There are strict penalties for possession and use of drugs as well as for trafficking in illegal drugs. Singapore has a B>mandatory death penalty for many narcotics offenses. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.
Visitors should be aware of Singapore's strict laws and penalties for a variety of actions that might not be illegal or might be considered minor offenses in the United States. These include jaywalking, littering, and spitting. Singapore has a mandatory caning sentence for vandalism offenses and caning may also be imposed for immigration violations and other offenses. Commercial disputes that may be handled as civil suits in the United States can escalate to criminal cases in Singapore, and result in heavy fines and prison sentences. There are no jury trials in Singapore, judges hear cases and decide sentencing. The Government of Singapore does not provide legal assistance except in capital cases; legal assistance may be available in some other cases through the Law Society.
This is ser-i-ous shit. But the streets are clean, and you can leave your door unlocked. Guess it balances out.
You really should have done a quick google. The judge in the Windows trademark case that there was doubt that Windows was a valid trademark, Microsoft shit their pants, dropped the suit, and paid Lindows $20,000,000.00.
The U.S. District Court in Seattle ruled in favor of Lindows.com's assertion that the jury should consider the historical use of the term 'windows' in graphical user interfaces rather just its current usage as being synonymous with Microsoft Windows.
The court also ruled that after a word is declared generic it would continue to be generic, and thus could not be made a corporate trademark. Chief District Judge John Coughenour said in his Tuesday ruling: "If the term is found to be generic 'it cannot be the subject of trademark protection under any circumstances.'"
This is not the first time the court has cast doubt [PDF document] about Microsoft's use of 'windows' as a trademark in the case. In a March, 2002 ruling, Judge Coughenour noted, "that there are serious questions regarding whether Windows is a non-generic name and thus eligible for the protections of federal trademark law."
Microsoft got hit with this, said "Holy Shit", and dropped their case against Lindows. They also paid Lindows $20,000,000.00 As part of the agreement, Lindows also changed its name to Linspire (hey, pay me $20,000,000.00 I'd change my name to Sue-Ann).
As you can see from the judge's statement "that there are serious questions regarding whether Windows is a non-generic name and thus eligible for the protections of federal trademark law", only non-generic names are eligible. Generics aren't. "Risk" by itself is generic. "Hasbro Risk" isn't.
What I think everyone's failed to realize here is that Hasbro missed a real opportunity with this.
Intead of bitchin' and moanin', they could have approched the guy and said, You know, we really like what you've done. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we're flattered you took the time and energy to do this.
How about you include our logo and a link back to our site, so people can check out the "real deal"?
They would have had the Hasbro logo staring people in the face for hours at a time, instead of the seconds you get with any other web ad. And FOR FREE!
This whole thing is reminiscent of Hershey's not wanting their product associated with "little green aliens" and declining to work out a deal for ET. Reeses Pieces picked up the slack, and the rest is his-tor-y.
If Hasbro has any brains, they'll fire the lawyer, who was supposed to be looking out for their best interests, and didn't bother to mention this obvious move, figure out which "suit" was (ir)responsible enough to pull this shit, fire him or her, and fire the dickhead who hired them.
Risk is a very good description of what you're doing. Invading is taking a risk. The whole game is about balancing risks. Monopoly - same thing - the best way to win is to be a monopolist. That's another trademark thats unenforceable.
The reasons those generic terms were chosen is because they actually reflected the gameplay, as opposed to, say "Pony Go Fish" or "brigbragbrug". The use of a generic term carries the risk that you end up with no trademark rights, because the generic term IS descriptive of a significant point of your product.
Risk - generic term, and descriptive of the risks you take during game play. The whole point of the game is balancing risks so you win.
Monopoly - well, you are trying to get a monopoly of all the board properties, Again, descriptive of game play.
Mille Bornes - the goal, after all, IS to get to 1000 milestones. Again, too descriptive of the product to be a valid trademark on its own
Clue. Well, isn't that what you're doing? Getting clues?
Taboo. Can't say that word - its taboo. Another generic word that is descriptive of the gameplay, and not a valid trademark
"Risk" by itself is a pre-existing word, and not eligible for trademark protection. Just as Windows is a pre-existing word and not eligible for trademark protectio.
You can't use a generic word as the sole basis of a trademark.
Lamp would fail.
Triominos succeeds because it was a word coined to describe a specific product, and didn't exist beforehand, so it does define a specific product on its own. Just as "Microsoft Windows" does. Just as "Hasbro Risk" does.
Remember, Microsoft got the paperwork for "WIndows" as a trademark, then had to walk away, after coughing up $20 million, when they sued Lindows, becaue "Windows" by itself isn't a valid trademark.
The criteria you should be looking at isn't obviousness, or even relevancy to your field - its whether the word existed before. If so, then there is the danger it will become generic, or that it already is. Risk is a generic term that has been in use for hundreds of years. By itself it is not a valid, defendable trademark.
If you read the lawyers' letter, you would have seen the weasel words and the bs, and at least one outright lie - that they claim to own the copyright to the rules of Risk, when game rules are uncopyrightable.
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
You can't copyright the rules.
