-
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
AnathemicOne
Banned
Just read through the whole thread, come on GAF you're smarter than this.
First off, Blizzard is not suing Valve, get that out of your heads. Blizzard is contesting Valve's trademark over the name "Dota" or "DOTA," meaning Valve's trademark over the name hasn't been granted yet.
Secondly, why would Blizzard do this? Well because DotA (the original game that Dota 2 is based/replicated off of) was a mod created on Warcraft 3 (Blizzard's game) and under the EULA of the World Editor (the mod creator for WC3) the name of DotA/Dota/DOTA is rightfully theirs.
Third, if above statement is true, then why didn't Blizzard trademark the name in the first place when DotA was gaining a massive audience? Simple, 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).
So yes I am in supporting Blizzard in this action, why? Because I don't believe Valve (or anyone really) should privatize the name "Dota/DotA/DOTA" for commercial use. Even Riot Games (creators of League of Legends) supports Blizzard in this (by giving their trademark application for "Defense of the Ancients" to Blizzard in the first place) under the same message of that DotA should be a name owned by the community of which it was made by and for.
First off, Blizzard is not suing Valve, get that out of your heads. Blizzard is contesting Valve's trademark over the name "Dota" or "DOTA," meaning Valve's trademark over the name hasn't been granted yet.
Secondly, why would Blizzard do this? Well because DotA (the original game that Dota 2 is based/replicated off of) was a mod created on Warcraft 3 (Blizzard's game) and under the EULA of the World Editor (the mod creator for WC3) the name of DotA/Dota/DOTA is rightfully theirs.
Third, if above statement is true, then why didn't Blizzard trademark the name in the first place when DotA was gaining a massive audience? Simple, 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).
So yes I am in supporting Blizzard in this action, why? Because I don't believe Valve (or anyone really) should privatize the name "Dota/DotA/DOTA" for commercial use. Even Riot Games (creators of League of Legends) supports Blizzard in this (by giving their trademark application for "Defense of the Ancients" to Blizzard in the first place) under the same message of that DotA should be a name owned by the community of which it was made by and for.
charlequin
Banned
Well... in the US, the legality of EULAs and clickthrough licenses in general is disputed, with various courts holding differently on the matter.
However, that shouldn't be significant here. Whether or not EULAs are binding contracts, you generally can't legally transfer ownership of someone else's copyright or trademark holdings through a speculative contract of this type, only through an explicit transfer of ownership. A binding ruling that supported Blizzard's position regarding their EULA here would represent a massive power-grab for large content conglomerates and an immense reduction in copyright and trademark protections for individual artists and creators.
That there are people who just take as given that building a mod for a game gives that game's creator absolute, exclusive rights to any copyrighted or trademarked material created therein worries me, frankly.
Absolutely nothing "rightful" whatsoever about the idea of creating far-reaching implicit contracts that can steal the work of others and put it under your ownership. Regardless of whether Blizzard have a good goal here (personally, I think it'd be better in general if the trademark is denied due to already being in general, conflicting use) wielding this particular argument in support of it is wildly irresponsible and potentially far more destructive towards mod communities than anything Valve has done.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
Look up the difference between copyright and trademark. You cant trademark something with an EULA and you cannot copyright single words a short phrases. Trademarks have to either be registered or you can gain common law rights through use. If you do own a trademark it must be maintained or its lost, Blizzard never used the name until after Dota 2 was announced. Even If you somehow make the claim that the original creator gained common law rights to the trademark and then transferred it to Blizz through the EULA Blizzard lost it a long time ago through non use.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Duh - Activision.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Blizzard is not trademarking, Blizzard is contesting Valve over its trademark application (as in seeking to deny Valve's trademark).
les papillons sexuels
Banned
if that were the case then why isn't blizzard suing LoL over the gameplay mechanics developed under their world editor eula? eula only give the developer rights over their content in their games over their END USERS, not over valve who never agreed to said eula.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Because anything that the player wants is automatically Good, right? And anything they don't want has to be because of something Awful?
AnathemicOne
Banned
What? The issue of the case is the name "Dota/DOTA/DotA" not the damn game itself, have you read the actual filing Blizzard put in (linked in the OP)?
Oh and read the third point of my post.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
"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."
Can you answer why Blizzard are being assholes about Dota when Valve are not being assholes about Natural Selection?
