Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Sues Over Diablo Movie Title

Posted by Hemos on from the devil-made-us-do-it dept.

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?"

5 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Why dont people ever read the stuff they post. by Kujako · · Score: 5

    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.

  2. Go after Dairy Queen first by vaxer · · Score: 5
    If Blizzard really wants to protect its valuable names, it ought to start by suing Dairy Queen. Those heartless bastards are mixing toppings into ice cream and calling the result a Blizzard!

    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.

  3. strange.. by TheTomcat · · Score: 5
    Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?

    Well, according this entry in TESS, since Dec. 26, 2000, officially and possibly as early as April 26, 1996.

    Also note the clause:

    IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: ENTERTAINMENT IN THE NATURE OF AN ONGOING TELEVISION PROGRAM IN THE NATURE OF ACTION ADVENTURE FANTASY, AND PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION PICTURES


    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.
  4. It's not a trademark on the word by paranoid.android · · Score: 5

    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."

    ***

  5. Gavelbang.org: the Latest for Lawyers by tbo · · Score: 5
    I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. It's nice to see at least some people look before they flame.

    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 .sig "Trust in god, but tie your camel", is obviously a reference to the Perl Camel. Was Signal 11 Linus Torvalds? Is Alan Cox the goatse guy? We may never know...

    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 when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?
    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.