Blizzard Legally Opposes Valve Trademark Over DOTA Name [Up: Trial Schedule]

Card Boy

Banned
Aug 11, 2010
17,104
1
0
VIC, Australia
Good, i always thought it was wrong of Valve to trademark the DOTA2 name. By all means call the current DOTA2 something else but don't steal a name that belongs to the community.

I have less of an issue of it going towards Blizzard, but i hope Blizzard does what Riot wanted to do and make it for the 'community'.
 

walking fiend

Member
Apr 13, 2011
8,247
0
0
They hired Eul, the guy who came up with the name and original map, and Ice Frog, the guy who made the most contributions.

What next, Gaming Age suing us over having GAF in our name?
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?

DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.

Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
 
Oct 17, 2005
35,485
0
0
41
As an outsider to PC gaming, this just reminds me of how difficult it has to be in terms of allowing high level modding. It sounds, to me, like the original idea and assets came from a Blizzard game, but Valve brought the modder in house and developed a game from their own internal assets.

This could actually be an interesting court case.
 

LunaticHigh

Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,092
0
0
It's obvious as to why Riot didn't want it to go as it has a direct impact on their business, but it doesn't have any on blizzard.
 

Ignis Fatuus

Banned
Feb 17, 2009
12,544
0
0
I hope they lose and then Valve proceeds to counter sue. (I don't know what I'm saying).
Valve has actually trademarked the DOTA name.

Blizzard is trying to launch something called Blizzard DOTA which no one will play. Valve could should countersue them to shut that shit down, just to rub it in.
 
did they hire those who made WC3 engine, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?

DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.
This certainly didn't stop TripWire with Red Orchestra or Valve with Team Fortress or Alien Swarm.

It's not stopping Unknown Worlds with Natural Selection either.

Also, the person who made WarCraft 3's map editor works at ArenaNet now, as do the people who made Battle.net.
 

Mxrz

Member
Apr 23, 2011
5,642
0
490
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
 

Grayman

Member
Feb 7, 2005
15,125
0
0
34
Surrey, BC
Valve has actually trademarked the DOTA name.

Blizzard is trying to launch something called Blizzard DOTA which no one will play. Valve could should countersue them to shut that shit down, just to rub it in.
Blizzard can call it Offense of the Ancients. All the characters are lawyers who play lawyer ball.
 

Mechazawa

Member
May 31, 2011
8,136
0
545
Come on Blizzard, Riot's making bank without the Dota namesake. If you really cared, you could too.
 

DarkKyo

Member
Apr 4, 2007
15,588
1
0
Holy shit! Blizzard you are an asshole. Would not be surprised if Activision made 'em do it. Hasn't Gabe said he loves World of Warcraft? Cold move Blizzard, and that's some really bad press.
 

Tenck

Member
May 5, 2011
10,299
0
0
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?

DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.

Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
Should id sue Valve for Team Fortress then?
 

Alex

Member
Jun 7, 2004
15,167
0
0
[The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
Warcraft and its art is all so incredibly
tacky
original!
 

jediyoshi

Member
Oct 10, 2009
30,024
5
775
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
You seem to be confusing it with every other MOBA.
 

Ball3r

Member
Jul 19, 2010
80
0
0
Basshunter is next.
Valve should counter sue them for using Left 2 Die for that SC2 mod.
 

Data West

coaches in the WNBA
Sep 20, 2010
84,184
4
0
The lair of yin and yang
They hired Eul, the guy who came up with the name and original map, and Ice Frog, the guy who made the most contributions.

What next, Gaming Age suing us over having GAF in our name?
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
 

EatinOlives

Member
Oct 23, 2011
16,850
0
0
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
If they trademark it, yes?
 
Aug 29, 2009
4,438
0
0
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?

DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.

Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
blame blizzard for not recognizing their own communities talents and thank valve for rescuing these dev teams.

as it's been said before team fortress, alien swarm, and now dota are all better off because valve came in and hired these teams and expanded on their talents.

As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
because valve doesn't want to see the legacy tied to the name disappear?
 

walking fiend

Member
Apr 13, 2011
8,247
0
0
This certainly didn't stop TripWire with Red Orchestra or Valve with Team Fortress or Alien Swarm.

It's not stopping Unknown Worlds with Natural Selection either.
The problem here, isn't with the game, it is with the name.
It's not as if Blizzard is saying why they are releasing a game similar to DotA, but why they are calling it DotA.

And those games aren't nearly as popular as DotA, even none of valve games are nearly as popular as DotA.

Also, the person who made WarCraft 3's map editor works at ArenaNet now.
MW3 didn't suddenly stop selling cause the original creators left; not one single person is normal responsible for the quality or performance of a game, sometimes not even a team.
 

krameriffic

Member
Dec 7, 2009
5,577
0
0
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
It seems to me that they probably thought about this before they sunk millions into the development of Dota 2. Should this copyright suit ever arise, I assume they already have an ironclad case for why they can do it.
 
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
The RTS hero concept was introduced in Warlords Battlecry II first.

The problem here, isn't with the game, it is with the name.
It's not as if Blizzard is saying why they are releasing a game similar to DotA, but why they are calling it DotA.

And those games aren't nearly as popular as DotA, even none of valve games are nearly as popular as DotA.


MW3 didn't suddenly stop selling cause the original creators left; not one single person is normal responsible for the quality or performance of a game, sometimes not even a team.
Um, all the games I listed use the same name as the original, that's the point.

I don't see what your second point has to do with your argument.
 

Tenck

Member
May 5, 2011
10,299
0
0
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
Because it's basically the same as *gasp* Dota!!!*gasp*

Have you played LoL or HoN? Although MOBAs, they all play differently. Why should Euls and IceFrog have to part with what they keep working on?
 

Card Boy

Banned
Aug 11, 2010
17,104
1
0
VIC, Australia
The dickery is on Valve's part for the name. Valve's game isn't exactly rocking the originality either when it comes to the art/character design. Seems like that would be one of the things they'd want to be wary of.
Yep. Not sure why people are arguging otherwise. Call the game something else like what S2 and Riot did, don't trademark a name that isn't yours. Heres a bad analogy, It's like if I wanted to trademark the name The Holy Bible 2.
 

Togglesworlh

Banned
Jun 23, 2011
2,972
0
0
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?

DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.

Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
WC3/B.net were the backends that made DotA possible. They were not what made DotA DotA.

That would be like, well, more than enough people have already pointed out the sheer absurdity of developers suing other developers who made sequels to mods. You need to take a long, hard look at just how crazy you sound right now.
 

walking fiend

Member
Apr 13, 2011
8,247
0
0
Yeah, it's probably the legal department.
So, BOps and MW3 has been made by legal department?

It's like blaming Bethesda games bugs on the programmers.


That would be like, well, more than enough people have already pointed out the sheer absurdity of developers suing other developers who made sequels to mods. You need to take a long, hard look at just how crazy you sound right now.
again, I am not saying that why they are making a sequel, but why they are naming it DotA 2?

As if they have any right over DotA 1, or if such a thing exists to begin with.
 

PsychoSoldier

Banned
Mar 27, 2010
4,194
0
0
Yep. Not sure why people are arguging otherwise. Call the game something else like what S2 and Riot did, don't trademark a name that isn't yours. Heres a bad analogy, It's like if I wanted to trademark the name The Holy Bible 2.
Well, we've already had Hamlet 2 so clearly this is the next step.