Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Even if you wouldn't have - "Bang With Friends" instantly connects with "Words With Friends" in my mind. This is a really unpopular and unexpected thing to say, but for once I don't think Zynga is in the wrong.
Coming up with products that borrow from existing IP is their thing. Naturally, they are going to try to keep other mobile developers from doing the same.
This is much in the same way I never once thought that Pirates XXX was in any way related to the Disney series Pirates of the Caribbean, even though the guys who made Pirates XXX really want you to draw that connection. A rational person would realize that Zynga, much like Disney, is not in the business of facilitating promiscuous sex.
Remember when Monster Cable sued Monster Mini-golf? Personally, I think Zynga has more important things to worry about, and I get this is a big deal for the startup, but it's just a corporate lawyer doing his job.
I'm not saying it's right, but if someone made another, more accurately targeted, ____ With Friends game, they could cite Zynga's inaction with respect to Bang With Friends as not protecting their trademark.
As with all things legal, the underlying reality is less interesting than the potential interpretation. Granted, if I'm wrong and they actually wanna put Bang With Friends out of business, well that would be just plain sad.
Whether it's ok or not is entirely up to Zynga and their counsel.
It's so weird to me how in some areas of the law (criminal law, for instance) the "gray area" is embraced and fully considered, where in other areas (IP/business law) decisions seem to be so black-and-white. As a total layman, I'd guess this "tone" is completely set by case law?
If so, is there any precedent that says a fixed cost perpetual royalty priced at $0.01 or similar constitutes "protecting" a trademark?
Copyright use to have similar sense (must apply, must renew).
Ah, this is mostly the tension between "balancing tests" and "bright-line rules" in jurisprudence. I worked in criminal law for a while, and it's basically statutory, which means mostly bright line rules for prosecution. Sentencing involves more balancing tests, that's probably what you're thinking about. Though there are even some mandatory minimums that are bright lines.
One of the balancing tests you hear about the most is actually in IP law, the fair use standard. (People sometimes casually talk about fair use as if it's a list of four bright line criteria, but that's not really correct.)
Bright line rules are handy in that they add clarity for everyone following the law. Businesses that want to establish processes in explicit compliance tend to prefer bright lines, for example. Balancing tests are important when you're safeguarding the rights of the people against the state, or when individual cases will have unique mitigating circumstances that are too numerous to foresee or account for in a hard and fast rule. Balancing tests help add lenience, or help customize the law to particular situations. That's why you might see more balancing tests in sentencing, or in constitutional issues.
UPDATE: Statutes also tend to be more bright-line, while traditionally, judges made common law with more balancing tests. The US (thanks to the UK) is considered a common law jurisdiction, since we have some judge made law, while most European courts are said to rely on civil code. This is oversimplistic though, because these days European judges are more willing to look at precedents and adopt customs based on prior cases, and many US jurisdictions have implemented "uniform codes" which attempt to codify many areas of the law formerly left to judges. Everyone's a bit of a blend now, just with more of a common law or civil law flavor. (Pending correction from any European Advocates out there, of course.) Moreover, some judges develop bright lines, and some statutes call for fairness tests, so it's all blurred now.
1. It just sounds more sexy. 2. It avoids US Trademark issues. 3. Carlos Danger is an investor.
(sorry, our Northern friends, just watched bit too much "How i met your mother" :)
Gotta love random translations
BWF is a funny name, leverages the WWF name more than a little, and is going to get great press from the legal fight.
Congratulations to BWF for getting sued; you're getting traction. If the BWF network gets large enough, it could be renamed almost anything and it will still work.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22*%20with%20fr...
Setting aside the issue of whether the phrase "With Friends" is distinctive, and therefore trademarkable, BWF and WWF do not serve remotely similar purposes, so they're not going to lose their right to defend the trademark in their own market.
Finally, their big trademark blunder was using an indefensible trademark. The damage there has already been done. It doesn't make sense to then hurt your brand's reputation by linking it in the minds of your customers with a hookup app. The fact that this story is on the front page of Hacker News means that the Streisand effect is hurting the brand already (not that Zynga has a sterling reputation here). Sometimes it's a tactical error to do what the legal department recommends, and this is one of those cases.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-ch...