• 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.

Ubisoft opposes EA registration of "Ghost" trademark because of Ghost Recon

N

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
I would think it would be pretty trivial to prove that no one has been confused during the past five years.

Edit: Oh wait this is an opposition.
 
R

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member
Balphon said:
Filing an opposition to trademark registration with the USPTO is not the same as suing for trademark infringement.
Click to expand...
Infringement is perhaps a bit harshly phrased, but it is nevertheless a (federal) lawsuit regarding a trademark.

Though I see now the title was changed to better reflect the event. Thanks, moderator.
 
Northeastmonk

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
Rösti;193750670 said:
The trademark for the PS/2 connector by IBM was registered in 1988 (and abandoned in 2009). Sony would not have been able to oppose this mark with PlayStation 2 as grounds.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I guess I never bothered to look it up. I never payed any attention. Plus most cords now are USB.
 
N

Norwegian_Imposter

Member
Jesus guys enough with the Ubisoft hate. If you actually read the OP EA are trying to trademark the word "Ghost" Ubisoft are just opposing the trademark. That's why they didn't say anything about cod etc because activision didn't try and trademark it.
 
B

blame space

Banned
as a consumer I'm definitely confused between the ghost recon games and the games developed by ghost games. Thank you Ubisoft for looking out for me and my interests.
 
C

Cjdamon042

Member
kurahador said:
Hope you guys aren't thinking of naming your studio Creed.
Click to expand...

Now that I think of it in surprised Ubi didn't sue New Line/MGM for the Creed film.

Yeah, this is silly. They're easily too different things. No one will get confused.

EDIT: Oh they're trying to stop EA from trademarking Ghost. That makes more sense. Though I imagine Ghost Recon wouldn't have anything to worry about if EA succeeded surely.
 
B

BY2K

Membero Americo
Nirolak said:
I would think it would be pretty trivial to prove that no one has been confused during the past five years.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I forgot the obvious question.

... WHAT THE HELL IS EA'S GHOST!?

Is it like, a cloud gaming service or something?
 
V

VibratingDonkey

Member
These dumb trademark battles are such nonsensical wastes of resources.
Consumers are likely to believe, mistakenly, that the goods and services Applicant offers under Applicant’s Mark are provided, sponsored, endorsed, or approved by Opposers
Click to expand...
No. Because they're different things named different things and no one has been confused about it for the years EA Ghost has existed.
 
K

KillySG10

Neo Member
12. Applicant’s proposed mark GHOST mark is nearly identical to the GHOST
RECON marks used and owned by Opposers.
Click to expand...
NqqFzM7.png


MY GOD! They overlap perfectly! And that one word is the same!
 
N

Nzyme32

Member
In fairness, the term "Ghost" isn't something I ascribe to Ubisoft. "Tom Clancy's Ghost" is what I associate with Ubisoft.
 
J

James93

Member
Its just standard practice. Due to how trademark and copyright law is in the US, you basically have to sue anything that comes within a mile of your trademark. Otherwise it becomes harder to defend later
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
UrbanRats said:
I know you're sarcastic, but they both use black and white as their color scheme, you think that's just an unhappy coincidence? Yeah, didn't think so...
Click to expand...

One is black and white, the other is black and grey. Two 'colors' that almost everyone uses in a simple form for ghosts since, forever.
 
N

Neuromancer

Member
Is it accurate that if a company doesn't regularly defend its trademark, it could lose the ability to keep it? If so that explains 99% of these kinds of things even if they seem silly to normal people.
 
C

ConceptX

Member
Neuromancer said:
Is it accurate that if a company doesn't regularly defend its trademark, it could lose the ability to keep it? If so that explains 99% of these kinds of things even if they seem silly to normal people.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can become generic trademarks.

See: Aspirin, Heroin, Thermos, Escalator, etc.

"Ghost" is not a trademark in the same way as say Escalator was however. This is vastly more specific.
 
R

RootCause

Member
James93 said:
Its just standard practice. Due to how trademark and copyright law is in the US, you basically have to sue anything that comes within a mile of your trademark. Otherwise it becomes harder to defend later
Click to expand...
Interesting. I guess it makes more sense.
 
M

Madness

Member
Gaogaogao said:
what? no one is allowed to use the word ghost?
Click to expand...

