

Mojang win right to use the name "Scrolls" for their upcoming game - citricsquid
http://www.minecraftforum.net/news/274-scrolls-shall-stay-scrolls/

======
llambda
The court documents as linked below[1] state that this is an injunction and
that the main proceedings will continue which may take up to two years. In
other words it's not over yet. This was a preliminary injunction which ZeniMax
has failed to secure but that can be appealed and that doesn't prevent the
main suit from continuing.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3124409>

~~~
alttag
Concur. Thank goodness for sensationalist headlines by the HN contributor
which allowed us to succumb to the link bait.

"No preliminary injunction against use of 'Scrolls' by Mojang" would be
better.

------
giberson
When ever <insert big company> sues <insert little guy> over copyright
infringement people usually defend <insert big company> with the "they have to
protect their copyright or they may lose it". I was wondering, how aggressive
does a company need to be when defending their copyrights? Is it enough to
make a copyright motion then settle outside of court for an undisclosed amount
(say $1)? Or in later proceedings of other claims would that information be
available in discovery and thus weaken the company's copyright claim?

I'm just wondering because I'm curious if Bethesda is "required" to appeal the
initial ruling or if it's enough to let it be as it is.

~~~
antiterra
It's trademark that you must defend or lose. Laches can apply in copyright,
but you generally don't fully lose the copyright for non-enforcement. To
answer your question, it seems like nothing is a sure thing in these court
cases, so there's no bright line rule.

It would seem like licensing would be an acceptable path, but if you licensed
to everyone then you would be diluting your own brand and therefore risk
losing your trademark.

~~~
giberson
Thanks for the clarification on the trademark vs. copyright. Can you license
to Company A for $1 and Company B for $10,000? I'm wondering if there's any
regulation in place to prevent such behavior.

~~~
cube13
Trademarks aren't anything a holder would want to license out, though. First
off, they're basically a brand's identity, and give the holders the legal
defense to keep that brand name as protected. Secondly, they're very specific.
Multiple companies can have the same trademark for different product
categories. For example(like I have posted here before), Starcraft is a
computer game developed by Blizzard Entertainment. It's also a pretty big
recreational vehicle manufacturer. Both co-exist, because Blizzard does not
make RV's, and Starcraft does not make video games.

There isn't any regulation in place because Trademarks are intended to reduce
consumer confusion for products. A trademark owner is under absolutely no
obligation to license out the trademark to anyone, and if it is widely
licensed out, the holder can actually lose the trademark if it becomes a
common name for the product.

~~~
antiterra
In addition to certification trademarks and limited uses via "trademark
guidelines" there's an interesting counterpoint in the case of Portal:
Prelude.

Valve permitted (at the very least a verbal license) an independent developer
to use their trademark (and other assets) in an unrelated project not
controlled by Valve. I'm very curious on the line of thought of Valve's
lawyers as to how this would be ok. Perhaps it's because Portal: Prelude
requires Portal to be purchased in the first place and therefore doesn't
actually compete with Portal?

------
rkalla
This is an interesting and unique advertising opportunity for Scrolls to stay
on the map and get attention throughout its coverage and eventual release.

You dont need to try and dazzle people with screenshots or gameplay videos or
demos, you just keep posting updates about the case and everyone reads them
out of interest and you get your little slilce of mindshare and remind folks
to try it out when it is ready.

This seems like a win win for Mojang and a lose lose for Zenimax.

------
rje
They won a temporary injunction. Hopefully zenimax will leave it at that, but
if they decide to appeal this isn't over.

~~~
masklinn
> Hopefully zenimax will leave it at that

Pretty unlikely considering the course of action so far.

------
qF
Scan of the verdict: <http://i.imgur.com/q33mW.jpg> (in Swedish)

Edit: and a summary of it in English; <http://i.imgur.com/t8s3p.png>

------
ArcticCelt
>The original debate started when developer Mojang decided to make the working
title of their new CCG-like game "Scrolls"

Not exactly. The debate started when Mojang decided to trademark the single
word "Scrolls" and put themselves in a position where they could take to court
game developers who want to use the word "scrolls" in the title of their games
(or already use it). That's when Bethesda Softworks counterattacked
aggressively.

