Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Sues Over Diablo Movie Title
Whatanut writes: "As reported by inside.com in this article, Blizzard Entertainment is suing New Line for using the word Diablo as the title of a movie release. Blizzard wants to make a movie of their own with the same title and feel New Line is only using the word to cash in on the popularity of the Diablo gaming world. Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"? And what kind of precedent would this set if they were to win?"
If you look at the IMDB, you'll see a lot of movies with Diablo in the title. Most of them come from spanish titles and only one (El Diablo) is close to Diablo. Yep, Diablo is a common word.
The word is Diablo.
:-)
As in, Spanish for the Devil.
Your reasoning applies, but...
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
forget this trademark bullshit. DOn't they make computer games? And now they think they can make a movie? New Line was probably doing them a favor to keep from embarassing themselves.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
It seems everyone is getting mad at possibly the best computer game companie in the world over something that seems to make perfect sense to me. People have come to associate movies and video games with each other. Many movies have been made from video games, and even more video games have been made from movies. If I saw a movie called Diablo, I would automatically associate it with the game and that is what Blizzard is afraid of.
On the other hand, a Blizzard made a game named Diablo and Lamborgini had a car named Diablo and there is no problem. If Blizzard had made Diablo about racing Lamborgini's, then there probably would have been. The movie that New Line is putting out is not about Diablo's storyline so I guess the real test would be whether or not Blizzard had secured rights to the movie name before New Line.
Oh yeah, and there is also a brand of paint balls called diablos that no one had mentioned yet, but that seems kind of irrelevant.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
The point of the litigation is not about the possible confusion that could erupt over an unrelated movie with the same name. The point is that Blizzard legally reserved "Diablo" as a movie name already. It is perfectly reasonable for Blizzard to expect their trademark will be protected.
This is very similar to a (hypothetical) case where two movie companies are disputing a movie title, which I beleive is a fairly cut and dry scenario (whomever registered the name first wins). And I would like to point out this case is much more like two movie companies than like Ford and AMD (your example); Blizzard and movie companies are both media, whereas with Ford and AMD you have a dissimilar product.
BTW: Your last point is well taken. I really hope Blizzard realizes what a large market they're overlooking by excluding the linux community.
I wish I had a sig, I wish I had a sig, I wish I had a sig, oh, wait...
Diablo... not Diabolo.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
They have a trademark on all movies named solely "Diablo". IANAL, but as I see it, if New Line called the movie "Diablo: Wolfenstein's Syndicate Master of Doom" there wouldn't be any trademark infringment occuring, though I'm not sure about trademark dilution. The problem is using the single word name. Blizzard has already filed for the name to use in conjunction with the game series. If someone were to come out with a movie called "Magic: the Gathering" about some drug called magic which causes mind control and causes people to gather into one spot, I'm sure Wizards of the Coast would be rather upset. If they own the movie trademark, they'd even have full legal recourse on the case. Also similarly, if someone were to make a movie called "Blow" (which is a movie by New Line Cinema coming out April 6th and I know absolutely nothing about other than the name), New Line could sue them for trademark infringement although Blow is obviously a common word and even if the new movie was completely different from theirs.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Sounds like a Spanish word to me... don't you think???
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Id software has filed a defamation of character suit against CNN claiming they were "totally misrepresented" in a story linking them to a regional shake-up in China.
In a related story China is now promoting a defensive strategy in order to curtail further attacks.
one better than mcleodeight
Actually no. Blizzard also owns the movie title "Diablo" and (in the U.S.) movie titles are registered and duplicates are generally not allowed. New Line don't have much hope, I'd say (IANAL, etc).
It is my understanding that one must file for a trademark. It is also my understanding that Blizzard was awarded this trademark for the areas of video games and movies.
Consequently, while Blizzard dosn't own the title "Diablo" for, say, Spanish language demonology textbooks, they do own it in those two fields.
Because trademark only applies to certain areas, commonly used words can be used in many products. Imagine if every trademark granted covered every use of that word! Companies would be unable to gain a trademark on any pronouncable word, the courts simply wouldn't stand for it!
Blizzard will win this case. I'd be shocked if they lost. The relevant part, that so many have ignored, is the area specific nature of these trademarks. You can make all the Diablo brand toilet paper you want, Bilzzard won't give a damn (pun intended)
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
My post was intended to be funny while containing a kernel of truth. I do suspect Heidi Wall is actually Larry Wall or a relative of his. I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyers bet on whether their lawsuits appear on Slashdot. (Note: getting mention on Slashdot motivates many people to do many strange things. The recent Hanging of a VW Bug off the Golden Gate is an example--one of the goals of the group was to get mentioned on Slashdot--yes, I do know one of them). Also, people don't seem to carefully read things before they post them...
Despite this, and my disclaimer, not one but two people have modded it down as a troll.
Moderation Totals:Troll=2, Insightful=1, Funny=3, Total=6.
I think there is perhaps a Troll Union, with some members having moderator accounts. These Trollerators apply the [-1, Troll] option to any message they perceive as an unauthorized troll. Being semi-literate trolls, they are naturally unable to read through to the end and see that it is a joke.
I don't know that this is as silly as you all make it sound. Clearly Blizzard owns the TM "Diablo" as refers to computer games. Yes, we know it's a real word in another language. Not the point. The point is, I can't make a computer game called Diablo and expect to get away with it.
The question is how broad of a trademark Bliz got. More and more movies are being made of video games (whether this is a good trend or not, I leave as an exercise for the reader). It is reasonable to expect that the trademark protection also applies to related media.
Now, if there was something Bliz was supposed to do in order to secure the TM on related media, and they didn't -- they lose in my book. But if they were smart and secured it, I have no problem with them exercising that right.
Lots of trademarks are normal names. Doom, for example. Could I make a movie and call it Doom (ok, ignore for a minute whether anyone has the rights to it) without expecting someone to at least _try_ and prevent me?
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
They also made a movie called "Bad Boys" last year, which was a shocker to me because I always think of the Sean Penn/Ally Sheedy movie.
I'm sure they realize that "diablo" means "devil" in Spanish. What if I "trademarked" and sued over someone making a movie called "Sandwich", because my company makes a product called a sandwich? Amazon sued over "one click" (I know "one click" was a patent, but the point is the same). Other companies are doing the same. As more and more companies get away with this, more and more are going to sue over stupid things like this. If no one stops this, one day, we will be sued for talking, because we are speaking words that are trademarks on products. Just my 2 cents...
Josh
I find it sickening every time I read about someone being sued over using every day words. It is absurd.
Actually, IBM had to pay a large sum of money to get the 'e in a circle' e-commerce logo they're using, as another company was already using a similar device in a similar context.
Bear in mind that Blizzard is probably taking the only reasonable course of action open to it - protecting its trademark.
If this ruling goes against Blizzard, I expect to see a lot more "Diablo"-labelled merchandise cropping up, claiming to be unrelated.
I'm not saying that Blizzard _should_ win the lawsuit. I'm just saying that this will be a decision with unpleasant consequences either way it goes.
Point 1: trademark is not the same as copyright is not the same as patent.
(this particular slashdot trend is getting annoying)
Point 2: Blizzard's trademark on Diablo covers, among other things:
Video Games
Motion Pictures
Television Shows
Pajamas
Lunch Boxes and Insulated Beverage Containers
Freud USA owns the trademark on Diablo for circular saws.
Internation Tanning Products owns Diablo as used in conjunction with sun tan oil
And Jason R. Messina owns "The Diablo Project" for use in sound recordings.
Trademarks can be simple, common words, but must be highly specific.
--
They do as long as you can sue. End of story.
Remember this story?
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Imagine: Ford Motor company decides it may want to make a movie about Motors.
Does "Motore" (Spanish for "Motor") 'belong' to Ford Motor? Only Ford can forever title movies containing "Motore"?
Imagine: Apple Computer decides it wants to make a movie about "Computer".
Does "Computer" 'belong' to Apple Computer? Only Apple can forever title moveis containing "Computer"?
I reliaze alot of people may argue this or that about 'Law this and Law that' - but lets stop and think for a minute: What are we proposing? That now simple language can be trademarked? Will Future Capitalist Companies not only register 'www.bob.com', 'www.bob.org', 'www.bob.net' but also Trademark "bob the movie', 'bob the soft drink', 'bob the motor oil'. Will we 'sell language' to Capitalists? 20 years from now will all of language been registered as trademarks for businesses?
Before everyone runs off assuming Im a paranoid Slashdotter think long and hard. Watching the MPAA, RIAA, DeCSS, DMCA, UCITA, WTO, World Bank and the FTAA etc etc.. would you assume - for even one second - that what Im describing is not guaranteed to happen?
plutocracy
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
And the only sure thing is that Vin Diesel is going to suffer because of it.
See:m l
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/11/03/01.cfm
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/38/ns-18053.html
http://www.youve-got-male.com/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/23/0836256.sht
Is this funny, or is it informative?
- subsolar
From the WIPO decision:
6.6 In light of the fact that the word "sting" is in common usage in the English language, with a number of meanings, this case can be distinguished from the other cases cited above in which the Complainants' personal name was found also to be an unregistered trademark or service mark to which the Uniform Policy applies.
That's the basis of the ruling. If I was a famous performer with a stage name of Beeblefux, it would be considered an unregistered trademark because it is not a common word, not because it is not my given name.
So, how much does it suck to be so wrong?
Considering that the descendants of the Earl of Sandwich (the guy who invented them) are now in the sandwich business, you might want to tread lightly in that whole area.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As far as I know, there is no law against using the same title for songs or books or other works of art. Like the other day when I tuned in to "Drop Dead Gorgeous" hoping to see Denise Richards wearing something skimpy, but was treated instead to a delicate looking gentleman doing a one-man stage show. Same title, different show.
Maybe it's the same for game titles.
Scratch-o-Matic
Evil is the money of root.
Actually, I recall the wrestler Steve Bordon who goes by the name Sting saying that HE owned the name and that the musician Sting had to pay him for use of the name. Of course we just have his word to go on, but that's the story I heard.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Oh I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where I wrote "Posts complaining about how stories aren't appropriate for Slashdot are as bad as replies to those posts." (explanation: self-effacing humour, dude)
We don't need posters bitching (albeit couched in 'humour') about irrelevant stories. Not liking to be a bitch, I prefer to poke fun at those posters than be all serious and boring. That way, even if you disagree with me, you shouldn't feel like you have to defend your +5 Funny post, and can still have a good laugh.
In any case, this thread has 300+ comments and growing - Claude E. Shannon's death got 148 messages. What's a better metric? Your personal opinion or the cummulative response of all Slashdot readers. You see the futility of the 'this story is irrelevant' post now?
The fact is, Slashdot editors have far better (and less painful) places to look than your witty complaints in gauging the feasability of "the submission process".
I repeat, shut the hell up.
--
--
Rare Window - free your photos
"You've Got Mail" is about the worst example possible considering that it was made by Warner Brothers. You know.. as in Time-Warner-AOL
Ford may have no trademark on the name Mustang as related to computer products, but if you create a computer game entitled "Mustang Racer", you can bet your ass that you will be sued for trademark infringement and you will lose.
