Support NeoGAF

[massoluk]

I honestly don't care who wins or who the name goes to, as I don't have and have never had any interest in playing DOTA. I'm just baffled why Valve would want to name their game that. It seems like you'd generate more buzz pretending like it's a totally new concept than you would trying to foster brand-recognition from Warcraft III players who were probably already aware of your game anyway.

Why the hell not? Team Fortress, Day of Defeat, Counterstrike.

 

[vermadas]

I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the legalities of such things, but I thought that Valve was sidestepping this issue by calling their game "Dota 2". Not the acronym DOTA that stands for Defense of the Ancients. The "Dota" in Dota 2 doesn't actually stand for anything.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Jesus christ, Blizzard... do they really think this will be worth the bad PR they are going to get over suing Valve and claiming a trademark over a name that was 100% fan created?

They aren't trying to claim the name. Valve is, and Blizzard wants to block them.

Are people still under the assumption Blizzard are suing Valve?

It's the internet. Lowest common denominator.

 

[Gunmonkey36]

I haven't seen anything in the EULA about names and trademarks. Just like Apple's (pre-update) iBooks EULA claimed ownership of the iBook-produced file, not the book itself, WC3's EULA seems to claim ownership over the WC3 implementation and distribution of the mod itself and it's assets, not the ideas behind the mod.

You also think Google should have the rights to a song I write myself and upload to YouTube just because it would have never gotten popular without using YouTube's infrastructure? That's nonsense!

the EULA, a limited, non-exclusive license to install Warcraft III and the World Editor
on his or her computer, use the game for noncommercial entertainment purposes, and
distribute Warcraft III mods to other users via the Battle.net game service. Warcraft III's
EULA clearly specifies that all underlying intellectual property rights in and to Warcraft
III are owned by Blizzard: "All title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in
and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any
titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog,
catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions,
audiovisual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and
`applets' incorporated into the Program) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors."

The title and catchphrase I assume is the reason they feel they can legally block its use. DOTA can be considered a title and catchphrase, which under their EULA they own the IP rights to.

Also your analogy about the youtube song seems a bit off the mark. Blizzard is only legally trying to gain prevention of the use of the name DOTA not sueing for the rights to the entire idea behind DOTA

 

[questionmark]

It's the internet. Lowest common denominator.

Are people still under the impression that Eul, the guy that made DotA in the first place isn't working for Valve alongside Icefrog?

 

[derFeef]

They aren't trying to claim the name. Valve is, and Blizzard wants to block them.



It's the internet. Lowest common denominator.

I am pretty sure Blizzard is trying to "claim" it.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Blizzard's going to win, most likely. Like, if we're not being retarded and just hating on Blizzard for no real reason.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Are people still under the impression that Eul, the guy that made DotA in the first place isn't working for Valve alongside Icefrog?

I didn't know Valve hired him. Good for them, it doesn't actually change the legal situation, since this is about, you know, trademarks.

I am pretty sure Blizzard is trying to "claim" it.

I don't know why you're "pretty sure".

 

[massoluk]

The title and catchphrase I assume is the reason they feel they can legally block its use. DOTA can be considered a title and catchphrase, which under their EULA they own the IP rights to.

Also your analogy about the youtube song seems a bit off the mark. Blizzard is only legally trying to gain prevention of the use of the name DOTA not sueing for the rights to the entire idea behind DOTA

Heh, if those things actually work in the court, Blizzard is in deep shit for massive amount of shits concocted by fan carried over from Everquest to WoW.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Heh, if those things actually work in the court, Blizzard is in deep shit for massive amount of shits concocted by fan carried over from Everquest to WoW.

/facepalm

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

/facepalm

They will never understand. Just give up.

 

[Max Knight]

At any rate, Activision Blizzard probably has a well-paid legal department; they likely wouldn't even attempt this, if they didn't already know they had at least a decent chance of winning. Court can be expensive, after all.

 

[Giran]

Blizzard's going to win, most likely. Like, if we're not being retarded and just hating on Blizzard for no real reason.

That could be the case if Blizzard filed this immediately after the Dota2 announcement and didn't previously state themselves that the Dota name is not attached to Blizzard in any way. Right now, I find it unlikely that Blizzard's arguments at court could hold any water after that.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

That could be the case if Blizzard filed this immediately after the Dota2 announcement and didn't previously state themselves that the Dota name is not attached to Blizzard in any way. Right now, I find it unlikely that Blizzard's arguments at court could hold any water after that.

