CD Projekt now owns the "Cyberpunk" trademark in the EU.

[Worgen]

I have a feeling they won't really try too hard to defend the trademark since it probably would not hold up. I mean it is a pretty commonly used phrase to describe a certain genre. And has a long enough pre-existing meaning so it probably isn't that strong a trademark.

 

[BrawlMan]

I agree that copyright laws are too strict, but why would anyone title their work "Cyberpunk"? It's dumb as a title.

This reminds me... I was considering making a thread asking for popular works that are untitled, to see if a work can be successful without a title.

the game is called cyberpunk 2077 which is named after the tabletop rpgs cyberpunk 2013 & 2020

I know. I think it's dumb to name your work after the genre, as if it's seminal. It would be like calling The Matrix "Science Fiction" or The Maltese Falcon "Noir."

Agreed. That would be like calling Doom "Demon First Person Shooter". I know it's based off a Tabletop RPG, but couldn't they have picked a less generic name?

 

[Nick Cave]

How is trademarking the term "cyberpunk" for games any better? It still stifles the use of the term in the video game medium. This isn't alarmist, it's basic common sense. You haven't addressed the actual issue at all.

What the hell, CD Project?

It's to stop shithead mobile game dev from releasing Cyberpunk 2088 in the same month, tricking grandmas to buy "that new exiting future game called cyberpunk" for little Billy for Christmas.

 

[Pyrian]

They already have it in the US at least according to the German site Gamestar. But they don't give a citation where they got that information.

The U.S. Trademark Electronic Search System [http://tess2.uspto.gov] agrees - they have trademarks for Cyberpunk and Cyberpunk 2077. Interestingly, the Cyberpunk trademarks are quite old, one of them dating back to 1988. So, they probably just acquired existing ones.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Interestingly, the Cyberpunk trademarks are quite old, one of them dating back to 1988. So, they probably just acquired existing ones.

Given that Cyberpunk came out in 1988 and they are making a game based off that particular PnP RPG IP, I'd say that was a fairly accurate guess.

 

[deadish]

the game is called cyberpunk 2077 which is named after the tabletop rpgs cyberpunk 2013 & 2020

Times have changed and CD Projekt Red isn't some developer of a niche product like a tabletop RPG.

true but thats exactly what they licenced the cyberpunk rpg and all its material (please dont use cybergeneration cd project red) and thats what they are trying to do protect the IP

all that said i actually agree with you. i get why they are doing it and they are one of the few that i dont think will abuse it but still its a move that makes me very wary.

please be good ive waited going on 30 years for this game

Under US trademark law ... they aren't going to have the option to not "abuse" it. If you don't defend your trademark in the US, you risk having the courts invalidate it - hell, the fact that it's such a generic widely used term might even quality it for invalidation as it is; i.e. genericized trademark.

If they don't sue, if someone creates a blatant rip-off, they might lose in court when their opponent points out they haven't been defending the copyright.

This is bad for everyone including them.

They are playing with fire .

 

[deadish]

ITT: people who don't know the Cyberpunk already exist as a line of products...

Frankly, the Cyberpunk tabletop RPGs aren't exactly mainstream and the trademark has to my knowledge never been tested in court - no one really bothered to rip it off. This will change if it becomes a mainstream video game with a multi-million dollar budget behind it.

I have a feeling they won't really try too hard to defend the trademark since it probably would not hold up. I mean it is a pretty commonly used phrase to describe a certain genre. And has a long enough pre-existing meaning so it probably isn't that strong a trademark.

Then their brand has not protection ...

What's to stop some shitty developer from creating a piece of crap called Cyberpunk 3077?

Personally I think it's insane that they risking their multi-million dollar game like this.

 

[Pyrian]

Under US trademark law ... they aren't going to have the option to not "abuse" it. If you don't defend your trademark in the US, you risk having the courts invalidate it - hell, the fact that it's such a generic widely used term might even quality it for invalidation as it is; i.e. genericized trademark.

The former is a myth; not only has this never happened, U.S. courts have in fact ruled the opposite, that you are not required to "police" your trademark at all. I think this myth is propagated by trademark lawyers... For obvious reasons.

Genericization is a real danger for them, though.

 

[DoPo]

ITT: people who don't know the Cyberpunk already exist as a line of products...

Frankly, the Cyberpunk tabletop RPGs aren't exactly mainstream

Sure, it's not but there is an entire game being made based on it and that fact was never really particularly "secret". People seem to just keep ignoring that for some reason, though.

 

[deadish]

Under US trademark law ... they aren't going to have the option to not "abuse" it. If you don't defend your trademark in the US, you risk having the courts invalidate it - hell, the fact that it's such a generic widely used term might even quality it for invalidation as it is; i.e. genericized trademark.

The former is a myth; not only has this never happened, U.S. courts have in fact ruled the opposite, that you are not required to "police" your trademark at all. I think this myth is propagated by trademark lawyers... For obvious reasons.

Genericization is a real danger for them, though.

I got it from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights),

In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use".

Granted there is leeway,

It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential.

It will really come down to how the courts decide - i.e. whether the court finds the infringement "minor" and "inconsequential".

If you think about it, the trademark owner is pretty much gambling with their trademark if they don't sue.

 

[deadish]

ITT: people who don't know the Cyberpunk already exist as a line of products...

