Sony sees five trademarks abandoned (including Bloodborne) in the US

Oct 3, 2012
6,802
0
0
#51
I'm an IP attorney by profession. I don't understand how Sony's lawyers keep allowing this to happen. Hell, its grounds for a misconduct violation for an attorney to allow this to happen (if its actually the attorney's fault and not some other Sony clerical error). Hire me Sony, I'll get this in order haha.
I do some IP work as well, but not as the bulk of my work. I'm curious if we'll see some sanctions...
 
Apr 8, 2014
6,860
3
0
#53
sourceless speculation follows:

I was reading on le reddit that the Sony lawyer in charge of these (at least for Bloodborne) had left the company and the responsibilities for renewing didn't make their way to the new hire.

This should have zero impact on anything in terms of these games though.
 
Nov 24, 2013
12,477
1
0
#54
Sony needs someone over there to just keep a Google calendar up to date so this stops happening. Every time it does people on the internet go nuts
 
Nov 5, 2011
10,189
1
545
#57
Um... you would think after The Last Guardian incident, they would've done a review of other trademarks that person was supposed to renew.

But nope.
 
Dec 14, 2013
26,795
1
570
#59
Just read somewhere that Bloodborne was listed for PC on Amazon France. Could this be related to the trademarks?
Nope, not at all. It's never going to PC and Amazon France is not reliable at all. To put it in perspective, Amazon France listed KNACK for PC, Killzone SF for PC, and somehow even the PS4 console itself had a PC version listed on Amazon France (LOL).
 

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
Aug 3, 2004
26,508
0
0
#60
sourceless speculation follows:

I was reading on le reddit that the Sony lawyer in charge of these (at least for Bloodborne) had left the company and the responsibilities for renewing didn't make their way to the new hire.

This should have zero impact on anything in terms of these games though.
Yeah, it's more of an administrative thing than anything. It's not as if someone could go register Bloodborne for video games.
 

LiK

Member
Mar 26, 2007
128,989
0
0
MA
twitter.com
#62
I'm an IP attorney by profession. I don't understand how Sony's lawyers keep allowing this to happen. Hell, its grounds for a misconduct violation for an attorney to allow this to happen (if its actually the attorney's fault and not some other Sony clerical error). Hire me Sony, I'll get this in order haha.
whoever is in charge there is clearly sucking at their jobs. I hope they hire you.
 
Apr 8, 2014
19
0
0
#64
Okay so i've never posted before but I thought i might give some insight to how trademarks in the US work. Im a second year law student taking trademarks. Just to clarify im not a lawyer yet and no one should take this legal advice as 100 percent accurate. This is just to the best of my knowledge. (Also please note this applies to US trademark law. How another country's trademark law affects the US trade mark is a whole other topic.)

So to get a product trademarked in the US you must show actual use in US commerce or intent to use. Video games are usually registered by their intent to use. So once you file, you must use that trademarked product within a certain time or file for a 6 month extension. You can file for extensions up to 3 years before it is deemed abandoned. This is why games are usually trademarked within 3 years of when they expect the game to come out.


Bloodbourne most likely lost its trademark because the attorney failed to file for an extension within the past year. Its trademark should be okay because the product is currently in use.


The last guardian is a whole different story and its trademark could be grabbed up. A trademark becomes abandoned once it hasn't been used in 2 years and the company hasn't shown adequate proof that they actually intend to use it. This proof can be shown through company emails, meetings, plans, etc. So to me, his means that they haven't' done shit on the last guardian. Another explanation could be the attorney just didn't send the US trademark office any proof. Thus the trademark could be abandoned. Also the reason Sony is publicly stating that the game is in production might be to bolster their case for keeping their trademark.

So to the people saying that trademark loss doesn't really matter couldn't be more wrong. As of right now someone could make a small free to play game and trademark it as the last guardian and they will be awarded the trademark. Yes this would mean that Sony could not call the remake The Last Guardian in the US, or even a title that was similar as it would be "likely to cause confusion."


To put this in perspective, Disney's most valuable asset is their trademarks. They are worth billions. It may be worth millions to sony and prevent the remake if they deem it to expensive to buy the trademark back.
 
Jun 11, 2014
465
0
0
#67
The last guardian is a whole different story and its trademark could be grabbed up. A trademark becomes abandoned once it hasn't been used in 5 years and the company hasn't shown adequate proof that they actually intend to use it. This proof can be shown through company emails, meetings, plans, etc. So to me, his means that they haven't' done shit on the last guardian. Another explanation could be the attorney just didn't send the US trademark office any proof. Thus the trademark could be abandoned. Also the reason Sony is publicly stating that the game is in production might be to bolster their case for keeping their trademark.

So to the people saying that trademark loss doesn't really matter couldn't be more wrong. As of right now someone could make a small free to play game and trademark it as the last guardian and they will be awarded the trademark. Yes this would mean that Sony could not call the remake The Last Guardian in the US, or even a title that was similar as it would be "likely to cause confusion."
I'm pretty sure they filed to take back the last guardian TM didn't they?
 

