Battlefield Cost Publisher "Tens Of Thousands"

[Stall]

I can't believe you can even copyright the word "Battlefield".

It was how it was used. Let's look at some of the titles in the Battlefield franchise, shall we?
-Battlefield: Bad Company
-Battlefield Heroes
-Battlefield 1943
-Battlefield 2142

Observe how its typically Battlefield -Insert Word Here-. Given that the franchise has such a firmly established pattern in the naming of the game, it's not a stretch to say that a game called Battlefield Academy could legitimately get mistaken for a game in the franchise. Now tell me please, why was EA in the wrong here if a mistake could legitimately happen?

Hell, if you heard "Battlefield Academy" without any context, I bet you 100 dollars that you would think it belongs to the Battlefield franchise. NOW do you kind of understand the lawsuit?

"Target" is a pretty generic name, much like Battlefield, but do you seriously think I could name a grocery store "Target Groceries" and get away with it?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Taking the Bethesda approach, eh? Why not. I guess you don't become a mega powerful company by smiling at people.

I believe EA - and Bethesda in the Scrolls case - actually have little say in whether they contest the name or not. If they don't contest it then I believe it legally weakens the brand and leaves it open to contention.

I'm not a law expert by any means, but that explanation came up quite frequently in discussion of the Bethesda case. It's not EA being dicks, it's EA protecting and securing their copyrights/trademarks.

coldalarm is correct (more on that below).

But we couldn't change the name because it was a licence we acquired."

...If the licence has already been acquired, how can EA sue? They should have blocked the licence at that point not after it had become successful unless...

Oh...they're douchebags that wanted in on it. Gotcha.

No, Slitherine acquired a license to a television series, something that EA can't touch, and turned it into a videogame, something that directly competes with EA (more on that below).

Fuck EA and fuck the dumb cunts who made it possible to copyright any word you damn well please.
Whole bunch of pathetic, money grubbing cunts should be lined up and shot. And yes, I mean that. I am not joking.

Cheshire, first, stop saying things you don't understand. One cannot "copyright any word you damn well please."

Second, if you're not joking, as you insist, I really hope you're arrested and thrown in jail for the rest of your life for jaywalking. Society could use more trademark trolls if that somehow results in less violence, but not vice versa.

Finally, everyone needs to stop saying "copyright". This is not a copyright issue. This is a trademark issue, which is a whole different can of beans. When a company registers a trademark, they have the right to use said trademark, exclusively, within their industry. Anyone who, even unintentionally, tries to use a name that could cause confusion among customers as to what company created the trademarked work is infringing upon the first company's trademark.

This results in the somewhat ridiculous claims by Bethesda toward Mojang, but, in this case, EA is well within their rights to sue Slitherine's Battlefield Academy, which sounds like a part of the Battlefield franchise (and it wouldn't be the first time a company hopped from FPS to RTS, or the other way around [Space Marine]).

If a company does not protect their trademark, they become at risk for losing that trademark. For instance, Xerox almost lost their trademark on Xerox because "xeroxing" a paper had become common usage. Kleenex is frequently in danger because people call all tissues "kleenex". Band Aid always reminds you to use Band Aid brand bandages in an effort to prevent people from calling all bandages "band aids". Apparently Dumpster is a trademark of a company that makes mobile trash bins (I always thought they were just called "dumpsters", and I bet you did, too, if you're American). And these examples don't include corporate infringing. As soon as a company lets another infringe on their trademarks, they've essentially lost that trademark, which will quickly result in brand dilution.

Imagine walking into a store and seeing two dozen games with "Battlefield" in the title. What are the chances you'd pick up one published by EA, the rightful trademark owner? Not great. You'd probably accidentally pick up some crappy* game based on a BBC television series.

However, they only defend their trademarks within their own industry, which is why things like Battlefield Earth and BBC's original television show are uncontested. Actually, if EA wanted to make a movie based on the Battlefield franchise, they'd probably have to license the name from whoever owns the Battlefield Earth license.

*I don't really know anything about the Slitherine game. Just making a point.

Can you legally get an exclusive trademark on a single dictionary word, though? All of the examples you listed were words that were made up by the company in possession of the trademark. This is less like that, and more like that "Edge" case.