Frankly, the Cyberpunk tabletop RPGs aren't exactly mainstream

Sure, it's not but there is an entire game being made based on it and that fact was never really particularly "secret". People seem to just keep ignoring that for some reason, though.

Still due to its low level of exposure, it has never really been much of a target.

This will change if CD Projekt Red's game is successful.

 

[pookie101]

just checked.. in the US it seems r talsorian have cyberpunk registered for rpgs.. i assume tabletop
cd project have "cyberpunk" registered for a lot
they also have "cyberpunk 2077" registered for pretty much everything you can think of

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4807%3A8ti0in.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=cyberpunk&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

side note i want a cyberpunk party hat now ive seen that

 

[Pyrian]

snip

Hmmm. Strange that the quoted section in Wikipedia has no citation. Anyway, as far as I can tell that text is plain wrong; you can only be removed for non-use if you, ahem, don't use it, or fail to renew the registration and certify continuous use (every 5 years in the U.S.).

The closest to a penalty for non-enforcement is "Defense of Laches" in which someone argues that they can keep using your trademark despite its infringement because you took too long to inform them of the infringement, but it only applies to the specific defendant, it can't invalidate the trademark for other defendants or delist the trademark.

 

[Skatalite]

This reminds me... I was considering making a thread asking for popular works that are untitled, to see if a work can be successful without a title.

What about Led Zeppelin's fourth album. That's the only one I can think of.

 

[deadish]

snip

Hmmm. Strange that the quoted section in Wikipedia has no citation. Anyway, as far as I can tell that text is plain wrong; you can only be removed for non-use if you, ahem, don't use it, or fail to renew the registration and certify continuous use (every 5 years in the U.S.).

The closest to a penalty for non-enforcement is "Defense of Laches" in which someone argues that they can keep using your trademark despite its infringement because you took too long to inform them of the infringement, but it only applies to the specific defendant, it can't invalidate the trademark for other defendants or delist the trademark.

I tried to do more research ... but I think I need a lawyer. LOL

That said, I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that lawyers are propagating the myth to get work. Primarily because it seems a lot like "lying to your client" which looks like grounds for debarment - or at least should be.

The first time I have heard of "defend it or lose it" was back in the 90s with 3D Realms over Duke Nukem. Some modders started using "Duke Nukem" in the title of their mods, 3D Realms sent them a legal notices telling them to stop explaining that it would weaken their trademark if they didn't stop it.

Is there a specific law they are going off or were they just trying to prevent genericization?

 

[TrulyBritish]

snip

Hmmm. Strange that the quoted section in Wikipedia has no citation. Anyway, as far as I can tell that text is plain wrong; you can only be removed for non-use if you, ahem, don't use it, or fail to renew the registration and certify continuous use (every 5 years in the U.S.).

The closest to a penalty for non-enforcement is "Defense of Laches" in which someone argues that they can keep using your trademark despite its infringement because you took too long to inform them of the infringement, but it only applies to the specific defendant, it can't invalidate the trademark for other defendants or delist the trademark.

I tried to do more research ... but I think I need a lawyer. LOL

That said, I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that lawyers are propagating the myth to get work. Primarily because it seems a lot like "lying to your client" which looks like grounds for debarment - or at least should be.

The first time I have heard of "defend it or lose it" was back in the 90s with 3D Realms over Duke Nukem. Some modders started using "Duke Nukem" in the title of their mods, 3D Realms sent them a legal notices telling them to stop explaining that it would weaken their trademark if they didn't stop it.

Is there a specific law they are going off or were they just trying to prevent genericization?

Probably the latter.
As I stated before, it can't be that easy to lose trademarks or you'd think Marvel and DC would clamp down on everything in the superhero genre for fear of losing their trademark.
Considering how much companies fuck around with Copyright Law, I just can't see a situation where they'd accept a system that means they have to get potentially litigious to defend their works.

 

[Dornedas]

CDProjekt has responded to this.
Well their twitter has.
https://twitter.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/850022540042960896

Sorry I have no idea how to embed a tweet.

 

[deadish]

Probably the latter.
As I stated before, it can't be that easy to lose trademarks or you'd think Marvel and DC would clamp down on everything in the superhero genre for fear of losing their trademark.
Considering how much companies fuck around with Copyright Law, I just can't see a situation where they'd accept a system that means they have to get potentially litigious to defend their works.

BTW copyright and trademarks are not the same thing.

CDProjekt has responded to this.
Well their twitter has.
https://twitter.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/850022540042960896

Sorry I have no idea how to embed a tweet.

Doesn't change anything though.

Frankly, I'm not even sure how a descriptive mark like "cyberpunk" even got registered.

 

[Pseudonym]

I think CD project Red only intends to use this against misleading naming of video games and such. Things that could cause actual confusion amongst consumers. That is what trade mark law is intended for. Even if they tried to exclude others from using the word cyberpunk when it couldn't plausibly lead to brand confusion they would not get away with that. As long as the law is applied in a sensible manner, I have no problems with this.

 

[pookie101]

I think CD project Red only intends to use this against misleading naming of video games and such. Things that could cause actual confusion amongst consumers. That is what trade mark law is intended for. Even if they tried to exclude others from using the word cyberpunk when it couldn't plausibly lead to brand confusion they would not get away with that. As long as the law is applied in a sensible manner, I have no problems with this.

i agree with you totally there.
there doesnt seem any ill intent on their part

i weirdly trust them and i dont know why