Why the Skyrim boycott is a waste of time and missing enjoyment.

[Treblaine]

So explain Metal Gear Solid and Gears of War?

Condemned Criminal Origins and
Dragon Age Origins?

Mass Effect and
Fear Effect?

Call of Duty
Call of Cthullu: Dark Corners of The Earth
Call of Juarez
Infinite Space
Dead Space
Dead Rising
Advent Rising

COD: Black Ops
BLACK (2006 game)

MOTORstorm
Forza MOTORsport

Fallout New Vegas
Rainbow Six Vegas

RED faction
RED dead redemption

Are you mentally handicapped? This isn't being mean, or even attemping to be funny, this is a serious question. Are you mentally handicapped?
The idea at play here is that a PC RPG called "Scrolls" can be confused with a PC RPG called "The Elder Scrolls" due to the similiar name/nature/genre of the games.
Anyone confusing 'Metal Gear Solid' for 'Gears of War' should be wearing a padded helmet when they go for a walk.

What nonsense. Those clearly mean the exact same thing. Scrolls is clearly distinct. Or at least as distinct as Rage is from all the other games with "rage" in their title.

Clearly not, since it's going to court. As I said, it's all about context. As you can't understand that, refrain from posting.

This is a serious question:

Do you really think it is acceptable to label hellow users on this forum as being MENTALLY HANDICAPPED because they make a very relevant comparison that just so happens to challenge your preconceived notions? That's desperate and HIGHLY inappropriate.

Scrolls is not an RPG, it's based on card-game mechanics. So that comparison is right out.

The Elder Scrolls series has since Morrowwind has been HEAVILY marketed based on the subtitle; Oblivion, Skyrim.

There is virtually ZERO chance for confusion. If there is any chance of name confusion it will be in the EXTRAORDINARY rare case where someone is buying an expensive game with literally no fucking clue at ALL what they are buying and judge it literally just by a single word in the title.

Just stop and think about the circumstances where these games could be mixed up, it would have to be where the buyer literally knows next to nothing about what they are buying:
-they know a single word from the title
-they know in the vaguest sense the theme
-they know nothing about video games
-they are unwilling to make the vaguest effort of research

You don't have to be in a padded cell, you just have to be a non gamer trying to buy a game for a relative based on the vaguest possible clues.

That is the scenario it would take to confuse "Scrolls: The Stuff of Something" and "SKYRIM (The Elder Scrolls V)".

THIS IS THE SAME SCENARIO where you could mix up "Gears of War" and "Metal Gear Solid"

Or Mix up "Black" and "Black Ops"

Or "Dead Rising" and "Dead Island"

Is this point clear to you? Will you now lash out and call me Mentally Handicapped for thinking in a way that you REFUSE to think!

You can't have it both ways, where Scrolls and Skyrim are supposedly so easy to mix up yet 'Dead Rising' and 'Dead Island' somehow are not!

Clearly not (nonsense) since it's going to court.

Even the most frivolous cases have to go to court before they can be thrown out, look a the case of "Edge". This will be a long process where Zenimax has NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain, Mojang will suffer the most having to fund an international legal effort without a massive in house legal staff like Zenimax does.

 

[Zeh Don]

Do you really think it is acceptable to label hellow users on this forum as being MENTALLY HANDICAPPED because they make a very relevant comparison that just so happens to challenge your preconceived notions? That's desperate and HIGHLY inappropriate.

Absolutely not. I do, however, believe it's not only appropriate and acceptable but logical to question the mental capacity of a forum poster if the content of their post calls into question their ability to reason and deduce logic from a set of circumstances.

Scrolls is not an RPG, it's based on card-game mechanics. So that comparison is right out.

Then Notch is selling his game in the wrong capacity and will soon be sued for False Advertising. It has been described as an RPG with Card Game Mechancis; look up the Pokemon TCG RPG on the Gameboy.

There is virtually ZERO chance for confusion. If there is any chance of name confusion it will be in the EXTRAORDINARY rare case where someone is buying an expensive game with literally no fucking clue at ALL what they are buying and judge it literally just by a single word in the title.

Virtually Zero and Zero are not the same. Hence the case going to court. What you think will happen and what will happen are two different things. Zenimax are covering their ass, and the asses of their some 1,000 employees.