GregLombardi
Member
Bullshit. Outright bullshit. You honestly believe this? Blizzard didn't trademark the name because they weren't paying attention to the value created by customized maps. Instead, they paid attention to the millions of dollars created by a merger / public stock listing with Activision.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Used exclusively != trademark
AnathemicOne
Banned
First off Vivendi (the parent company of Blizzard) merged with Activision, not Blizzard.
And second I do believe Blizzard is acting in the interest of the WC3 community.
Wow. This is pretty complicated stuff.
I'd be pretty happy if the court either upheld Valve's trademark, due to Valve's agreements with the creator and curator of DotA, or if the court decided that nobody has a whole claim to it.
Blizzard does not have a very good claim. Such a one-sided EULA cannot possibly be enforceable. It certainly should not go to them.
For a second, I mistook you for Doug Lombardi.
But do keep in mind that Blizzard have never been masters of their own destiny. They sold themselves soon after being created and have been passed around ever since.
It says under licence.
I'd be pretty happy if the court either upheld Valve's trademark, due to Valve's agreements with the creator and curator of DotA, or if the court decided that nobody has a whole claim to it.
Blizzard does not have a very good claim. Such a one-sided EULA cannot possibly be enforceable. It certainly should not go to them.
For a second, I mistook you for Doug Lombardi.
But do keep in mind that Blizzard have never been masters of their own destiny. They sold themselves soon after being created and have been passed around ever since.
It says under licence.
Karsticles
Member
The DotA community has two groups:
1) Those loyal to Icefrog.
2) Those not.
Everyone in category 2) has moved on to other games. Everyone in category 1) wants Icefrog to get the riches he deserves as he carries on the DotA name.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Anathemic, the point is that there is a history of game mods going on to have retail sequels that are trademarked, and Blizzard is the only company I can think of that is fighting a trademark in this way.
Natural Selection was a Half-Life mod. Natural Selection 2 is a retail product. Valve is not fighting that trademark.
Red Orchestra was an Unreal Tournament 2004 mod. Red Orchestra: Ostfront was a retail game, and Epic didn't fight that trademark.
Why is Blizzard the only game developer that thinks they own a trademark they DID NOT CREATE OR REGISTER, just because the game the trademark refers to was a modification of their game?
Natural Selection was a Half-Life mod. Natural Selection 2 is a retail product. Valve is not fighting that trademark.
Red Orchestra was an Unreal Tournament 2004 mod. Red Orchestra: Ostfront was a retail game, and Epic didn't fight that trademark.
Why is Blizzard the only game developer that thinks they own a trademark they DID NOT CREATE OR REGISTER, just because the game the trademark refers to was a modification of their game?
AnathemicOne
Banned
Sure I'd like to see Icefrog succeed too, I don't see why he has to by dragging the right of the "DotA/DOTA/Dota" name to do so. Riot Games is doing just fine without it.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
I was referring to the licensed by Blizzard claim, you can licence something you don't own. When contesting a trademark you can either claim to already own it or a very similar one, or you can claim its a generic term. Blizzards argument is pretty much they got the trademark through the EULA and then licensed it to the community.
AnathemicOne
Banned
I can't answer that because I'm not part of Blizzard.
What I can say is that I support Blizzard in this action because I am a veteran from the WC3 community and arguably the name of DotA/DOTA/Dota should belong to the community it was originally made by and for.
And there's also the fact that Blizzard is known to take risks and generally succeed in succession.
That doesn't make any sense, you know that, right?
AnathemicOne
Banned
How so? Is it wrong to want a community-made title stay with the community?
AnathemicOne
Banned
Btw, Valve's legal team just derped in their reply to Blizzard
"19. Admit that installation of Warcraft II is required in order to play DOTA. Valve denies the remainder of the averments in the paragraph."
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91202572-OPP-4.pdf
So, how about that Warcraft 2?
"19. Admit that installation of Warcraft II is required in order to play DOTA. Valve denies the remainder of the averments in the paragraph."
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91202572-OPP-4.pdf
So, how about that Warcraft 2?
Wiktor
Member
All this thread made me realize is that Relic should make MOBA in Warhammer 40K universe 
Seriously though, when was Eul hired? Wasn't it after the initial stink that DOTA2's naming caused? When it was all IceFrog I thought that naming it DOTA2 was pretty dirty, but with Eul on board I think the right shifted towards Valve.