Another correction: Be, Inc. was granted a trademark for the name "Be", not the word "be."
Around 1988 Beretta the handgun company sued Chevrelot Motor Co. for copyright infringement re: their model of the same name as the weapons manufacturer. Apparently, they lost
k /c ase2articles/case2article2.html
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/trademar
"I drank what?" - Socrates
Actually, "Sting's" NAME is Gordon.
Sting * is * his trademark.
KFG
You're right about that, and I should have been more specific. There is a different consideration given to names which are not real words; they are often trademarked before being put into actual use, and I haven't heard of any such trademarks being ruled invalid. That doesn't mean they couldn't be, mind you, just that I don't recall any cases. This is why companies these days use so many "made-up" names, like Itanium and Lucent, for product and company names: they can easily assert broad trademark and dilution claims if anyone tries to muscle in on the name. If I recall correctly, there was an article on Slashdot a long time back which mentioned that Intel bought the name Itanium from a company which had trademarked severak such made-up names for sale.
;-)
So, that's where one big distinction lies: between names which are not common words, and names which are. It gets extremely complicated, though, with quite a few other factors. But one of the cases I always remember is Robert Mondavi versus Arturo Fuente. The Fuente cigar company is an established cigar maker, which produced (at the height of the cigar boom, when they were chic all of a sudden) a special top brand they called the Opus X. They called it Opus X because all the wrapper leaf came from a special field of experimental Cuban seed tobacco, which they all jokingly called "Project X." So when the product neared market, they came up with the name Opus X.
Unbeknownst to them, Robert Mondavi's famous winery had trademarked Opus One not only for wine, but for a cigar brand. Mondavi took Fuente to Court on trademark claims, because of the similarity between Opus One and Opus X.
To cut to the chase, Mondavi lost. Fuente was first to market with a cigar product using "Opus" in the name, and what's more although Opus is not a common word in English it is a plain Latin word often used universally to denote, for example, a composer's works in the order in which they were composed. Mondavi further had argued that there is a similarity between fine cigars and fine wines, since they are often sold in the same shops and are advertised together in related cigar and wine publications. But the Court ruled that, despite any perceptions on Mondavi's part that wines and fine cigars are similar and related products, an average consumer is not going to confuse a wine with "Opus" in the title with a cigar with "Opus" in the title.
I don't feel like looking the case up to refresh my memory about specifics, but these names should be enough for anyone to find the decision online if anyone is interested in such trademark disputes. I'd wager the judge in this case is going to rule in a similar manner, saying that New Line was first to market with a film called *Diablo* and that, both entertainment companies or not, no reasonable consumer is going to confuse a computer game about demons with a film about a drug lord.
Of course, I feel very, very dirty. Yuck; I just defended an AOL/TimeWarner subsidiary. I love New Line films, and now every time I buy one I'm going to be supporting...AOL. Every time I turn on CNN, I'm not only supporting leftist looney Ted Turner, which was bad enough, but now...AOL. I think I'm gonna hurl...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
appears to be in Larry wall's family
Rate me on Picture-rate.com
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
You're sitting in the theater. The lights dim. A hush falls over the crowd, as the screen lights up. 40 minutes of ads and previews later, film rolls on Blizzard's Diablo, the movie.
Not long after we settle on our hero, a hearty warrior from the barbarian highlands, the film begins skipping frames. The barbarian forges out of the rogue camp, beset upon by skeletons. Despite their being 20 feet away, they swing their axes, and our hero staggers under the blows! Meanwhile, the movie keeps freezing up entirely for a second or two at a time.
Finally, no more than a few minutes into the action, the movie cuts to the familiar Diablo font:
Your Connection Has Been Interrupted
Roll credits.
A patent and a trademark aren't the same thing. Blizzard has the trademark. How many times does this type of post have to appear on slashdot before people gain a grasp on the differences between Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks?
--
As any sports car fan would know, Lamborghini has been making a car called the Diablo for nearly a decade. Cars and videogames are different things, so this is fine. Movies and games are not the same either. If Lamborghini wanted to make a movie about their car, would Blizzard have the right to complain? If someone else felt like naming a movie after the devil, can blizzard complain. If I made a movie called Windows, showing the life of a pane on a skyscaper, would Microsoft try to take more of my money? The point I am getting at is they are unrelated, and whoever gets it first wins.
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
What about the made for TV movie "El Diablo" released in 1990 (starring Anthony Edwards and Louis Gossett Jr.)? How can Blizzard Entertainment claim that they own a trademark to the use of the name "Diablo" in a film title when that was released years before their video game?
If you look at it from Blizzard's perspective, you can see why they are concerned -- especially if New Line's movie is released before Blizzard's is.
They've obviously invested a lot in the production of this movie and New Line's movie will likely impact ticket sales in a negative way. It would be difficult for Blizzard to change the name of *their* movie considering their game has been out for a few years now.
Not to say that I think they have a good legal basis for the suit, but if it were me, I'd be riled up and ready for a fight. Are you other folks saying that if you were in Blizzard's shoes you'd just roll over and die without even trying???
Some lines from the movie "Gladiator" seem appropriate:
General: People should know when they're conquered.
Maximus: Would you give up? ... Would I?
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
This is not a case of Blizzard unfairly lashing out at anyone using the word "Diablo" without their permission, contrary to the submitter's description. If you read the article it clearly states that Blizzard trademarked the name "Diablo" for a possible movie back in '96. This is a very clear-cut situation and Blizzard is doing the right thing here. You'd think that the guy who submitted this would have at least read the article himself beforehand (especially with the vitriolic commentary).
If that's ironic, how ironic is it then that you spelled "ironically" wrong? Heck, imagine if I'd speeled "spelling" wrong ;)
Yes, that's a joke.
Traditionally the US does not extend any protections to titles. (Recognition of the limited number of rational choices?) For example the movie "Jack Frost". One is about a maniac killer turned snowman, the other about a "dad" turned snowman. Quite different movies, same title, no fuss.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Err, shouldn't Lambourghini be suing Blizzard for stealing their name in that case?
Diablo is not a trademark it's just a word and anybody can use it for whatever they want. More than likely it is mere coincidence that New Line are using the same word that was used for a game. I hope they lose, big time.
You're totally right. I'm glad some people are a little more intelligent about things. ;)
Further to pick apart what you began, what's with getting all inquisitive about "what sort of precedent will be set"? People have been doing things like this for years, the precedent has been set. If you're using it in a specific way to make money, other people can't. Simple as that.
To help explain it to the simpler folk, Hershey's obviously can't keep me from using the word "kisses" unless i try and sell a chocolate candy with that word, then you better believe they damn well can and will.
More importantly, since when can you trademark a title long before you use it?
There are many movies that have identical titles, and far more that have confusingly similar ones (which is practically equivalent in trademark law). I've never before heard of a lawsuit over it.
I don't think trademark should apply to fiction titles at all. It's simply absurd. Fiction is not supposed to be so important that something like trademark is needed to protect consumers from being tricked into purchasing the wrong product.
For that matter, I still don't see any IP law protecting merchandising rights. It can't be a copyright violation, since a plush toy isn't a copyrightable work. It can't be trademark violation, since characters and locations in a fictional work aren't products. Does anyone out there know why you can't make and sell plush Ewoks without permission from Lucasfilm?
---
"Diablo" is the Spanish word for "Devil"!!!! This is like trying to trademark the word "Jesus" and demanding that everyone pay for using it. IANAL but my understanding is that you should never name your product after a dictionary noun. When your product is named after a word that is 2000 years older than the product it's awfully hard to claim exclusive ownership.
I don't know if using a non-English noun helps, but in this case, a movie about a Hispanic drug lord, "Diablo" is a perfectly logical name for the (anti)hero and therefore the movie.
By their argument, "Devil in a Blue Dress" cannot be marketed in a Spanish translation - "Diablo en un vestido azul" would violate their trademark. Diablo players in Latin America might think the movie was somehow related. A Hispanic author couldn't publish a book entitled "The Devil Returns" (or anything with "*Devil*") because it violates their trademark.
If New Line can make a movie called "Diablo" without Blizzard's consent, can Blizzard come out with a game called "Nightmare On Elm Street" without New Line's consent?
Can the Catholic Church sue the makers of Deus Ex for using the Latin word for God in their title? Of course not, "Deus" is a dictionary word in Latin, not a created noun.
This knee jerk reaction is completely unjustified.
Imagine: Ford Motor company decides it may want to make a movie about Motors.
Does "Motore" (Spanish for "Motor") 'belong' to Ford Motor? Only Ford can forever title movies containing "Motore"?
No, but if Ford has recieved a trademark on the usage of the name 'Motore' for their movie, then you can't make your own movie called 'Motore'. Think of something original. (Although I hightly doubt they would ignore the chance for some precious advertising time by calling the movie 'Ford Motere'. Same for apple. If you make a movie called 'Bob the Movie', or a motor oil called 'Bob the Motor Oil', and you trademark it, nobody else can call their movie or motor oil that. Is that so bad?
Should Microsoft be allowed to release the next windows under the name Linux? No. That would violate Linus Torvald's trademark. Likewise, should Redhat be allowed to release a distro of linux called WindowsNT? No. That would violate Microsoft's trademark. Do you want to live in a world where you download the latest version of Slackware, only to find that Microsoft has named one of their products that? Should the makers of Slackware have no legal recourse if that happens?
You see, trademarks aren't for protecting big business, or small business, or the 'evil plutocrats'. Trademarks protect us, the consumers. Those who wouldn't know the difference between Slackware 'Slackware' and Microsoft 'Slackware', or Bob's 'Bob the Motor Oil' and my 'Bob the Motor Oil'.
Rader
Does anybody remember Chi-Chi's Diablo sauce? This was the green salsa that you had to ask for. They had mild, hot, then diablo. You could order any dish you wanted "diablo style" and they would smother it in diablo sauce. I used to order a soft taco Diablo, and it was so hot it was like the Guatamalan insanity peppers from the Simpson's. I'm not kidding, the stuff actually seemed to have some kind of drug effect to the point where I would get all flushed.
This was back when Chi-Chi's was cool and I was too young to get heartburn. The last time I went back there the menu looked like something from Denny's. I probably wouldn't order those dishes now, but it's a shame to think that you can't get that stuff anymore.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
-Mark
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
That would mean that they "owned" the word diablo. Just how does one own such a word? Surely they didn't buy it from... somebody?
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
nightmare on elm street and a single, common (is spain, anyway) word are two slightly different things. I think i'll trademark 'the' and then no one could use it.
i think he's right.
can we turn this into an article please?
or is slashdot too scared of the truth?
***
***
umm... what's a sig? is that a 'hacking' thing?
-Legion
they were beaten to the name long long ago
IMDB has 158 entries of movies, tv shows, tv movies, and games with the word "Diablo" in the title including 2 entries by Blizzard. This most recent movie is the ONLY entry on IMDB that succeeded Blizzards games. The earliest movie including "Diablo" in the name seems to be a Spanish movie from 1910.