That's the concern I had, but I still think the mark's been in use for long enough that despite their inactivity, they have a pretty solid case. That said, I'm not sure exactly when DOTA 2 was announced... I know they filed in November, so if memory serves, it took 'em about... 6-8 months to take action? I don't think that's fatal to their case, necessarily.

 

[Evlar]

I don't know why you're "pretty sure".

I don't know about "claim" it, but Blizzard claims explicitly that DOTA is under license from them in their notice of opposition.

By this Opposition, Blizzard seeks to prevent registration by its competitor 
Valve Corporation ("Valve") of a trademark, DOTA, that for more than seven years has 
been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community, under license from Blizzard.

There's little ambiguity in their position.

 

[maabus1999]

At any rate, Activision Blizzard probably has a well-paid legal department; they likely wouldn't even attempt this, if they didn't already know they had at least a decent chance of winning. Court can be expensive, after all.

Except Valve's legal team probably has more experience with these type of issues due to the nature of STEAM's business model and how they work with modifications to games being sold on steam. I give the edge to Valve here.

 

[derFeef]

I didn't know Valve hired him. Good for them, it doesn't actually change the legal situation, since this is about, you know, trademarks.

I don't know why you're "pretty sure".

Why would they want to prevent it (that late) ?

 

[Dinosaur Tamer]

I don't know why you're "pretty sure".

Read the thread. There is a pending trademark for "Defense of the Ancients" and Blizzard already announced Blizzard DOTA.

One would need to be pretty naive to think Blizzard is just opposing Valve, because they think that's the morally right thing to do/because they think the name belongs to the community. They are opposing it purely out of business reasons. Like acquiring the trademarks to protect their upcoming DOTA game.

 

[FieryBalrog]

I don't know about "claim" it, but Blizzard claims explicitly that DOTA is under license from them in their notice of opposition.

By this Opposition, Blizzard seeks to prevent registration by its competitor 
Valve Corporation ("Valve") of a trademark, DOTA, that for more than seven years has 
been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community, under license from Blizzard.

There's little ambiguity in their position.

That's the only way to block Valve from registering it.

 

[massoluk]

/facepalm

7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, sell, auction, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer all or any portion of the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the Software. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software.

I facepalmed myself after read what I write. Bad wording on my part, but Everquest EULA is simply too vague and was not enforced.

 

[mclem]

Point of order, since it determines exactly what I feel about this:

Are Blizzard claiming that they should have exclusive rights to the name DOTA, or are they just claiming that Valve should *not* have exclusive rights to the name DOTA?

 

[FieryBalrog]

7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, sell, auction, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer all or any portion of the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the Software. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software.

I facepalmed myself after read what I write. Bad wording on my part, but Everquest EULA is simply too vague and was not enforced.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

 

[Evlar]

That's the only way to block Valve from registering it.

I take it, then, that you agree that Blizzard is not just opposing Valve as some disinterested third party but explicitly as the entity legally entitled to license the DOTA trademark. Whatever goals they might have corporately, their legal strategy implies claiming ownership of that IP.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, sell, auction, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer all or any portion of the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the Software. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software.

I facepalmed myself after read what I write. Bad wording on my part, but Everquest EULA is simply too vague and was not enforced.

What does this have to do with... anything?

 

[FieryBalrog]

I take it, then, that you agree that Blizzard is not just opposing Valve as some disinterested third party but explicitly as the entity legally entitled to license the DOTA trademark. Whatever goals they might have corporately, their legal strategy implies claiming ownership of that IP.

Of course. Valve trying to trademark the name forces their hand on that issue.

 

[massoluk]

What does this have to do with... anything?

Derivatives works using arts from EQ are dime and dozen. If you're arguing that Dota used works from Blizzard to argue and EULA forbid it.

You know what, I screwed up. Sorry.
/I'm new.

 

[Dinosaur Tamer]

Point of order, since it determines exactly what I feel about this:

Are Blizzard claiming that they should have exclusive rights to the name DOTA, or are they just claiming that Valve should *not* have exclusive rights to the name DOTA?

Technically they are merely opposing Valve's trademark attempt. However, the wording in the file implies, that they see themselves as the ones actually having exclusive rights to the name.

