MMO Fan Site Removes Character Stats Over Trademark Claim

steveb3210 writes "EQ2Wire.com is a fan site for the MMO Everquest 2. One feature of their site is a searchable portal for all game-related stats such as characters, equipment, items, and mobs which they generate from an XML feed provided by the game's publisher. Recently, the owner of a trademark has been threatening them over the name of a character and in the face of possible legal bills, they were forced to remove the character's profile from their site. Adding further insult to injury, the character seems to have been created prior to the trademark in question."

Comments

What?

[Desler]

This part was amusing:

The misusage of a trademark is a crime and has serious consequence as civil case and criminal case.

Haha what? Is there really a country that has criminalized the using of someone else's trademark? Or is the guy writing these letters really as stupid as he sounds?

Re: What?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we're tracking everything you say and do. You have a criminal list that dates back to 2001. We just never got around to prosecuting you mostly because you didn't tick off the wrong folk.

Re:What?

[Baloroth]

Ah, I see the trademark now. Of course, it wasn't filed until 2009 (which really does matter: registered or not, using a trademark that is already in use elsewhere does not entitle you to force the other to take it down). However, and much more importantly, the Everquest name isn't being used to sell anything. It's frankly nothing like Disney seeking to take down trademarked content, because the mark isn't being used for trade. The point of trademarks is to reduce confusion among consumers: since nothing is being sold with or under the name (by either Sony, EQ2Wire, or the account holder, presumably) it's not a trademark and therefore can't infringe.

If Sony had made a game with that name in it, he might have a point (although, even there, unless the character in it bears a resemblance to some character he is likewise selling, he probably has very little case), but the name was created by a user, not by Sony. It isn't even part of the product.

Re:What?

[Sperbels]

It's not worth fighting....it's worth totally ignoring. This kitty has a nasty meow, but no teeth or claws.

wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

this company has a trademark to the name for use with game characters? trademarks are limited in scope, not all-encompassing-anything-with-the-name exclusivity. e.g. there can be a mcdonald's roofing, just like there's a mcdonald's restaurant.. but there can be only one mcdonald's restaurant... and that restaurant chain can't do a damn thing about mcdonald's roofing unless they start selling prepared food.

they have no business demanding, or even asking, for its removal. period....

Coz?

[Sperbels]

Not sure I would seriously consider legal threats from someone who uses the word "coz" in their email.

Re:Coz?

[Deimos24601]

Not sure I would seriously consider legal threats received via email, period.

Re:Creation date

[tiberus]

Too bad there's not some 'first copyright use trumps filing of intent-to-use trademark application" doctrine to make that relevant.

Umm, there is but, in the case of the character name it's not being used in commerce (trade) so, I'm at a loss of how trademark law would apply. Had this been a valid trademark case, the person who owns the character could have filed to have the filing removed but, there are just too many buts in this case

I handle trademark and some copyright stuff for a small non-profit. I've never had to threaten anyone and I've never pretended to be a lawyer, I just ask nice, explain and get good results. Had I come across a MMO character name that was the same as our trademark (which begs the question of how I found it, as I only look for infringement in places where infringement is likely to happen and cause harm), I at most would have been amused and can't imagine why I would contact anyone.

In all my cases it's either been 1) I don't want people to think we are associated with you or 2) your use is likely to cause confusion of the brand. The case against the OP is sad and laughable.

Re:Creation date

[Charliemopps]

I know someone (I don't like this person) that works at a firm that enforces copyright as a service. It's very simple, they get a contract to find infringement. They have teams of people that use scripted software to find said infringement, then they GET PAID BASED ON HOW MUCH THEY FIND. They send their lists on to the legal department who gets it taken down. Then the client gets a bill... we found X number of infringements, we got Y taken down, Here are the ones you'll have to take to court, you owe us Z.

All the ones that just take them down without a fight never even get to the content owner. They just pay a fee to not deal with them. Does it make more sense now?

Re:Creation date

[bfandreas]

Nevertheless, the guy is a sleazebag. There are several pointers to this guy operating out of the basement of his mom's house and being a pure troll with no merit whatsoever to his claims:

An Arcor email address. He doesn't have his own domain and uses a consumer-level ISP issued email service.
A German owning an UK Ltd. smells. Smells of destitution. There are a couple of strings attached to a German GmbH. Prior businesses gone bust, outstanding claims and other doubts concerning his reliability will prevent him from forming one.


This guy is all noise and no brawn to back it up. If I'd run a popular EQ2 site I would ask if one of the users was a lawyer and would be willing to represent this guy with a snarky lawyerese snail-mail letter containing substantial speculation about the insubstantial size of his male member. Pro bono(which is legalese for "for the lulz").