Mojang vs. Bethesda Scrolls Case Heads to Court
gamasutra.com
gamasutra.com
If this was just about the name of a game then it wouldn't be much of an issue, Bethesda could just cover their TM by licensing it to them for how little or much they wanted to. But Mojang wants their own TM (to subjugate others) and that's where the lawyers are getting huffy.
Frankly, I think he should just change the name of his game. Life is too short to deal with the headache and pay a bunch of lawyers to argue over this junk. 'Scrolls' doesn't seem like a great name anyways.
Disclaimer: I love Minecraft and play it regularly, but I'm not interested in card-type strategy games. Therefore I won't probably even try a demo of 'Scrolls' (or whatever it ends up being called).
I'm not sure that the parenthetical remark is really warranted, since there are many other reasons to want a trademark, nearly all of them more useful than 'subjugating others'. Such as to prevent someone making sure that someone doesn't make a game called 'Scrolls: The Elders' - Basically, to prevent someone riding on the coattails of your success by riding your product brand name or dragging your brand into the mud with an inferior but confusingly similarly named product. The name Scrolls is neither of those things, which is why Bethesda is in the wrong here - both ethically, and most likely legally. I guess we'll see.
I don't agree that a trademark on Elder Scrolls should cover just Scrolls, but it might just be a case of a legal department going through the motions.
See Trademark Coexistance http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/06/article_0007.ht...
SparkFun vs SPARC International http://www.sparkfun.com/news/344
Bathesda's lawyers probably felt that the two titles are similar enough in either gameplay style or genre that it could be infringement. Unfortunately, there isn't any other way of resolving this than suing the people you believe are infringing on your trademark.
I really don't understand how they can reasonably expect to own the trademark on a word that is only a portion of their actual product line and describes an object that has been known to exist for thousands of years. Microsoft was denied the trademark for "Windows", but they were given trademarks for the phrases "Windows XP Operating System", etc.
Also, MS does have a registered trademark for "Windows"(http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...), but this is only for computer operating systems, not for physical building windows.
This particular case seems like good PR for both parties.
On the other hand, people love Notch and Mojang...
I could see this pushing people on the fence away from buying skyrim (as it is for me; I'd probably not have time to play anyhow, but it's also supporting a bit too much in the way of crazy here).
It's hard to say whether good will really matters, though, as capricious as gamers can be.
Bethseda on the other hand looks to be trying to beat up on the little guy. After Oblivian's "Too bad you leveled wrong. No stat points for you." character system, the next elder scrolls already lacked appeal. This case certainly won't help.
Meh, leveling was pointless anyway because when you leveled up, so did the enemy. I hear the next game is keeping this mechanic, so its lost its appeal to me too.
Regarding this case: I have never ever heard of the elder scrolls games referred to as scrolls. Its either The Elder Scrolls or its Oblivion or Morrowind or whatever.
Yes, but if you didn't also increase other skills you would only get +2 or +3s for your stats rather than the max of +5s to three stat groups.
So the enemy hits lvl 20 just like you do, but you are much weaker as you've inefficiency leveled.
Enter the difficulty slider. Both mechanics made the game silly to me in later stages, and I never finished.
I disagree. Worst case is both companies are out $X because legal departments collect their fees post-court for a no good reason.
Mojang is essentially playing a game of chicken at this point. They're calling Bethseda's bluff that they're not serious about pursuing the case but the longer it goes like this the more they risk losing in lawyer fees.
I see Mojang backing down last minute because after-all, your statement really is true in the sense that they might have to alter an unreleased game's name... s/scrolls/$something_else/g
However, not knowing all that much about "Scrolls," I feel like Bethesda (Zenimax) has a good argument here. The only artwork I've seen from scrolls depicts Fantasy-style characters in leather and metal armor. From what I understand, it's some sort of card game, but that's not obvious from the at-a-glance view, and I think there could be some confusion among those unfamiliar with the two games in question.
Any major trademark holder has to actively protect their copyright/trademark and I feel like this, though perhaps unfortunate, is a pretty standard legal practice.
Probably has nothing to do with the name; both scrolls (the objects) and Fantasy-style characters in leather and metal armor are incredibly common video game tropes.
I would not find it that unreasonable to think that ES fans likely refer to the game as "Scrolls" and not "Elder" when discussing it online, nor that in RPG groups if a year ago you said "Have you played Scrolls?" most people would realize you were talking about ES.
This seems reasonable to me... like if I created a new game called "Warcraft" that let you build siege weapons and launch attacks against castles filled with orcs. I would fully expect Blizzard to come after me.
It isn't like they named the game "Frostraven Scrolls" or something clearly different.
Just my 2 cents. Just communicating the fact that I am not weeping in agony for Mojang and their poor plight.
[1] http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussi...
I think this is a total waste of money and wish they'd taken Mojang up on that offer to play a game for it.
Can anyone point to any comment, prior to this lawsuit nonsense, where someone actually referred to any game or the series as just "scrolls"? In all the comments over this, not one person has done that. And it's a huge internet, so someone, somewhere has probably done that. But everyone I know will say Elder Scrolls or ES or TES or Morrowind or what have you.
I'm not sure many people would realise what you meant if you asked "Do you like the Scrolls games?", whereas s/Scrolls/Elder Scrolls/ and you'd have much higher recognition. I might try asking a few people and seeing how it actually works out, but IMO the names are sufficiently distinct as to not cause confusion.
Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, if you create a game with the exact same name as Blizzard's and with very similar gameplay, expect to see a trademark dispute. This, however, is not the guess with The Elder Scrolls series and Scrolls.
The only people who could conceivably be confused into accidentally buying Scrolls when they meant to buy Skyrim would either have so little idea of what Skyrim was or so little grasp on reality that they would be equally likely to buy Halo or a bag of M&Ms.
This lawsuit is like if Blizzard were to sue the company that makes "Raft Wars" because it was infringing on the "Warcraft" trademark.
False beyond imagination. You're clearly not a gamer or a fan of the series, I've been playing it and involved in the community for the ES games since Daggerfall (1996).
Not once, in any forum post, usenet post, or BBS have I ever seen someone refer to the series or an individual game from Bethesda as "Scrolls", nor has it ever been part of their marketing or branding.
This is like Microsoft claiming you can't use the word "soft" in your product because someone might once have referred to their brand as "Soft" without the "Micro".
Just ridiculous.
Truth and how it gets publicly propagated is more important than either of our egos.
Spend some time on Wikipedia, and you'll see what happens when ego wins over truth.
Only if there's a chance of the usage being misleading. Otherwise the usages are supposed to co-exist.
Anyways, the scrolls they refer to are actual scroll objects. They aren't using it in the slightest bit creatively.
A trademark on a game called 'The Sword of the Kingslayer' might conflict with another game called 'Spell for the Kingslayer', as they both follow the pattern '_ of/for the kingslayer' and kingslayer is a relatively unique word. Sword and spell are not.
> if I created a new game called "Warcraft"
Did Mojang create a game called TES: Oblivion? No.
So the appropriate analogy would be you creating a game called 'War', a generic thing not invented by Blizzard and not in any way exclusively associated with their games.