Just stop and think about the circumstances where these games could be mixed up... You don't have to be in a padded cell, you just have to be a non gamer trying to buy a game for a relative based on the vaguest possible clues.

Exactly my point. Thank you. This is why the case is going to court.

THIS IS THE SAME SCENARIO where you could mix up "Gears of War" and "Metal Gear Solid"

The copyright holders of Metal Gear Solid disagree with you as they didn't instigate legal proceedings. Most likely because one is a 20 year old Stealth series, a hallmark of the Playstation brand, and the other is a 5 year old third person cover based shooter and a hallmark of the Xbox brand. Context - seriously, look it up.
Zenimax believe there is a real chance someone is going to abuse 'The Elder Scrolls' name in the RPG genre; they're doing what they need to do to make sure it doesn't happen.

Will you now lash out and call me Mentally Handicapped for thinking in a way that you REFUSE to think!

No, because you didn't compare Dragon Age: Origins and Condemned: Criminal Origins. That case would be laughed out of courst so quickly the Judge would have time to nap.

You can't have it both ways, where Scrolls and Skyrim are supposedly so easy to mix up yet 'Dead Rising' and 'Dead Island' somehow are not!

It's not; 'Scrolls' and 'The Elder Scrolls' is in question, not 'Scrolls' and 'Skyrim'. And 'Dead Rising' and 'Dead Island' are different genres and obviously their copyright holders believed the general public would be able to tell the difference; context.

...This will be a long process where Zenimax has NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain, Mojang will suffer the most having to fund an international legal effort without a massive in house legal staff like Zenimax does.

Mojang are gaining reems of headlines, free publicity and guaranteed sales for their 'Scrolls' game. The 'Quake 3 Match' probably scored him an easy 10k sales from people going 'Oh man, Notch is awesome!'. Don't act like Mojang are some little one man operation struggling to keep the power on; they're the most successful independent game developer in the last decade.

 

[steveredd]

Scrolls and elder scrolls? i think people have just lost their brains at this point. srsly if you get the two mixed up your a moron and both parties in this suit should just take a look at what their doing.

 

[Rhaff]

And where do you think ZeniMax will get the money to cover the resulting boycots cause? They will most definately pull out the big law guns against Mojang, and they will win, because any judge with half a mind, would see that Mojang should be in no way allowed to trademark the word scrolls, due to it being a part of the title of bethesdas more succesfull series, and due to the scope of which Notch wanted to trademark it.

 

[mike1921]

Copyright does not automatically give you the total right to any commercial usage of those words within the English language..If you can't see the difference between your own hyperbolic examples and simply the word "Scrolls", then I worry for you(you must be educated in law).

...Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.
In short, work that expresses an idea may be protected, but not the idea behind it."

Congratulations on failing to grasp the concepts at play and quoting out-of-context components. Zenimax aren't arguing Copyright over the word 'Scrolls', they're arguing that the name 'Scolls' can and will be confused their their copyright 'The Elder Scrolls' because they're both PC RPGs of a similar nature.
While I'm sitting in the corner, perhap you can take the time to re-read my post and highlight the part where I wrote "Context: it's everything".

So explain Metal Gear Solid and Gears of War?

Condemned Criminal Origins and
Dragon Age Origins?

Mass Effect and
Fear Effect?

Call of Duty
Call of Cthullu: Dark Corners of The Earth
Call of Juarez
Infinite Space
Dead Space
Dead Rising
Advent Rising

COD: Black Ops
BLACK (2006 game)

MOTORstorm
Forza MOTORsport

Fallout New Vegas
Rainbow Six Vegas

RED faction
RED dead redemption

Are you mentally handicapped? This isn't being mean, or even attemping to be funny, this is a serious question. Are you mentally handicapped?
The idea at play here is that a PC RPG called "Scrolls" can be confused with a PC RPG called "The Elder Scrolls" due to the similiar name/nature/genre of the games.
Anyone confusing 'Metal Gear Solid' for 'Gears of War' should be wearing a padded helmet when they go for a walk.

Age of Empries
Empire Earth
Star Wars Empire at War
Empire Total War

All strategy games all of them are mostly RTS except argueably total war.

What nonsense. Those clearly mean the exact same thing. Scrolls is clearly distinct. Or at least as distinct as Rage is from all the other games with "rage" in their title.

Clearly not, since it's going to court. As I said, it's all about context. As you can't understand that, refrain from posting.