How does Blizzard figure it has sole rights to use the word "Diablo" in a cinematic work? Sorry fellows, its been done before.
IMDb title search
The following titles matched diablo
(Years searched: 1890 to 2005)
2 x most popular searches
146 x movies
7 x tv-movies
1 x tv series
2 x video games
[total 158]
Most popular searches
Idle Hands (1999)
...aka Diablo metiEla mano, El (1999) (Spain)
Devil's Advocate, The (1997)
...aka Pactar con el diablo (1998) (Spain)
Movies
Diablo (2001)
Diablo a caballo, El (1954)
Diablo andaba en los choclos, El (1946)
Diablo bajo la almohada, Un (1967)
...aka Calda e... infedele (1967) (Italy)
...aka Devil Under the Pillow, A (1967)
...aka Diable sous l'oreiller, Le (1967) (France)
Diablo Cojuelo, El (1971)
Diablo de las Vidalas, El (1950)
Diablo del Mar, El (1935)
Diablo desaparece, El (1954)
Diablo, el santo y el tonto, El (1985)
Diablo en el paraíso, El (1999)
...aka Devil in Paradise (1999) (Europe: English title)
Diablo en persona, El (1973)
Diablo en vacaciones, El (1963)
Diablo está en Zaragoza, El (1910)
Diablo está en Zaragoza, El (1921)
Diablo fuerte (1925)
Diablo metió la pata (1980)
Diablo no es tan diablo, El (1949)
Diablo nunca duerme, El (1994)
...aka Devil Never Sleeps, The (1994)
Diablo oportuno, El (1940)
Diablo sin dama, El (1970)
Diablo también llora, El (1963)
...aka Delitto di Anna Sandoval, Il (1966) (Italy)
Diablo toca la flauta, El (1954)
Diablo y la dama, El (1981)
Agi Murad il diavolo bianco (1959)
...aka White Warrior, The (1959)
...aka Diablo blanco, El (1959) (Spain)
Angel on My Shoulder (1946)
...aka Diablo y yo, El (1946) (Spain)
Arcidiavolo, L' (1966)
...aka Devil in Love, The (1966) (USA)
...aka Diavolo innamorato, Il (1966) (Italy)
...aka Diablo enamorado, El (1966) (Spain)
Casa dell'esorcismo, La (1974)
...aka Devil and the Dead, The (1974)
...aka Devil in the House of Exorcism, The (1974)
...aka Diablo se lleva a los muertos, El (1974) (Spain)
...aka Diavolo e i morti, Il (1974)
...aka House of Exorcism, The (1974) (USA: recut version)
...aka Lisa and the Devil (1974) (USA)
...aka Lisa e il diavolo (1972) (Italy: first title)
...aka Teuflische, Der (1974) (West Germany)
Cinco lobitos (1945)
...aka Diablo são elas..., O (1945)
Devil and Miss Jones, The (1941)
...aka Diablo burlado, El (1941) (Spain)
Devil at 4 O'Clock, The (1961)
...aka Diablo a las cuatro, El (1961) (Spain)
Devil's in Love, The (1933)
...aka Diablo se divierte, El (1933) (Spain)
Diable et les dix commandements, Le (1962)
...aka Devil and the Ten Commandments (1963) (UK)
...aka Devil and the Ten Commandments, The (1963) (USA)
...aka Diable et les 10 commandements, Le (1962) (France: poster title)
...aka Tentazioni quotidiane, Le (1962) (Italy)
...aka Diablo y los diez mandamientos, El (1962) (Spain)
Diable par la queue, Le (1969)
...aka Devil by the Tail, The (1969) (USA)
...aka Diablo por la cola, El (1969) (Spain)
Diable probablement, Le (1977)
...aka Devil Probably, The (1977)
...aka Diablo, probablemente, El (1977) (Spain)
Diavolo in corpo, Il (1986)
...aka Devil in the Flesh (1987) (USA)
...aka Diable au corps, Le (1986) (France)
...aka Diablo en el cuerpo, El (1986) (Spain)
Heaven Can Wait (1943)
...aka Diablo dijo no, El (1943) (Spain)
Hell and High Water (1954)
...aka Diablo de las aguas turbias, El (1954) (Spain)
Idle Hands (1999)
...aka Diablo metiEla mano, El (1999) (Spain)
Indianapolis Speedway (1939)
...aka Devil on Wheels (1939) (UK)
...aka Diablo sobre ruedas, El (1939) (Venezuela)
Sept péchés capitaux, Les (1952)
...aka Sette peccati capitali, I (1952) (Italy)
...aka Sette peccati, I (1952) (Italy)
...aka Seven Deadly Sins, The (1953) (UK) (USA)
...aka Diablo siempre pierde, El (1954) (Spain)
Sorriso del grande tentatore, Il (1975)
...aka Devil Is a Woman, The (1975)
...aka Tempter, The (1975) (UK)
...aka Diablo es una mujer, El (1975) (Venezuela)
Teufel kam aus Akasawa, Der (1971)
...aka Devil Came from Akasava, The (1971)
...aka Diablo que vino de Akasawa, El (1974) (Spain)
Al diablo con amor (1972)
Al diablo con la música (1958)
Al diablo las mujeres (1955)
...aka Por culpa de una mujer (1955) (Mexico)
El Diablo Rides (1939)
Oro diablo (2000)
...aka Devil Gold (2000)
...aka Garimpeiros (2000) (Venezuela: première title)
Al diablo con este cura! (1967)
...aka To Hell with This Priest! (1967)
Cruz Diablo (1934)
...aka Devil's Cross, The (1934)
Pobre diablo (1940)
Con el diablo en el cuerpo (1947)
Con el diablo en el cuerpo (1954)
Duel at Diablo (1966)
...aka Ralph Nelson's Duel at Diablo (1966)
Cruz del diablo, La (1975)
...aka Cross of the Devil (1975) (USA)
...aka Devil's Cross, The (1975)
Eye of the Devil (1967)
...aka 13 (1967)
...aka Ojo del diablo, El (1967) (Spain)
Hermanos Diablo, Los (1959)
Isla del diablo, La (1994)
Pelo del diablo, El (1942)
Cerco del diablo, El (1952)
Due occhi diabolici (1990)
...aka Two Evil Eyes (1990) (USA)
...aka Ojos del diablo, Los (1990) (Spain)
Fallen Angel (1945)
...aka Ángel o diablo? (1945) (Spain)
Hijos del diablo, Los (1978)
Joyas del diablo, Las (1969)
Juego del diablo, El (1978)
Miele del diavolo, Il (1986)
...aka Dangerous Obsession (1986)
...aka Devil's Honey (1986) (literal English title)
...aka Divine Obsession (1986)
...aka Miel del diablo, La (1986) (Spain)
Strange Cargo (1940)
...aka Isla del diablo, La (1940) (Venezuela)
Beat the Devil (1953)
...aka Tesoro dell'Africa, Il (1953) (Italy)
...aka Burla del diablo, La (1953) (Spain)
Day of the Evil Gun (1968)
...aka Armas del diablo, Las (1969) (Mexico)
Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol (1964)
...aka Black God, White Devil (1964)
...aka Dios y el diablo en la tierra del sol (1964) (Spain)
Devil Rides Out, The (1968)
...aka Devil's Bride, The (1968) (USA)
...aka Novia del diablo, La (1968) (Spain)
Día con el diablo, Un (1945)
Fiesta del diablo, La (1931)
Fistol del diablo, El (1961)
Forsaking All Others (1934)
...aka Cuando el diablo asoma (1934) (Spain)
Platos del diablo, Los (1992)
...aka Devil's Plates, The (1992)
Puente del diablo, El (1956)
Roberto el diablo (1957)
Aliento del diablo, El (1993)
...aka Devil's Breath, The (1993)
Amantes del diablo, Las (1971)
...aka Diabolici convegni, I (1971) (Italy)
...aka Feast for the Devil (1971) (USA: video title)
...aka Feast of Satan (1971) (USA: US version)
...aka Night of the Devils (1971) (USA)
Aullido del diablo, El (1987)
...aka Howl of the Devil (1987)
Devil's Agent, The (1961)
...aka Im Namen des Teufels (1961) (West Germany)
...aka Agente del diablo, El (1961) (Spain)
Devil's Doorway (1950)
...aka Puerta del diablo, La (1950) (Spain)
Devil's Hand, The (1962)
...aka Devil's Doll (1962)
...aka Live to Love (1962)
...aka Naked Goddess, The (1962)
...aka Muñeca del diablo, La (1962) (Venezuela)
Devil's Own, The (1997)
...aka Sombra del diablo, La (1997) (Spain)
Devil's Rain, The (1975)
...aka Lluvia del diablo, La (1975) (Spain)
Dineros del diablo, Los (1953)
Garden of Evil (1954)
...aka Jardú del diablo, El (1954) (Spain)
Giant From the Unknown (1958)
...aka Diablo Giant, The (1958)
...aka Giant From Devil's Crag (1958)
...aka Giant From Diablo Point (1958)
Lágrima del diablo, La (1961)
Love Is the Devil (1998)
...aka Ai no akuma (1999) (Japan)
...aka Love Is the Devil (1998) (France)
...aka Love Is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon (1998) (USA)
...aka Amor es el diablo, El (1999) (Argentina)
Madrina del diablo, La (1937)
...aka Devil's Godmother, The (1937)
Montaña del diablo, La (1973)
Poppies Are Also Flowers (1966)
...aka Danger Grows Wild (1966) (UK)
...aka Opium Connection, The (1966)
...aka Poppy Is Also a Flower, The (1966) (USA)
...aka Flores del diablo, Las (1966) (Spain)
Beauté du diable, La (1950)
...aka Beauty and the Devil (1952) (USA)
...aka Beauty of the Devil, The (1950)
...aka Belleza del diablo, La (1950) (Spain)
Bedazzled (1967)
...aka Mi amigo el diablo (1967) (Venezuela)
Carnaval del diablo, El (1936)
Devil's Brigade, The (1968)
...aka Brigada del diablo, La (1968) (Spain)
Espinazo del diablo, El (2001)
...aka Devil's Backbone, The (2001) (Europe: English title) (USA)
Guilty as Sin (1993)
...aka Abogado del diablo, El (1993) (Spain)
Hell Mountain (1998)
...aka Chained Heat 3 (2000) (USA: video box title)
...aka Chained Heat 3: The Horror of Hell Mountain (2000) (UK: video title)
...aka Montaña del diablo, La (1998) (Venezuela)
Herencia del diablo, La (1917)
Hijo de Cruz Diablo, El (1941)
Peyton Place (1957)
...aka Caldera del diablo, La (1957) (Venezuela)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
...aka Semilla del diablo, La (1968) (Spain)
Savage Innocents, The (1959)
...aka Dents du diable, Les (1959) (France)
...aka Ombre bianche (1959) (Italy)
...aka Dientes del diablo, Los (1959) (Spain)
Teufels Advokat, Des (1978)
...aka Devil's Advocate, The (1978) (UK)
...aka Abogado del diablo, El (1978) (Spain)
Vela para el diablo, Una (1973)
...aka Candle for the Devil, A (1973)
...aka It Happened at Nightmare Inn (1973)
...aka Nightmare Hotel (1973)
Venganza del Diablo, La (1954)
Chiesa, La (1988)
...aka Cathedral of Demons (1988)
...aka Church, The (1988)
...aka Demon Cathedral (1988)
...aka Demons 3 (1988)
...aka In the Land of the Demons (1988)
...aka Engendro del diablo, El (1988) (Spain)
Gunfight at Comanche Creek (1964)
...aka Duelo no Rio Diablo (1964) (Portugal)
Hammersmith Is Out (1972)
...aka Pacto con el diablo (1972) (Spain)
Hell Bent (1918)
...aka Three Bad Men, The (1918) (USA: bowdlerized title)
...aka Barranco del diablo, El (1918) (Spain)
Manzanita del diablo, La (1989)
Ride Clear of Diablo (1954)
...aka Breckenridge Story, The (1954) (USA)
Sacristán del diablo, El (1992)
Sorge du diable, Le (1991)
...aka Quimeras del diablo, Las (1991) (Guatemala)
Spina dorsale del diavolo, La (1971)
...aka Deserter, The (1971) (USA)
...aka Djavolja kicma (1971) (Yugoslavia: Serbian title)
...aka Spina dorsale del diavolo, La (1971) (Italy)
...aka Quebrada del diablo, La (1971) (Spain)
Welcome to Hard Times (1967)
...aka Killer on a Horse (1967) (UK)
...aka Bala para el diablo, Una (1967) (Spain)
Adán, Eva y el diablo (1945)
De la piel del diablo (1962)
Demon Knight (1995)
...aka Demon Keeper (1995)