And yet they claim they DO own copyright to the rules:
The RISK game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.
They don't. They only own copyright to the text and formatting of the rules. Anyone is free to impliment a game called Risk using similar rules, or no rules at all, and let the user play by the rules they want.
So, who are you going to believe - a lawyer stupid enough to put a lie into print, or the copyright office?
The do NOT own a valid trademark to the name "Risk" - only to "Hasbro Risk". You can't trademark an existing term, only terms you either created specifically for your product ("For example - "Triominoes" would stand on its own, because it was coined specifically for a game), or a generic term in use with a unique identifier, such as "Hasbro Risk"
Same thing with car companies - Pontiac didn't come up with the term "GTO" - they took it from the Ferarri GTO - but they were allowed to because "Pontiac GTO" is not the same, even though they both refer to cars.
Same thing with Raisin Bran. Kelloggs doesn't own the trademark to it - which is why you see "Post Rasin Bran" and "Kelloggs Raisin Bran". You can't claim trademark to a pre-existing term all by itself.
Look at the smackdown Microsoft got for trying to claim that "Windows", by itself, was their exclusive trademark. Cost them $20 million to find out that they didn't want to go there.
They have no more right to the term "RisK" by itself as a board game name than anyone else.
BTW - dig up a copy of Risk - I've got versions from 2003 and last yer. The 2003 one only mentions "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" as trademarks. This is a case of someone trying to expand their trademark pool. It's bogus.
On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.
Remember how the judge said it was highly unlikely that Microsoft's etc etc
Hasbro only owns a valid trademark interest in "Hasbro Risk". not "Risk." Same with "Microsoft Windows"" vs "Windows".
Their claim to "X-Box" is similarly week, seeing as many unix boxes were running X a long time before, and were known as "X-Boxes" (or would that be "X-Boxen")
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
Don't even need a laundry list.
As for trademark, the term "Hasbro Risk" is a valid trademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. You can't trademark a preexisting generic world. YOu CAN trademark a new word you've made up.
Thats why, in the car world, you see plenty of GTOs, GTs, LXs, DXs, etc, but only one Camry.
Your example actually proves my point, because you're wrong:
'Scion' was an existing term but Ford would get sued by Toyota and probably lose if they tried to sell a 'Ford Scion', and Ford would sue Toyota if they made a 'Toyota Explorer'.
Car manufacturers HAVE copied each others model names.
The Pontiac GTO was named after the Ferarri GTO
The Pontiac Esprit is a rip-off of the Lotus Esprit.
The latest? The Ford GT. How many GTs have their been in the past from different manufacturers?
So much for that theory. Toyota could produce an Explorer model if they wanted to. Though who would, with a crap record like Fords'. On the other hand, "Camry", being a made-upword", is much better protected.
Risk is a pre-existing word. As such, it does not enjoy trademark protection, even in its own product domain. Same as GTO with cars. Same as PS2 in the digital world. Same as Windows.
The law doesn't provide protection, either under copyright or under trademark, for generic words. For example, Windows is not a trademark of Microsoft. They learned that lesson the hard way, and it cost them $20 million to avoid hearing a judge say that (google Microsoft Lindows)
Trademark protection only is valid for non-generic, coined terms, and even then it can be lost by neglect, or adoption by the public as a generic (Escalator is a good example). But you can NOT trademark a term such as "Raisin Bran" and expect to win in court. Kelloggs can't sue Post, because only the terms "Kelloggs Raisin Bran" or "Post Raisin Bran" are protected, not "Raisin Bran" by itself.
So you can create a game called "kimvette RISK" and there's nothing they can do except bluster and threaten.
Here's the actual letter they wrote:
Dear Mr. Hazen:
We are counsel for Hasbro, Inc. (.Hasbro.), the owner of the copyrights and trademarks for the famous RISK� game. We write concerning the online.Risk. game (the.Game.) that you have made available for use in conjunction with Google maps at your website www.ashotoforangejuice.com/gmrisk.html. Your Game appears to copy elements of Hasbro.s RISK� game and rules as well as its trademark. The RISK� game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.
Translation: If this sneaks by your bullshit detector, I p0wn you. Hopefully, you won't check to see exactly what the law says...
Of course, the law says otherwise - they do NOT "own" the rules The rules to the game of Risk are not protected by copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
...
So much for that. Let's continue
Hasbro also owns the trademark rights to the RISK� name.
They may have a piece of paper from the trademark office saying that, but its unenforceable. You can no more trademark the work "Risk" in connection with a game than you can trademark "Windows" in connection with computers. Microsoft found that out, and it cost the $20 Million to get Lindows to walk away from Microsoft's own lawsuit. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Trademark is only enforceable on terms that are not generic - in other words, a word YOU make up, not one you find in a dictionary.
Your unauthorized use of the RISK� game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. � 501. Your unauthorized use of the RISK� name also violates the federal trademark laws, including 15 U.S.C. �� 1114(1) and 1125(a), by creating a likelihood of confusion with respect to Hasbro.s authorization or sponsorship of or association with your commercial activities. Even if confusion were not likely, your unauthorized use of these elements is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK� game and trademark and hamper their ability to function as source-identifying marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. � 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws.