Appeal to authority. Just because a court is willing to listen to your case doesn't mean that the case isn't fucking retarded.

Also, seriously go fuck yourself . Refrain from posting? Because we're not all like you who thinks we should all look for some kind of authority to justify our opinions? If a court accepted them suing a game for use of the word "The" would you still act like the suit's not retarded and is totally closer in title than all the empire games

 

[The Irate Pirate]

The funny thing is, the court will eventually go through the same sort of argumentative process that this thread has to decide the outcome of this dispute. Of course the arguments will be more relevant from a legal point of view and hopefully more intellectual.

From my point of view if the case succeeds then Bethesda or whoever's suing is justified in suing, if it fails then they weren't.

At the end of the day corporate lawyers have a responsibility to maintain trademarks and part of that is presenting challenges to potential infringing properties. If a company is not seen to maintain their trademark they lose it. They could let "Scrolls" slide for all the reasons mentioned in the thread but that presents the potential issue of creating precedent for another company potentially infringing on the trademark later on in a less legitimate way.

From a legal point of view its better to be safe then sorry. Even if Bethesda lose the court case (which may actually be an desired outcome) it is still worth it from their point of view as it guarantees them the right to defend against legitimate infringement. Not much point at getting angry at them for following legal best practise, get angry at legislators/judges for making bad law.

Above discussion prefaced on knowledge of copyright/trademark laws in Oceania, apologies if it doesn't apply to wherever the case is being heard.

 

[MattRooney06]

it's just going to turn out like the L4D2 boycott

after about three days all the boycotters will nod there heads and say "that learned you" before promptley buying the game

 

[Vault101]

oh for a second I thourght skyrim was implementing some online or multi feature, while I dont give a crap about skyrim I thourght "NOOOO is no game SAFE from this madess?"

silly me

 

[rdm]

Scrolls is NOT an RPG, it is chiefly a card game where a main element is - quite literally - scrolls. ...

Mojang's trademark on scrolls covers a lot more than card games.

So let's say that he releases Scrolls: Cards this year. Does that mean then that his trademark does not say what it says, and that he cannot release Scrolls: Arena, next year?

And what does this mean for Bethesday, and their plans for releasing a game with a title variation something like The Elder Scrolls: Foo, in a few years?

Anyways, trademarks are product labels. They are not products. When you own a trademark, you get to say how it gets used -- it's your product, after all. And you are not Notch, so you do not get to say how Notch will use his trademarks.

Notch does get to say that, and he has been very clear about what it covers -- he has said that it covers just about everything having anything to do with any form of electronic entertainment.

And, quoting http://www.scrolls.com:

"Scrolls is a trademark of Mojang".

Anyways, if you were a lawyer and I said to you "If at some point in the future I agree to own only some of your products instead of claiming to own your currently planned product release will you stop suing me?" What would you say to me? Would you say "oh, you are nice, sure you can keep on doing what it is that I object to because you offered to do something slightly different in the future"?

Of course you would!

 

[Treblaine]

snip.

You know what: It is pointless. We both have different opinions on it and it does not matter if one of us changes it. I started this fire, I can also end it. Have a nice day and we'll argue someday about another topic. Right now we just fall back into repeating ourselfes.

Why would you possibly repeat your arguments back at me? That would be childish.

I argued a new point that blew your entire argument out of the water, shattered into pieces, nothing left. Now you are acting like we are just "exchanging opinion". No. I am showing your ideas are utterly irrelevant and showing how weak and pointless your argument is.

If what you are trying to say is you wish to concede defeat, that you have been convinced and now know you are in the wrong, and hence have nothing more to say... well FINE. Don't act like you are leaving simply because you are annoyed over how it isn't going anywhere, it is, it has.

 

[Treblaine]

Scrolls is NOT an RPG, it is chiefly a card game where a main element is - quite literally - scrolls. ...

Mojang's trademark on scrolls covers a lot more than card games.

So let's say that he releases Scrolls: Cards this year. Does that mean then that his trademark does not say what it says, and that he cannot release Scrolls: Arena, next year?

And what does this mean for Bethesday, and their plans for releasing a game with a title variation something like The Elder Scrolls: Foo, in a few years?

Anyways, trademarks are product labels. They are not products. When you own a trademark, you get to say how it gets used -- it's your product, after all. And you are not Notch, so you do not get to say how Notch will use his trademarks.

