Support NeoGAF

[Slavik81]

A great deal of Valve's public image and reputation, which is a pretty big deal to everyone involved (fans, customers, Valve's heads). If Valve let Blizzard Dota pass by in the media without incident and then suddenly started raising a ruckus down the line, it'd look pretty rank.

They can't just ignore it if they do have DotA trademarked. Blizzard DotA would definitely dilute Valve's claim.

 

[Sibylus]

I wouldn't know the particulars, but Dota 2 predating Blizzard Dota (by what may turn out to be years) wouldn't be sufficient? If not, would a suit be strictly necessary?

 

[undu]

Ummm here's the full quote which you have done"

By this Opposition, Blizzard seeks to prevent registration by its competitor
Valve Corporation ("Valve") of a trademark, DOTA,

Blizzard doesn't claim trademark, Blizzard "seeks to prevent registration" by Valve of a trademark, DOTA. The term trademark was used because Valve filed the DOTA marks as a trademark, not Blizzard.

Paragraph 15 - I agree the WC3 community have begun to associate with the DOTA marks in relation to Blizzard products (Warcraft 3). This is true.

Paragraph 16 - Blizzard has promoted DotA via the DOTA marks in all the scenarios listed, this is true also.

Paragraph 17 - Blizzard has allowed the third-party sites to exploit the DOTA marks in consistence with the EULA, this is true too.

Paragraph 18 - Blizzard has allowed other third parties to exploit DOTA marks (Basshunter's "Dota"), true again.

Paragraph 19 - It is true when one thinks "Dota" one thinks of "Warcraft 3." True.

Paragraph 20 - DotA has used Blizzard intellectual property, true.

Paragraph 21 - Yes, Riot Games gave the rights of Defense of the Ancients LLC to Blizzard.

So where in those paragraphs did Blizzard outright state they own the DOTA marks again?

I agree with many things you say, but not that Blizzard owns the DotA trademark because an EULA (the mod as a whole may be tied to the EULA, not solely the name)

and Riot games didn't gave the rights of Defense of the Ancients LLC to Blizzard, instead it gave the rights of DotA-Allstars, LLC. Which may appear to be the same, but I think it doesn't, Feak and Mescon didn't get DotA, LLC for a reason, probably because they could claim that name.

 

[Sciz]

So where in those paragraphs did Blizzard outright state they own the DOTA marks again?

You can't license a term you have no legal claim to. Either:

A. Blizzard does have a claim to the name and is the legal holder of the trademark, even if they've never officially filed for it (and that's pending, keep in mind)
B. Blizzard doesn't have a claim to the name and every part of their argument against Valve that relies on them licensing it is completely invalid.

 

[Deadly]

I'll bite.

-It is true that Eul made DotA and was built upon by Guinsoo and most recently IceFrog. However Guinsoo's/IceFrog's DotA wasn't the only DotA. In fact IceFrog's DotA (DotA Allstars) was actually a DotA which imported tons of popular heores from other less-known people's DotA mods into one game (hence the term 'Allstars'). It is also a community game for the purpose of the community supporting the mod in the first place for so long.

I just want to say Guinsoo is the one that started Dota allstars. And while I can't say with 100% certainty, there was very few dota knockoffs and either way they all sucked. I'm only talking about the "dota x" maps here. I still have some and well I remember only trying it out and not ever playing it again. And yes I'm talking from a 2003 perspective. If you'd credit some other moba type maps it would have to be Tides of Blood which at a certain point was much more popular than DotA-allstars.

 

[Haly]

Man Tides of Blood was so good. If only a dedicated modder picked that up.

It had a ton of crazy custom textures and models and spells.

 

[speedpop]

Hah

 

[Deadly]

Man Tides of Blood was so good. If only a dedicated modder picked that up.

It had a ton of crazy custom textures and models and spells.

Yeah it's quite unfortunate it died off. The lack of updates is what let dota overtake it. I checked on their forums recently and apparently they wanted to make a version but on SC2 but I don't think the plans went through.

Also, I'm pretty sure Kunkka's ult is a straight ripoff of ToB's pirate's ult.

On topic though, what would Valve have to lose if Blizzard does win and they have no intention of using the trademark for their own in the future. Afterall, they are currently only opposing the trademark. I also have to add if anyone deserves the trademark currently it would have to be Valve since Eul and Icefrog works there.