...aka Tales from the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight (1995) (USA: complete title)
...aka Caballero del diablo (1995) (Spain)
Devil's Advocate, The (1997)
...aka Pactar con el diablo (1998) (Spain)
Devil's Disciple, The (1959)
...aka Discúulo del diablo, El (1959) (Spain)
Devil's Messenger (1961)
...aka Mensajera del diablo, La (1961) (Venezuela)
Devil's Triangle, The (1974)
...aka Triángulo del diablo, El (1974) (Venezuela)
Escape from El Diablo (1983)
Quincy Adams Sawyer (1922)
...aka Cataratas del diablo, Las (1922) (Spain)
Sombra de Cruz Diablo, La (1954)
De la part des copains (1970)
...aka Cold Sweat (1974) (USA)
...aka Uomo dalle due ombre, L' (1970) (Italy)
...aka Vrienden laten groeten, De (1970) (Belgium: Flemish title)
...aka Compañeros del diablo, Los (1970) (Spain)
Florentino y el diablo (1995)
Piccolo diavolo, Il (1988)
...aka Little Devil, The (1988)
...aka Soy el pequeño diablo (1988) (Spain)
Anche nel west c'era una volta Dio (1968)
...aka Between God, the Devil and a Winchester (1968)
...aka Entre Dios y el diablo (1970) (Spain)
Visitaciones del diablo, Las (1968)
Ritos sexuales del diablo, Los (1980)
...aka Black Candles (1980)
...aka Hot Fantasies (1980) (USA: video title)
...aka Naked Dreams (1980)
Tarzan and the She-Devil (1953)
...aka Tarzán y la mujer-diablo (1953) (Spain)
30 Winchester per El Diablo (1965)
...aka 30 Winchester for El Diablo (1965)
...aka Gold Train (1965) (USA)
Cayó de la gloria el diablo (1971)
Devil Is a Sissy, The (1936)
...aka Devil Takes the Count, The (1936) (UK)
...aka Demonio es un pobre diablo, El (1936) (Spain)
Entre monjas anda el diablo (1972)
Condemned (1929)
...aka Condemned to Devil's Island (1929)
...aka Condenado a Isla del Diablo (1929) (Argentina)
Entre ficheras anda el diablo - La pulquería 3 (1983)
I Escaped from Devil's Island (1973)
...aka Escape de la Isla del Diablo (1973) (Mexico)
Muertos, la carne y el diablo, Los (1974)
...aka Dead, the Devil and the Flesh, The (1974) (USA)
Esperanza, la presa del diablo (1927)
Lola Colt (1967)
...aka Faccia a faccia con El Diablo (1967) (Italy: alternative title)
Quartier de femmes (1972)
...aka Amantes de la isla del diablo, Los (1975) (Spain)
TV-Movies
Duel (1971/I) (TV)
...aka Diablo sobre ruedas, El (1987) (TV) (Spain)
Next Door (1994) (TV)
...aka Diablo vive enfrente, El (1994) (TV) (Spain)
El Diablo (1990) (TV)
Rio Diablo (1993) (TV)
Guns of Diablo (1964) (TV)
Baffled! (1972) (TV)
...aka Amuleto del diablo, El (1972) (TV) (Spain)
Sleeping with the Devil (1997) (TV)
...aka Durmiendo con el diablo (1997) (TV) (Spain)
TV series
"Sonrisa del diablo, La" (1996) TV series
Video Games
Diablo (1996) (VG)
Diablo II (2000) (VG)
"I drank what?" - Socrates
(Yep, it's inconsistent, unpredictable, and, at times, unfair. But that's life.)
Basically what your saying is that the present or popular system is right because it is present and popular. Taking an opportunity to say "I DISAGREE" only to have someon dump 'this is the real world' makes me furious. Change is good. Make decisions for yourself - never assume what is 'normal' is correct. The world is full of problems. The only way to address them is to make changes. Dont be afraid of new thinking. Ever.
Personally, I'd like to see New Line voluntarily change the name of their flick. It'll help them avoid confusion in the box office (there are probably people out there who like crime dramas but don't want to see a fantasy Diablo-themed movie), and it's early enough that they can change their name without worrying about wasted marketing dollars
When did this become important? OR worthy of your brain time? Who cares if these idiots 'lose money on marketing'? Why change the movie title at all? Lets allow two movies titled "Diablo". I propose we allow them to be released on the same day. If a heard of sheeple cannot read the goodamn by-lines for their desired Entertainment Experience screw them - Im tired of watching logic and reality collapse to accomidate the buying habits of Consumo-Droids.
What are you thinking?
(and NO I wasn't a major, thank God)... titles are completely immune from copyright or trademark. I can make a movie and call it "Terminator 2" as long as none of the CONTENT is ripping off another work. Example: William S. Burough wrote a book titled "Blade Runner", and it was even a science fiction story, but it wasn't about some dude who hunted androids for a living like the movie by the same name.
Doom, the movie. I don't see lawsuits flying, do you? :-)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
oh no no no...its Microsoft Windows(tm), not just windows. Otherwise X Windows might be in trouble.
you just made my day
You can't?
--
*550HP*
sue-happy fucks.
<---[singularity sig]
Tch, yeah right, try telling that to Apple
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Stuff like this happens all the time. Go back through a few years of magazines and look for any ads, etc. which reference the pro wrestler Hulk Hogan. You may find that at the bottom of the ad there's a legend stating that the name "Hulk Hogan" is TM & Copyright Marvel Comics.
... and Slashdot should probably leave its interpretation to the experts.
Why? Not because Marvel Comics invented the Hulk Hogan persona. No, it's because Marvel Comics has a character who's a big strong guy who's named the Hulk. Hulk Hogan was (arguably) a fictitious character. He was a big, strong guy. Ergo, in Marvel Comics's eyes, his use of that name was infringing on their trademark on big strong guys with this particular word of the English language in their name.
Now, let's take stock here: Hulk Hogan could certainly not bench press 18 tons. Hulk Hogan was certainly not green, and he didn't undergo any particular transformation when he got angry. It could be argued that his use of the word "hulk" was just plain English language, and nothing more.
Then again, you could argue that it WAS something more. And ultimately, somebody decided it was easier (and better for Hogan's career) if they let Marvel claim the trademark and Hogan just went on about his business of being a wrestler.
Nothing really more clandestine or sinister than that. Just like in this Blizzard case. It's just plain ol' trademark law, contract law, entertainment law, and what-have-you
--
Breakfast served all day!
Well, Spanish Bible makes had better batten down the hatches!
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Trademarks, unlike patents, DO NOT NEED TO BE FILED FOR! They do have to be maintained, though, and I'd say Blizzard can't maintain their trademark without making a movie called Diablo. So, I'd be somewhat surprised (though no not all that surprised, considering our screwed up courts) if Blizzard won.
Oh I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where I wrote "Posts complaining about how stories aren't appropriate for Slashdot are as bad as replies to those posts." (explanation: self-effacing humour, dude)
Yeah, sorry, trying to do math homework at the same time. Complex humour and complex numbers don't always mix well.
We don't need posters bitching (albeit couched in 'humour') about irrelevant stories. [snip] In any case, this thread has 300+ comments and growing
I'm bitching about misleading stories, really. How many of those 300+ posts are from users who were mislead by the Slashdot story, and are either screaming about a non-issue, or (like me) bitching about how misleading the story was?
You see the futility of the 'this story is irrelevant' post now?
Futility? I achieved my objective--I made some people laugh. Hell, one guy even said my post "is arguably the funniest, most intelligent post [he has] ever seen on Slashdot". You're right about one thing, though--why the hell am I bothering to defend my +5 post?
It's "straight", not "streight", and "their", not "there"
:)
Not flaming you, just don't want to see a Taco Jr.
Considering that every film ever made that has been based on a video game has been a complete pile of poop, surely new Line would do better to avoid their film having any connection with a video game!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Heh...best laugh i had all day.
3 points:
1) Blizzard, the maker of the game Diablo, has absolutely no grounds for suing. Diablo is a word that's in the dictionary. It is not an "invented" word.
2) The movie is not in any way related to the video game. There's absolutely ZERO confusion. They are in different markets. This is in the trademark laws. When you apply for one, you need to specify what market you will be in.
3) Suppose Blizzard did specify "movie" in their trademark. Who's coming out with the movie first? I mean, what if I trademarked a word, a common word found in the dictionary, and then just sat on it and did nothing with it... Until someone comes along with a movie of the same title. And then I sued. Wouldn't that be trademark-squatting? It's one thing if the word were "invented" by Blizzard, but it's another when it is a common word they didn't invent.
My guess is that the people at Blizzard, deep down in their hearts, know that this suit is pure nonsense. But out of their own selfishness, they're deploying this lottery tactic. They know they will most likely lose, but who knows... they "might" just win. It's all a game. If you don't try, you can't win. So let's sue them and see if it sticks. If it does, we just won the lottery, if we lose, we just lose a few bucks. It's like the lottery.
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
eTrade SUCKS
Xerox owns the word DIABLO. Blizzard owns DIABLO II. Ferrari has a car named diablo. there is a can of chilis in mexico call Diablo. and diablo is a kind of bull. They used diablo bull for bull fights, and moor bulls.
Secondly, IP has probably never been a bigger issues than it is today, affected parties include both geeks and "gravelbangers".
Thirdly, Blizzard is a hugely popular game developer with a fair amount of mystery surrounding them - it's not surprising people are interested in their activities especially:
I know, I know, there are only so many story pitches you can email to Robert Siegel before he takes a restraining order out on you... but that's still no excuse.