Notch does get to say that, and he has been very clear about what it covers -- he has said that it covers just about everything having anything to do with any form of electronic entertainment.

And, quoting http://www.scrolls.com:

"Scrolls is a trademark of Mojang".

Anyways, if you were a lawyer and I said to you "If at some point in the future I agree to own only some of your products instead of claiming to own your currently planned product release will you stop suing me?" What would you say to me? Would you say "oh, you are nice, sure you can keep on doing what it is that I object to because you offered to do something slightly different in the future"?

Of course you would!

Oh. My. God.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Did you really write that whole god damn post about Notch getting a trademark for "Scrolls: Cards are cardy" when:
(1) notch offered to drop the trademark claim and Zenimax refused
(2) Zenimax's lawsuit is not over the trademark claim, but just the very act of him selling a game with the word "scrolls" in the title!

Notch also offered to change the game to "Scrolls: [some subtitle]" and Zenimax wouldn't even accept that.

THIS is the point where I got involved in the debate, I thought Zenimax had a point that you can't trademark pat of the name of another game simply due to fea the Notch MIGHT be a monumental douchebag (though this would be the first time in history). But no, I became rightfully mad when Notch offered to drop the trademark AND STILL THE LAWYERS DEMAND THAT HE DROP ALL USE OF THE WORD "SCROLLS"!!!

THAT! Is unacceptable. That is blatant corporate bullying. They are clearly abusing the legal system to fuck over an indie developer.

 

[Treblaine]

Do you really think it is acceptable to label hellow users on this forum as being MENTALLY HANDICAPPED because they make a very relevant comparison that just so happens to challenge your preconceived notions? That's desperate and HIGHLY inappropriate.

Absolutely not. I do, however, believe it's not only appropriate and acceptable but logical to question the mental capacity of a forum poster if the content of their post calls into question their ability to reason and deduce logic from a set of circumstances.

Scrolls is not an RPG, it's based on card-game mechanics. So that comparison is right out.

Then Notch is selling his game in the wrong capacity and will soon be sued for False Advertising. It has been described as an RPG with Card Game Mechancis; look up the Pokemon TCG RPG on the Gameboy.

There is virtually ZERO chance for confusion. If there is any chance of name confusion it will be in the EXTRAORDINARY rare case where someone is buying an expensive game with literally no fucking clue at ALL what they are buying and judge it literally just by a single word in the title.

Virtually Zero and Zero are not the same. Hence the case going to court. What you think will happen and what will happen are two different things. Zenimax are covering their ass, and the asses of their some 1,000 employees.

Just stop and think about the circumstances where these games could be mixed up... You don't have to be in a padded cell, you just have to be a non gamer trying to buy a game for a relative based on the vaguest possible clues.

Exactly my point. Thank you. This is why the case is going to court.

THIS IS THE SAME SCENARIO where you could mix up "Gears of War" and "Metal Gear Solid"

The copyright holders of Metal Gear Solid disagree with you as they didn't instigate legal proceedings. Most likely because one is a 20 year old Stealth series, a hallmark of the Playstation brand, and the other is a 5 year old third person cover based shooter and a hallmark of the Xbox brand. Context - seriously, look it up.
Zenimax believe there is a real chance someone is going to abuse 'The Elder Scrolls' name in the RPG genre; they're doing what they need to do to make sure it doesn't happen.

Will you now lash out and call me Mentally Handicapped for thinking in a way that you REFUSE to think!

No, because you didn't compare Dragon Age: Origins and Condemned: Criminal Origins. That case would be laughed out of courst so quickly the Judge would have time to nap.

You can't have it both ways, where Scrolls and Skyrim are supposedly so easy to mix up yet 'Dead Rising' and 'Dead Island' somehow are not!

It's not; 'Scrolls' and 'The Elder Scrolls' is in question, not 'Scrolls' and 'Skyrim'. And 'Dead Rising' and 'Dead Island' are different genres and obviously their copyright holders believed the general public would be able to tell the difference; context.

...This will be a long process where Zenimax has NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain, Mojang will suffer the most having to fund an international legal effort without a massive in house legal staff like Zenimax does.

