Support NeoGAF

[Massa]

Yes, but "Dota" is the only name that will have a legal binding. The rest are floating in the ether. Valve hasn't made any claims that Dota isn't a reference to Defense of the Ancients, so I'm not sure what your point is there. My point is that, legally, Dota and Defense of the Ancients will become separate entities.

That's not how trademarks work. For example, Respawn/EA couldn't release a game called "CoD", even if the trademark owned by Activision is for "Call of Duty". Same with Microsoft releasing a console called PS4 or Sony releasing a portable called 4DS, or...

No, it wouldn't, as it's a website for Defense of the Ancients.

It really would.

 

[walking fiend]

Oh wow... Dota... DOTA.... Defense of the Ancients.... The trademark war is pretty interesting.

So in a hypothetical situation, let's just say that there is this hugely popular game called Legend of Thunder Storm or whatever, which is free and created by, let's just say, my own game engine. Everyone that plays it and everyone that knows about it always calling it with its abbreviation, LoTS, for example.

Someone can actually trademark the name LoTS or LoTS 2, with similar gameplay, character, world, and everything else and calling it theirs? It may be a different game but the abbreviation LoTS is already synonymous with the Legend of Thunder Storm... they can actually take that name with that consideration in mind?

Note that I am not "taking sides" with whichever, Valve or Blizzard. Hell I did not even play DoTA or DOTA or... whatever variations of that. I just found the entire circumstance rather interesting.

let's say, Activision Blizzard has not yet trademarked 'CoD', and has only trade marked Call of Duty; or not MW and only Modern Warfare; And EA is now trying to trade mark COD:MW4

EA then will become able to sue AB if they put a big COD:MW4 on the box of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4.

And people are saying this is OK, cause they still can call their next game Modern Warfare 4 (but not MW4)

 

[massoluk]

Because all those "fortress" mods for Quake and Unreal disappeared the minutes Valve hired Robin Walker and John Cook.

 

[Ketch]

So in a hypothetical situation, let's just say that there is this hugely popular game called Legend of Thunder Storm or whatever, which is free and created by, let's just say, my own game engine. Everyone that plays it and everyone that knows about it always calling it with its abbreviation, LoTS, for example.

Someone can actually trademark the name LoTS or LoTS 2, with similar gameplay, character, world, and everything else and calling it theirs? It may be a different game but the abbreviation LoTS is already synonymous with the Legend of Thunder Storm... they can actually take that name with that consideration in mind?

Note that I am not "taking sides" with whichever, Valve or Blizzard. Hell I did not even play DoTA or DOTA or... whatever variations of that. I just found the entire circumstance rather interesting.

To make it even crazier what if LoTS was a fan made mod, and then the fans who made it worked for the company who were trying to trademark the name LoTS 2.

 

[The_Endgamer]

It's nothing like that, because the iPod is a registered trademark, DotA wasn't until Valve claimed it.

However it first appeared on a Blizzard tech and the creator signed those rights over before uploading that game to Blizzard. Blizzard helped fund tournaments and such with that modded game and marketed it, making it a very popular game. Based on that, Blizzard has a pretty decent claim on the Valve DOTA which is pretty much just a re-skin of DotA. Even though the creator of that game signed over the rights to Blizzard and is making the same thing for Valve now, he shouldn't be allowed to create the same game again and exploit those ideas for a rival company. He may have made those gameplay mechanics up but they were all based on Blizzard's technology and made his self known to this niche through it.

My money is on Blizzard.

 

[Margalis]

No, it wouldn't, as it's a website for Defense of the Ancients. By your logic, any domain with the word "Windows" in it is infringing upon Microsoft's trademark of the Windows OS.

Again, the title of the webpage is "Official DotA Website." That would clearly be trademark infringement.

It's not "Official Defense of the Ancients Website." It's "Official DotA Website." There are at least 4 uses of "DotA" on the front page of playdota.com. (And they aren't all capitalized the same either)

My "logic" is the law.

 

[StuBurns]

Oh wow... Dota... DOTA.... Defense of the Ancients.... The trademark war is pretty interesting.

