Why the 2020 video game Immortals: Fenyx Rising doesn't infringe on the trademark of the 2011 film Immortals?

Comments

• BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Immortals is far too generic to be a problem, there are plenty of other works that also use that name. The name changed from gods and monsters because they didn’t want to fight monster energy and potentially delay the game.

  source

  • False@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I thought Monster Cable were the litigious ones?

    source
• CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  There could be a huge range of possible answers to this question. But we can look at the listings to get some clues.

  IMMORTALS FENYX RISING Owner: UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT (France) Nice class: 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 41

  Regional Trademark Registration Region of filing: European Union Status: Registered (June 25, 2021) Number: 018409702

  And

  IMMORTALS Owner: Relativity Media, LLC (USA) Nice class: 9, 16, 28, 41 Regional Trademark Registration Region of filing: European Union Status: Expired (November 12, 2020) Number: 009520024

  Now there is some overlap between them. The Nice classes, which denote which product/service categories the words are trademarked within, however within a single Nice class there can be a variety of products.

  Fenyx rising’s trademark is still active and we can see it was refiled in June 2021, with some previously expired trademarks of the same name having expired in November 2021, whereas Immortals expired in 2020. Without going into the details my best guess is that the initial filing was more limited and has now been expanded to cover more media.

  But the big one here is the characteristic word. By adding Fenyx Rising, it could be argued that in addition to the material differences between the trademarks that there is enough separation to ensure there is no risk of confusion from audiences. There are also multiple Immortals trademarks which could make that would in and of itself less defensible depending on the potential conflict.

  Finally we can’t discount the possibility that the two parties came to a pre-arrangef agreement to exist in the marketplace side by side. This often happens and unless one is a long-serving distinctive trademark then usually parties can find a way to agree.

  source

  • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    But the big one here is the characteristic word. By adding Fenyx Rising, it could be argued that that, in addition to the material differences between the products, there is enough separation to ensure there is no risk of confusion from audiences. There are also multiple Immortals trademarks which could make that word in and of itself less defensible depending on the potential conflict.

    That’s basically it right there. The word “immortal” has multiple dictionary definitions tracing back long before any trademark, including a [prominent ancient military unit](en.wikipedia.org/…/Immortals_(Achaemenid_Empire\)) so any trademark around that word isn’t strong enough to prevent any use of the word as a normal word, or even as part of another trademark when used descriptively.

    The strongest trademark protection comes for words that are totally made up for the purpose of the product or company. Something like Hulu or Kodak.

    Next up are probably mashed up words that might relate to existing words but are distinct mashups or modifications, like GeForce or Craisins.

    Next up, words that have meaning but are completely unrelated to the product itself, like Apple (computers) and Snickers (the candy bar) or Tide (the laundry detergent).

    Next up are suggestive marks where the trademark relies on the meaning to convey something about the product itself, but still retains some distinctiveness: InSinkErator is a brand of in-sink disposal, Coffee Mate is a non-dairy creamer designed for mixing into coffee, Joy-Con is a controller designed to evoke joy, etc.

    Some descriptive words don’t get trademark protection until they enter the public consciousness as a distinct indicator of its origin or manufacture. Name-based businesses often fall into this category, like a restaurant named after the owner, and don’t get protection until it’s popular enough (McDonald’s is the main example).

    It can get complicated, but the basic principle underlying all of it is that if you choose a less unique word as the name of your trademark, you’ll get less protection against others using it.

    source
• Shirasho@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Trademark generally only applies within the same medium. The point is to prevent confusion between two competing products. A movie and a video game do not overlap.

  source

  • False@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Movies reuse names occasionally too. As long as they’re not novel names or coming out at the same time it generally doesn’t seem to be an issue.

    source
  • jeffw@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Not true at all.

    A movie name might not get protected from, say, a food. Those are not related. Trademark protection can apply across media though, especially when it’s something similar like movies and video games (again, contrast that to movies and food)

    source
• YungOnions@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Immortals was a banger of a film.

  source
• Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Trademark isn’t supposed to be enforceable on such generic words.

  Like, Bethesda tried to sue Mojang away from launching “Scrolls” because of their Elder Scrolls games. That got settled and eventually Mojang renamed the game before scrapping it anyways, but yeah.

  It’s also pretty wild once you realize that laws in general are these things where “whatever side argues best, sets the interpretation.” Anti-slap laws are also worth having and reading up on to stop bogus lawsuits, but now I’m just rambling.

  source
• Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That game was a lot of fun

  source