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?"
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
***
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.
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*