So in a hypothetical situation, let's just say that there is this hugely popular game called Legend of Thunder Storm or whatever, which is free and created by, let's just say, my own game engine. Everyone that plays it and everyone that knows about it always calling it with its abbreviation, LoTS, for example.

Someone can actually trademark the name LoTS or LoTS 2, with similar gameplay, character, world, and everything else and calling it theirs? It may be a different game but the abbreviation LoTS is already synonymous with the Legend of Thunder Storm... they can actually take that name with that consideration in mind?

Note that I am not "taking sides" with whichever, Valve or Blizzard. Hell I did not even play DoTA or DOTA or... whatever variations of that. I just found the entire circumstance rather interesting.

Yes. The issue here is no one went out of their way to make DotA a legally locked down name, in any variation. Eul could have claimed it at the time, but he didn't.

 

[Aselith]

let's say, Activision Blizzard has not yet trademarked 'CoD', and has only trade marked Call of Duty; or not MW and only Modern Warfare; And EA is now trying to trade mark COD:MW4

Except they didn't trademark Call of Duty either nor did they create the game or contribute to it so they don't have a leg to stand on except possibly some obscure passage in their TOS.

 

[JaseC]

That's not how trademarks work. For example, Respawn/EA couldn't release a game called "CoD", even if the trademark owned by Activision is for "Call of Duty". Same with Microsoft releasing a console called PS4 or Sony releasing a portable called 4DS, or...

It really would.

Okay, fine, I'm incorrect. What some seem to be presuming is that Valve would use its Dota trademark to stifle future community developments that dare use the moniker, however the simple fact of the matter is that Valve hasn't demonstrated any such desire and those who are assuming the worst are merely extrapolating from the point of possibility.

Again, the title of the webpage is "Official DotA Website." That would clearly be trademark infringement.

It's not "Official Defense of the Ancients Website." It's "Official DotA Website." There are at least 4 uses of "DotA" on the front page of playdota.com. (And they aren't all capitalized the same either)

My "logic" is the law.

Oh, website as a whole. I thought you were referring to the domain name.

 

[walking fiend]

Except they didn't trademark Call of Duty either nor did they create the game or contribute to it so they don't have a leg to stand on except possibly some obscure passage in their TOS.

Only if Ice Frog could make DotA nearly this popular using his own engine and on-line platform, and not WC3 engine and assets and also B.Net, or any other game engine to begin with.

And again, I am saying not just Valve, but no other entity has a right over DotA.

 

[Margalis]

To further clarify the capitalization is basically irrelevant because trademark infringement includes things likely to cause consumer confusion. Obviously using "DotA" to describe a game very similar to "DOTA" would cause consumer confusion.

 

[HK-47]

And, again, people have already pointed out that both the original creator of the custom map and the man currently responsible for the upkeep of the custom map, four years running, both work for Valve. If either one had an issue with Valve owning the trademark, then maybe you'd have a case. Unfortunately, neither one has expressed anything like that.

Next?

isnt it more like 7 years?

 

[Belgorim]

Okay, fine, I'm incorrect. What some seem to be presuming is that Valve would use its Dota trademark to stifle future community developments that dare use the moniker, however the simple fact of the matter is that Valve hasn't demonstrated any such desire and those who are assuming the worst are merely extrapolating from the point of possibility.

So since everyone "knows" they wont use it for those purposes, why do you believe they should get the trademark?

Noone should have it.

 

[Aselith]

Only if Ice Frog could make DotA nearly this popular using his own engine and on-line platform, and not WC3 engine and assets and also B.Net, or any other game engine to begin with.

And again, I am saying not just Valve, but no other entity has a right over DotA.

All right, if that's what you want, I agree. No one should get DOTA and neither party should be able to use it at all. Change both names and be done with it.

 

[massoluk]

Only if Ice Frog could make DotA nearly this popular using his own engine and on-line platform, and not WC3 engine and assets and also B.Net, or any other game engine to begin with.

And again, I am saying not just Valve, but no other entity has a right over DotA.

I'd say Eul has the right to it if it ever goes to court. And he's with Valve. You could make an argument that DotA: All Star stole the name from the right full owner, DotA. Guinsoo being a thief and, and Icefrog is caretaker of stolen name.

