all from the same company. I understand the legal argument, but from a policy perspective, it's sort of perverse. Any casual consumer taking more than two seconds to look at Banner Saga would realize that it's not from the same company as Candy Crush Saga. That's really the bigger annoyance IMHO. I'm all for King getting a trademark on "Candy Crush Saga" and then examining each potentially similar mark for confusion, but they're effectively taking the stance that the use of any one of the words in their trademark would confuse consumers -- see, for example, their cease and desist to "All Candy Casino Slots", even though the use of the word "Candy" is more descriptive than anything else.
  - 13y ago
Justsignedup 13y ago
Trademark laws are shitty, just like IP laws. But that just refers to brand names. It's not as bad as copyright trolling but there is a limit to what you can create as brands. Eventually like domain names we will run out of them.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sgdesign 13y ago

IANAL, but my understanding is that if they didn't sue (or oppose the trademark, or whatever it is they're doing), they're afraid somebody else could create a "XYZ Saga" that is copying King's game and use the very existence of Banner Saga as a precent to why XYZ Saga is entitled to using the word "saga" as well. What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect their IP without harming Banner Saga. For example, could they sue Banner Saga, but then settle out of court and allow them a special exception?

RossM 13y ago
That's my understanding as well. For trademark law to be enforceable you have to have shown that you've acted defensively in the past.
grabeh 13y ago
When it comes down to it, it is a matter of whether or not the consumer is likely to be confused by the usage. King's statement seems to say that it is the combination of the usage of the 'Saga' suffix and a similar game mechanic that would give rise to confusion. The question therefore arises as to what should be done with the 'Banner Saga' application. If King let it go, then this could serve as evidence that they are not concerned about the 'Saga' suffix. If they oppose, then they are seen to be attempting to take control of the 'Saga' suffix regardless of the game mechanic it is applied to. The main problem is that the trade mark application would be unlikely to specifically identify the specific game mechanic that will be used. It is more likely to include reference to 'computer games' for example. If King therefore let the application through, 'Banner Saga' could potentially be used with any game mechanic (and therefore serve as evidence that any game could use the 'Saga' suffix). King could have taken this approach and restricted Banner Saga's use via a coexistence agreement (mentioned below)(or by amending the classification), but negative PR aside, there is not much incentive for them to do this. Further, although they could rely on the above strategy of showing confusion via a similar game mechanic AND the usage of 'Saga', this would be more difficult to prove if they permitted the registration. King are in a stronger position if they are able to say they are actively opposing applications, even if in certain cases this will result in negative PR. On your last point, companies often enter into coexistence agreements, acknowledging that both parties can use an identical or similar marks (registered or unregistered) but under limited circumstances. This could be the case with Banner Saga for all I know...
- Justsignedup 13y ago
  Good point: If they show strong opposition and then the courts allow an exception then it is grounds in a future case that they do not simply take all .* Saga games as non-competing. They must actively attack opposing trademarks or have their claims invalidated. That's how the laws work. They can easily make a no-fee agreement with Stoic, but the law will still see that this was a c2c compromise and not a legal release of the Saga trademark.
- lowmagnet 13y ago
  I think they'd have to show that saga is something their titles can't live without. Candy Crush, Pet Rescue, Bubble Witch, etc. all stand on their own. Saga doesn't add anything that makes any of them more specific. It makes them all sound like they're part of the same series, which makes them sound more generic, if anything.
VLM 13y ago
"What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect their IP without harming Banner Saga." I believe the term you're looking for is trademark licensing. So the trademark licensing contract would read something like: 1) Pay us $1 2) Plus legalese for "only valid as long as you don't disparage us in public" and "you are not to even joke about impersonating us" and "include a phrase similar to trademark used under license by King, somewhere in the ads/docs deep in the fine print." 3) Equals you get to use our "* saga" trademark, perhaps just this one game or just for a decade or whatever wiggly (Note: The disney company has not sued every tee-shirt company they've ever hired to make a mouse tee shirt... this about the same kind of transaction, more or less)
- Justsignedup 13y ago
  Well said. Depending on their intention their lawyers will either make a very favorable licensing deal, or will ruthlessly attack Stoic. The point is there MUST be a strong opposition from King in order to protect the trademark in the future.