Mojang are gaining reems of headlines, free publicity and guaranteed sales for their 'Scrolls' game. The 'Quake 3 Match' probably scored him an easy 10k sales from people going 'Oh man, Notch is awesome!'. Don't act like Mojang are some little one man operation struggling to keep the power on; they're the most successful independent game developer in the last decade.

First of all, don't give me that two faced crap. You clearly think it's acceptable to use "mentally handicapped" as a snide insult. That makes you a jerk, and too much of a coward to admit what you are doing.

False advertising? More like false assumptions on your part, this is ALL he advertising that has been made of the game:

http://scrolls.com/

Nothing about a first-person RPG in there, it's an extremely strategic game. This is utterly unlike Skyrim.

The point of "virtually zero chance" is this is a agreeable, this completley blows out of the water the DECEPTION that there is "significant likelihood" of the games being confused. The industry should not have to pander to the grossely misinformed cutsomer, we are not all children, we can buy these games for ourselves in which case it would be literally impossible to mix up a game sold in a store under the name "SKYRIM" with a small downloadable title under the name "Scrolls: something of something".

If people don't get Dead Island and Dead Rising mixed up then people cannot get Scrolls and Skyrim mixed up. The courts should not have to accommodate for the most ignorant of customers.

Your logic that "well if Konami didn't sue... well then it must be because the situation is different"

It is, but not because of the name. It is because Konami and Microsoft (respective trademark owners) are big companies the depend a lot on each other, they KNOW such a lawsuit would be frivolous and would hurt them both equally for no gain. But Zenimax going after Mojang will financially hurt Mojang more than Zenimax!

Don't be so recalcitrant and vindictive, how about before assuming and slandering retardation in others you use your own mental faculties like what would be a SMART reason to compare:
"Condemned Criminal Origins"
and
"Dragon Age Origins"

It is part of proving how you CANNOT be pedantic about
I am showing that "The Elder Scrolls" vs "Scrolls" is as pedantic as the above example, only your extraordinary leap in logic was to REFUSE TO SEE how dumb it is to compare TES and Scrolls and yet dwell extremely on how dumb that above example is. And in the most cruel and self-serving step you conclude "Well he must be retarded" rather than trying to demonstrate the retardation in others!

Yeah, Mojang isn't a one man operation... it's a 4 man operation. OooOooOooOoh such a big operation [/sarc] Have you any idea how big and powerful and rich Zenimax is? How large their on-call legal staff is? How to them $10k of advertising they piss away in a lunch break. How all this has achieved is turn all the Skyrim/Elder-Scrolls fanboys against Notch?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

THAT! Is unacceptable. That is blatant corporate bullying. They are clearly abusing the legal system to fuck over an indie developer.

Really? How so? Can you explain it to me in legal terms? Possibly using some examples of trademark law enforcement in the US as examples so I can see where the line is crossed between being in compliance with existing statutes and abusing them? You seem to have very strong opinions on the subject, so I'm assuming you are fully educated as to the legal ramifications of the case. I'm looking forward to your extensive summary. Thanks in advance!

 

[Treblaine]

THAT! Is unacceptable. That is blatant corporate bullying. They are clearly abusing the legal system to fuck over an indie developer.

Really? How so? Can you explain it to me in legal terms? Possibly using some examples of trademark law enforcement in the US as examples so I can see where the line is crossed between being in compliance with existing statutes and abusing them? You seem to have very strong opinions on the subject, so I'm assuming you are fully educated as to the legal ramifications of the case. I'm looking forward to your extensive summary. Thanks in advance!

Dead Island
Dead Rising

Absolutely no hint of any trademark infringement.

They are within the word of the law, but not the spirit of the law, the intention as prescribed by the legislators yet not codified. They are clearly abusing the ambiguity of the law, to hurt them with the legal costs needed to righteously defend themselves. have you any idea how much lawyers cost? With endless appeals?

I have no doubt that "legally" Zenimax are in the right.

That does not mean what they are doing is right. Only a COMPLETE FOOL thinks that the wording of the law is some kind of absolute morality, no legal system is perfect. Zenimax may very well legally have a case, but that means the law is wrong as it is completely out of touch with reality:

"Black" and "Black Ops"

"Rage" and "Streets of Rage"

"Battlefield" series and "Battlefront" series

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Dead Island
Dead Rising

Absolutely no hint of any trademark infringement.

