Lasher recently drew my attention to an uncoming game called "", which obviously sounds rather similar to "God Wars". I was a little concerned about God of War and God of War II when they came out, but at least those were console games. Gods War, on the other hand, is graphical mud (MMORPG).

While I don't really mind other games using similar names, my major concern is that they might try to force me to change the name of my game - although I imagine they'd have serious trouble trying to erase the last 12 years of God Wars history, not to mention the fact that there are around a hundred muds based on the GodWars codebase.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to run into this issue, but I don't recall seeing any other muds deal with it (other than a few one-week-wonder muds, or two muds that split from the same game). Anyone have any thoughts on this matter?

I think the immediate problem you'd run into is that the name isn't very 'unusual', for lack of a better term. If anyone had a complaint, it would be Sony, as their product is roughly as similar in name, and much more widely known. (They also have additional legal steps in place, such as registered trademarks and such.)

Could you make the case that the MMORPG gameplay is based off of your work? I think with the name alone, you can't do anything about. I don't think changing your name is a good plan, since you'll lose branding, but you might want to adopt a second, more unique word as a subtitle, like: "Godwars, ____". At the very least, so people looking for you can rapidly find you by searching.

My non-lawyerly understanding of the situation in the US, at least, is that if they trademarked God War, they might be able to stop you using God Wars, which would be a fairly clear infringement on their trademark. I don't think you'd be able to file for a trademark because afaik God Wars is non-commercial, and trademarks may only be obtained in relation to commercial activity. I wonder if you could stick a few google ads on your site though and claim that God Wars 2 is a commercial enterprise, then register for a trademark? I have no idea.

A quick US trademark search shows that God of War is a registered trademark (by Sony) but God War and God Wars is not. I bet there's a decent chance that trying to trademark "Gods War" or "God Wars" as a game-related trademark would be rejected, in which case you've got nothing to worry about since if Sony was going to come after you for GodWars I'd imagine they'd have done it by now.

--matt

You seem to worry an awful lot kavir.

I don't think any company would bother getting negative publicity by suing some underdog. They'd just spend a fraction of the money a lawsuit would cost to kick your google rating for those keywords below the first five pages, next forget about your existence just like anyone else.

Sadly your opinion has little basis in reality. A number of muds have been threatened with legal action in the past, and "going for the little fish" has become a popular tactic among certain companies, as it gives them an easy way of establishing precedent - and that's just for copyright infringements. Trademarks tend to be far more rigorously defended, as (unlike copyrights) they can actually be lost if not defended.

Sadly that goes bothways. I've yet to hear of a mud being legally threatened for a trademark violation.

Given you've been using Godwars for over a decade you kind of refute your own argument here.

I know of three that have been.

--matt

How does the fact that he's been using Godwars for over a decade matter given that the only potential trademark that he MIGHT be infringing on (and that's a pretty big and speculative stretch imho) is from 2004 and that the game he's worried about (Gods War) hasn't registered a trademark yet?

Do you really think the law expects people to look into the future and not use a trademark that someone else might, sometime in the future, decide to use?

--matt

I'm curious what the fuss was about in those cases, whether there were copyright violations involved as well, and if the suers got their way.

Regarding Godwars, if anyone makes a trademark claim Kavir can state he's been using Godwars for over a decade without the one claiming to own the trademark complaining.

I'm with Matt and KaVir, I've seen a few MUDs which have been threatened with legal action based on copyright.

Of course, they've been different than this case though. Most of the one's I've heard of were based on a world that was already copyrighted, such as Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. It just doesn't happen that often.

Scandum wrote:
There were copyright violations involved in 2 of the three cases and in all three, a lawsuit was never needed as there was no doubt the su-ee wasn't in a position to defend his work. Two of the MUDs were hobbyist and one a struggling commercial MUD.

Well, two things. First, nobody owns a trademark on "Godwars" currently or "Gods War" or "God Wars" currently in the US. There's a trademark for "God of War" by Sony that was registered in 2004. So, nothing before 2004 is really relevant.

Second, as Kavir isn't using "Godwars" in a commercial context, he doesn't have a trademark on "Godwars". If someone were to register "Godwars" (after having used it in a commercial context) tomorrow and the USPTO accepted the registration, and the new trademark owner decided to be an a-hole about things, it seems possible (to this non-lawyer at least) that he could go after Kavir and force him to stop using Godwars.

It just seems unlikely to me, as I bet Sony would object to anyone trying to register "Gods War" in a video game context, and Sony hasn't come after Kavir.

--matt

So what are the details of the case where only a trademark violation was the problem?

--Scandum <span style='font-family:1'>™</span>

Didn't Fallout MUD have some problems with Interplay after they released Fallout I? I vaguely remember they were able to keep their name due to the fact that they had existed well before the CRPG.

perhaps? After their licence with ICE expired they had to rename a load of things, such as the gameworld ("Kulthea" became "Elanthia"), deities, etc.

