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

[DoPo]

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

Because it's a title of a product. Or maybe we shouldn't allow any normal words and phrases as official names? So, I guess no Paranoia, Half-Life, Battlefield, Grand Theft Auto, Heroes, etc.

 

[deadish]

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

Because it's a title of a product. Or maybe we shouldn't allow any normal words and phrases as official names? So, I guess no Paranoia, Half-Life, Battlefield, Grand Theft Auto, Heroes, etc.

Those aren't genres ... those are nouns. They aren't as huge in scope.

"Half-life" is actually a very good trademark. It has next to nothing to do with FPSs making it distinct as a brand name for a FPS.

Go ahead. Try to trademark "Electronics" as a brand for radios. You will be laughed out of the USPTO. This is why I wonder how a descriptive mark like "Cyberpunk" for a cyberpunk game got approved.

 

[Pyrian]

The trademark was granted in 1988. I don't think it was as generic back then.

 

[DoPo]

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

Because it's a title of a product. Or maybe we shouldn't allow any normal words and phrases as official names? So, I guess no Paranoia, Half-Life, Battlefield, Grand Theft Auto, Heroes, etc.

Those aren't genres ... those are nouns. They aren't as huge in scope.

They are still common words.

I really don't get why you seem so bothered.

 

[deadish]

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

Because it's a title of a product. Or maybe we shouldn't allow any normal words and phrases as official names? So, I guess no Paranoia, Half-Life, Battlefield, Grand Theft Auto, Heroes, etc.

Those aren't genres ... those are nouns. They aren't as huge in scope.

They are still common words.

I really don't get why you seem so bothered.

How would you feel if a company like Square Enix trademarked "Steampunk"?

If we allow CD Projekt Red to trademark a genre label ... this opens the door for every company to do so.

The trademark was granted in 1988. I don't think it was as generic back then.

I think that's why it got through. The clerk reviewing the registration chances are haven't heard of the term "cyberpunk".

Blade Runner and Neuromancer, the seminal cyberpunk works, only came out in 1982 and 1984 respectively.

The term is generic as heck now though.

 

[DoPo]

How would you feel if a company like Square Enix trademarked "Steampunk"?

Uh, nothing. Why, does it cause you pain or something?

If we allow CD Projekt Red to trademark a genre label ... this opens the door for every company to do so.

The trademark already existed. Besides, even if they own it, so what - do you think they'll go around and slap anybody who utters the word with a fish? Because according to my understanding that's not how it works at all - if somebody uses the word Cyberpunk for their product as a TITLE, then that'd be in breach, if somebody claims that their work is of the cyberpunk genre, then it's fine.

Should I remind you again, that no one who uses the term "paranoia" for, you know, the actual mental condition, has suffered any legal backlash?

The trademark of the word "cyberpunk" does by no way, shape or form give anybody any claim over the genre. Trademark isn't really magical - it only applies to stuff that's in the same field. Have you heard of Apple - the company that released Beatles records [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records]? They happily coexisted with, you know, the other Apple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.] for decades because their trademarks applied to completely different spheres - one was a computer manufacturer, the other a music producer. It wasn't until Steve Jobs's company decided to actually deal with music via iTunes when they had problems [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer]. So, you can see it applies only when it applies not at whatever random times you seem to assume it would. Apple Inc. has not sued any makers of apple pies or apple cider to my knowledge, nor could they.

You can totally have, say, a plumbing business and call it Coca-Cola without having trademark issues with the beverage, as you're going to be in a completely different business sphere.

So, again, I don't see what the problem is with the trademark of the word "Cyberpunk". I suppose you might be really itching for Digital Homicide or similar to churn out a bunch of games called Cyberpunk - is that it?

 

[pookie101]

How would you feel if a company like Square Enix trademarked "Steampunk"?

Uh, nothing. Why, does it cause you pain or something?

If we allow CD Projekt Red to trademark a genre label ... this opens the door for every company to do so.

The trademark already existed. Besides, even if they own it, so what - do you think they'll go around and slap anybody who utters the word with a fish? Because according to my understanding that's not how it works at all - if somebody uses the word Cyberpunk for their product as a TITLE, then that'd be in breach, if somebody claims that their work is of the cyberpunk genre, then it's fine.

Should I remind you again, that no one who uses the term "paranoia" for, you know, the actual mental condition, has suffered any legal backlash?