They are within the word of the law, but not the spirit of the law, the intention as prescribed by the legislators yet not codified. They are clearly abusing the ambiguity of the law, to hurt them with the legal costs needed to righteously defend themselves. have you any idea how much lawyers cost? With endless appeals?

I have no doubt that "legally" Zenimax are in the right.

That does not mean what they are doing is right. Only a COMPLETE FOOL thinks that the wording of the law is some kind of absolute morality, no legal system is perfect. Zenimax may very well legally have a case, but that means the law is wrong as it is completely out of touch with reality:

"Black" and "Black Ops"

"Rage" and "Streets of Rage"

"Battlefield" series and "Battlefront" series

Are you suggesting that the problem in this situation is an ambiguously worded trademark law that opens companies to prosecution if they aren't vigilant? Can you share with me the specifics of the laws in question, and the way in which Zenimax are specifically abusing them? If there is a loophole in trademark law, wouldn't it be incumbent upon companies to proactively shield themselves against abuse of such loopholes by vigorously defending their trademarks?

I understand that you've got some anecdotal examples here of cases where it would appear trademark law was not vigorously enforced, but I'm not looking for anecdotal examples because they're anecdotal, and they do nothing to further our understanding of the lawsuit in question. Are you fully informed of the legal process any of those titles went through to secure their trademarks? If so, if you have the paperwork, say, of how Dead Island came to get its name, and what process they went through to secure a trademark and avoid violating existing trademarks, and you wanted to apply it in this situation as an example of how it was handled differently, you could do that. But if all we have is a name, we don't really have any information whatsoever, and it's fallacious to use it as a talking point.

 

[Treblaine]

Dead Island
Dead Rising

Absolutely no hint of any trademark infringement.

They are within the word of the law, but not the spirit of the law, the intention as prescribed by the legislators yet not codified. They are clearly abusing the ambiguity of the law, to hurt them with the legal costs needed to righteously defend themselves. have you any idea how much lawyers cost? With endless appeals?

I have no doubt that "legally" Zenimax are in the right.

That does not mean what they are doing is right. Only a COMPLETE FOOL thinks that the wording of the law is some kind of absolute morality, no legal system is perfect. Zenimax may very well legally have a case, but that means the law is wrong as it is completely out of touch with reality:

"Black" and "Black Ops"

"Rage" and "Streets of Rage"

"Battlefield" series and "Battlefront" series

Are you suggesting that the problem in this situation is an ambiguously worded trademark law that opens companies to prosecution if they aren't vigilant? Can you share with me the specifics of the laws in question, and the way in which Zenimax are specifically abusing them? If there is a loophole in trademark law, wouldn't it be incumbent upon companies to proactively shield themselves against abuse of such loopholes by vigorously defending their trademarks?

I understand that you've got some anecdotal examples here of cases where it would appear trademark law was not vigorously enforced, but I'm not looking for anecdotal examples because they're anecdotal, and they do nothing to further our understanding of the lawsuit in question. Are you fully informed of the legal process any of those titles went through to secure their trademarks? If so, if you have the paperwork, say, of how Dead Island came to get its name, and what process they went through to secure a trademark and avoid violating existing trademarks, and you wanted to apply it in this situation as an example of how it was handled differently, you could do that. But if all we have is a name, we don't really have any information whatsoever, and it's fallacious to use it as a talking point.

Spoiler

If you think I have no right to comment on something then you have a poor grasp of Freedom of Speech, and that is not a "legal right" that is a vital aspect of modern and free civilisation. If you want to tell me how I am wrong, then TELL ME HOW I AM WRONG! You aren't doing that, you are only piling innuendo that I shouldn't even be talking about this until I have done a ball aching amount of legal research which would be utterly pointless as there is no reason to even take it that far as from the prime-face evidence there is not case.

I do not have specific example as I am neither an American lawyer nor Swedish lawyer and I am not prepared to travel the a capitol library to spend a day looking up source references when THAT IS ULTIMATELY IRRELEVANT! Do you think I'm such a fool that I will back down or go off on a wild goose chase for some legal text when it is obvious from the very outset that this is frivolous. It should be immediately apparent that the central reason for Zenimax's objection NOT TO THE TRADEMARK CLAIM, but to the game merely using the work "Scrolls" in the title will lead to "confusion".