Seriously though, when was Eul hired? Wasn't it after the initial stink that DOTA2's naming caused? When it was all IceFrog I thought that naming it DOTA2 was pretty dirty, but with Eul on board I think the right shifted towards Valve.
But where do Eul/Guinsoo/Icefrog fall into this then? Do they not count more against the faceless thousands of players that "made dota what it was"? Because last I checked Valve has Eul and Icefrog so they essentially have the community in tow. I don't see any harm in having it trademarked in that case.
If the community were so up in arms about Valve wanting to trademark the DotA name then why haven't they essentially stopped playing the most prominent version of DotA (the one Icefrog has been working on for years) and branch off with their own version where the creators don't 'sell out'?
I'm sorry but,
AnathemicOne
Banned
They have the community in tow? Take a look at the community forums of DotA (IceFrog's followers) and tell me if it has a unanimous opinion on Valve attempting to trademark the name DotA.
http://www.playdota.com/forums/showthread.php?t=657311
And Blizzard essentially has Riot Games backing them up. Guinsoo is part of Riot Games and originally attempted to contest Valve on trademarking the name Dota by countering in trying to trademark "Defense of the Ancients" but couldn't because he had no backing, but Blizzard does. So he gave it to Blizzard in 2011.
I'm sure Riot has only good intentions with trying to stop this trademark, lol.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Tell me, what has Riot Games to gain by stopping this trademark?
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
Seems like most people in that thread support Valve then this one.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
What would EA gain by forcing Activision to stop using the Call of Duty name?
AnathemicOne
Banned
Really? I've read the thread over and it seems those support Blizzard are making more valid claims than the ones support Valve (not to say that the one's supporting Valve are not but to say those supporting Blizzard has more).
AnathemicOne
Banned
So when did Riot Games owned by the chinese company of Tencent equate to Electronic Arts?
questionmark
Member
DotA wasn't originally made by the community, it was made by Eul.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Which was in turn taken up by Guinsoo, which was then taken up by IceFrog.
Not to mention the "Allstars" in "DotA Allstars" was made by importing multiple custom-made heroes which were featured in countless of other people's individual DotA games.
Eul started DotA, the community made DotA.
Of course Blizzard has Riot Games backing them up, Riot has a vested interest (as well as Blizzard, if only in small part) in stalling or marginalizing a game from what is shaping up to be a huge competitor. One need look no further than Riot's by no means meager injection of cash into its competitive scene, as well as renewed public pledges to work on tournament and spectating features. Further, both Blizzard and Riot haven't been shy about publicly airing their dissent with regard to Dota's design. Between economics and design philosophy, looking at any party in this as being an impartial defender of the community is nearsighted. The recognition and brand power of a "Dota" moniker is not lost on Riot, and they're not thrilled with the prospect of it lying in the hands of a major competitor. It's a foot in the door for Valve regardless of how well the game turns out.
Stahsky
A passionate embrace, a beautiful memory lingers.
DotA 2 is a direct threat to Leagues. Of course they would want to oppose it. What kind of question is this?
AnathemicOne
Banned
Going to clear both of these up.
Blizzard is not attempting to trademark the name DotA/Dota/DOTA, Blizzard is attempting to stop Valve from trademarking and having it remain a public domain.
If Blizzard wins this case, Dota 2 can still be called Dota 2 and the game will be the same. The only difference is that Valve can't stop anyone else using the trademark of DotA/Dota/DOTA.
Riot supports DotA/Dota/DOTA in being a public domain not a trademark.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
Did you read Blizzards complaint? They basically claim ownership of the mark, they do not make the argument that it is a generic trademark.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Where does it specifically state that Blizzard has ownership of the DOTA marks?
So far the only thing close to such a statement is this:
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.
For seven years the DOTA marks has been exclusively used by Blizzard and the fan community this is true, under the license of Blizzard which is also true as the only way to play DotA at the time was under Blizzard's game Warcraft 3.
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
Can someone explain to me how "the name should belong to the community" makes any sense at all? Last time I checked the creator of the mod is Eul(Valve), following Guinsoo(Riot) maintaining it for a short time then leading up to the present time with IceFrog(Valve) maintaining it currently.