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
Aug 3, 2004
26,508
0
0
#68
So to the people saying that trademark loss doesn't really matter couldn't be more wrong. As of right now someone could make a small free to play game and trademark it as the last guardian and they will be awarded the trademark. Yes this would mean that Sony could not call the remake The Last Guardian in the US, or even a title that was similar as it would be "likely to cause confusion."
Sony can (and did) just refile the Last Guardian trademark application. It's really not that big a deal if the mark hasn't been used yet. Really the only thing Sony would lose would be the earlier priority date, I guess. And while someone COULD swoop in and steal the name, in theory, I think Sony would still have a pretty good case on the name.
 
Jan 8, 2013
880
0
0
It's cold here
#69
So, what would happen if some random nobody bought the TM and sued SONY for using the name Bloodborne ? Would it work? I guess not but I am interested if there is any way somebody could abuse this.
I think there is a period of time after an TM is abandoned that the owners can reclaim it. No one can just jump in and snatch the Bloodborne TM up until some time has passed.
I think someone might get fired for this one.


Sony has prior usage of it.
The trademark is for intent to use (software), but like someone else said, there's prior usage terms as well. I think they're pretty well protected, especially since they have actually published the game.
 
Apr 8, 2014
19
0
0
#71
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/03/17/sony-files-third-trademark-for-the-last-guardian

As far as I can tell this is the last update. You can actually look up whats going on at the trademark office but Im not really sure how to. So they have filed to get the mark back but this doesn't necessarily mean they will. Its still pending. So the trademark office will make a decision based on if anyone else had applied for the trademark.

If there is a dispute, the trademark office most likely will side with Sony. However its not guaranteed they will and could award another game this trademark. If this happens, Sony will have to file a lawsuit to contest the trademark offices decision. I can say from most cases I have read so far, the courts usually side with the trademark office. This is because they have established what the rules are and the office is made up of many lawyers and maybe even former judges.


This is one of the leading cases on trademark abandonment: http://openjurist.org/870/f2d/40/silverman-v-cbs-inc Pretty interesting read about the Amos n Andy trademark.


Also: it usually takes about 6 months to a 1 year for a trademark to get approved. So don't expect The Last Guardian any time soon.
 
Jun 4, 2014
1,825
0
0
Munich, Germany
#72
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/03/17/sony-files-third-trademark-for-the-last-guardian

As far as I can tell this is the last update. You can actually look up whats going on at the trademark office but Im not really sure how to. So they have filed to get the mark back but this doesn't necessarily mean they will. Its still pending. So the trademark office will make a decision based on if anyone else had applied for the trademark.

If there is a dispute, the trademark office most likely will side with Sony. However its not guaranteed they will and could award another game this trademark. If this happens, Sony will have to file a lawsuit to contest the trademark offices decision. I can say from most cases I have read so far, the courts usually side with the trademark office. This is because they have established what the rules are and the office is made up of many lawyers and maybe even former judges.


This is one of the leading cases on trademark abandonment: http://openjurist.org/870/f2d/40/silverman-v-cbs-inc Pretty interesting read about the Amos n Andy trademark.


Also: it usually takes about 6 months to a 1 year for a trademark to get approved. So don't expect The Last Guardian any time soon.
There should be absolutely no problem to get it back.
There are deadlines for renewals, and there are deadlines to get back your intellectuall property protection after missing the first deadline.
Aslong as they're within those timeframes, it's just a lot of paperwork but no problem
 
Apr 8, 2014
19
0
0
#73
okay here is the TLDR: Sony missed all their deadlines for The Last Guardian. They had 2 years to show plans for use. And to get it back they are going to have to fight against anyone else who has used the mark since they lost it.
 
Aug 11, 2007
30,094
0
0
My House
#75
okay here is the TLDR: Sony missed all their deadlines for The Last Guardian. They had 2 years to show plans for use. And to get it back they are going to have to fight against anyone else who has used the mark since they lost it.
Sony has already renewed it without any problem. By the time that information leaked, it was already in processing. And they don't have 2 years, they have to renew every 6 months.
The oldest was abandoned in 2012, DEAD: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77750563&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
It was replaced a couple of days later by the one they missed last month, LIVE: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85700141&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
And to be sure, this month they filed another one, LIVE: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86562687&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
 
R

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member
#79
Update: All the trademarks mentioned in the OP have been revived, Sony Computer Entertainment yesterday, on March 24, 2015, filed a Petition to Revive Abandoned Application for each application.

Petition statement:

Applicant has firsthand knowledge that the failure to file an SOU or Extension Request by the specific deadline was unintentional, and requests the USPTO to revive the abandoned application.
Source: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86262151&docId=PSE20150324185647#docIndex=0&page=1
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,751
859
1,700
#80
Rösti;157374925 said:
Update: All the trademarks mentioned in the OP have been revived, Sony Computer Entertainment yesterday, on March 24, 2015, filed a Petition to Revive Abandoned Application for each application.

Petition statement:


Source: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86262151&docId=PSE20150324185647#docIndex=0&page=1
So it was just incompetence that caused this issue in the first place... Not checking when the trademark for your hyped up upcoming new game release expires...
 
Aug 11, 2007
30,094
0
0
My House
#81
So it was just incompetence that caused this issue in the first place... Not checking when the trademark for your hyped up upcoming new game release expires...
Well, yes and no. I doubt the lawyers in charge know anything about Bloodborne outside of the fact they need to renew it. They changed lawyers, the change isn't going smoothly.