They also acquired a pending trademark for "Defense of the Ancients", announced a project using the DOTA name (Blizzard DOTA) and have little reason to oppose Valve on this without planning to pick up the trademark themselves.

So, yeah, if you look close enough, it's the former.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Derivatives works using arts from EQ are dime and dozen. If you're arguing that Dota used works from Blizzard to argue and EULA forbid it.

You know what, I screwed up. Sorry.
/I'm new.

Okay, I'll stop being a dick since you were real with us.

Just to be clear, what you were talking about with the derivative works stuff was a copyright issue rather than a trademark one. Very different stuff.

 

[DarkKyo]

GAF is more intelligent than Reddit?

 

[Max Knight]

Except Valve's legal team probably has more experience with these type of issues due to the nature of STEAM's business model and how they work with modifications to games being sold on steam. I give the edge to Valve here.

Mayhap, but a lot of people in this thread seem to be of the attitude that Blizzard doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, and that they're complete idiots for even trying. All I'm saying is that they probably wouldn't just dive into this head-first without having done some research.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Derivatives works using arts from EQ are dime and dozen.

What art was derivative, exactly? Are you saying the art assets in WoW are copied from EQ? The source code?

Or, uh, what?

 

[Doc Holliday]

One more stupid question

Lets say Blizzard makes Team fortress 3, Valve can sue because they own TeamFortress 2.

So technically Valve can sue Blizzard for using Blizzard Dota? Not saying they would or will but they could right?

 

[Woo-Fu]

I was uncomfortable with Valve attempting to trademark "Dota" in the first place. I seem to recall many people thinking that might not be appropriate.

That said, I believe Valve has done more with "Dota" and for the community in the last couple years than Blizzard has done since "DOTA" was created.

Long story short, I'm comfortable with "you snooze, you lose" being the ultimate response to Blizzard. Whatever Dota 2 ends up being called it is going to shit all over Blizzard DOTA, both in terms of gameplay and ongoing support/balancing. You can take that to the bank.

 

[vaelic]

shouldnt Games Workshop sue Blizzard for stealing Warhammer and using it in WOW, then?

 

[Grecco]

Point of order, since it determines exactly what I feel about this:

Are Blizzard claiming that they should have exclusive rights to the name DOTA, or are they just claiming that Valve should *not* have exclusive rights to the name DOTA?

Right now they are claiming that Valve should not have exclusive rights to the name

 

[Doc Holliday]

I was uncomfortable with Valve attempting to trademark "Dota" in the first place. I seem to recall many people thinking that might not be appropriate.

That said, I believe Valve has done more with "Dota" and for the community in the last couple years than Blizzard has done since "DOTA" was created.

Long story short, I'm comfortable with "you snooze, you lose" being the ultimate response to Blizzard. Whatever Dota 2 ends up being called it is going to shit all over Blizzard DOTA, both in terms of gameplay and ongoing support/balancing. You can take that to the bank.

yea because Blizzard has a history of not supporting their games...oh wait. Both Valve and Blizzard are amazing at supporting their legacy products. Shit Counterstrike, Diablo and SC still get patches.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

One more stupid question

Lets say Blizzard makes Team fortress 3, Valve can sue because they own TeamFortress 2.

So technically Valve can sue Blizzard for using Blizzard Dota? Not saying they would or will but they could right?

Uh... i think you have the second part of that statement backwards.

But okay: Team Fortress is a trademark, right? Yes, it is. Well, Valve has that trademark, because they've been using it for a long, long time and there's a lot of good will built up around that name. Now, Blizzard swoops in and makes Team Fortress 3. WTF! That causes consumer confusion, because people would reasonably be expecting a Valve game... but it's a bait-n-switch! And the test for trademark infringement is basically the likelihood that something is going to create consumer confusion, through the use of a similar name, particularly with a similar good or service. So Valve would have to go to the court and say "Hey, stop these assholes from using the Team Fortress name! They're devaluing our use of it!" And the court would say "yeah, you have a point. Okay Blizzard, piss off and find a different name to use."

Does that help at all?

 

[Doc Holliday]

shouldnt Games Workshop sue Blizzard for stealing Warhammer and using it in WOW, then?

Wow is called World of Warcraft, not World of Warhammer

Uh... i think you have the second part of that statement backwards.