P.S. How do we know Eul joined Valve? Source?

 

[SteveWinwood]

P.S. How do we know Eul joined Valve? Source?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=443318

 

[Evlar]

You can't license a term you have no legal claim to. Either:

A. Blizzard does have a claim to the name and is the legal holder of the trademark, even if they've never officially filed for it (and that's pending, keep in mind)
B. Blizzard doesn't have a claim to the name and every part of their argument against Valve that relies on them licensing it is completely invalid.

There ought to be no confusion here. In their Notice of Opposition Blizzard states that their Grounds for Opposition is "priority and likelihood of confusion" under Trademark Act Section 2(d). This section requires a trademark to be denied on the grounds that it will cause confusion among the public with another registered or not-abandoned trademark. Specifically:

Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive:

So, if Blizzard is opposing Valve for having another registered or not-abandoned trademark that might be confused with DOTA, what are those trademarks? That is also stated explicitly in the Notice: the Mark Cited by Opposer as Basis of Opposition is "Defense of the Ancients; DotA; Dota; DOTA".

Thus Blizzard's grounds for opposition is that they control the mark. There is no notion of it belonging to the community here.

 

[Angelus Errare]

OBJECTION!!

 

[AnathemicOne]

There ought to be no confusion here. In their Notice of Opposition Blizzard states that their Grounds for Opposition is "priority and likelihood of confusion" under Trademark Act Section 2(d). This section requires a trademark to be denied on the grounds that it will cause confusion among the public with another registered or not-abandoned trademark. Specifically:


So, if Blizzard is opposing Valve for having another registered or not-abandoned trademark that might be confused with DOTA, what are those trademarks? That is also stated explicitly in the Notice: the Mark Cited by Opposer as Basis of Opposition is "Defense of the Ancients; DotA; Dota; DOTA".

Thus Blizzard's grounds for opposition is that they control the mark. There is no notion of it belonging to the community here.

"Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned..."

"Or" in the English language indicates separation of the clauses to be unrelated. Now the phrase after "Or" is used is

"a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned..."

Now where in that part says the mark/trade name has to be registered formally?

----

Link to the section in question http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

 

[AnathemicOne]

I just want to say Guinsoo is the one that started Dota allstars. And while I can't say with 100% certainty, there was very few dota knockoffs and either way they all sucked. I'm only talking about the "dota x" maps here. I still have some and well I remember only trying it out and not ever playing it again. And yes I'm talking from a 2003 perspective. If you'd credit some other moba type maps it would have to be Tides of Blood which at a certain point was much more popular than DotA-allstars.

Exactly, said DotA knockoffs became integrated (the good part such as popular heroes) into DotA Allstars.

As for Tides of Blood, I miss that game.

 

[Sciz]

Now where in that part says the mark/trade name has to be registered formally?

It doesn't, and the ability to file a counterclaim on behalf of an unregistered trademark is the only reason why Blizzard even has a foot in the door. I'm sure it's possible to file a counterclaim protesting a registration on behalf of a third party (e.g. the public), but Blizzard's argument positions them as the licensor and owner of DOTA via the EULA. They're not arguing from the point of it being a generic term that no one should be able to register, which is what they should be doing if they really want it to belong to the community.

 

[AnathemicOne]

It doesn't, and the ability to file a counterclaim on behalf of an unregistered trademark is the only reason why Blizzard even has a foot in the door. I'm sure it's possible to file a counterclaim protesting a registration on behalf of a third party (e.g. the public), but Blizzard's argument positions them as the licensor and owner of DOTA via the EULA. They're not arguing from the point of it being a generic term that no one should be able to register, which is what they should be doing if they really want it to belong to the community.

Even if they are arguing from the position of licensor/owner (which nowhere in the document to they outright claim to be) the claim itself doesn't seek to register the trademark for their own, it only seeks to deny Valve's registration of the mark.

 

[Sciz]

Even if they are arguing from the position of licensor/owner (which nowhere in the document to they outright claim to be)

There is an entire section titled "Blizzard's Rights In And To The DotA Marks", where they talk about having used them extensively (which is part of what constitutes a legal claim to an unregistered trademark) and having licensed them to third parties (which they cannot do if they don't hold the mark). How are they not arguing from the position of ownership? They don't have to say "this is our mark" to use language that has the same effect.

the claim itself doesn't seek to register the trademark for their own, it only seeks to deny Valve's registration of the mark.