Remember, Mojan has offered to drop the trademark claim, but Zenimax would not accept that. They stick my their initial UNFAIR DEMAND that Mojang not use the word "scrolls" anywhere in the title of his game, with or without trademark. "Scrolls" by itself or "scrolls" as part of a larger name.

Remember, Mojan has offered to drop the trademark claim, but Zenimax would not accept that. They stick my their initial UNFAIR DEMAND that Mojang not use the word "scrolls" anywhere in the title of his game, with or without trademark. "Scrolls" by itself or "scrolls" as part of a larger name.

Remember, Mojan has offered to drop the trademark claim, but Zenimax would not accept that. They stick my their initial UNFAIR DEMAND that Mojang not use the word "scrolls" anywhere in the title of his game, with or without trademark. "Scrolls" by itself or "scrolls" as part of a larger name.

Remember, Mojan has offered to drop the trademark claim, but Zenimax would not accept that. They stick my their initial UNFAIR DEMAND that Mojang not use the word "scrolls" anywhere in the title of his game, with or without trademark. "Scrolls" by itself or "scrolls" as part of a larger name.

(four times, so maybe one of the times it will actually sink in. I've only said it 20 times before and people refuse to consider it)

It won't based not on legal-knowledge by my knowledge of the games industry. There has been zero confusion of similar games with similar theme like all the "Dead Something" games to do with zombies and customisable weapons.

it would appear trademark law was not vigorously enforced (with "Dead ..." games)

What nonsense are you talking about? Are you telling me ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES are a case of failure to enforce the law? So everyone else is wrong and Zenimax are the only ones going to the correct extent? Bollocks. Utter bollocks and YOU KNOW IT!

IT IS OBVIOUS HOW DEAD ISLAND GOT IT'S TRADE MARK!

They simply applied for it, and were rightfully granted it without any problems.

Why? Because anyone with elementary school education can tell that "Dead Island" and "Dead Rising" ARE DIFFERENT NAMES!!! They don't split hairs over a SINGLE WORD being in common and the companies nave began ANY legal action! They do not, they never have, they never plan to.

Just like how "Scrolls" and "The Elder Scrolls" ARE DIFFERENT GOD DAMN NAMES!!!

Why is everyone using such backward ass thinking on this? Their automatic assumption seem to be that Zenimax are automatically in the right because they sent a freaking letter and are demanding a day in court. Anyone can do that over ANYTHING! You know damn well that any judge presiding over this will have no idea about video games and would not be able to immediately detect Zenimax's bullshit claim that there is the chance of confusion.

NO ONE WHO WOULD ACTUALLY BUY THESE GAMES COULD CONFUSE THEM!!

Nor could they possibly assume they are part of the same development team or canon.

 

[rdm]

Oh. My. God.

Are you fucking kidding me?

No, I am not kidding you.

From a basic search at http://tess2.uspto.gov: for scrolls (look for serial number 85323305):

SCROLLS

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer games; video games; computer software; computer and video games software; computer software downloaded or downloadable; computer software publications downloaded; interactive entertainment software; data recorded electronically from the Internet; data recorded in machine readable form from the Internet; discs, tapes, cartridges, CD-ROMs and other magnetic, electronic or optical media, all bearing computer games software or video games; electronic amusement apparatus for use with television receivers; electronic games apparatus; home video game machines
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Articles of clothing; footwear and headgear; t-shirts; shirts; trousers; sweatshirts; jackets; knitwear; hats; caps; neckwear; shoes; socks; garments for women; garments for men; garments for children; apparel parts and fittings for all the aforesaid

IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Games, toys and playthings; electronic games apparatus; audio visual games on computer hardware platforms (not for use with television receivers), handheld computer games equipment, hand-held video game machines; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods; board games; electronic games machines; equipment sold as a unit for playing card games; electronic hand-held game unit; game equipment sold as a unit for playing aboard game, a card game; stand alone video output games machines, and manipulative puzzles; playing cards; board games; card games; three-dimensional puzzle; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services in the form of electronic, computer and video games provided by means of the Internet and other remote communications device; internet games (non downloadable); organising of games; games (not downloadable) played via a global computer network; education and entertainment services in the form of cinematographic, televisual, digital and motion picture films, radio and television programs and shows; preparation, editing and production of cinematographic, televisual, digital and motion picture films, radio and television programs; entertainment services in the form of electronic, computer and video games provided by means of the Internet, mobile telephone and other remote communications device

As it happens, you are right -- he does explicitly mention "card games". It's in there somewhere. Three times, even.

