Bethesda suing Mojang AB for "Scrolls" | Hacker News Reader

Bethesda suing Mojang AB for "Scrolls"

notch.tumblr.com

73 pointsmasklinn33 comments

Well, hopefully this HN thread won't be filled the comments like "you can't trademark dictionary words" (you can) and "do I infringe if I use the words scrolls in this posting?" (no). But just in case, in an effort to get some facts in:

1) The aim of a trademark is to protect the consumer.

2) The infringement standard is "likelihood of confusion" i.e. might consumers perceive Scrolls to be related to The Elder Scrolls? (IMHO I think that's a valid question)

3) Trademark owners MUST -- in order to preserve their mark -- defend against cases of infringement. In other words, Bethesda and their lawyers aren't just "being jerks." They have no choice but to act if they think there might be consumer confusion that dilutes their mark. (IMHO there is, and thus they are doing what they have to do).

Is what you are writing there also applicable in Sweden? I think that’s kinda important, especially with regards to 3).

I'm clueless - and teasing. But..

If 'The Elder Scrolls' leads to problems if someone uses 'Scrolls', what about the other parts? 'Elder'? 'The'? If the latter is too ridiculous, what is the difference between them?

And - _why_ can you go for single words? I mean - I understand the reasoning if they are stopping notch from creating 'The Elder's Scrolls' or something. But - right now, it looks like a farce to me..

The 'will consumers be confused' part is imho completely weird and not applicable unless the artwork is shared. You don't buy a game as a string of text, you look at reviews, a cover (if you buy physical..) and game design. I don't conflate my SNES 'Super Mario Brothers' with 'Super Metroid' or 'Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30' on a PC, just because they share a word..

Notch is playing the PR game here very well by publicly outing the case. Even if Bethesda has a valid claim (which is debatable) Notch has public opinion on his side. Someone at Bethesda should pull the plug on this suit before the Internet turns on them.

So are Bethesda's lawyers taking a page from Monster Cable's play book, even up to the point of attacking a small indy developer who's games would never be mistaken for any of Bethesda's games?

Hopefully this is just lawyers being lawyers, and the Internet backlash gets someone's attention at Bethesda quickly.

… well, I don’t think hyperbole is the right way of approaching this. Mojang is most definitely not a small developer. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It’s bad enough as is, there is no need to exaggerate for dramatic effect.

> … well, I don’t think hyperbole is the right way of approaching this. Mojang is most definitely not a small developer. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Really? Mojang AB is 8 people, no sales, no game officially released yet. How is that not "a small developer"? Because they've already accrued millions of sales due to making something people like?

Just because they are effective doesn’t mean they are not big.

They certainly are one of the smaller developers. What they are not, however, is a small indie developer. They are a huge indie developer.

Oh, you mean small or huge among indie developers. I'm not sure that's an important distinction. My understanding is the universe of discourse is all game developers, and that small and indie were independent qualifications.

I disagree. Mojang is a small indie development team with a small game, and a huge fanbase. Being popular does not make them big. It makes their market big.

€135,000 revenue per day (!) makes them a huge indie developer. To pretend otherwise is completely absurd.

> Just because they are effective doesn’t mean they are not big.

But just because they're effective doesn't mean they're big either. As far as game development companies go, Mojang is positively tiny. Efficient (or, really, in possession of a very popular IP), but tiny.

> They certainly are one of the smaller developers. What they are not, however, is a small indie developer. They are a huge indie developer.

Right, they're pretty big as far as indies go. But they're still a small gaming company.

> So are Bethesda's lawyers taking a page from Monster Cable's play book

So far, it reads like Langdell's book more than Monster's.

I had not known about Tim Langdell, yes this is definitely closer to his shenanigans than Monster's.

For the others who don't know Tim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_Games

> I had not known about Tim Langdell

You've missed out. I recommend browsing the archives of ChaosEdge[0] to get the backstory. It's really quite amazing. In gaming communities, Langdell is the One True Trademark Troll.

[0] http://chaosedge.wordpress.com/

I think minecraft is past the bar of a "small indy game".

In other news, Blizzard sued Mojang for using the word 'craft' in 'Minecraft'

This is ridiculous.

I'm going to trademark the letter 'E' and sue every company whose's software product includes it in its name.

Next, Game Designer's Workshop suing Blizzard for using the word "war".

(Never mind that I bet that GDW has to have some agreement / settlement with Blizzard, known or unknown…)

I have never ever considered that series of (very good) role playing games to be about scrolls in any way, nor was that ever the focal point of neither their marketing nor the public image.

I've played since Daggerfall, and I don't really even remember if scrolls were part of the games at all. Anyone remember?

The Elder Scrolls are ancient texts of prophecy in the TES universe. They foretell various major events in the game history (many of which are the player's doing, of course).

So they are important in an overarching plot sense. But that doesn't mean Bethesda has a case against anything with 'Scrolls' in the title.

There was a quest in Oblivion to steal one of the Elder Scrolls. I believe there was some quest with them in Morrowind as well.

Bethesda this is not looking good at all. There's already enough silly fights over patents. Shall we now argue who owns what word? If you trademark my first name will you then sue me so that I have to change my name? This is going too far. Someone must stop this madness.

Trademark applies within a category - they have the right to The Elder Scrolls as it relates to video games. If they made a video game that was called your first name, and they trademarked that, you couldn't make another video game called your first name, but they have no rights over the word in the context of person names, etc.

It's not as insane as it might seem at first glance.

Would it be possible to trademark the world scrolls alone?

Yes.

But it would have to be restricted to a specific type of product - i.e. you aren't really trademarking the "word", but particular uses of it, for particular purposes.

e.g. "coke" is trademarked.

As is "windows".

Would they have to use it? Even if they had the trademark, they currently don’t seem to use only “Scrolls” anywhere. It’s always “The Elder Scrolls”. I’m guessing (but don’t know) that a trademark has to be used to be upheld.

(This is obviously separate from the issue of whether a trademark for games called “The Elder Scrolls” also covers games called “Scrolls”.)

I think the requirement is that it is not confused with an existing product, but confusion is open to interpretation.

Well, that’s obviously separate. The issue at hand is whether you can trademark a single word in your trademark and, without using it anywhere on its own, keep it as a trademark (ignoring, for the moment, whether or not there can be confusion).

It’s a bit off-topic, really, since there only seems to be a trademark for “The Elder Scrolls”, not “Scrolls”. This is all about the possibility of confusion.

Isn't that exactly the reason why there is a mandatory period for objections to trademark applications? In this case, both are in the same business sector and the names sound indeed confus-able to me. Bethesda is probably right.

So Rockstar should have sued the makers of Thief because it's awfully close to "Theft" in GTA? If someone came out with a game called "Auto" then they should be sued, too?

This is just silly. Nobody's going to confuse a game put out by Mojang for anything in the TES series. I'm all for protecting trademarks when they're legitimately threatened (see Notch's example of the iOS Minecraft clone), but this is stupid.

I think it's still open to interpretation. The world theft is much more common than "Scrolls" and it's all about the possibility of confusion.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to confuse the two, especially since the Elder Scrolls series games are known more by their subtitles (Skyrim in this instance). "Elder Scrolls V" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Sure, the trademark contains the word "scrolls", but by this logic no one could ever use the word scroll in a game title as long as the trademark is in effect.

On the other hand it seems like it could be a good defensive maneuver, as a trademark by Mojang on the name "Scrolls" by itself could be a bigger issue down the road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com