The trademark of the word "cyberpunk" does by no way, shape or form give anybody any claim over the genre. Trademark isn't really magical - it only applies to stuff that's in the same field. Have you heard of Apple - the company that released Beatles records [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records]? They happily coexisted with, you know, the other Apple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.] for decades because their trademarks applied to completely different spheres - one was a computer manufacturer, the other a music producer. It wasn't until Steve Jobs's company decided to actually deal with music via iTunes when they had problems [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer]. So, you can see it applies only when it applies not at whatever random times you seem to assume it would. Apple Inc. has not sued any makers of apple pies or apple cider to my knowledge, nor could they.

You can totally have, say, a plumbing business and call it Coca-Cola without having trademark issues with the beverage, as you're going to be in a completely different business sphere.

So, again, I don't see what the problem is with the trademark of the word "Cyberpunk". I suppose you might be really itching for Digital Homicide or similar to churn out a bunch of games called Cyberpunk - is that it?

i think you have summed up the issue perfectly and why its actually not an issue

 

[sXeth]

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.

They made a big deal of it being untitled, so its success wasn't just "hype around the band". But it had names in order catalogues and stuff, and would be in a record store under "Led Zeppelin". So kind of a wash in that sense.

Trademark wise, it'd have to be researched, but I'm prettysure Atlantic had it as Four Symbols originally, and definitely has Led Zeppelin IV by now.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Given how well CDPR have treated their customers and fans, I would say they have earned the right to the assumption that they won't abuse it.

 

[Amaror]

I don't see the problem. Cyberpunk is the name of their game, so they do need to trademark it. Trademark isn't copyright. Their not going to sue reason for dumb reasons and they don't have to in order to keep their trademark. Again: It ISN'T copyright.
If they didn't trademark it you can bet that around the release of the game we would have thousands sh***y asset-flips games on steam named "Cyberpunk 2078", "Cyberpunk 3077", "Cyberneticpunk 2077". Just look at the state of greenlight-games and you know that would totally happen.

 

[sXeth]

I don't see the problem. Cyberpunk is the name of their game, so they do need to trademark it. Trademark isn't copyright. Their not going to sue reason for dumb reasons and they don't have to in order to keep their trademark. Again: It ISN'T copyright.
If they didn't trademark it you can bet that around the release of the game we would have thousands sh***y asset-flips games on steam named "Cyberpunk 2078", "Cyberpunk 3077", "Cyberneticpunk 2077". Just look at the state of greenlight-games and you know that would totally happen.

Its funny how many of those show up on the Playstation store even. "Dead Effect" (with cover art thats a mashup of exactly what you'd expect) is the last one I remember. About a billion things that are playoffs of Final Fantasy. Prettysure I saw something cloning off Darkest Dungeon the other day. And I recall a decent number of No Mans Sky imitators (ironically)

 

[TrulyBritish]

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.

I presume you actually wanted to quote me on this.
I am well aware that Copyright and Trademark are not the same thing, hence why I never said that. They are, however, both aspects of IP law and considering companies have been pretty free about various lobbying and abuse of Copyrights it's not too wild a guess that they'd want to do the same for their Trademarks.

 

[darkcalling]

From what I know of the company I doubt they're gonna be like King after trademarking "saga".

That said I always thought that "Cyberpunk 2077" was a dumb name whether it was based on something that was already called "Cyberpunk" or not.

It's a genre not a title.

 

[DoPo]

It's a genre not a title.

And "paranoia" is a medical condition, "half-life" is a technical term, "battlefield" is a common word, "grand theft auto" is a phrased used in law, "heroes" is also a common word.

Should we petition to have them renamed to something more appropriate?

 

[darkcalling]

It's a genre not a title.

And "paranoia" is a medical condition, "half-life" is a technical term, "battlefield" is a common word, "grand theft auto" is a phrased used in law, "heroes" is also a common word.

Should we petition to have them renamed to something more appropriate?

For the record I always thought that Half-Life was a dumb name too. Never got around to playing either of them though. The name isn't why though. The first one flew soooo far under my radar I had no idea why everyone was so hyped about the second one (not a PC guy).

A dumb title won't keep me from playing Cyberpunk. What's keeping me from being interested is that they've released absolutely nothing but a single trailer that told me nothing except to expect robots and some big dopey goggles. Show me literally anything but that trailer and I might care.

Also I've never heard of a game called Paranoia. Did you mean Amnesia?

 

[DoPo]

Also I've never heard of a game called Paranoia. Did you mean Amnesia?

No, I mean the tabletop game Paranoia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)].