Because this is a counterclaim, which isn't the place to get a registration. That would be for their own pending registration.

 

[FanTomasas]

Oh Blizzard. This is not about the Starcraft map, this is about stealing Valve's DOTA customers to upcoming Blizzard's DOTA game.

 

[AnathemicOne]

There is an entire section titled "Blizzard's Rights In And To The DotA Marks", where they talk about having used them extensively (which is part of what constitutes a legal claim to an unregistered trademark) and having licensed them to third parties (which they cannot do if they don't hold the mark). How are they not arguing from the position of ownership? They don't have to say "this is our mark" to use language that has the same effect.



Because this is a counterclaim, which isn't the place to get a registration. That would be for their own pending registration.

Yes I've already addressed that an entire section to someone else in the thread, you can skim for it if you want (it is probably on the previous page). Without re-quoting myself, the entire section is basically Blizzard explaining how they used the DOTA marks extensively for seven years and use this position of prior usage to contest Valve on the registration.

The only marks Blizzard has a legal claim to expressed in the document is the one given to them by Riot Games.

 

[Togglesworlh]

Yes I've already addressed that an entire section to someone else in the thread, you can skim for it if you want (it is probably on the previous page). Without re-quoting myself, the entire section is basically Blizzard explaining how they used the DOTA marks extensively for seven years and use this position of prior usage to contest Valve on the registration.

The only marks Blizzard has a legal claim to expressed in the document is the one given to them by Riot Games.

Even if they are arguing from the position of licensor/owner (which nowhere in the document to they outright claim to be) the claim itself doesn't seek to register the trademark for their own, it only seeks to deny Valve's registration of the mark.

what the fuck are you talking about

the whole point of that section (and, indeed, the entire document) is to claim ownership

are you kidding me

 

[AnathemicOne]

what the fuck are you talking about

the whole point of that section (and, indeed, the entire document) is to claim ownership

are you kidding me

Find me a passage in the claim that expresses Blizzard's ownership to the DOTA marks. And please don't outright state that "the whole document is proof!" give me an actual quote.

 

[Togglesworlh]

I'm now convinced you are a troll. Have a good day!

 

[Deadly]

Exactly, said DotA knockoffs became integrated (the good part such as popular heroes) into DotA Allstars.

As for Tides of Blood, I miss that game.

Except that there were no good parts.

It's funny. You'd think out of all of gaf we'd have at least one lawyer who could give us a truly valid opinion of the case.

 

[Sciz]

Yes I've already addressed that an entire section to someone else in the thread, you can skim for it if you want (it is probably on the previous page). Without re-quoting myself, the entire section is basically Blizzard explaining how they used the DOTA marks extensively for seven years and use this position of prior usage to contest Valve on the registration.

The only marks Blizzard has a legal claim to expressed in the document is the one given to them by Riot Games.

If Blizzard is arguing against Valve on the basis that they've been using the marks for the last seven years, then they must have a legal claim to the marks. That's how unregistered trademarks work. It's the only way that argument holds any force. If they don't have a legal claim to the marks, then it doesn't matter what Valve is doing because Blizzard doesn't have any ground to stand on in the first place.

The only way for them to fight Valve on this without taking the marks for themselves is to insist that they're public domain, which they aren't doing.

It's funny. You'd think out of all of gaf we'd have at least one lawyer who could give us a truly valid opinion of the case.

Someone needs to drag Phisheep in here.

 

[AnathemicOne]

If Blizzard is arguing against Valve on the basis that they've been using the marks for the last seven years, then they must have a legal claim to the marks. That's how unregistered trademarks work. It's the only way that argument holds any force. If they don't have a legal claim to the marks, then it doesn't matter what Valve is doing because Blizzard doesn't have any ground to stand on in the first place.

The only way for them to fight Valve on this without taking the marks for themselves is to insist that they're public domain, which they aren't doing.

An implied legal claim, not an explicit one. But yes I've already referred to this. If Blizzard is arguing in position that puts them as a licensor/owner of the marks that is fine, because the document itself is not to give Blizzard a registered trademark, there is no passage that states "we request this trademark to be formally registered to Blizzard Entertainment instead due to ..." this is simply Blizzard attempting to deny Valve's registration.