 

[ShakenBake]

To further protect its sacred franchise, EA will also copyright the numbers 1-9.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Sorry EA you don't own the word Battlefield.

Did you see what the name got changed to? BBC Battlefield academy, the word is still in there.

No, it isn't....

The game has now been re-named BBC Battle Academy and Slitherine is trying to recapture the momentum it had before the franchise was frozen.

They had to change battlefield to battle. If it had just been the change of adding BBC to the front then I would not have posted.

I got that the whole scrolls and edge thing was ridiculous but this? This actually sounds like a battlefield game.

Battlefield bad company, battlefield 1942, battlefield heroes, to be honest, when I read the title I actually thought it was an EA game.

We need to stop being so angry over trademark, because trademark isn't the issue, its idiots that abuse said trademark.

I can understand phrase titles getting a trademark, like 'Gears of War', 'Elder Scrolls', etc, but just not single nouns like battlefield that are in common usage. Non common or made up words like Nike, Mercedes, etc, again no problem.

Also if the other company had called it Battlefield 4, EA have every right to sue. But just because Battlefield turns up somewhere in the title. No, that's wrong and if trademark law allows that, it needs serious reform.

If it sounds like a Battlefield game that is EA's or DICE's fault for using a single word that is in common usage for their games, not other people who might want the word Battlefield to appear somewhere in their games title. Same goes for Halo. The only thing they should be protected from is someone else using that single word and a number afterwards as that would be obvious in trying to cash in on anothers IP. I.E Battlefield, 1, 2, 3, 4 or Halo, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc

 

[GeorgW]

Well, at least it's more reasonable than that stupid scrolls lawsuit. I really don't see the problem here.
I don't get why it took them so much time and effort to just change the name?

 

[Dogstile]

snip

I edited my first post, well, shoved an edit at the bottom. But yeah, my bad, but I still think EA are in the right because battlefield academy really does sound like it's part of the series.

 

[ph0b0s123]

snip

I edited my first post, well, shoved an edit at the bottom. But yeah, my bad, but I still think EA are in the right because battlefield academy really does sound like it's part of the series.

We still disagree....

 

[9thRequiem]

Loving the people shouting 'Fuck EA!' on a knee-jerk response. They are three very sound reasons for EA suing Slitherine:
1. The title contained the word 'Battlefield'
2. The title was composed of two words
3. 'Battlefield' was the first of those words
This basically meant that Battlefield academy's title followed virtually the same format as titles in the Battlefield series, e.g.: Battlefield Bad Company, Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Vietnam, etc. Thus when EA becomes aware that another publisher has produced a game that mimics the title format of their Battlefield series (however unintentionally), is it at all surprising that they sue to protect their trademark? I usually take the side of the underdog, but when the underdog is this dunderheadedly stupid and THEN FISHES FOR SYMPATHY, forgive me if I remain cynical. I refuse believe that they had not even moderately considered the possibility that this could happen.

Agreed. Is this just because it's EA doing it that there's such an outcry?
For example, if I made a game "Half-Life Academy", would Valve be able to sue? Of course they would, and no-one would object in the least. It's their trademark, even though Half-Life is a legitimate scientific term, making a game named after it isn't allowed. It's exactly the same thing.

 

[BrotherRool]

EA were justified and the idea that Slitherine should have thought about it is equally ludicrous. The BBC have and have always had an excellent interactive history section to their website which frequently churns out little flash games that help give people understanding of things going on in a certain era. They made this game (and although my memory is unclear I think they even advertised it after a history show on their little check out our website sections)and because it was tiny the name wasn't important.

It was a great game, a good developer decided to capitalise on the fanbase (a wise decision) and got trapped.

So no-ones fault, just an unavoidable mess

EDIT: Yes the little flash game was created as an addition to the 'Battlefield Britain' tv series that was about Britain and Battlefields. So even the people who created the little flash game weren't at fault because Battlefield was the brand name. Unfortunately in an unrelated area it's also EAs and it is theirs because people talk of the Battlefield games and all the spin-offs have capitalised on the Battlefield name (like Battlefield Heroes)