Update: Ubisoft Alleges Fraud, Watch Dogs Trademark Restored

Recommended Videos

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Update: Ubisoft Alleges Fraud, Watch Dogs Trademark Restored



Ubisoft is petitioning the United States Patent and Trademark Office to prevent trademark abandonment.

Someone clearly has it in for Ubisoft's Watch Dogs. A notice of express abandonment of the Watch Dogs trademark was filed on February 1st, signed by Yves Guillemot himself. Yet Guillemot denies ever filing that paperwork, and alleges fraud. Ubisoft is petitioning the United States Patent and Trademark Office hoping to prevent abandonment.

"The Request for Express Abandonment purports to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of Ubisoft Entertainment, Yves Guillemot," says Ubisoft in its petition. "Mr. Guillemot, however, did not sign the Request for Express Abandonment, nor did Ubisoft Entertainment file the Request for Express Abandonment. The Request for Express Abandonment is fraudulent and was not filed by Ubisoft Entertainment or its representative."

At time of writing it's not known who filed the abandonment paperwork, or allegedly forged Guillemot's signature. A document dated February 3rd [http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85642398&docId=REA20140203092736#docIndex=0&page=1] suggests that the trademark has been abandoned, but if that is what happened it doesn't seem to be Ubisoft's doing.

Ubisoft has also filed paperwork replacing its attorney. The February 3rd document lists Marc Muraccini as its representative, Ubisoft's Senior Trademark Counsel [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/marc-muraccini/7/82/b34] and the man in charge of its trademark portfolio. However Ubisoft has named Joel D. Leviton of Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, as its attorney, replacing Muraccini.


Source: US Patent and Trademark Office [http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85642398&docId=REA20140203092736#docIndex=0&page=1]

Update: Ubisoft confirms that the Watch Dogs trademark has been abandoned.

"We are working directly with the USPTO on reinstating the trademark for Watch Dogs and it will be active again in the coming days," says a Ubisoft representative. "The matter has no impact on Watch Dogs' development."

Update: Looks as if the only thing standing between Ubisoft and its trademark is Guillemot's signature.

The response from the USPTO reads:

"The petition is incomplete because a separate affidavit/declaration signed by Mr. Guillemot stating he did not sign the express abandonment is required because the express abandonment filed on February 3, 2014 names him as signatory. Note that you may sign the declaration supporting the petition itself as the attorney of record, but a separate affidavit/declaration from Mr. Guillemot is required in support of the facts surrounding the express abandonment, verified by an affidavit or declaration under Trademark Rule 2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.146(c); TMEP §1705.03."

Ubisoft has 30 days to sort it out, says USPT.

Update: Ubisoft has filed all the necessary paperwork and regained its patent.

Says the USPTO:

"Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.68, an applicant may expressly abandon an application. Such abandonment may be withdrawn, but only on petition, and only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. In re Glaxo Group Limited, 33 USPQ2d 1535 (Comm'r Pats. 1993); TMEP §718.01.

Here, the circumstances are extraordinary. An unknown party who lacked authority executed the purported abandonment of the application. Although the request appears to have been sent by petitioner, petitioner declared that it did not submit the request and has every reason to believe that this filing was fraudulent. The Director finds the application should not have been abandoned. Pursuant to supervisory authority provided by 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3), the Director permits the reinstatement of the application."

Permalink
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
Somehow it fits with the theme of the game so I guess it ends up being a bit of good publicity since it gives the idea that we also live in a big scary world where information isnt safe.
 

an annoyed writer

Exalted Lady of The Meep :3
Jun 21, 2012
1,409
0
0
Well, shit. Looks like the road is only getting rockier for that game, which is pretty disappointing. I hope this gets sorted out, because this is one game I really want to play.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
josemlopes said:
Somehow it fits with the theme of the game so I guess it ends up being a bit of good publicity since it gives the idea that we also live in a big scary world where information isnt safe.
I was thinking the exact same thing.

Well actually, I was thinking more along the lines of this being some kind of weird promotion stunt, cuz you know, Ubisoft.
 

Angelous Wang

Lord of I Don't Care
Oct 18, 2011
575
0
0
I suspect at worse this would only delay the game, I doubt they would scrap a complete game they have invested millions in over a name problem.