I'm now convinced you are a troll. Have a good day!

Someone needs to take Debating 101.

Except that there were no good parts.

It's funny. You'd think out of all of gaf we'd have at least one lawyer who could give us a truly valid opinion of the case.

I'm pretty sure the act of importing the popular heroes from all the DotA knockoffs into Allstars in considered a "good part" correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[rac]

Anyone who is arguing that the name dota is for the community is just wrong. You guys should be happy that the name is with valve because if it is anything like tf2, modders will actually be able to add to the game and get paid for doing it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Anyone who is arguing that the name dota is for the community is just wrong. You guys should be happy that the name is with valve because if it is anything like tf2, modders will actually be able to add to the game and get paid for doing it.

Really? I'd think that having the name in the public domain would benefit everyone more given that nothing precludes modders from being compensated in that circumstance either.

 

[Sciz]

An implied legal claim, not an explicit one. But yes I've already referred to this. If Blizzard is arguing in position that puts them as a licensor/owner of the marks that is fine, because the document itself is not to give Blizzard a registered trademark, there is no passage that states "we request this trademark to be formally registered to Blizzard Entertainment instead due to ..." this is simply Blizzard attempting to deny Valve's registration.

Ignoring the fact that they can't try to register a trademark in a counterclaim, yes. That's fine. That is exactly what is going on. The point I'm trying to make here is that this:

Blizzard simply believed that "DotA" should be a public asset, a public icon for their audience, not something to be made money off of (which again goes against the EULA).

is untrue. They are arguing against Valve's registration not from the point of view that it is a public asset, but that it is and has been Blizzard's mark. And I'll say it one more time, they have a pending trademark. Valve is currently contesting it, but if Blizzard defeats Valve's registration with their current argument, there's nothing to stop it from going through. And if Blizzard just wants the name to be public domain, why does this still exist?

 

[xHAASx]

This is mildly engrossing.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Ignoring the fact that they can't try to register a trademark in a counterclaim, yes. That's fine. That is exactly what is going on. The point I'm trying to make here is that this:



is untrue. They are arguing against Valve's registration not from the point of view that it is a public asset, but that it is and has been Blizzard's mark. And I'll say it one more time, they have a pending trademark. Valve is currently contesting it, but if Blizzard defeats Valve's registration with their current argument, there's nothing to stop it from going through. And if Blizzard just wants the name to be public domain, why does this still exist?

That pending trademark is the one Riot Games gave to Blizzard. From a business PoV why not take it? From a moral PoV, Riot Games gave Blizzard the pending trademark because they had no real claim to it to contest Valve, Blizzard does, so that's why they gave it to Blizzard and hence Blizzard has it.

If that trademark passes, congrats Blizzard has registered DotA-Allstars and rightly so because you can't play DotA-Allstars on any other game other than Warcraft 3.

 

[rac]

Really? I'd think that having the name in the public domain would benefit everyone more given that nothing precludes modders from being compensated in that circumstance either.

How many games using the dota name which were also created by modders from the community are actually profitable?

I guess you guys just want the dota name to stop with the warcraft version and then let companies like blizzard just leech off of the name.

 

[Deadly]

I'm pretty sure the act of importing the popular heroes from all the DotA knockoffs into Allstars in considered a "good part" correct me if I'm wrong.

What I'm saying is that the said knockoffs weren't even popular enough to warrant "popular heroes".

 

[AnathemicOne]

How many games using the dota name which were also created by modders from the community are actually profitable?

I guess you guys just want the dota name to stop with the warcraft version and then let companies like blizzard just leach off of the name.

Yup, let the history of the DotA stay with WC3 and the community and let future projects branch out from it instead of carrying it along like a crutch.

Riot Games has done this with League of Legends. Why can't Valve or IceFrog?

What I'm saying is that the said knockoffs weren't even popular enough to warrant "popular heroes".

True, this still doesn't exempt the fact that the act of importing said knockoff "popular" heroes was derived from the community however (Guinsoo didn't sit down and think of every single hero and their mechanics). Not to mention that DotA's popularity is thanks to the community.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If that trademark passes, congrats Blizzard has registered DotA-Allstars and rightly so because you can't play DotA-Allstars on any other game other than Warcraft 3.

People believe that the company that makes the mod tools should own the game that was created by the mod and all ip related to it?

