Just like 95% of modern fantasy fiction steals from Tolkien? And Tolkien stole from pagan mythology?
SIMPSONS DID IT! SIMPSONS DID IT!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blizzard Legally Opposes Valve Trademark Over DOTA Name [Up: Trial Schedule]
- Thread starter Drkirby
- Start date
Just like 95% of modern fantasy fiction steals from Tolkien? And Tolkien stole from pagan mythology?
SIMPSONS DID IT! SIMPSONS DID IT!
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I know that, im saying that't what this issue is about. Blizzard is trying to stop the name from being trademarked...not the actual idea. Blizzard trademarked World Of Warcraft, an Warcraft. They never tried to trademark Warhammer.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
I fully support this.
DOTA's success stems from WarCraft III and has been associated with that community for years. The fact that Valve had the gall the just take the name and throw a 2 on the end has pissed me off to no end ever since they announced it.
Valve usually does just about everything right, but this is one of their severe missteps. If League of Legends can flourish with a different name, so can their knock-off.
DOTA's success stems from WarCraft III and has been associated with that community for years. The fact that Valve had the gall the just take the name and throw a 2 on the end has pissed me off to no end ever since they announced it.
Valve usually does just about everything right, but this is one of their severe missteps. If League of Legends can flourish with a different name, so can their knock-off.
I like both as well and I know that Blizzard is being a little bitch in this case.
Feel the Swift
Member
Yep. I have a feeling this is everyone at Valve.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Mom and Dad are fighting 
Pretty much this.
Rockin' Ranger
Member
Which is pretty much exactly an Ultima Online Water Elemental. Which is pretty much the same as every water elemental before that. Which is pretty much the same as every water elemental in fantasy before that.
I hope Dota 2's Troll Warlord isn't too similar to any troll in Warcraft 3.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I posted too soon (without fully reading into this) and said something stupid!
If Blizzard is just against Valve claiming the DOTA trademark (and aren't necessarily trying to claim it for their own use), then I'm fine with what they're doing!
If Blizzard is just against Valve claiming the DOTA trademark (and aren't necessarily trying to claim it for their own use), then I'm fine with what they're doing!
Technosteve
Banned
They did and won, i would think GAF would be old enough to have remember all that from PCGamer's glory days. They sued for Starcraft and Warcraft, Blizzard in turn settled and licensed with Games Workshop.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Blizzards game is called Blizzard DOTA
we.are.the.armada
Member
It's slim, yet possible, that a brief can be made showing that somewhere in Blizzard's TOA for Warcraft 3 there is language that supports their case.
I think that one purpose of this is in which Blizzard examines their possibility of being a forthcoming appellant. But it could be possible that Blizzard simply wants to create a precedent for later similar cases based on discoveries in this one. Maybe Blizzard feels that they need to do this so that they know their limits (ie. a forthcoming game titled DoTA or similar and they want to mitigate confusion).
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Didn't someone post that Riot Games trademarked DotA and sold it to Blizzard?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Are they going to try and trademark DOTA? Or are they just going to trademark the title "Blizzard DOTA"?
It seems like Blizzard is trying to get DOTA recognized as a genre like RPG and not a trademarked game name.
I believe they owned Defense of the Ancients, but not Dota.
Littlegator
Banned
Isn't this all first the result that there is the technicality that you must defend a trademark, or else you have abandoned it?
This isn't actually Blizzard trying to stop Valve but rather keep it from being exclusive to Valve.
This isn't actually Blizzard trying to stop Valve but rather keep it from being exclusive to Valve.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
Riot filed an opposition for Valve's trademark of Dota. Riot then trademarked Defense of the Ancients and sold the LLC that the trademark was filed under to Blizzard sometime last year.
The difference here is that this is not a knock-off. This is Dota.
So has anyone explained how this situation is logically different from Unknown Worlds taking the Natural Selection mod, trademarking Natural Selection 2 and selling it?
Do they not have the right to do it because the original game was on Valve's Half-Life engine?
Do they not have the right to do it because the original game was on Valve's Half-Life engine?
This isn't court. They're filing a dispute against Valve's trademark application. It barely costs them anything to do this. This isn't going to court.
No difference that I know of.
Main difference being that Valve isn't making their own Natural Selection, probably
jim-jam bongs
Member
Sheesh, I know it's the internet but people shouldn't be trying so hard to find a bad guy in all this, I'm not sure that there really is one.
Valve saw that people were already using the acronym DOTA in relation to commercial MOBA products, so they trademarked it to preemptively protect themselves should someone else do it down the line. Blizzard, one of the companies which openly uses the acronym, are now concerned that Valve will prevent them from using it if they win the trademark so they're opposing it.