If they did loose the game, ether they would just re-trademark it or change it, changing it may fuck with the PR but all it effects in the game itself would be a title screen and possibly the opening/ending cut-scenes.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Okay, so it's thematically relevant, but why? Why try and screw over a game publisher if you don't stand to gain anything from it? This feels like a poorly thought-out Snidely Whiplash plot, honestly.

"Nya, hah, hah! Ubisoft has lost the trademark for their upcoming blockbuster! They must now grovel at my feet to obtain the rights to release it!" *insert Skeletor laughter*

Sorry, Villain McDouchebag, but this doesn't change shit.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
This is an interesting prank. But holy heck would it result in jail time if the individual was caught. Not worth it at all.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Lightknight said:
This is an interesting prank. But holy heck would it result in jail time if the individual was caught. Not worth it at all.
Whoever that brave soul is, I thank them for the laugh.
Then again, I have no love for Ubisoft so that's just my spite talking.
 

Longstreet

New member
Jun 16, 2012
705
0
0
Now i'm not really on the up and up of trademark laws, but is it possible someone thought; "Hey i know, i'll file fake papers of ubisoft abandoning Watch_Dogs and then claim the trademark. Then i will have them pay me for them to use it"

Well at least that was my first thought. My second one was, that they fired that Muraccini guy and as a last fuck you he filed that paperwork.

Eh, won't matter for Ubi either way.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Longstreet said:
Now i'm not really on the up and up of trademark laws, but is it possible someone thought; "Hey i know, i'll file fake papers of ubisoft abandoning Watch_Dogs and then claim the trademark. Then i will have them pay me for them to use it"
I would be really surprised if someone pulled that off. There's no way that person could survive the inevitable court case.

OT: This is actually sort of funny, and I don't mean that in my usual Ubisoft hating attitude. It just fits so well with the game's themes.
 

Slash2x

New member
Dec 7, 2009
503
0
0
BAHAHAHA!!! A game about a hacker who manipulates the social system... Had someone manipulate the trademark system and mess with their name.... Oh irony you truly are tasty!
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
IamLEAM1983 said:
Okay, so it's thematically relevant, but why? Why try and screw over a game publisher if you don't stand to gain anything from it? This feels like a poorly thought-out Snidely Whiplash plot, honestly.

"Nya, hah, hah! Ubisoft has lost the trademark for their upcoming blockbuster! They must now grovel at my feet to obtain the rights to release it!" *insert Skeletor laughter*

Sorry, Villain McDouchebag, but this doesn't change shit.
Honestly, it sounds more like a promotional gimmick now that the release is starting to draw near.

It seems like the kind of thing that Ubisoft would do at least.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Yeah, add me to the "suspicious of publicity stunt" list here. God knows we've seen dumber ideas out of the games industry over the years.
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
*shrug* Publicity stunt or not, I still find it rather amusing for obvious reasons.
 

Matt K

New member
Sep 18, 2010
100
0
0
JarinArenos said:
Yeah, add me to the "suspicious of publicity stunt" list here. God knows we've seen dumber ideas out of the games industry over the years.
I highly doubt that since this would be considered fraud on the office and not only would they loose their trademark, someone would also be looking at jail time and the attorney involved would be disbarred.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
I can't shake the idea that this was caused by Yves Guillemot wanting to get out the office late one Friday afternoon and just decided to sign all the paperwork on his desk now without reading it and sort it out after the weekend. Probably because if it was me, that would most likely thing that would happen.
 

chimeracreator

New member
Jun 15, 2009
300
0
0
JarinArenos said:
Yeah, add me to the "suspicious of publicity stunt" list here. God knows we've seen dumber ideas out of the games industry over the years.
Yeah, the risk here doesn't seem worth it for a minor publicity stunt.
37 CFR 1.68 permits a declaration to be used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon.
So you risk losing the trademark straight out for this along with fines and jail time. How much jail time you ask?

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
So up to five years in prison, a fine and loss of the trademark. Not worth it for PR in my book.

Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2600/2641.html
 

Seracen

New member
Sep 20, 2009
645
0
0
If the godforsaken timeframe for this game is lengthened by this crap, I will be duly pissed...