That's nuts. So many amazing games would have just died. Can you imagine ID using the Team Fortress IP? And having that actually be better for gaming?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

How many games using the dota name which were also created by modders from the community are actually profitable?

I guess you guys just want the dota name to stop with the warcraft version and then let companies like blizzard just leach off of the name.

What the fuck are you on about?

 

[patapuf]

That pending trademark is the one Riot Games gave to Blizzard. From a business PoV why not take it? From a moral PoV, Riot Games gave Blizzard the pending trademark because they had no real claim to it to contest Valve, Blizzard does, so that's why they gave it to Blizzard and hence Blizzard has it.

If that trademark passes, congrats Blizzard has registered DotA-Allstars and rightly so because you can't play DotA-Allstars on any other game other than Warcraft 3.

but blizzard did nothing for the mod. there's countless games that were formerly mods, counterstrike, team fortress, day of defeat etc all retained their name. why is that a bad thing with DOTA?

 

[AnathemicOne]

People believe that the company that makes the mod tools should own the game that was created by the mod and all ip related to it?

That's nuts. So many amazing games would have just died. Can you imagine ID using the Team Fortress IP? And having that actually be better for gaming?

ID isn't Blizzard. And since I'm not a fan of TF or TF2 I wouldn't have an informed opinion on it either way.

but blizzard did nothing for the mod. there's countless games that were formerly mods, counterstrike, team fortress, day of defeat etc all retained their name. why is that a bad thing with DOTA?

Because the community for DotA is still alive and knocking and active on Warcraft 3 and Battle.Net. Can you say the same for those other IPs (arguably Counter-Strike but they've already incorporated into Valve community)?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

ID isn't Blizzard. And since I'm not a fan of TF or TF2 I wouldn't have an informed opinion on it either way.

You don't to be informed about the TF IP to appreciate and understand the positive effects just having such a series still living and existing can have on gaming versus locking it in a vault and never do anything with it.

If Blizzard cherished Dota so much they had almost a decade to commercialize on it. Only now that they see a company taking the IP and capitalizing on it do they want it back.

They had their chance, tough luck to them. Next time pay attention to the modding community.

 

[AnathemicOne]

You don't to be informed about the TF IP to appreciate and understand the positive effects just having such a series still living and existing can have on gaming versus locking it in a vault and never do anything with it.

If Blizzard cherished Dota so much they had almost a decade to commercialize on it. Only now that they see a company taking the IP and capitalizing on it do they want it back.

They had their chance, tough luck to them. Next time pay attention to the modding community.

I repeat again. Blizzard did not trademark the DOTA marks because they did not want to commercialize it. This is their whole point in the claim. The don't what Valve registering the trademark and privatizing it for their own capital gain. This is why in the claim Blizzard refers to it as "7 years of goodwill of allowing the marks to be exploited by..."

And btw they did have a hand in spreading DotA's popularity via hosting DotA tournies/conventions at multiple Blizzcons.

 

[Sciz]

That pending trademark is the one Riot Games gave to Blizzard. From a business PoV why not take it? From a moral PoV, Riot Games gave Blizzard the pending trademark because they had no real claim to it to contest Valve, Blizzard does, so that's why they gave it to Blizzard and hence Blizzard has it.

It never made any sense for Feak and Mescon to try and trademark it either, though. If all they wanted to do was oppose Valve's claim and keep it in the public domain, they just needed to argue that in a counterclaim. And the only way their own registration could've gone through is if they could prove it belonged to them, and by your own admission they really couldn't.

It's completely unnecessary for that application to exist.

If that trademark passes, congrats Blizzard has registered DotA-Allstars and rightly so because you can't play DotA-Allstars on any other game other than Warcraft 3.

If that trademark passes, they get "DEFENSE OF THE ANCIENTS", not "DotA-Allstars" (which was suspended anyway). And Blizzard's argument against Valve insists that Defense of the Ancients is synonymous with DOTA. They're not after Allstars, they're after DOTA itself.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I repeat again. Blizzard did not trademark the DOTA marks because they did not want to commercialize it.

BS

they didn't notice it was something they could make money on until a competitor noticed they could make money off of it.