 

[Ketch]

Only if Ice Frog could make DotA nearly this popular using his own engine and on-line platform, and not WC3 engine and assets and also B.Net, or any other game engine to begin with.

And again, I am saying not just Valve, but no other entity has a right over DotA.

What about the guys who made it? Should the guy who came up with the idea for Defense of the Ancients loose out on all the "value" the name has now? Granted they should have trademarked the name a long time ago, but at what point does your idea no longer belong to you?

Would this be a different story if Ice Frog and whoever else started their own game company to make DOTA2?

 

[Togglesworlh]

New name: Valve® Presents: Blizzard®'s DOTA® 2!

isnt it more like 7 years?

I know it's a long time, and longer than four years. I was just too lazy to look up the exact number. If it's seven, it's seven.

 

[JaseC]

So since everyone "knows" they wont use it for those purposes, why do you believe they should get the trademark?

"Knows"? I didn't say that once in my post, Please, don't put words in my mouth.

To answer your question, I'm not sure I believe that Valve should get the trademark, but there is a case to be made considering the studio can lay claim to employing DotA's creator (Eul) and its long-standing contributor (IceFrog).

Noone should have it.

That's a matter of morals rather than legality.

 

[walking fiend]

I'd say Eul has the right to it if it ever goes to court. And he's with Valve.

He doesn't have shit right to Trademark a game that once he left working on, wasn't even a fraction as much as popular as it is now. He definitely has less right than Ice Frog, and even Ice Frog hasn't right to trade mark it.

All right, if that's what you want, I agree. No one should get DOTA and neither party should be able to use it at all. Change both names and be done with it.

Yes, that's why I am saying. And Blizzard is also not trying to Trademark the game itself.

 

[The_Endgamer]

Okay, fine, I'm incorrect. What some seem to be presuming is that Valve would use its Dota trademark to stifle future community developments that dare use the moniker, however the simple fact of the matter is that Valve hasn't demonstrated any such desire and those who are assuming the worst are merely extrapolating from the point of possibility.

Possibility?
So why the hell did Valve employ and pay the guy who made it instead of making their own mod? Just so they could make it a free game? I don't think so.
You hire someone to make the game for you so that you can try to own the rights to the game, profit from it and sue others, not sit back and see your market share drop while some other guy is doing it for free.

I thought this was a obvious point.

 

[Dinosaur Tamer]

You think the only person who can upkeep the DotA, and that he has been upkeeping it single-handedly, to begin with?

I am sorry, but I don't understand your question.

It will be up to Valve to decide, unless this is has been mentioned as an exception in some kind of legal form;

And I am pretty sure, even if it is some kind of a contract form,it will be void if he leaves Valve, tries to move the mod to another game such as SC2,; and most importantly, no other person than him will be probably allowed by Valve to do so.

And you are basing this on Valve's vast history of suppressing mods and the modding community, right?

Some people seem to be missing that Eul and Icefrog, probably the two most important contributors to DotA are both working for Valve and apparently agree with Valve trademarking "DOTA". If I had to put down a wild guess, I'd say those two are more interested in the well-being of the DotA community than Blizzard. Might be just me, though.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Hmmm, so furthering on from my hypothetical situation: so let's just say I want to protect the "overall package" of Legend of Thunder Storm--by overall package, I mean everything that is associated with it: its well known status, its world, its lore, its game mechanic, etc etc. I need to make sure that I trademarked all of the variations of the name?

Like: Legend of Thunder Storm, LoTS, LOTS, etc etc. What would happen if someone, for example, make a product that is very similar to mine and then naming them like... Story of Thunder Storm or the Legendary Thunder Storm? I guess they would be free to do that?

 

[duckroll]

He doesn't have shit right to Trademark a game that once he left working on, wasn't even a fraction as much as popular as it is now. He definitely has less right than Ice Frog, and even Ice Frog hasn't right to trade mark it.

Based on what? Some personal moral code you have? Because that doesn't mean jack shit. We are discussing the legal ramifications here, and what it could mean. It seems you are only interested in coming into the discussion to talk about things on some strange personal terms of conditions which no one agrees with anyway. Certainly not the law.