--
--
Rare Window - free your photos
Does Lambourghini have a car called the Diablo? Why don't they sue Blizzard???
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
xerox the copier machine people owns the word diablo.
MPAA respectable? Where have you been? "Sitting around not watching TV"?
Question everything.
It was my understanding that motion picture titles are not themselves copyrightable. (I could be wrong about this, though ;-) The MPAA does offer a registration service, but only MPAA signatories are bound by the MPAA's decisions regarding title conflicts. In the case of a title conflict, the MPAA has the final decision (especially if the parties involved are signatories). Blizzard would own the copyright on content based on the Diablo games, etc., but cannot copyright a motion picture title itself.
However, in this case, considering that New Line is much more prominent in the motion picture industry than Blizzard is, New Line might indeed win such a conflict...
IIRC, Sting got his name from a yellow-and-black jacket that he used to wear, that reminded someone of a bee or similar stinging insect. Kinda silly, but I guess the name stuck.
***
Character A is killed by a monster, right before character A dies character A says "Lag!!!". Character B stares at character A's remains and goes "Huk huk huk ^_^". Character B procedes to take character A's gold and walks away. Diablo at its finest. If you played the game you know what i'm talking about.
-I fear the easter bunny.
Trademarking a movie title is idiotic though. Besides, what about movies thta have the same names already, yet having nothing to do with one another (ever see the year next to a movie title?).
[off topic: how that post got marked up to a score of 3 i'll never know... the moderation system is failing lately.]
but anyway... "Diablo" is a single word, "Nightmare on Elm Street" is a very unique title. to win a trademark you have to convince the trademark grantees that your word/phrase in a particular context is synonymous with your product.
obviously, getting a single word trademark is much more difficult than a phrase, but Nike (Nike is the goddess of Victory) did it with shoes and apparel.
--
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
The internet movie database shows 93 matches for movies containing the word "Diablo." Give it up Blizzard: it's a common word, and trademark doesn't apply. E.g. I can call a book "Scientology Exposed," and Scientology won't win a lawsuit based on trademark infridgement. I could even write a book called "Breakfast of Champions," and General Mills would just have to deal with it.
Yeah, I would have thought of the video game first, but then again, that's what trailers are for! Tell the audience what the name means. And I would assume that New Line isn't using Blizzard's style of flaming text (although I haven't checked that out to confirm it) so it looks like they're using a word that could lead consumers to think it was something different than it actually is. Kinda like Reservoir Dogs (no dogs in the movie!) or The Grapes of Wrath (those grapes were pretty apathetic about the world around them, weren't they?).
Besides, if Blizzard wants to make a movie, what's wrong with calling it Tristram, or something else related to the game? I mean, many times in history people have found that the name/title they wanted was taken, so they came up with another name! No big problem, the name is not what makes the movie/band/game/whatever. Except for sequels.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Or in the humor category?
Actually, there should be a new category for crazy lawsuits like this.
I'm just glad the makers of Civilizations haven't sued the textbook makers for using their word to describe ancient people.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Hold on a sec... The trademark is for the MARK, not the word. You can't trademark dictionary words, but you can trademark a word in a specific font, or a specific design logo. Blizzard has the mark for the flaming diablo image on the page, not for the *word* d-i-a-b-l-o.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
Ever heard of languages other than English?
As far as I know Diablo is a romance language derivation of the Latin word for Devil.
And also as other people have pointed out, ever seen a Lamborguini Diablo?
I would say it would depend on the content of the movie. If it were some fantasy movie, I would directly agree with Blizzard.
However, it seems to some action adventure with a druglord called Diablo. No resemblance whatsoever.
So Blizzard is just doing a stunt to get the word "Diablo" in the news. The movie company plays along, since it is also free publicity for them.
If NewLine, by winning the suit, can prevent Blizard from making their Diablo, I'm all for it. It can only prevent what would be the most hideous movie of all time.
If New Line can make a movie called "Diablo" without Blizzard's consent, can Blizzard come out with a game called "Nightmare On Elm Street" without New Line's consent?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Diablo DaisyWheel printers were used with dumb terminals back in the 70's. Also the venerable TRS-80 (or as we early adopters called it - the TRASH-80) was available before the Apple I was a gleam in Wozniak's eye
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Blizzard has trademarked "Diablo" (not "Diablo a caballo" or "Diablo andaba en los choclos", just "Diablo") as a movie title, and a game, so they have good grounds to sue New Line. And yes if you submit a common word (or alphabet letter) for a trademark and it gets approved like in Blizzard's case, you'll have a completely legit trademark (stupid sounding maybe, but legit). That's just fact.
Blizzard has a trade mark for a movie title "diablo". New Line starts to make a movie with the same title. Seems rather streight forward to me. Granted New Line is contesting the trademark, which is within there rights. However blizzard is also within there rights to request an injuction prior to the results of New Lines contestment (is that a word?). The only precedent this would set is that trade marks mean somthing.
I think the claim that Blizzard wants to use the name Diablo for a movie title as well as New Line is pretty weak, even if they have a "trademark" on it. That is, for years, there have been many many movies released with the same title. Some movies are re-makes; others have nothing similar but the title. Just go to IMDb.com and see for yourself.
A most timely comparison would be Gladiator and Gladiator.
Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
Point 1 -- There was no confusion here. I addressed independently the question of Copyrights, pointing out that Copyright does not protect short sets of words, such as slogans and titles. I made no mentions of patents.
Point 2 -- of course they have filed applications (intent-to-use applications, BTW) outside their core business. This doesn't mean that: (1) they will obtain registration (for example, you can't protect an individual movie with a trademark, only a series of films); or (2) that even if they did obtain registration, that they are entitled to the use of the mark. (The number of movies sold beforehand incorporating the word Diablo, or its tranlsation, the Devil, are substantial). Finally, it is somewhat difficult to obtain registration of the word "Devil" or a foreign translation thereof, for a movie about devils. (Note that they have already tried once to get this registration, and abandoned it in order to try again).
Even if they could obtain good rights to claim the mark for the purpose of films of whatever kind they are making, this doesn't mean that titles incorporating the word Diablo or Devil are out-of-bounds. As described in my prior posting, the key issue, after providing good title, is to prove likelihood of confusion. Even INCONTESTABLE registrations still require a plaintiff to prove LOC.
Which brings me back, notwithstanding the two points you made, to the point made in my post. Focus on the issue of likelihood of confusion. The Diablo is in the details.
I don't think even Blizzard claims that they own the word "diablo." But, for example, let's say this movie has a plot that borrows from the game's theme. Wouldn't it be wrong for them use all the money Blizzard has put into hyping their game for their own profit?
Unfotunately, I think this case has to fall into one of those "judgement calls" by some judge as to how legitimate the effort of the movie maker is at making a distinct piece of work.
I can also see myself replying to what I just wrote with flame....*sigh*
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
I would say that George Dubya Bush was posting here again but you pulled a reference from a dictionary...
Facts:
Diablo != Diabolo
Blizzard has already applied for and been given the rights to a movie name 'Diablo' and 'Diablo II'
Fuckin moron.
--- Can i borrow your Clue-Stick(tm)? I need to go beat a few people with it...
Actually, the name "Jeep" was around long before the GP-spec army vehicle- and the name was used to refer to a cartoon caracter, "Eugene the Jeep" which had offroad
Furthermore, "jeeps" were not known as "GP's", but as "half-tons", "four-by-fours", "rv's" (for reconaissance vehicles", and the like.
The task of sorting out the origins of the name is made more difficult by the corporate trademark disagreements involved...
http://www.geocities.com/jeeptoys/history.htm
http://www.uselessknowledge.com/word/jeep.shtml
http://www.ifsja.org/tech/misc/jeepname.shtml
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/jeephist.html
http://www.seniortimes.com/sep98/Jeep.html
if i had mod points atm, the only person i would mod is you for off topic
Diablo is just another chiristan name for the deveal, so they cannot claim to the name. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
I remember hearing that Exxon was trying to come up with a new name for itself (before it was called Exxon) and one employee employee decided to trademark each of the names they came up with. The company ended up paying the guy over a million dollars for the name "Exxon" because they were out of good names.
If that story is true, then I find it unlikely that it's necessary to actually use or plan to use a trademark in order to own it.
The shareholder is always right.
Motore might be italian, but certainly NOT spanish.
I'm tired of these morons who to pretend they know spanish.
Funny... The TV rights are restricted to an action-adventure fantasy (as seems appropriate), but the movie rights seem to have no such restriction. It seems to me that as long as the movie doesn't have the fantasy element, there really is no confusion. And there are a lot of movies with the same title, but different subjects (or even the same subject)...
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
As far as I know, Diablo, the word as well as the meaning of the word has been around since long before Computers, its been in books, I personally don't think Blizzard has any rights to the name, as does New Line, its a name, anyone can use it.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
diablo is also italian portuguese
the rumor i heard is that he used to wear a yellow and black striped sweater, that made him look like a bee. hence, sting
As a lot of people knows diablo its translation of devil to spanish so i dont think it can be hold by any copirigth at an international scope. Anyway, if this copyright madnes goes further,, lets copirigth the dictionary. Im thinking to tell my lawyer to copiright the word United States. jjgarcia from Spain
They did make a Diablo film last century. "Diablo: The Calling" was just the cutscenes from Diablo II, but it was a film, and released in 1999.
Google turned up this Salon article about it.
Sheesh, sometimes people like that just really get to me, you know? And I bet he isn't the last either...
it clearly states Blizzard filed for AND RECEIVED the MOVIE MARK 'Diablo'. Not sure wtf a 'Movie Mark' is but I'm guessing it means something along the lines of, 'We are allowed to make movies with the title DIABLO and you are not.' And it is not like they filed it in 1950 and are just now thinking 'oh a Diablo movie would be cool' they filed it in 1995 and have been working on effects, sound, etc for same. New Line comes along and goes, 'Gee, wouldn't it be great to lure a bunch of people into thinking this is the cool Blizzard video game which was so popular and thus drive up our own ticket sales?' This is EXACTLY the same as a new fast food store opening up down the street and Hanging a big 'golden arch' over their doors and calling their place 'McDonald's', selling burgers and wearing the hats, etc. i don't think in general the vague notion of 'IP' is cool at all, but this is a freakin' trademark. New Line didn't even name the movie 'Diabolo' or anything remotely dissimilar, they named it Diablo and the suit accuses them of doing so to use their established mark 'Diablo' to gain exposure for their unrelated work. The outcome of the suit will decide the validity of this claim.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Heh... You're killing me over here. ;-)
yvan eht nioj
Note that it is television shows with an action-adventure fantasy element, but all movies. I thought that was peculiar.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Apart from the "This is a joke" line, this is arguably the funniest, most intelligent post I have ever seen on Slashdot. Trolling or not, it is brilliant. Bravo.
D i a b l o
Technically, it's not he word "diablo" but yet it gets the point across. I think I've seen other movies with diamonds in between the letters and if done graphically right- it looks good.
As long as they file it as: D i a b l o would they be okay?