I looked it up and that was a copyright issue.

Cite, please. .

From Wikipedia:

Didn't tolkien have the name 'hobbit' as a trademark of some sort?


Anyway, Angie addressed Fallout MUD which seems to indicate that prior existence might have some legal or social bearing.

The rest of that paragraph reads:

Many of the game changes were simply renaming ICE names, such as changing the world name from Kulthea to Elanthia, and renaming the deities while keeping their previous characteristics.

Renaming would be due to trademark infringement, which is also a type of intellectual property, rights to which can be granted by licence (for example the d20 System licence, which allows you to use various WotC trademarks).

It's a trademark owned by the Tolkien estate, yes, although Tolkien wasn't the first to use the name.

It has social bearing, but afaik, no legal bearing. Trademarks don't exist outside of a commercial context. Hobbyists are not entitled to trademarks because the whole point of trademarks is to protect unique identifiers around a commercial service or product.

Fist off, standard disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. Seek appropriate legal help in your community.

You do not have to be a commercial organization to apply for a trademark. Registering with the IRS as a not-for-profit organization would allow trademarking of the name. Non-profit organizations, which the God Wars community should qualify for (as they are both artisitic and for the public benefit), can apply for and receive trademarks.

As an example of a non-profit winning a trademark case over a for-profit (commercial) enterprise see the WWF.

You can also check your state to see if they allow trade name registration. I know I use a fictitious name for myself with my music, and it is registered in my state (and is listed on all my copyright forms as a pseudonym). Trade name registration would provide legal basis to show that the name is in use, especially if you choose to object to a company's trademark application.

I didn't say you had to be for-profit, just that the trademark/servicemark has to be used in conjunction with commerce or has to be intended to be used in commerce. The WWF engages in commerce so is eligible to apply for a trade-mark in conjunction with that. Whether you engage in commerce and whether you aim to generate a profit or not are two separate things.

Also, I was incorrect earlier in saying that you had to register a trademark. In fact, you don't, in the US at least. It's just helpful in proving that you were there "first."

As far as trade name registration goes, it'll differ greatly from state to state. In California, for instance, it goes by county, not state. Federal trademark law is just going to look at when the mark was first registered (which, again, require use in commerce or demonstrated intended use in commerce in some future time frame that I'm not sure of) or first used in commerce.

--matt

Commerce, by its very legal definition, implies profit (or at least being paid a consideration, whether monetary or barter).

"COMMERCE - The exchange of commodities for commodities. Considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit.

In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts and for which he pays a consideration. If the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter."

There is a commerce exception for non-profits, and they may obtain trademarks. The WikiMedia Foundation for example is a non-profit with trademarks. As MUD codebases can be educational tools (both in learning programming and in promoting literacy) I see no reason why a codebase creater could not both form a non-profit and be declared a "small entity" for trademark purposes.

But again, I am not a lawyer. Standard disclaimers still apply.

At DartMUD, we had a help file called 'Allocations For Dummies" and we received a Cease and Desist Letter from IDG's sharks. Apparently they found the helpfile in some kind of google trawl.

It does not imply profit. It implies money trading hands for goods, or, as you say, barter. Non-profits engage in commerce all the time.

Pulling definitions from dictionaries is not helpful, incidentally, for arguments rooted in specific disciplines, since the specific meaning of words that are bound up in that discipline usually differs, often significantly, from usage outside of that discipline.

Not to my knowledge and google brings up no information that a short scan can find on such an exception in the US.

Can you cite?

In any case, one isn't needed since non-profits are free to engage in commerce.

Here's the relevant section of the USPTO rules on its own website. Of course, plain language on a website is no substitute for a lawyer's advice on a specific issue, so don't don't take this as gospel:
---------------------------------
"What is "use in commerce"?

For the purpose of obtaining federal registration, "commerce" means all commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate; for example, interstate commerce or commerce between the U.S. and another country. "Use in commerce" must be a bona fide use of the mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not use simply made to reserve rights in the mark. Generally, acceptable use is as follows:

For goods: the mark must appear on the goods, the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods, and the goods must be sold or transported in commerce.

For services: the mark must be used or displayed in the sale or advertising of the services, and the services must be rendered in commerce."
------------------------------

--matt

Key word there being service, a MUD is an entertainment service(though some could also be called educational services).

Yes. "And the service must be rendered in commerce."

--matt

I was wrong. I admit it.

I misunderstood the "small entity" provision for lower cost when I thread read it. After rereading the source I retract the non-commerce exception that I posted. I was incorrect.

The key (in the USA) to any small, not-for-profit organization (and I would gather MUD codebase development groups and other "hobbyist" organizations as well) to be able to get a trademark would be to apply for and receive non-profit status within their own state.

Again, I am not a lawyer. Post only for purposes of discussion. Blah, blah...standard disclaimer.