During the whole process Mojang successfully managed to spin themselves on
social news websites as the victims of a David and Goliath fight when they
were in fact the ones who started the Trademark offensive.

~~~
masklinn
> Not exactly.

Not like your comment is _any_ better. A critical part missing from it is
that, soon after Bethesda indicated their displeasure, Mojang offered to drop
the trademark application (and to move from just "Scrolls" to a composite
title).

Apart from the trademark application (maybe, which they've yet to even
_remotely_ misuse or abuse with Minecraft, so I'd be more than willing to give
Mojang the benefit of the doubt) the only actions I've seen them taking so far
seemed to in good faith and in trying to resolve the matter as painlessly as
possible for everybody (and somewhat humorously in the case of the Quake 3
match).

> and put themselves in a position where they could take to court game
> developers who want to use the word "scrolls" in the title of their games
> (or already use it)

Trademark law is nowhere near as insane as patent law, "scrolls" has been used
numerous times as a sub-part of game titles (so the historical record is
strongly against such a case), and the only people who have made those claims
were trademark trolls (Tim Langdell) who got away with threatening people
generally without needing to go to court.

> During the whole process Mojang successfully managed to spin themselves on
> social news websites as the victims of a David and Goliath fight when they
> were in fact the ones who started the Trademark offensive.

Please, how is trademarking __the name of your next game __a "Trademark
Offensive"?

~~~
rmc
_which they've yet to even remotely misuse or abuse with Minecraft, so I'd be
more than willing to give Mojang the benefit of the doubt_

Yes now. But they might be bought out.

~~~
masklinn
Right.

In the event that its 4 (I think it's 4) founders (I assume they're co-owners,
Notch could be the only owner, I have no hard info on the subject) decide to
sell it (it's a private company so it can't just be taken over, and a buyer
would need pretty good reasons to get them to sell, considering the founders
are probably essentially set for life already) _and_ that trademark law is as
screwed up as patent law (it's not) _and_ that the brand new acquirer has a
trademark-troll streak, _then_ it could become a risk.

We are pretty far from ArcticCelt's qualification that Mojang

> started the Trademark offensive

are we not?

------
codezero
Bethesda should have played Quake.

------
6ren
\+ bonus publicity

------
zerostar07
Note that this is a district court in Stockholm, so good luck selling the game
to the US. I still don't get why they don't just choose another name; OTOH i
guess all this publicity helps build up the buzz...

~~~
ugh
I’m not aware of any lawsuits in the US. Are you? As far as I know ZeniMax is
currently only suing in Sweden.

(What good would it ZeniMax do if they were to win a lawsuit in the US,
though? Mojang distributes digitally. Can US authorities block websites for
trademark infringement?)

~~~
zerostar07
Apparently the USPTO lawyers refused the registration of the trademark due to
confusion:

<http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85323305#> (check first document)

I have no idea what it all means, but i guess it's not a good thing to bring
yourself to a position where you can lose the profits you earned because of a
name choice, especially when you have been warned.

~~~
cube13
Short version: The USPTO seems to believe that it is too similar to "The Elder
Scrolls", and denied the trademark based on the fact that the two would both
cover electronic entertainment goods-in other words, both are video games.

~~~
nkassis
What about a different meaning of scroll, like making a side-scrolling game
and calling it scroll.

~~~
cube13
I'm think that usage may still be denied, depending on exactly what the
application is for. Mojang's application was for basically all computer games.
The application indicates that if Mojang was a bit more specific(i.e. for a
computer card game), this might have passed.

However, there is a stronger part mentioned in the denial, which is for
clothing. Mojang also applied for a "Scrolls" trademark with regards to
clothing. There is already one registered under that mark.