 

[JaseC]

Possibility?
So why the hell did Valve employ and pay the guy who made it instead of making their own mod? Just so they could make it a free game? I don't think so.
You hire someone to make the game for you so that you can try to own the rights to the game, profit from it and sue others, not sit back and see your market share drop while some other guy is doing it for free.

It seems you've slightly misunderstood. The assumption that Valve will aggressively attack future DotA mods is one I take issue with.

I thought this was a obvious point.

And I thought it was obvious that my post was clearly in reference to only Valve using the trademark to raze the non-Dota 2 DotA community.

 

[bengraven]

Valve should just name it "Blizzard DOTA". Everyone wins.

"DOTA 1"

 

[StuBurns]

Possibility?
So why the hell did Valve employ and pay the guy who made it instead of making their own mod? Just so they could make it a free game? I don't think so.
You hire someone to make the game for you so that you can try to own the rights to the game, profit from it and sue others, not sit back and see your market share drop while some other guy is doing it for free.

I thought this was a obvious point.

You're wrong, Valve allow people to use their trademarks all the time. The Portal flash game for example, Black Mesa mod (they were asked to drop the 'source' from the title to avoid market confusion, but other than that, they're allowed).

If IceFrog drops All-Stars, and someone else takes it over, Valve wouldn't put the kibosh on it.

 

[Ketch]

Like: Legend of Thunder Storm, LoTS, LOTS, etc etc. What would happen if someone, for example, make a product that is very similar to mine and then naming them like... Story of Thunder Storm or the Legendary Thunder Storm? I guess they would be free to do that?

If you never tried to trademark/patent/copyright your IP they might get away with it. I guess we'll see after all this shakes out.

 

[Dinosaur Tamer]

If IceFrog drops All-Stars, and someone else takes it over, Valve wouldn't put the kibosh on it.

Exactly. Based on their history, the worst thing that could happen is Valve asking him to come and work with them on DOTA 2.

 

[Togglesworlh]

Exactly. Based on their history, the worst thing that could happen is Valve asking him to come and work with them on DOTA 2.

(which they already did - sort of, although he was already working at valve before they decided to make dota 2)

 

[walking fiend]

I am sorry, but I don't understand your question.



And you are basing this on Valve's vast history of suppressing mods and the modding community, right?

Some people seem to be missing that Eul and Icefrog, probably the two most important contributors to DotA are both working for Valve and apparently agree with Valve trademarking "DOTA". If I had to put down a wild guess, I'd say those two are more interested in the well-being of the DotA community than Blizzard. Might be just me, though.

If for any reason Ice-Frog leaves the DotA upkeeping task, there are many others who can replace him. Just like when Ice-Frog appeared when Guinsoo went away. And don't tell me Ice-Frog made DotA what it is and Guinsoo was incapable, LoL is incredibly popular now.

And they may want to move the map to another platform or other directions, etc.; Valve will be able to prevent that as long as it is named DotA and in some way is making profit for someone beside Valve

If IceFrog drops All-Stars, and someone else takes it over, Valve wouldn't put the kibosh on it.

But they can, and definitely will if it starts eating into their own DotA business.

 

[duckroll]

Hmmm, so furthering on from my hypothetical situation: so let's just say I want to protect the "overall package" of Legend of Thunder Storm--by overall package, I mean everything that is associated with it: its well known status, its world, its lore, its game mechanic, etc etc. I need to make sure that I trademarked all of the variations of the name?

Like: Legend of Thunder Storm, LoTS, LOTS, etc etc. What would happen if someone, for example, make a product that is very similar to mine and then naming them like... Story of Thunder Storm or the Legendary Thunder Storm? I guess they would be free to do that?

If you trademarked Legend of the Thunder Storm, and it is a known product in the market, you are largely protected from most forms of obvious infringement. It means that if someone makes a similar game and calls it LOTS, or Story of the Thunder Storm, etc, you have a pretty strong case if you want to sue them for trademark infringement, even if they had registered separate trademarks for their title. The protection you have is not automatic, nothing in civil law is. You have to actively fight for it in court. Alternatively you can also oppose their trademark registration if you are aware of it, like Blizzard is doing now, and you would have a much stronger case.