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
I think Dairy Queen should sue Blizzard Entertainment, since Blizzard is clearly trying to cash in on the popularity of Dairy Queen's long-time best-selling frozen treat.
---
evil adrian
evil adrian
... then that makes AOL the good guys. Let's not forget that New Line is an AOL/Time Warner company. :P
Do you like German cars?
1. You can't copyright or trademark the title of a book (which is why there are many books with duplicate names), only something like the name and logo of the publishing house can be trademarked. Should movies be different?
2. The mark has to be in use in association with the goods before you can validly trademark it. So you can't have a valid trademark on a movie called Diablo until the movie is released. Period.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
So, if someone decides to name a game "Shwartz" and my name were Shwartz, would I be notified? And supposing I am notified, would that someone need to pay me royalties? And supposing I began starting little companies left and right, straight out of the dictionary, who's to stop that? Sort of like registering Microsaft.com/ Microsift.com/ Microsiff.com Micrsoft.com
Blizzard sues over use of the word "Blizzard"!
Blizzard releases exclusive licenses for educational and non-commercial use only, and only for native speakers of English and Spanish, to allow us to use words like "Diablo" or "Blizzard" in a sentence.
Bah. On second thought, sue the pants off of them.
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
>Remember TSR? At one point they tried to
>copyright the word "Nazi" because of one of
>their games! Granted, they lost, but imagine if
>they hadn't!
That's actually not true. This is a popular urban myth among roleplayers. The truth of the matter is that TSR had some stand-up cardboard figures hat came with the Indiana Jones game, and most of the names had little copyright symbols, i.e. Indiana Jones (c). They just forgot to take the (c) off of the Nazi figure. They never applied for the copyright and they never had it.
--Sam L-L
Sting (the musician) sued over a web site using his name (www.sting.com). He lost because "sting" is a common English word. Diablo has been used for hundreds of years and Lamborghini needs to sue Blizzard Entertainment if B.E. wins this idiotic lawsuit.
Guess what: if trademark law worked the way you think it does, then no one could ever name a product or business anything.
Trademark law does work the way I think it does! I'm sorry if I didn't cover all the nuances in a single slashdot post... it's called a summary. FYI, Blizzard did create a "film" that used the name Diablo, a couple years ago I believe. Do a google search for it...
"And like that
The lawsuit in question is quite acceptable. I know that the slashdot crowd is against intellectual property, but without it, where would we be today? Sitting around not watching TV, not on our computers, drooling over what to do. Blizzard has legally trademarked the devil, and I don't think it's right for the MPAA to try and make a movie about him now, after all, the MPAA is a very repectable organization, and so is Blizzard.
The truth about Michael
you think you're the first one with that idea?
i work closely with some major studios, and get to hear them gripe from time to time about how titles get leaked and domain names get reg'd before they have a chance to reg 'em. why do you think so many movie websites have a 'movie' at the end?
look around, there are getting to be fewer and fewer that just have the title of the movie in the domain name.
devon
I had sex with a camel!
I first read an article about this movie the other day, and I wondered whether it was a movie tied to the game. The article gave no indication that it was, but the confusion that the title generated in my mind fits the definition of what a trademark is intended to protect. I would argue that since both the game and the movie are entertainment properties, the use of the name "Diablo" in a movie probably isn't sufficiently unrelated a field to prevent confusion. I also question why the producers would seek to cause this confusion. I imagine one look at the advertisements would indicate that it isn't a movie based on the game. And if the ads do look like Blizzard's creation, then they're perfectly justified in protecting their trademark.
To come along and make a movie called Diablo is a trademark violation, plain and simple.
Here we see New Line Entertainment trying to stomp on the little guy. Blizzard are the good guys in this.
It's reasonable, considering that the video game and movie industries are ever more closely tied together.
Several wildly popular video games have been made into movies (mortal combat, street fighter, final fantasy, wing commander, etc...). It's reasonable for Diablo to expect to do the same.
Although... this will depend. If the movie is a sappy love story.... it might be okay. If it has anything at all to do remotely with the theme of the game.... that's bad.
Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?
Trademarks grant companies rights to a name within a specific industry. According to the article, Blizzard filed for the Diablo name as a movie title in 1996, and were granted that mark. That seems pretty clear cut.
It's not like they are suing someone for using the Diablo name for a car or a vacum cleaner or something. Video games and movies are in a VERY similar space, and there will likely be confusion (especially since Blizzard plans to release a movie based on the Diablo game some time).
--
I misspelled Diablo by adding an 'o'. However, misspelled use of a trademark can still be infringing. Misspelled use, if not defended against by the trademark holder, can still dilute the trademark. One can not have a Appel Computers without infringing Apple Computer's trademark, nor could an Adoobie Systems exist without infringing on Adobe Systems' trademark. Indeed, if an Appel Computers existed both before and after the establishment of Apple Computer's trademark or existed without contest by Apple for an extended period of time, it would still serve to dilute Apple's trademark, despite the different spelling.
As other posters have pointed out, Diablo spelled the same way Blizzard spells it is still a dictionary word in the Spanish language.
Just because a trademark is granted does not mean it is valid, nor does it mean the trademark is immune from dilution.
I saw that listing, actually -- but it was in Italy not US. I'm sure that had something to do with it.
Also, specifically Blizzard had applied for the TM in terms of motion pictures, so it's clear that New Line didn't do their research before chosing their name.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Even his sig is a troll. Kind of funny actually, its gotten lots of responses. See below.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?. You obviously didn't notice that many people quoted this (in italics) from the original /. article.
Better yet, why doesn't the software company just change its name to 'Generic Ice Cream Treat Entertainment'? Then we might take their complaint, if not seriously, then at least at something closer to its actual value.
'Blizzard Entertainment', my Aunt Fanny.
Diablo (TM) <-- Notice the TM? You can find it here on their website at http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/profile.shtml
I understand them not to want someone to make an action fantasy movie with the Diablo name, since, as another poster already pointed out, Blizzard owns the right to make a movie entitled this way. Also, if some company were selling a Diablo vaccuum cleaner, there wouldn't be a problem. But this is a movie which seems to have a lot of ressemblences to it's game, and you aren't allowed to do that with copyrighted material.
"The answer to the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything is... 42"
Wouldn't it be more likely for that drug drealer to be called "El Diablo"? Wouldn't it make more sense for New Line to call the movie "El Diablo"? Didn't Zorro have a dog or something named Diablo? (Wasn't his horse called Toranado?)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
According to Australian censorship laws this would be a direct breach of trademark.
Computer Games are classified as films.
Hence they would be in the same industry, using the same name. Whereas Lamborghini(sp?) is a car maker. Diferent sector (at least different enough).
Now if Diablo was a car-racing game.....
-Veltyen
It all depends on what Blizzard defines as thier realm of trademark. Do they think they own Diablo as it refers to all games with the name Diablo?
Let's not forget people like me who have been playing with juddling Diablos for years. They have been played around the world for centuries.
For information and pictures of the original Diablo games, here's a company which sells some:
http://www.dube.com/diabolo/index.html
- Serge Wroclawski
is belong to us
R Tape loading error, 0:1
According to the article, the movie's got nothing to do with the setting or theme of the "diablo series" (side note - I found it kind of amusing that two games makes a "series"...). The movie apparently involves a drug lord nicknamed "diablo". Unless we're talking fantasy drug-lord selling DemonCrack to Elves or something, I think Blizzard's just desparate to not have to come up with a new name for their movie, and isn't any more reasonable than (for a hypothetical example) Ford suing AMD for making "Thunderbird" chips [whether Ford was planning to get into the chipmaking business for automobiles sometime in the future or not...]
Given that I don't think there can be any confusion regarding "Diablo, the drug lord" and "Diablo, the fantasy game", I don't see any sign of "trademark dilution" here at all, personally.
Mind you, I had a lot of fun playing Diablo, and will have a lot of fun playing Diable II [and/or III?] if Blizzard ever allows Linux clients for their games, but I still think Blizzard inc. is being unreasonable here...and wasting good money on lawyers that could have gone to hiring Linux coders for their next game! ARGH! :-)
(Potential side benefit of this - perhaps the sheer volume of email I suspect they're going to get from Slashdot readers (a noteworthy proportion of whom are Linux users) will give them a more tangible clue about the potential size of the market composed of Linux Using People Who Are Interested In What Blizzard Is Doing® ...)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I'm copyrighting the dictionary and suing all you for talking. After that I can take over the world because nobody will be able to speak up against me. The end is near.
How come the guy selling all those cheap drugs never comes around when *I* get stuck with moderator duty?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
If I had screwed up like that, I'd want to remain anonymous too.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
First of all, you're not an editor at slashdot so shut the hell up.
Chill out, take a deep breath, and get a sense of humour, dude.
Secondly, IP has probably never been a bigger issues than it is today, affected parties include both geeks and "gravelbangers".
Sure, IP in general is a big issue, but this is a relatively uncontroversial and non-noteworthy case of IP enforcement. Blizzard beat New Line to the punch in registering the "Diablo" movie mark, and now they're enforcing it. It's big guy-vs.-big guy, and the right one is winning. Aside from the fact that Blizzard also happens to make games, that's totally not a geek issue. Would you like to see similar stories like "Blizzard Janitor Charged with Assault of Junior Co-op Student", "Blizzard Handles an Isolated Incident of a Bad CD", etc.?
If they reveal something new (i.e Blizzard is planning on making a Diablo movie)
Then the story should have been "Blizzard to Make Diablo, Diablo II Movies". We don't need stories like this with inflammatory, misleading headlines. They decrease Slashdot's credibility, and make it impossible to rely on story descriptions to figure out what's going on.
Perhaps if enough people bitch about it, Hemos and CmdrTaco will do something to fix the submission process. Of course, not liking to be a bitch, I prefer to poke fun at the issue rather than be all serious and boring. That way, even if you disagree with me, you can still have a good laugh. Try it sometime.
G.P.L. - The story of a squandron of programmers and hackers bent on world domination who follow a code known only as "G.P.L.". Official tagline: "Script Kiddies need not apply."
Win2K - A thriller that deals with an end-of-the world scenario brought about by the upgrading of the world's computers. Based on an almost-true story involving the Y2k issue.
Aqua/X - A Noah Wyle driven action/adventure involving one man's quest to change the look and feel of the computing world forever.
Amidala - A documentary that explores the Anonymous Coward's fascination with Natalie Portman and hot grits. Special guest cameos by CowboyNeal, CmdrTaco, Hemos, and more.
---
iMOLEn
Jeep came from GP, as in General Purpose Vehicle, which was the military's scintillating name for the original version of that type of vehicle.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The differences between videogames and movies are being blurred faster and faster these days as computing power is increasing. Live-action videogames are finally starting to appear, and real-time strategy games have been a staple of the industry for the last decade. The trend is definitely heading towards realism.
Trademark law is based on the notion that certain words can be claimed for exclusive use within certain domains -- each domain is mutually exclusive of the others and so there's little overlap. Or at least that's the theory. Now, as games and movies are starting to converge, there's considerable overlap. And so trademark disputes like this aren't as absurd as they'd have seemed forty years ago.