Also, renaming Dota 2 doesn't make any sense because it's supposed to be an updated version of DOTA with original assets and more support. What sense is there in renaming it into something different?
Also, IceFrog continues to maintain WC3 DOTA to this day. Just a month ago(or a couple weeks I'm not sure) they released an update. In other words, there is no threat to original DOTA by Dota 2, since they are both being maintained by the creators of the game.
So can someone explain to me in sensible terms how Valve hiring the creators of the mod to create an updated version of the DOTA mod for the community in addition to releasing updates for both so that they maintain parity is a bad thing?
I would really like to know because the arguments I've seen against Valve in this case only seem to be based on love for Blizzard as opposed to any ethical or moral basis.
Also, renaming Dota 2 doesn't make any sense because it's supposed to be an updated version of DOTA with original assets and more support. What sense is there in renaming it into something different?
Also, IceFrog continues to maintain WC3 DOTA to this day. Just a month ago(or a couple weeks I'm not sure) they released an update. In other words, there is no threat to original DOTA by Dota 2, since they are both being maintained by the creators of the game.
So can someone explain to me in sensible terms how Valve hiring the creators of the mod to create an updated version of the DOTA mod for the community in addition to releasing updates for both so that they maintain parity is a bad thing?
I would really like to know because the arguments I've seen against Valve in this case only seem to be based on love for Blizzard as opposed to any ethical or moral basis.
AnathemicOne
Banned
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.
-Dota 2 doesn't have to be renamed at all. The issue is Valve trademarking the mark and making other people unable to use the DOTA mark.
-No there is no threat, but realistically it is generally accepted by the DotA community that IceFrog will move on to Dota 2 in the long run.
-Valve hiring IceFrog to create Dota 2 isn't a bad thing, it's the trademarking.
nephilimdj
Member
If the community were so up in arms about Valve wanting to trademark the DotA name then why haven't they essentially stopped playing the most prominent version of DotA (the one Icefrog has been working on for years) and branch off with their own version where the creators don't 'sell out'?
I'm sorry but,
Considering original TF2 axed (how many of the Australians are still there?), Counter Strike 2 axed (creator quit) and portal 2 (made without the storyline made by Narbacular Drop team, kim swift quit ).
Can see Icefrog having to make DOTA 3 without the name and valve, hes most likely going to branch off anyway.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
"of a trademark, DOTA, that for more than seven years has
been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community, under license from Blizzard."
Also read paragraphs 15-21 which spell out Blizzards arguments for its "Rights In And To The DotA Marks".
Given the emphasis on the mark's association with Blizzard, Blizzard's involvement within the community, and the terms of its EULA and the rights granted to Blizzard, stopping Valve from acquiring trademark seems like it may only be the start.
"Oh, here are a hundred different reasons why x ought to be mine. ...x for everyone!"
I'll believe Blizzard's overtures of benevolence when they materialize, and not a moment sooner. While both they and Riot have interests in depriving or acquiring the trademark, it goes without saying that they will act in that interest if they think it feasible. If Blizzard get a favorable ruling here, I don't see why they wouldn't press and see if they could glean more. If they fail, they've lost nothing in trying.
No precedent, with Dota or any of the other names Valve has acquired. Blizzard Dota has surfaced in media multiple times, and seemingly without any form of dissent from Valve. I'd wager it's more likely they want to acquire it for defensive purposes, like any other mod property they've taken retail.
AnathemicOne
Banned
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?
AnathemicOne
Banned
If Blizzard loses the case, what's stopping from Valve suing Blizzard their own "Blizzard DOTA"?
If Blizzard wins the case, the DOTA marks remain a public domain, is that a problem?
No but your concern is Blizzard claiming ownership of the marks in the future. But nowhere in Blizzard's claims speak of outright ownership. Just because it "can happen" doesn't mean it will.
Correlation doesn't equal Causation.
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.
Answered your own question. There's also the possibility of a chilling effect on modding (alluded to it earlier), if this spat grants the EULA an absurd amount of control over content.
And smoke doesn't always mean fire, but you can be damned sure I reserve the right to be suspicious. When a studio draws up a manifesto stating in no unclear terms that it deserves something, it's by no means a shot in the dark to suggest that it might pursue the matter more strenuously in the future. You may hold faith in Activision Blizzard to take a principled road (stopping at neutrality), but I don't.