But okay: Team Fortress is a trademark, right? Yes, it is. Well, Valve has that trademark, because they've been using it for a long, long time and there's a lot of good will built up around that name. Now, Blizzard swoops in and makes Team Fortress 3. WTF! That causes consumer confusion, because people would reasonably be expecting a Valve game... but it's a bait-n-switch! And the test for trademark infringement is basically the likelihood that something is going to create consumer confusion, through the use of a similar name, particularly with a similar good or service.

Does that help at all?

I get that part, but lets say Dota 2 is huge, which it will be. Can valve in the future if they own the trademark to Dota 2 come back and sue Blizzard for using the name Dota?

 

[Dinosaur Tamer]

I get that part, but lets say Dota 2 is huge, which it will be. Can valve in the future if they own the trademark to Dota 2 come back and sue Blizzard for using the name Dota?

If they use it after the trademark was given to Valve, then yes, of course, they can.

 

[FieryBalrog]

shouldnt Games Workshop sue Blizzard for stealing Warhammer and using it in WOW, then?

They can certainly try.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I get that part, but lets say Dota 2 is huge, which it will be. Can valve in the future if they own the trademark to Dota 2 come back and sue Blizzard for using the name Dota?

Ohhh, I see what you're saying. And the only context I could really see that working in is if Blizzard does nothing to stop Valve from using the DOTA 2 name, and then later try to make a World of DOTA or something... in which case, Valve probably could argue that Blizzard abandoned the mark because they did nothing to protect it, and if the court agrees, then yeah, Valve could take action against Blizzard for creating a later DOTA game.

 

[Evlar]

If they use it after the trademark was given to Valve, then yes, of course, they can.

One of the possible reasons for Blizzard taking this action may be that they want to ensure Valve's DOTA trademark is held distinct from 'Defense of the Ancients'. Valve has stated it publicly, but this opposition will probably force them to declare in response to the opposition that DOTA is not an acronym for 'Defense of the Ancients' or anything else.

EDIT: It's a little interesting that Valve actually claim they are without knowledge of "Defense of the Ancients" (the title) in their answer.

 

[FieryBalrog]

This kind of thread always devolves into "I like Steam! Go Valve!" vs "I like WoW! Go Blizzard!" or whatever rather than any actual legal knowledge or discussions on ethics.

 

[derFeef]

They can certainly try.

I think that actually happened.

 

[zlatko]

Bad play Blizzard, bad play.

 

[charlequin]

Quite frankly, there is no legitimate, principled stance by which one can claim to support the concept of copyright/trademark protection for artists and simultaneously support sleazy copyright-theft EULAs like the one Blizzard is trying to wield in this case. Purely on this principle, anyone who supports actual content creators should be taking Valve's side on this issue.

This kind of thread always devolves into "I like Steam! Go Valve!" vs "I like WoW! Go Blizzard!" or whatever rather than any actual legal knowledge or discussions on ethics.

Alright, let's talk ethics. What's the ethical upside on the position "Currently trademark and copyright law make it difficult to implicitly or pre-emptively sign away your rights to something you've created to a third-party, but it would be morally good to weaken those principles and enable implict and accidental transfer of ownership"?

 

[Levito]

shouldnt Games Workshop sue Blizzard for stealing Warhammer and using it in WOW, then?

Yeah they'll be there right alongside James Cameron as he sues Bungie for stealing from Aliens.


And then Robert A. Heinlein is going to sue ALL OF THEM from stealing from the original Starship Troopers novel.

 

[Buzzati]

This kind of thread always devolves into "I like Steam! Go Valve!" vs "I like WoW! Go Blizzard!" or whatever rather than any actual legal knowledge or discussions on ethics.

12 pages in and people still think Blizzard is suing Valve, or that trademarks have anything to do with assets of the game, or that Blizzard didn't "support" Dota (even though they heavily promoted Dota tournaments at Blizzcon since 2005). Of course participating in these threads is a waste of time. And now I just wasted mine.

 

[vaelic]

Wow is called World of Warcraft, not World of Warhammer



I get that part, but lets say Dota 2 is huge, which it will be. Can valve in the future if they own the trademark to Dota 2 come back and sue Blizzard for using the name Dota?

you do realize Blizzard stole everything in the wow universe from the warhammer books/board games right?

 

[mclem]

This kind of thread always devolves into "I like Steam! Go Valve!" vs "I like WoW! Go Blizzard!" or whatever rather than any actual legal knowledge or discussions on ethics.

But I like *both*!

That's rather why I'm conflicted.