It may be videogames and movies today, but what else will converge tomorrow? Businesses are (justifiably) merging and consolidating, and companies like AOL have their toes in every kiddy pool from here to Tijuana. AOL may own the trademarks for "buddy list" and "you've got mail", but can they extend those trademarks to other media such as movies? Don't laugh; there was a movie called "You've Got Mail" a few years ago. How much do you think AOL could've sued for?
And as this consolidation spreads throughout all industries, will we soon have a situation similar to the one we have with DNS tables where a single global registry of trademarks is enforced in all contexts? I'm not sure there's even a problem with that, but you have to admit, it'll take some getting used to.
In this analysis, Blizzard legitimately owns "Diablo". The movie companies will just have to pick a different name. It's the same problem they've had with not treading on each other's movie names for the last hundred years. Have you seen any other movies named "Dinosaur" since Disney came out with that movie? How about "American" since "American Beauty" won its oscar? This is just business as usual.
Read the rest of this comment...
Do you any of you work for Blizzard? Or New Line? Do you have a stake in the precedence this might create for the company you work for?? Other than the fact that it involves a game that you probably drool over, does this affect you in any way? By all means lets worry about so much we can't control. Can Taco and the others return to posting cool techy news and not crap about IP. Leave it to the lawyers and those involved, and if you become one then fight it. No one can prevent let alone even forsee all the of the futures ills.
aztek: the ultimate man
No sig for you!!
Was it irony or poetic justice that you misspelled irony?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The article does talk about how Blizzard owns Diablo the game and is suing over the use of the word Diablo. However, despite all the talk about how Diablo is such a popular game series, Blizzard is only trying to make a movie.
In the complaint, Blizzard said it intends to produce a film called Diablo and based on the game. The suit notes Blizzard owns a trademark, filed in April 1996 and approved in July 2000, for that Diablo movie mark, which the suit also notes is currently being contested by New Line. Further, Blizzard also has a pending application for a movie called Diablo II: Salvation, filed in February 1997 and approved in July 2000.
Obviously, Blizzard not only owns the trademark to the game, but to the movie as well. If they can prove that they were indeed going to make such a movie, and that no previous ownership of the name existed, then Blizzard has the right to make the movie. The game doesn't matter when only a movie trademark is contested here. This is an blatant flamebait article that focuses too much on the popularity of the game.
The metal band Metallica (now of Napster fame, or infamy) has recently started suing people making just about anything (including purfume) with the name Metallica in it.
I have to wonder just what 'Eau de Metallica' would smell like...
Sweaty metalheads? Piss, puke and beer? Money?
RG
----
Deepthroat my submarine, swallow my seamen.
Isn't that why they had to think up wierd name like pentium? It was a word never before used and they couldn't trademark 386, 486 etc. So I think letting blizzard get away with trademarking diablo (whether movie or not) would be playing both sides of the fence. I mean, after all.. You'd think they'd learn about making movies from video games. Let's see, Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat2, and oh yeah....Tomb Raider.
Whereas your failure to notice "Yes, that's a joke." at the end of the post is evidence of your brilliance?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
any publicity is good publicity... and in the enterteinment biz, this translates to $$$. Then again, maybe Blizzard is trying to finally MAKE money on Diablo since it takes years to develop and it ain't that great (remeber: that's the opinion of Little Billy and not some company I might work for)
I don't know, I'm just rambling this early in the morning without breakfast ;-)
Forget whatever else Blizzard is known for in terms of "Diablo". The fact is that Blizzard filed for and was awarded the movie mark for "Diablo". Trade names like Diablo can be filed for all sorts of things, but when you file it with the USPTO you have to be specific what you're filing it for, and Blizzard did that. Therefore, New Line should change the name of it's own movie.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Why is this classified in /. as Movies? Shouldn't this be a Copyright story?
I have a game called "Diablo" for ZX Spectrum. I wonder if the company that made it still exists so it could sue Blizzard.
And you can search IMDb to see many movies with "diablo" in their titles (maybe that's because "diablo" is a word from the dictionary).
-jfedor
Well, according this entry in TESS, since Dec. 26, 2000, officially and possibly as early as April 26, 1996.
Also note the clause:
It looks like they DO in fact own the rights to make movies called Diablo, and they're certainly allowed to try anyone else who moves in on their territory..
IANAL though.
Allright, lets all pull out our Treasures of Infocom books, and our boxes of Spectrum and Commodore games, and our grandparent's comics from the depression, and go on a sue-a-thon! Let that be a message to anybody who gets a copyright on anything at all... make sure your company stays in business right to the bitter end, so that you can suddenly make billions when the next Blizzard takes the name you gave to your pong nockoff :P
:P But I called it ShadowPhase... I wonder if I could sue over someone using that name? I wonder if anyone ever used that name? I wonder if the only copy of the game is still on the 100mb hard drive of the beat up 386 with all the cables disconnected sitting inoperational on the shelf in my brother's room, along with my DOS Prompt Changer and Emoticon Generator, and all the pathetically simple menu systems i made for my brother who can't grasp the concept of a command line... I wonder...
Hell, the first pseudo-game I ever made was in basic... it was a quasi-text adventure game.. of course, every room gave you 2 choices... one of them killed you and the other let you continue, so it (quite obviously) sucked
--
--
You can't fight in here! This is the war room!
Perhaps Lambourghini should sue Blizzard for stealing the name of their car for a video game. After all, they were obviously using the name first...
Really? What theater did you see it in? I must have missed it...
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Typical /. response on this one. Time to read the article, folks.
Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?
"How can Blizzard trademark a word? That's so stupid!"
They're not trying to trademark the word. They have an existing trademark on the word Diablo when used in conjunction with a movie title: "In the complaint, Blizzard said it intends to produce a film called Diablo and based on the game. The suit notes Blizzard owns a trademark, filed in April 1996 and approved in July 2000, for that Diablo movie mark, which the suit also notes is currently being contested by New Line. Further, Blizzard also has a pending application for a movie called Diablo II: Salvation, filed in February 1997 and approved in July 2000."
***
"Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?" How about you sell some toilet paper named Diablo and see if they sue your ass.
The article states that Bliazzard wants to release a movie with the same title as their game that will follow (yes, not just the one word) but the storyline of that game! Wow, who could've guessed? They weren't trying to patent the word 'diablo' (well at least not like Coca Cola has a Trade Mark on the word 'enjoy'.
I saw some ad somewhere about the movie and I thought 'self, that looks like a a movie from Blizzrd, cool.' And for a trademark that's really all that is needed. I suspect you don't have to be a member of the movie industry if it can be argued that they're both the entertainment industry.
These days, everyone wants to claim the rights to anything even loosely associated with their products. Sometimes it seems like you can't do anything without stepping on someone's toes.
Remember TSR? At one point they tried to copyright the word "Nazi" because of one of their games! Granted, they lost, but imagine if they hadn't!
The metal band Metallica (now of Napster fame, or infamy) has recently started suing people making just about anything (including purfume) with the name Metallica in it.
In that case, however, I do see a bit of a point. They're afraid the name is going to get overused and become a generic name for metal bands. Believe it or not, both the words Refridgerator and Zipper were registered trademarks, but eventually it just became generic terms for everyday items.
But today, it seems like EVERYTHING is trademarked.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
... in a computer context, I think of disk drives and printers, not some upstart video game. Sad that no one else has mentioned them yet.
At my last company, the management was planning the launch of a new e-commerce division which they were going to call "companyname-foobar" (names changed to protect the guilty).
It was rumoured that the manager of the IT dept had gone and registered all combinations of "foobar" and "companyname-foobar" domain names that he could think of.
I wondered what would have happened if that had been the case. I guess the company would have won and he would have been fired, but I never found out what happened.
Asikaa
Asikaa
Come in, twenty-seventy-seventy, your time is up.
---
let's say a computer company comes out with a new operating system called 'Linux' and used the popularity of the current 'Linux' to sell a million copies, thus confusing the heck outta consumers. how mad would everybody be? sheesh grow some sense.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Who else is Blizzard going to sue? Lets look at other movies with "Diablo" in the title:
I think they should start with sueing the makers of "El Diablo" which was a comedy with Anthony Edwards released in 1990. (I think it was made for tv maybe..not sure?)
After that they can check out the list of 146 movies with "diablo" in their title. Mostly Spanish movies, big suprise.
Looking at the summary that IMDB has for the movie the lawsuit is about...its about a DRUG lord, nothing like the Video game.
Now somewhere I seem to remember an old book or something titled 'Diablo'. I mean, its not like its an original name, but most intelligent people realize that. I really wish I had something witty to say about this... but I find myself just staring at the screen in stunned silence. (serious for a second now) The fact that the lawsuit was even mentioned in the first place outside of a joke is rediculous enough... but that the exec's and lawyers actually are wasting the taxpayers time and money (and their personel, all the judiciary folks involved in filing and presenting the case) in a serious attempt to win makes me rather ill. Or it could be the funky burrito I ate, who knows. Either way, if I was the judge overseeing the initial mediation (I assume they started with that) I don't think I could have refrained from laughing in the face of the lawyers from Blizzard. What hosers... hmmm, I need to go watch Strange Brew, anyone know why its so hard to find that sucker in any video rental stores?
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
It's not a new thing - back in 1948 Groucho came to blows with Warner Brothers over the same kind of issue - here then is the transcript of the letter sent ... for your reading pleasure.
t ml
http://www.riles.org/musings8.htm
or try here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/15344.h
I am a leaf on the wind
I should have learned by now, don't feed the trolls and all that, but I think he was actually a moron. Sad really.
Ignoring that someone else said this (in a very unkind way, I may add), the skinny is this. Blizzard established the trademark on a movie named "Diablo", so that they could make such a film related to the game. That's the entire scope of the trademark. It's very specific (they're not trying to trademark the word itself, just the movie title "Diablo"), and so when New Line decided to use "Diablo" for a movie title, Blizzard took umbrage. In simple (and legal) terms, they have the right to do that. As to the other part, an Hispanic author publishing a book entitled "Diablo" (or containing the word) would have no worries with this case, as the book isn't a movie (or a screenplay) entitled "Diablo", and so falls outside the scope of this trademark. Blizzard isn't being as evil as everyone thinks in this case. They're just trying to cash in on the movie rights to their game, which they have the right to do.
Virg
Blizard dosen't OWN the word diablo, they own the copyright to the movie title diablo, and the game title diablo. This is why I can't make a game called diablo that is a buggy game of tic-tac-toe, put some cool deamons on the box, and sell it no refunds for $60. Don't start saying that they want to copyright the devil and stuff, your just showing that you went "Oh fuck a new article, quick post then read", and that your a dumass.
Yup.. what about Lambroghini?(spelling?) Think they have a Diablo, too....
Go away....
and if you haven't noticed, you're the only AC on this thread...
Maybe if the movie was about necromancers and wizards defeating endless waves of skeletons in dungeons and searching for rare items or something, Blizzard may have a case. But according to the IMDB it's just about a drug cartel and a man nicknamed Diablo.