The issue here is not that Blizzard did not trademark DOTA. The issue here is that Blizzard did not trademark anything. They did not create Defense of the Ancients, and they have never made any claim of ownership on the name as a trademark. It is not a Blizzard product.

Blizzard is not suing anyone here either, what they are doing is disputing the trademark registration for Valve's DOTA. Valve is registering a trademark for DOTA because they are releasing DOTA 2, and it is an actual commercial product, hence they want to protect it.

The comparison is not the same.

 

[Aselith]

Hmmm, so furthering on from my hypothetical situation: so let's just say I want to protect the "overall package" of Legend of Thunder Storm--by overall package, I mean everything that is associated with it: its well known status, its world, its lore, its game mechanic, etc etc. I need to make sure that I trademarked all of the variations of the name?

Like: Legend of Thunder Storm, LoTS, LOTS, etc etc. What would happen if someone, for example, make a product that is very similar to mine and then naming them like... Story of Thunder Storm or the Legendary Thunder Storm? I guess they would be free to do that?

Depends on how close. Like Bethesda tried (and are still trying I believe) to sue Notch for making a game called Scrolls because they thought it was too close to Elder Scrolls. Seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me but I'm not a trained lawyer.

 

[Instro]

You're wrong, Valve allow people to use their trademarks all the time. The Portal flash game for example, Black Mesa mod (they were asked to drop the 'source' from the title to avoid market confusion, but other than that, they're allowed).

If IceFrog drops All-Stars, and someone else takes it over, Valve wouldn't put the kibosh on it.

I'd also point out that there were a number of mods/custom maps based on their properties within in SC2.

 

[CoS_Ethan]

Of Course they did this. Dota is a famous game and Dota 2 is a highly anticipated one now.

 

[The_Endgamer]

It seems you've slightly misunderstood. The assumption that Valve will aggressively attack future DotA mods is one I take issue with.

Obviously its the issue you have! I understand completely, however your argument is lackluster and relies on an assumption of laziness and unknowing of basic business. On top of that your just referring back to the point i refuted and not coming up with any other points of discussion. Other than that, your passive tone is ignorant, just like your argument.

I don't refute your second argument regarding capturing an already existing fan base but assuming as a fact that Valve will not pursue to keep their product's integrity is a pretty weak assumption considering Blizzard is doing something right now in the exact opposite of what your saying and they were barely profiting from it at all.

 

[walking fiend]

The issue here is not that Blizzard did not trademark DOTA. The issue here is that Blizzard did not trademark anything. They did not create Defense of the Ancients, and they have never made any claim of ownership on the name as a trademark. It is not a Blizzard product.

Blizzard is not suing anyone here either, what they are doing is disputing the trademark registration for Valve's DOTA. Valve is registering a trademark for DOTA because they are releasing DOTA 2, and it is an actual commercial product, hence they want to protect it.

The comparison is not the same.

And why did they name it DOTA 2 to begin with?

I am still waiting for you to clarify my question after accusing me of all sorts of derailing and fallacies.

I'd also point out that there were a number of mods/custom maps based on their properties within in SC2.

DotA is hugely popular, more popular than any Valve game, let alone their SC2 custom maps; and they are most probably not harming their own games in any possible way and the don't care to begin with, and most probably they can make any claim that those mods are making profit to anyone because they are using valve trademarks.

 

[duckroll]

Obviously! Your argument is lackluster and relies on an assumption of laziness and unknowing of basic business. On top of that your just referring back to the point i refuted and not coming up with any other points of discussion. Other than that, your passive tone is ignorant, just like your argument.

I don't refute your second argument regarding capturing an already existing fan base but assuming as a fact that Valve will not pursue to keep their product's integrity is a pretty weak assumption considering Blizzard is doing something right now in the exact opposite of what your saying and they were barely profiting from it at all.

So, since your argument is so solid, and you understand basic business so well, could you please tell us how many modders and competitive products Valve has sued out of existence in relation to Team Fortress? They own the Team Fortress IP, they hired the creators of the original mode, and they subsequently released Team Fortress 2 as well.

From 1999 until now, there have been a gazillion different mods on a variety of different engines, for a bunch of different games, using the Fortress name openly to signify the sort of gameplay the mod entails. How many of these people were sued by Valve, the holders of the Team Fortress trademark?