It's actually just rather boring legal posturing, I'm not sure it warrants many of the more... passionate responses in this thread.
Valve saw that people were already using the acronym DOTA in relation to commercial MOBA products, so they trademarked it to preemptively protect themselves should someone else do it down the line. Blizzard, one of the companies which openly uses the acronym, are now concerned that Valve will prevent them from using it if they win the trademark so they're opposing it.
It's actually just rather boring legal posturing, I'm not sure it warrants many of the more... passionate responses in this thread.
GoofsterStud
Member
I hope they can counter sue for damages.
Brand Damage
Good Will (mistreatment)
Time
Finances for the lawsuit, and potential (if slightly exaggerated) delays this could cause the game.
I really hope they can get $$$ from Blizzard. It's that big corporate bulling comes at a price!
Brand Damage
Good Will (mistreatment)
Time
Finances for the lawsuit, and potential (if slightly exaggerated) delays this could cause the game.
I really hope they can get $$$ from Blizzard. It's that big corporate bulling comes at a price!
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
This has nothing to do with copyrights, and even if it did, you don't have to prove you're still using something in order to keep it.
Copyrights and trademarks are not the same thing, kids. I'm not making this up.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Well, none of that is going to happen.
Nah, Blizzard should make a cartoony team-based multiplayer FPS/hat simulator and trademark the name "TF3". No one would have a problem with that, I bet.
jim-jam bongs
Member
No don't you get it? That was a serious post and not another lame parroting of the Reddit meme about Episode 3 taking a long time.
Mom and Dad are fighting
This made me laugh
Sorry - was a bad joke. Legally I'd have thought the name belongs to the original creator, rather than the platform on which he distributed his title. It seems like a dick move trying to take control of something they didn't create - at least Valve gave the guy a job and dev team.
GhostRidah
Member
You have to be really gullible and naive to think Blizzard wants the name for the community only, especially when you consider everything they have been doing after the whole Activision partnership.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I see.... I probably would've picked up on it if there weren't so many people who have no clue what they're talking about in here
Main difference being that Valve isn't making their own Natural Selection, probably
You lost your S2 tag?
jim-jam bongs
Member
They want it to be unfettered legally so that they don't get into trouble for using it in the future, that's all. If they manage to have the application rejected and then make one of their own, well then we can start talking about what a pack of evil bastards they are, but until then let's try to inject some common-sense into the discussion.
He works at Riot now.You lost your S2 tag?
Mom and Dad are fighting
Fuck that, mom became a whore in 2008 and has been giving it away for free to evil people.
Neuromancer
Member
Blizzard is going to crush them.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't care for either company particularly. That's just what's going to happen. This makes total sense:
I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't care for either company particularly. That's just what's going to happen. This makes total sense:
Blizzard made DotA?
decoyplatypus
Member
Valve may lose this case. If the court buys that "DOTA" is descriptive of a kind of game (almost like a genre unto itself), Valve will have a hard time showing the acronym has acquired a secondary meaning tying it specifically to Valve when the same acronym was (and is, correct?) in use for the earlier game.
I can't help but feel that Blizzard challenging the copyright with the terms and uses of the EULA creates a chilling warning to any modders looking at using their tools in the future. Why would you create all these assets for your community to create their own content then turn around and claim all their work belongs to you without them having any say?
Wasn't Blizzard DOTA suppose to just be an example of what you could create with their tools? It seems more like an example of what they'll do with your concepts if you create something successful with it.
Wasn't Blizzard DOTA suppose to just be an example of what you could create with their tools? It seems more like an example of what they'll do with your concepts if you create something successful with it.
MisterHero
Super Member
okay this has annoyed me long enough
what the hell does DOTA mean
what the hell does DOTA mean
Not quite the same. Valve already has a trademark for "Team Fortress", a product they've been working on various iterations of for over a decade. Blizzard does not have one for "Defense of the Ancients", a product they have never actively worked on until the very recent Blizzard DOTA.
But they've got a pending trademark for "Defense of the Ancients", and they're opposing Valve's claim to "DOTA" on the grounds that the IP is rightfully theirs. If their counter-claim goes through and they don't go through with their own trademark, what does that say about their case against Valve?
Defense of the Ancients.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I'm sure Valve is only making Dota 2 and trademarking out of kindness to the community.
Because you need Warcraft 3 to play the original DOTA, Blizzard owns the trademark for the name of the game that they didn't even come up with?
Man WHAT?
also
fuck bobby kotick.
Exactly. This just proves the absurdity of all of this. Fans arguing over which billion/multimillion dollar company gets to make more money off of them. Sweet.