But if you think that "card games" is all he is trademarking? Well, I believe I have given you some evidence, here, that he has specifically asked for a trademark that does not only cover card games.

On the other hand if you prefer the swedish version, I will let you dig that out for yourself.

Oh and that "giving up 'scrolls'" thing? Let's just say that that also does not really convey the whole truth of the situation. If you really want me to, I can spell out for you how even the specifics he posted about appear to screw over Bethesda, but I've already posted too much here, and I can just imagine you going tl;dr.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If you think I have no right to comment on something then you have a poor grasp of Freedom of Speech, and that is not a "legal right" that is a vital aspect of modern and free civilisation.

How am I infringing in any way on your freedom of speech? Have I prevented you from making any statements? You are, of course, free to make as many fallacious arguments as you want. You seem to be sensitive and easily riled by criticism of said arguments, so I was merely suggesting ways in which you might avoid repeating those errors. There was no need to take umbrage.

If you want to tell me how I am wrong, then TELL ME HOW I AM WRONG!

How would I know whether you are wrong or not? I'm not a lawyer. I don't fully understand the facts of the case. Therefore, I don't have a loud and fully formed opinion about it that I badger people with on forums.

You aren't doing that, you are only piling innuendo that I shouldn't even be talking about this until I have done a ball aching amount of legal research which would be utterly pointless as there is no reason to even take it that far as from the prime-face evidence there is not case.

Define "shouldn't". I have suggested that you might not want to speak from a position of complete ignorance on a subject, because it undermines the aura of authority you try to project when you shout things in all caps, or post something you heard about on twitter multiple times in bold, italics and underlined text because you think it makes a spurious argument more forceful. You seem to be confusing "volume" with "legitimacy" when it comes to arguing a position.

I do not have specific example as I am neither an American lawyer nor Swedish lawyer

Then you might not want to present yourself as an authority on a legal issue because you read a few articles on the internet. Note that I said "might not". Naturally your right to freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment of the US constitution, assuming that is in fact the country you call home, and me disagreeing with your apparent desire to represent yourself as an authority on an internet forum about a subject you don't fully understand should in no way be viewed as a forceful attempt by myself to silence you.

Do you think I'm such a fool that I will back down or go off on a wild goose chase for some legal text when it is obvious from the very outset that this is frivolous.

It appears some confusion has arisen because you and I disagree fundamentally about this aspect of our discussion. I don't believe that it is foolish to educate yourself about a subject before claiming to be an authority on it. Your mileage, as always, may vary.

What nonsense are you talking about? Are you telling me ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES are a case of failure to enforce the law? So everyone else is wrong and Zenimax are the only ones going to the correct extent? Bollocks. Utter bollocks and YOU KNOW IT!

Actually I don't have any idea. You have also admitted that you have no idea. Yet you persist in suggesting that you "just know" because it's "common sense". This is fallacious reasoning.

IT IS OBVIOUS HOW DEAD ISLAND GOT IT'S TRADE MARK!

They simply applied for it, and were rightfully granted it without any problems.

Is it obvious? Do you actually know this? Can you point me towards the material you've read regarding Techland's acquisition of the trademark for Dead Island? You've used it repeatedly as a talking point in your argument, which would indicate that this is something you've actually established as a fact, rather than just an assumption.

Why is everyone using such backward ass thinking on this? Their automatic assumption seem to be that Zenimax are automatically in the right because they sent a freaking letter and are demanding a day in court. Anyone can do that over ANYTHING! You know damn well that any judge presiding over this will have no idea about video games and would not be able to immediately detect Zenimax's bullshit claim that there is the chance of confusion.

You seem to be speaking for an awful lot of people here. This is called "hasty generalization". It is also an example of fallacious reasoning.

NO ONE WHO WOULD ACTUALLY BUY THESE GAMES COULD CONFUSE THEM!!

And once again, hasty generalization. It's alright, lots of people fall into logical fallacies when arguing on the internet. I do it all the time. It's one of the reasons you may not want to A) get emotionally invested in debates and B) attempt to assume a position of authority when you are arguing your position purely on an emotional, reactive level, and not with the support of anything resembling factual evidence to support your claims.