Surely Valve hired the creators of Team Fortress not because they wanted them to develop a sequel they would effectively give away for free right? No way. They definitely hired them to own the rights to the game, profit from it and sue others, not sit back and see your market share drop while some other guy is doing it for free. Right?

 

[Aaron]

He doesn't have shit right to Trademark a game that once he left working on, wasn't even a fraction as much as popular as it is now. He definitely has less right than Ice Frog, and even Ice Frog hasn't right to trade mark it.

You're saying someone who created something doesn't have the right to trademark it. You do realize this is COMPLETELY CRAZY, right?

 

[Dinosaur Tamer]

And why did they name it DOTA to begin with?

I am still waiting for your to clarify my question after accusing me of all sorts of derailing and fallacies.

Because, unlike LoL or HoN, DOTA 2 is actually pretty close to being a 1:1 copy of DotA in a new engine. If it is a remake of DotA in a new environment, developed by actual DotA developers, why come up with some generic new name just for the sake of it?

 

[Ketch]

The issue here is not that Blizzard did not trademark DOTA. The issue here is that Blizzard did not trademark anything. They did not create Defense of the Ancients, and they have never made any claim of ownership on the name as a trademark. It is not a Blizzard product.

Blizzard is not suing anyone here either, what they are doing is disputing the trademark registration for Valve's DOTA. Valve is registering a trademark for DOTA because they are releasing DOTA 2, and it is an actual commercial product, hence they want to protect it.

So isn't the issue then: Why is Blizzard disputing Valve's trademark registration? Do they have to have some kind of legal reason? Are they allowed to say "We're disputing this trademark because we want the name to remain public domain"? or "We dispute this because it might infringe on something we don't own"?

OR are they saying they own the name DOTA even though they never tried to claim it legally and have already made a press release saying they don't own it.

 

[walking fiend]

You're saying someone who created something doesn't have the right to trademark it. You do realize this is COMPLETELY CRAZY, right?

1. He didn't create game engine, assets and online platform.
2. He didn't had any significant participation in the advancement of the game and making it what it is now after he left the project

What he made is so vastly different than what DotA is now.

Because, unlike LoL or HoN, DOTA 2 is actually pretty close to being a 1:1 copy of DotA in a new engine. If it is a remake of DotA in a new environment, developed by actual DotA developers, why come up with some generic new name just for the sake of it?

because you are cloning it and have no right over DotA1?

Just because no one owns DotA and no one will sue you over creating a clone, doesn't give you the right to own the whole thing!!!

 

[JaseC]

So, since your argument is so solid, and you understand basic business so well, could you please tell us how many modders and competitive products Valve has sued out of existence in relation to Team Fortress? They own the Team Fortress IP, they hired the creators of the original mode, and they subsequently released Team Fortress 2 as well.

From 1999 until now, there have been a gazillion different mods on a variety of different engines, for a bunch of different games, using the Fortress name openly to signify the sort of gameplay the mod entails. How many of these people were sued by Valve, the holders of the Team Fortress trademark?

Surely Valve hired the creators of Team Fortress not because they wanted them to develop a sequel they would effectively give away for free right? No way. They definitely hired them to own the rights to the game, profit from it and sue others, not sit back and see your market share drop while some other guy is doing it for free. Right?

I was about to reply myself, but then saw this.

 

[duckroll]

And why did they name it DOTA 2 to begin with?

I am still waiting for you to clarify my question after accusing me of all sorts of derailing and fallacies.

Why not? The game is for all intents and purposes the next DOTA game, and designed by the same core members who created and maintained the original game. If no one has made claim on the original name, there is nothing wrong with the sequel being called DOTA2. If someone else does have claim to the original name, or thinks they do, they can file a dispute. Which is what Blizzard has done here.

 

[The_Endgamer]

You're wrong, Valve allow people to use their trademarks all the time. The Portal flash game for example, Black Mesa mod (they were asked to drop the 'source' from the title to avoid market confusion, but other than that, they're allowed).

If IceFrog drops All-Stars, and someone else takes it over, Valve wouldn't put the kibosh on it.