frogpelt 13y ago

Banner Saga can still be released without a trademark, right? I thought that was their point, however misguided they might be.

eponeponepon 13y ago
Why should they have to? As far as I understand it, they actually applied to trademark 'The Banner Saga' before King decided to apply for 'Saga'. To my mind, their point amounts to 'we are bigger and richer, so we should get our own way'.
- rayiner 13y ago
  In trademark, generally what matters is when the mark is used in commerce, not filing date. This is because trademark is all about consumer association. From what I can tell, Candy Crush Saga came first.
  - ramy_d 13y ago
    going by the information on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Crush_Saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Crush_Saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banner_Saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banner_Saga Candy crush saga came out april 2012, while the banner saga's kickstarter campaign had already begun in march of 2012. People were already throwing money at them and investing in their application. Does that matter at all?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Interesting, I didn't know they had a Kickstarter. It's a novel question, because trademark is established by "use in commerce." Is a Kickstarter page "use in commerce" before a product exists? On one hand, you can't just lay claim to a name saying "we intend to make a product in the future with this name." That's not use in commerce. But a Kickstarter is a lot more concrete than that.

ryoshu 13y ago

King should sue Square retroactively for the use of SaGa 25 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaGa_(series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaGa_(series)

halo 13y ago
I'm surprised Square-Enix isn't getting involved in this mess, since it's not hard to imagine them wanting to resurrect the SaGa brand at some point in the future, if only for phone ports.

rayiner 13y ago

It's a little bit subtle but that's not quite what they are doing. From what I understand, King has a series of casual games with the name "<something> Saga." "Banner Saga" fits into that mold, and is in the same market segment, casual gaming, which creates the possibility that customers could be confused and assume the game is associated with King. Think about it this way: here's a list of games, which one doesn't belong? Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Pet Rescue Saga, Farm Heroes Saga, Banner Saga? Just by looking at the names, a casual consumer might assume they're all from the same company. That doesn't prevent someone else from using the word "Saga." For example, "LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga" is sufficiently different that it's much less likely that someone would confuse it with one of King's games. Of course a quick Google search suggests that King's "<something> Saga" mark is pretty weak to begin with, because there area lot of games that are called "<something> Saga", although mostly in the console market rather than the casual online gaming market. But it's still proper for King to file the objection, because trademarks are "use it or lose it." And in a market like casual gaming, the mark really matters because customers are unlikely to do a lot of research into who publishes a game before dropping the $3.00 or whatever they cost. And remember, this is an objection not a lawsuit. An objection is just a statement saying "we think this mark will cause confusion with our mark," so the PTO can take it into consideration in deciding whether to award the mark.

andrewfong 13y ago
> Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Pet Rescue Saga, Farm Heroes Saga, Banner Saga? Just by looking at the names, a casual consumer might assume they're all from the same company. I understand the legal argument, but from a policy perspective, it's sort of perverse. Any casual consumer taking more than two seconds to look at Banner Saga would realize that it's not from the same company as Candy Crush Saga. That's really the bigger annoyance IMHO. I'm all for King getting a trademark on "Candy Crush Saga" and then examining each potentially similar mark for confusion, but they're effectively taking the stance that the use of any one of the words in their trademark would confuse consumers -- see, for example, their cease and desist to "All Candy Casino Slots", even though the use of the word "Candy" is more descriptive than anything else.
- 13y ago

Justsignedup 13y ago

Trademark laws are shitty, just like IP laws. But that just refers to brand names. It's not as bad as copyright trolling but there is a limit to what you can create as brands. Eventually like domain names we will run out of them.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]