I can't design a game called 'Satan' and expect no movie to ever use his name.
-Jeff
-Jeff
I like to play with Shiny Objects and Yarn.
IANAL, but coming out a few years apart makes all the difference. The key to trademark law is whether similar names are likely to be confused. Most movies are soon forgotten by everyone except film historians, so if the title is a common word like "Diablo", it can be re-used every few years without the public becoming confused. And if Diablo the game goes off the market, soon that title will become free to the next comer. But given the frequent tie-ins between one kind of entertainment and another, anyone who knows there is a video game named "Diablo" would assume that a movie of the same title was related to the game. So even if they hadn't taken out a trademark on Diablo the movie, I think Blizzard entertainment would have a case.
But I don't think they'd have a case against a similar title that clearly wasn't related to their game, e.g. "Diablo the Drug Lord." Watch cable on Tuesday night: "Angel", the good vampire on WB, fighting for market share with "Dark Angel", the genetically engineered runaway on Fox.
You realize, of course, that if Blizzard wins, Sesame Street will never have to pay for funding. All of their episodes are brought to you by various letters, you know, and those letters might be trademarked. Just think of the cumulative profit on a novel, if they charge a cent a letter.
I want exclusive rights to the phrase... "could it beeeeeeeee SATAN!"
Blender And Linux Fan
(...)and what kind of precedent would this set if they were to win?"
Well, I think we'd never see movies like "Broken Windows" or "The Bitten Apple"...
--
I have no sig at all.
So think about it. If you can't trademark a movie title, where is Blizzard's right to claim the title "Diablo" exclusively? Legally they could release a movie titled "Diablo" the same day as New Line releases their own "Diablo," and neither would be guilty of anything wrong (except perhaps a lack of creativity). Is Blizzard also trying to claim that they will sue anyone who releases a movie titled "Diablo" later, after the movie has been released? If so, I think Mel Gibson should watch out, because William S. Hart might have something to say about his recent blockbuster hit...
Forager
student of animation and the fine arts
One of Blizzards entries in the US Patent and Trademark Office database for "Diablo" (there are several) lists "PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION PICTURES" as a Good or Service for which Blizzard has registered the "Diablo" trademark. The link is located here. A larger list of US trademarks of the name "Diablo" can be found here
New Line was surprisingly lax in not checking whether the name "Diablo" was already registered for motion picture distribution.
Actually, EVERYTHING(tm) is trademarked.
You now own OSDN 8.2 Trillion Dollars.
Thank you.
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
Okay, hypothetical alternate universe stuff here...
Something tells me that if I put out a movie called "Microsoft Windows" which basically didn't have anything to do with our favourite monopoly but instead, in a non-parodying light, was about a small software company in Idaho, that I'd get sued by the big boys. If there was no legal precedent for it, I'm sure they'd find one to keep me from putting out the movie.
Now given the likelihood that neither "Microsoft" nor "Microsoft Windows" was trademarked as a possible movie title, what legal grounds would they come up with to sue me? I'm just wondering what sort of extra remarks Blizzard would use (not that I'm rooting for or against them) in this case. Or is it merely a question of trademarking it as a movie first?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Groucho Marx did make a movie called "A Night in Casablanca" That was released May 10 of 1946 however. So I'm not sure how this fits with your letter written in 1948.
...just what we need, more movies based on a video game. Will the hero of this one point and click his/her way to victory like its video game counterpart? =P
Me either but it's a good letter don't you think?
The whole thing is a: bizarre and b: stupid but seems to be a byproduct of the whole copyright/trade mark law. If you don't defend your copyright vigorously you lose the rights to it. YoYo lost, as an example, and so companies are seriously keen on defending names like Jeep, Walkman and so on. I guess some just go toooooo far... Spike Lee had trouble with Malcolm X because all the merchandising (of Malcolm X fer crying out loud) had a giant X on it and nothing else. You can't TM a letter...
I am a leaf on the wind
I'm too lazy (read: drunk) to look this up, but there was a lawsuit and undisclosed settlement related to Apple Records and Apple Computers.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
There's no copyright protection associated with a title, so the only legal theories left relate to unfair competition and trademark. The gravamen of these theories are likelihood of confusion -- that is, the commercial impression by a consumer in the relevant market. *
If there's LOC, then a plaintiff can win. If not, then a plaintiff cannot win.
This is why there can be ABC for a television network, ABC for a pizzeria chain and ABC for a chain of liquor stores. It is why Apple records and Apple computer can coexist. Nobody in the relevant markets would be confused by the usage. On the other hand, an Apple mainframe computer manufacturer would probably have quite a few problems as a defendant.
This is what a plaintiff would need to prove: that there is a likelihood that a movie named Diablo will confuse a consumer to think, wrongly, that Blizzard had created, been affiliated with or sponsored the film.
And you simply can't tell until something actually happens. I can envision facts where LOC would be virtually automatic, and circumstances where loc would be virtually impossible to show.
* I seriously doubt that Blizzard's Diablo mark has achieved the requisite amount of famousness to raise a claim based upon a dilution theory, but under today's cases, who knows? If so, then likelihood of dilution might also be relevant.
Oh, boy, I can just see it now. All of the domain name squatters will start movie name squatting next...
"just connect this to..."
BZZT.
Liberty.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Diabolo was a dictionary word and the name of a game long before Blizzard started using it. If Blizzard wanted a strong trademark, they should have picked something a bit more unique.
Nuff said.
This is crazy story, you can't claim trademark over an English word. It's like someone copyrighting the name Computer or Car and then suing anyone who uses it to describe their products. This reminds me of the Microsoft antitrust trial, someone was talking about Microsoft and windows in general and said "You know, the only think I would like to own more then Microsoft would be the English alphabet, that way I could charge people extra ever time I add new letters to the alphabet, I don't know, like N and T." I wish I could remember who said that, but it's much like this. Just as stupid. Just as true.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Just in case you missed it, here's the summary: Blizzard already owns the "Diablo" movie mark. It was applied for years ago, and granted last year. New Line is trying to contest it, but Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to ask for an injunction.
Now that we've gotten that straight, I'd like to know why such a stupid story was posted. This is Slashdot: News for Nerds, not Gavelbang: the Latest for Lawyers, and we should only be hearing about lawsuits if they are of some great import to the geek community (i.e., DeCSS, DMCA, etc.). The reasons I can see are as follows:
Theory 1: IP Lawyers have a betting pool on which of their lawsuits will make it onto Slashdot, and Hemos is getting kickbacks from Blizzard's legal team.
Supporting evidence: The stock of VA Linux, Slashdot's parent company, has tanked severely, leaving Hemos and CmdrTaco desperate for alternative sources of income.
Theory 2: Slashdot is run by trolls, who are, in turn, secretly controlled by leading figures in the open source community. These open source leaders hope to sow confusion and dismay among their enemies--the commercial software companies. Villifying a popular gamemaker is a stall tactic while Free Software hackers frantically try to make decent Free (as in software) games, games being the driving force behind the computer industry these days (what the hell else do you need a 1.2 GHz processor for?).
Supporting Evidence: Heidi Wall , arguably the most influential of the trolls since Signal 11 (check the number of fake Heidi Wall accounts), is really a pseudonym for Larry Wall. On "her" user info page, Heidi lists her email as heidi@heidiwall.NOcjb.SPAMnet. A quick visit to heidiwall.cjb.net will reveal that it's actually a mirror of www.perl.com. Furthermore, Heidi's
Theory 3: Nobody actually reads the stories they submit or post.
Supporting evidence: A good look at this should be sufficient, but if you want more, consider this very article.Since they were granted the movie mark "Diablo" in July 2000, fool.
Theory 2 is my personal favourite, and also this guy's favourite, but YMMV. For the terminally clueless, this is supposed to be funny.
J C will receive an injunction for Quake from Quaker oatmeal ;)
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
(Nobody expects a Spanish Linguistician!)
--
Ellison: How are you gentlemen !! All your database are belong to us
--
I like to watch.
But it seems to me that this has some application here as well. Since the title Diablo does apply to something that is previously existing, and is arguably a work of art. Prior Art, if you will.
In a totally unrelated example, I recall reading someplace that someone in Moscow was marketing "Windows 98 Vodka" for a while. Now agreed, it had nothing to do with MS, it had nothing to do with software, etc. But why was that name chosen? to take advantadge of the free publicity of the software product. or something like that.
So it is just slightly conceivable that one company wants to take advantadge of the prior marketing efforts of another company in another field. Thank god we haven't seen a tv show called "Windows 2000". What would that be like? (I will pause for a moment while you let that trickle through your minds.)
In any case, I can see some company either innocently getting the movie mark, in which case, there is a conflict due to prior art. Or someone choosing to use the name, hoping to cash in on the name, but saying all along that they were innocent.
In an unrelated situation, Microsoft had to settle a case with some other company because that other company had the prior ownership of the name "Internet Explorer" and a product on the market before Microsoft did. They still had to settle it.
And there are a few other situations where trade marks had to be settled, never mind the situation with cybersquatters. For Example, there is that whole fiasco between EToys (NEWS FLASH -soon to be Bankrupt!) and the Artist collective EToy.
So there is alot to say about "prior art" when it comes to trademarks, and possible marketable ideas.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
More idiots!! RTFA!!!
You cannot just go out and trademark words willy-nilly. For a trademark claim to be upheld, a company must have a legitimate place in the industry for which a word is being trademarked, or have imminent prospects of doing so. Blizzard trademarked Diablo as it relates to film titles, yet they had and have no legitimate place in the film industry. They only have their vague assurance that, yes, sometime in the future they want to make a movie called Diablo.
Well, guess what: that's not good enough. The trademark will be invalidated, even if the judge is a total head-in-arse moron, he will still see from out his arse that Blizzard filed an invalid trademark request since they had no legitimate prospects of making a Diablo movie any time this century. Heck, it *is* a new century, and Blizzard doesn't even have a script, five years after filing the trademark request.
Guess what: if trademark law worked the way you think it does, then no one could ever name a product or business anything. Every piece of shit lawyer and bloodsucking IP leech with brains enough to file a trademark application could just think up every good word for every good use, and trademark them all, waiting around for someone to want to name something and then extorting money from them. Fortunately, it does not work that way.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I think that happened when Apple Computers started to make sound hardware, which could be construed as crossing the line.
-----------
-----------
100% pure freak
The IMDB (again!) shows this about the word Diablo: 146 Feature films, 7 tv movies, 2 video games and 3 porno movies.
I suppose that this means that we can expect a bevy of lawsuits from Blizzard.
Assholes. Sheez.
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
--
Ellison: How are you gentlemen !! All your database are belong to us
--
I like to watch.
La palabra diablo significa 'devil' en español. Si alguna de las partes ganan esta demanda, la Iglesia Católica en España e Hiberoamérica pudiera ser atacada legalmente por utilizar esta palabra.
The word diablo means 'devil' in Spanish. If either party winds this dispute, the Catholic church in Spain and all Latinamerican countries might be legally attacked for using this word.
What's next? Some jerk-offs trademarking every-day use words? Wait... it's already happening...
Saludos,
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu