• 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.

Killer Instinct trademark application/renewal refused by the USPTO

G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Chacranajxy said:
So how did Fox get the Killer Instinct mark in the first place? Was the video game registration deemed abandoned? I suppose it could've been since it just laid dormant since KI Gold (unless there's a GBA release I'm forgetting or something, but even then, that would've been years prior to the 2005 show.)

Kinda sucks for MS/Rare, because the Killer Instinct name is literally the only thing that'll get people excited about the game.

Let this be a reminder: Protect your IP, kids.
Click to expand...

Every 5 years you have to file a Section 8 declaration (and later its every 10). Nintendo filed it in 2001 but failed to in 2006. Not so coincidentally, Fox's trademark application started moving forward once Nintendo's was cancelled.

Honestly, I'm not sure there was anything Microsoft could have done. Even if they had gone ahead and made a Killer Instinct game earlier, they would have been conflicting with either Nintendo's or Fox's trademark. There wasn't any gap time where they could have swooped in and stole it.
 
R

rbenchley

Member
I usually loathe the USPTO and the nonsense they get up to, but if they're doing their part to protect gamers from drivel like Killer Instinct, it's possible that they might have some redeeming qualities.
 
D

DragonSworne

Banned
I never even heard of the TV show

Wouldn't it be more confusing if they released a game called Killer Instinct that is based on the TV show and not the game series?
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Hero of Legend said:
How the fuck did Nintendo retain the TM for four years after the buyout?

Wouldn't that have allowed them to make a new entry, or did Rare/MS own everything (characters, assets) and just couldn't make a new game with the exact name?

Nintendo should've done this with Banjo. :(
Click to expand...

Well to answer your questions in order:

1.) Once you're granted a trademark you only need to reapply every 5 years (at first). Assuming that you're actively defending it of course.

2.) The latter is likely correct though no one knows the exact details of the Rare buyout.

3.) Nintendo actually gave Rare the Banjo-Kazooie trademark in 2004!
 
Danny Dudekisser

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
grandjedi6 said:
Every 5 years you have to file a Section 8 declaration (and later its every 10). Nintendo filed it in 2001 but failed to in 2006. Not so coincidentally, Fox's trademark application started moving forward once Nintendo's was cancelled.

Honestly, I'm not sure there was anything Microsoft could have done. Even if they had gone ahead and made a Killer Instinct game earlier, they would have been conflicting with either Nintendo's or Fox's trademark. There wasn't any gap time where they could have swooped in and stole it.
Click to expand...

Okay, cool. Just wasn't sure how active Nintendo was on that front. Given the laid-back approach to bidness and law the industry took in the 90s, I'm surprised Nintendo even bothered to renew it in 2001.

Trademark law is the most frustrating IP law for reasons like this. It really does sound like MS was just screwed from the start, if that's actually how things played out.
 
H

Hero of Legend

Member
grandjedi6 said:
Well to answer your questions in order:

1.) Once you're granted a trademark you only need to reapply every 5 years (at first). Assuming that you're actively defending it of course.

2.) The latter is likely correct though no one knows the exact details of the Rare buyout.

3.) Nintendo actually gave Rare the Banjo-Kazooie trademark in 2004!
Click to expand...

Why did Nintendo give away the Banjo trademark? They doomed the franchise in doing so. :'(
 
A

ArjanN

Member
*Googles*

So a Fox show from 7 years ago that no-one heard of, and didn't even last a full season.

Yeah, I'm sure lots of people would confuse it with that...

On the plus side, this might actually show us if they plan to do anything with Killer Instinct or not.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Chacranajxy said:
Okay, cool. Just wasn't sure how active Nintendo was on that front. Given the laid-back approach to bidness and law the industry took in the 90s, I'm surprised Nintendo even bothered to renew it in 2001.

Trademark law is the most frustrating IP law for reasons like this. It really does sound like MS was just screwed from the start, if that's actually how things played out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it can be pretty complicated and annoying. I'm sure Microsoft's lawyers thought they had at least a decent chance of being granted the trademark.

Hero of Legend said:
Why did Nintendo give away the Banjo trademark? They doomed the franchise in doing so. :'(
Click to expand...

Why not? Its not like Nintendo gained anything from having the trademark "Banjo-Kazooie" and nothing else associated with the series. Plus it helped simplify things immensely when Rare began releasing the GBA Banjo games which Nintendo had no formal role in (Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge was actually the product submitted for evidence of usage when Rare took over the trademark).
 
Z

ZombieSupaStar

Member
ok so they didnt get Banjo, Golden Eye, KI, or Donkey Kong Country


.....wtf did microsoft actually GET when they bought rare? (besides "owned lololol")
 
H

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
ArjanN said:
*Googles*

So a Fox show from 7 years ago that no-one heard of, and didn't even last a full season.

Yeah, I'm sure lots of people would confuse it with that...
Click to expand...

The idea is that they would confuse it with the trademark for any video game based on the TV show Killer Instinct. Whether or not that video game exists, Fox still trademarked the name for video games when they created the show, on the off chance that the show was popular enough to spawn one.

The fact that the show was cancelled by the network doesn't erase their ownership of the trademark.
 
B

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
oAYFp.jpg
 
M

MightyHedgehog

Member
Call it KI and KI 2. Don't bother with the full names if they can't get it back or pay Fox some monies to at least allow the release with the old names. Put it on XBLA with online and a training mode and yer set for easy money.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Htown said:
The idea is that they would confuse it with the trademark for any video game based on the TV show Killer Instinct. Whether or not that video game exists, Fox still trademarked the name for video games when they created the show, on the off chance that the show was popular enough to spawn one.

The fact that the show was cancelled by the network doesn't erase their ownership of the trademark.
Click to expand...

Quick correction: Fox actually didn't trademark it for video games. Instead the USPTO is arguing that the goods (tv shows and video games) are so connected that it would create confusion if the two were to coexist.

The USPTO has a long string of evidence to connect the goods of tv shows and video games, from the similarity in trademarks between NCIS (the show) and Terraria (the game), to the fact that IGN covers both tv shows and video games together.
 
R

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member
DopeyFish said:
Wait why does uspto list the mark as live for MS if its been denied?
Click to expand...
As long as the mark is not abandoned or cancelled, it will be considered "Live".

OnPoint said:
Also, why haven't they revamped Jet Force Gemini?
Click to expand...
No idea, but seeing as one Ukrainian guy (Roman Bilko) and four US guys (Joe Ortiz, Michael Grover and Paul Richey) on the 30th of August this year trademarked Jet Force Gemini (serial number 85717170), it could be difficult for Rare to renew their marks (one is abandoned, one is cancelled). It's not published for opposition yet though.

webcontentxxorm.jpg
Click to expand...
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
OnPoint said:
The Killer Instinct.

Why not? Hollywood did it with stuff like that Final Destination sequel.
Click to expand...
Because "The Killer Instinct" would still violate and cause confusion with "killer instinct" lol

DopeyFish said:
Wait why does uspto list the mark as live for MS if its been denied?
Click to expand...

Because Microsoft has 6 months to respond to the refusal and argue against it (if they want to).
 
X

Xater

Member
On the ne hand it's pretty funny that MS never bothered with the IP and now it is biting them i the ass. On the other hand it is super retarded because the game existed way before the TV thing.
 
G

GitarooMan

Member
MS will probably just work something out with Fox. Or if they can't they may try to just show that Fox is not actively using the trademark
 
D

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
It won't be hard to argue against it simply because games are not TV shows

It doesn't matter if some games become tv shows or some TV shows become games

Fox didn't apply for games
MS didn't apply for TV show

And using a fox subsidiary (ign) as a source is kind of funny
 
C

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
If they have a halfway decent trademark counsel, this would stop them for about 9 seconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Remedy Entertainment Trademarks Its Next Game, Firebreak
Rumor
1
554
Dazraell replied
[Jez Corden] OPINION: This week's big Xbox drama showcases how little people trust Nadella's Microsoft — a legacy forged in the death of Windows Phone
2 3 4
164
12K
Rosoboy19 replied
Ubisoft Files Trademark For Splinter Cell Following Reports Of A New Installment In Development
Game Dev
2
665
Flintty replied
Microsoft-Activision is a done deal – but what if the FTC still wins? Ask Whole Foods.
News
14
2K
Kuranghi replied
  • Poll
[DFC Intelligence] Does Nintendo Have the Best Online Subscription Service?
23
2K
Bruno_Arrais85 replied
Top Bottom