Well Ubisoft was using the word first. For them, it's not so much that someone else is using Ghost. It's that it's only Ghost. If EA's name was called Ghost Front or something, there wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Imagine if Activision wanted to trademark a game called Gears. Naturally Microsoft would want to oppose it. Trademark/copyright law is really wonky. I mean how many times has Ghost been used in games, things like the Ghost in Halo, Starcraft Ghost Ghosts n Goblins etc.
 
F

FStop7

Banned
Trademark law's kind of a mess.

http://www.piercemandell.com/docs/the-trademark-owners-dilemma.pdf

http://www.piercemandell.com/busine...ment-of-rights-or-bullying-by-thomas-e-kenney

“A trademark owner not only enjoys the exclusive right to use its marks in commerce, but also has the right (and in fact the obligation) to stop others from using similar marks in a manner that causes consumer confusion,” Kenney writes. “However, a trademark owner is not permitted to misuse its trademark rights so as to intimidate another business into abandoning a mark that does not conflict with the trademark owner’s mark. As a result of these competing principles of trademark law — a trademark owner is obligated to vigorously enforce its rights but at the same time must respect the fact that those rights are limited and not monopolistic — a trademark owner frequently is left in a quandary. What measure of enforcement is sufficient to protect its rights without crossing the line? Adding to that tension is the developing concept of ‘trademark bullying.’”
Click to expand...
 
T

Tempy

don't ask me for codes
"Ghost" seems too generic to trademark (see "Edge"). Anybody with a game with "ghost" in its title should probably oppose the trademark. I don't think there would be a problem if they named it "Legend of Ghost" or something like that and trademark that.
 
B

Balphon

Member
Rösti;193750871 said:
Infringement is perhaps a bit harshly phrased, but it is nevertheless a (federal) lawsuit regarding a trademark.

Though I see now the title was changed to better reflect the event. Thanks, moderator.
Click to expand...

It's a third party filing in an administrative proceeding within the USPTO, not a lawsuit.

As others have pointed out, trademark holders are incentivized to affirmatively police their marks, which can lead to reaching arguments like this that can appear somewhat silly. IP law in the US is not the most efficient or rational thing in the world, to say the least.
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
giphy.gif


Ubi should know better than to mess with EA's lawyers! Didn't they pretty much make sure that 'Edge' patent holder troll lose his right to ever claim damages?

Plus, do they even have a case, considering they didn't say anything with CoD: Ghosts?

EDIT: It's pretty funny as well, because not many people know about the dev, not even here where people are pretty informed about the industry.
 
A

Armaros

Member
Reminds me of the Rebellion vs Ironclad legal fight. Studio name vs game title name

Only then the studio was on the offensive
 
T

Taij

Member
What the hell is going on in this thread? Does everyone hate Ubisoft so much that they just see something about Ubisoft and trademarks and get out their pitchforks?

This isn't Ubisoft doing some evil thing to keep people from using the word ghost. This is EA applying for a trademark (which would essentially allow them to decide who can and can't use that word in conjunction with video games) and Ubisoft telling the courts that they can't let EA get that trademark because it could possibly be used against Ubisoft for a game like Ghost Recon which has been around longer than EA applying for the trademark. Seriously the title of the thread is "Ubisoft opposes...trademark" not that they are filing a trademark.

Is that really the most evil thing anyone has done today? If you've been watching the whole React video thing unfold then this would be like EA is the FineBros trying to trademark the word "react" and Ubisoft is the lawyer coming in saying no that's not cool. And before you yell at me about why the two scenarios are different I know it's not a perfect analogy but since few people in this thread seem to be able to think past "Ubisoft EVIL!!!#$@#%" I'm trying to use something people can understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WWE and Endeavor (UFC) announce 21 billion dollar deal.
40
2K
thefool replied
Second Ghost Recon Breakpoint Technical Test Info Detailed by Ubisoft
0
767
Mista replied
The trademark for Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds has been suspended
2 3 4 5
232
69K
SmoothRunningGun replied
Beyond Good & Evil trademark deemed likely to be confused with Bandai Namco mark
2
2K
Earthbound64 replied
Minor: Religious corporation seeking to oppose Nintendo's Switch trademark
2 3
111
32K
Rösti replied
Top Bottom