There was no good will. Blizzard didn't ignore it for 7 years out of the kindness of their hearts. They ignored it because they didn't pay close enough attention to their community.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Warcraft and its art is all so incredibly

Spoiler

tacky

original!

and it all stems from the cancelled Warhammer game blizzard was making for Games Workshop afterall, talk about suing somebody....poor games Workshop.

 

[walking fiend]

BS

they didn't notice it was something they could make money on until a competitor noticed they could make money off of it.

There was no good will. Blizzard didn't ignore it for 7 years out of the kindness of their hearts. They ignored it because they didn't pay close enough attention to their community.

what?!

ID isn't Blizzard. And since I'm not a fan of TF or TF2 I wouldn't have an informed opinion on it either way.

sorry to point it out, but it's 'id', I believe it's pronounced like 'eed', and not 'ai di'

 

[AnathemicOne]

It never made any sense for Feak and Mescon to try and trademark it either, though. If all they wanted to do was oppose Valve's claim and keep it in the public domain, they just needed to argue that in a counterclaim. And the only way their own registration could've gone through is if they could prove it belonged to them, and by your own admission they really couldn't.

It's completely unnecessary for that application to exist.



If that trademark passes, they get "DEFENSE OF THE ANCIENTS", not "DotA-Allstars" (which was suspended anyway). And Blizzard's argument against Valve insists that Defense of the Ancients is synonymous with DOTA. They're not after Allstars, they're after DOTA itself.

Sorry I skimmed over the document.

Okay so if the application passes Blizzard owns the mark of "Defense of the Ancients" is that a problem? Defense of the Ancients is only available through Warcraft 3 and besides it's not like Blizzard decided to one day to trademark the name, Riot Games gave them the application to contest Valve with it (which brings us back to the original issue).

So if Blizzard owns the trademark of Defense of the Ancients, the WC3 community is still fine, they can play DOTA, they can create mods for DOTA, everything runs the same.

 

[AnathemicOne]

BS

they didn't notice it was something they could make money on until a competitor noticed they could make money off of it.

There was no good will. Blizzard didn't ignore it for 7 years out of the kindness of their hearts. They ignored it because they didn't pay close enough attention to their community.

You ignored the other part of my post. Has the all the Blizzcons hosted featuring DotA tournies escaped you?

And another thing. Blizzcons don't give Blizzard any profit/revenue whatsoever it's a gift to the community (meaning the costs of setting it up in the first place are higher than the total of tickets bought by the people).

 

[Card Boy]

BS

they didn't notice it was something they could make money on until a competitor noticed they could make money off of it.

There was no good will. Blizzard didn't ignore it for 7 years out of the kindness of their hearts. They ignored it because they didn't pay close enough attention to their community.

Assumption is the first step to stupidity. Your typing as if it's fact.

 

[Uriah]

You ignored the other part of my post. Has the all the Blizzcons hosted featuring DotA tournies escaped you?

And another thing. Blizzcons don't give Blizzard any profit/revenue whatsoever it's a gift to the community (meaning the costs of setting it up in the first place are higher than the total of tickets bought by the people).

Blizzard doesn't run Blizzcon out of the kindness of their heart. It's giant PR.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Blizzard doesn't run Blizzcon out of the kindness of their heart. It's giant PR.

PR is beneficial to both the community and Blizzard. And frankly the community enjoys Blizzcon and Blizzard likes the PR. What's the problem here?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

You ignored the other part of my post. Has the all the Blizzcons hosted featuring DotA tournies escaped you?

And another thing. Blizzcons don't give Blizzard any profit/revenue whatsoever it's a gift to the community (meaning the costs of setting it up in the first place are higher than the total of tickets bought by the people).

Yes, that's right. They don't get huge amounts of money from the live streaming rights and sponsorship from Razr and Logitech.

 

[Sciz]

Okay so if the application passes Blizzard owns the mark of "Defense of the Ancients" is that a problem?

It's at least as much of a problem as Valve owning it. The mark going to anyone means that the community loses the ability to use it freely except at the discretion of the owner. And Blizzard's track record with unlicensed use of their games isn't too hot lately. I don't think I have to spell out what sort of financial interest they would have in taking exclusive control of a rapidly rising e-sport.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Yes, that's right. They don't get huge amounts of money from the live streaming rights and sponsorship from Razr and Logitech.

And still they they lose money off of hosting Blizzcon despite the income generated

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94802-Blizzards-AGDC-Keynote-We-Lose-Money-on-BlizzCon