To counter that, i'd be curious into knowing how much they would earn from that. Those two examples would not profit directly much if at all. eg. probably the advertisements on the side would create profit for the developer and the game would also serve as an advertisement for the real thing which would be in Valve's interests.

If Blizzard where to hypothetically create their Defence of the Ancients game to rival Valve's, both being multi-million dollar commercial games. Not mods and flash games by backyard developers which you seem to confuse them with, then it would be a very different scenario than the one your assuming would happen.

 

[Massa]

You're saying someone who created something doesn't have the right to trademark it. You do realize this is COMPLETELY CRAZY, right?

It's not crazy at all.

It's actually Valve filing for the trademark, not the guy who created Dota that now works for Valve. Employing someone doesn't mean you automatically gain rights to their trademarks, copyrights and patents, specially the ones created before you employed them, so his employment status means absolutely nothing. If Valve bought any rights they believe he owns is not something I've seen disclosed yet.

Also Dota was not actually a product but a mod for a game owned by Blizzard, created using tools licensed by Blizzard under an agreement with Blizzard, so it's not exactly a simple case. The fact that the mod not only used assets owned by Blizzard but was also named after Warcraft 3 assets will certainly play a part.

 

[Aaron]

1. He didn't create game engine, assets and online platform.
2. He didn't had any significant participation in the advancement of the game and making it what it is now after he left the project.

1. Warcraft is Dune II in a Warhammer skin, made using tools created by Microsoft. I bet Blizzard didn't even build the computers they used to make it either.
2. So? None of those improvements or community would exist without what he started. People have release a ton of mods for Minecraft to make it much better than the base version. Does that mean Notch doesn't deserve that trademark?

 

[Laughing Banana]

If you trademarked Legend of the Thunder Storm, and it is a known product in the market, you are largely protected from most forms of obvious.... -snip-

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with this case but I can't help but to ask: if my product is less known or not popular, I actually have less chance to win?

Depends on how close. Like Bethesda tried (and are still trying I believe) to sue Notch for making a game called Scrolls because they thought it was too close to Elder Scrolls. Seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me but I'm not a trained lawyer.

Thanks for the explanation though, both of you.

So, "moral grounds" aside, based on the legality aspect in this case, in all likelihood Valve will come out as the winner on this battle yes?

Is there any possible circumstances where the winner is Blizzard instead?

 

[walking fiend]

Why not? The game is for all intents and purposes the next DOTA game, and designed by the same core members who created and maintained the original game. If no one has made claim on the original name, there is nothing wrong with the sequel being called DOTA2. If someone else does have claim to the original name, or thinks they do, they can file a dispute. Which is what Blizzard has done here.

First, DotA is only partially made by Eul and Ice-Frog, partially...

Second, because if Ice-Frog and Valve stop upkeeping DotA which will almost certainly happen soon after DotA 2 is released; it will be the end of the free mod we know as DotA, and probably even if the future upkeepers change the name, they can still pursue others as making 'clone' of their DOTA game.

1. Warcraft is Dune II in a Warhammer skin, made using tools created by Microsoft. I bet Blizzard didn't even build the computers they used to make it either.
2. So? None of those improvements or community would exist without what he started. People have release a ton of mods for Minecraft to make it much better than the base version. Does that mean Notch doesn't deserve that trademark?

1. Clone or not, Blizzard paid for using those tools and what they did. Eul didn't pay to use Blizzard tools; Valve isn't paying Blizzard; and also Blizzard didn't trademark Dune II and instead created their own name, WC (and the idea that WC is dune II clone is pretty interesting)

2. Eh? It is the other way around, you know; Blizzard is the Notch who kept the base platform up to date and made it a viable solution for Eul to create a 'mod' on it.

 

[walking fiend]

sorry, dp.

 

[JaseC]

First, DotA is only partially made by Eul and Ice-Frog, partially...

Second, because if Ice-Frog and Valve stop upkeeping DotA which will almost certainly happen soon after DotA 2 is released; it will be the end of the free mod we know as DotA, and probably even if the future upkeepers change the name, they can still pursue others as making 'clone' of their DOTA game.

Again, IceFrog has stated that he'll continue to maintain the original DotA for as long as the community deems it necessary.