Translation: I'm throwing a whole bunch of legal shit against the wall, in the hope that some will stic
No they don't just as Microsoft didn't have a case against Lindows. Remember how the judge said it was highly likely that Microsft's trademark on the term "Windows" was valid, and Microsoft then paid Lindows $20 million to walk away?
YOu Can't Successfully Trademark A Generic Word.
You might get the paperwork passed, and then use it to intimidate people who don't know better, but thats all its good for. You can call it Risk, use the same rules, same gameplay,etc. You DO have to supply your own original artwork, and text, and packaging. It will be known as "Anonymous Coward Risk", not "Hasbro Risk". And those two terms are covered by treademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. It's a generic word, not a "coined" term that is trade-markable.
that is stupid, you cannot make another game and call it risk, that is EXACTLY the point of trademark law.
Sure you can. Trademark protection doesn't extend to non-original words. Only to invented, made-up, coined words.
Think about Windows. Microsoft paid Lindows $20 million after a judge publicly stated he doubted they would be able to show that Windows, even though trademarked, had any actual protection under trademark law. Microsoft is unable to defend Windows as a proper trademark, becuase it isn't. They CAN defend "Microsoft Windows", but that's it.
Trademarks were designed to give a LIMITED protection for products - and with this protection comes the obligation not to use a term that is too generic, or that has been in use prior to your using it. Both Windows and Risk are generic english words.
BTW, get an older copy fo Risk and look at the box - even the 2003 version doesn't claim "RISK" as a trademark. Only the latest versions do - and remember, Risk goes back decades. Hasbro is playing Monopoly here.
Tetris is a "made-up" word. As such, it is eligible for tradmark protection.
Risk is no more a trademark than Windows is - ask Microsoft. They got burned when they tried to enforce their spurious "trademark" against Lindows. $20 million it cost them to get Lindows to walk away from the case.
You can't trademark a generic word. Just as you can create "Xarius Raisin Bran", and neither Kelloggs nor Post can come after you (just as they can't go after each other, either).
Hasbro screwed up here. They tried to expand their claims, and exposed the fact that they don't have all that much protection. Earlier boxed versions of the game only claim the company names as trademarks. Its only the latest ones that try to work "RISK" into the claims - and only in all-caps format.
So make "Xarius Risk" without fear - and use the same gameplay, the same rules. Just use original artwork.
He was happy because you were giving him stuff that made him look good to his bosses.
This didn't mean they had a case in even one of those sites.
Trademark protection of words, as opposed to made-up terms, is weak. "Electrolux" is a tradmark that can be protected. Neither Risk nor Windows can be - as Microsoft found out the hard way when they cut Lindows a check for $20 million.
If Microsoft can screw up that badly, so can Hasbro.
Incidently, get an older boxed version of the game - it only has "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" listed as trademarks on the box - they do not list "RISK" as a trademark, because they knew it wasn't protectable. Someone is trying a "lets expand our portfolio" game here.
Just a few quick notes: Hasbro only recently tried to claim that the name Risk is copyrighted. I have a pre-2003 game, and they only claim trademark and/or copyright protection on Hasbro and Parker Brothers in that one.
On a more recent version, they claim trademark and/or copyright on Hasbro, Parker Bros, and RISK (all capitals). They do NOT claim trademark in either case on "Risk", only the stylized "RISK". Big difference in trademark law, but even then, they make a mistake. They also clame copyright on the rules, and the rules are not, by law, copyrightable, only the particular text used in their version.
My guess - someone was looking to try to expand their claims, 40 years after the fact. RISK has been around for a LONG time.
As I pointed out elsewhere, generic terms are not trade-markable on their own, only in connection with the company name.
Microsoft found this out the hard way with ther failed action against Lindows.
To be fully proof from misuse by others IN THE SAME FIELD, it has to be a "made-up" word - one that you can then claim uniqueness for your product. For example, if I make a new OS, and I call it the "redoxical", since the term "redoxical" doesn't exist before I coin it and apply it to MY product, it is protected. If on the other hand, I call it a "Windows" cOS, since windows isn't a "made-up" term, I do not get to claim exclusive use - only use with MY version.
Hence, "Microsoft Windows:" is protected, but "Windows" as the term for an operating system is not. It cost Microsoft $20 million to get Lindows to walk away from that one, and the judge had already stated his doubts that Microsoft would succeed. That's why Microsoft will pay up every time rather than go to court. They screwed up when they picked the name, and used a generic term.
This is also why IBM couldn't go after Sony over the PS2, even though IBM had already created their line of computing devices a decade earlier using the same name. PS2 is not distinct enough to be considered fully trademarkable. It thus enjoys protection only when used in conjunction with the company name - "IBM PSS" vs "Sony PS2"
Its also why Intel had to invent the "Pentium" brand - you can't copyright a term like "586". Generic.
Heck, even the X-Box is on shaky ground - any computer running X Windows back in the days when the console was the norm, would be referred to as an "X Box". Thats what I was calling them, and I'm sure I wasn't alone.
The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.
The word "escalator" was a made-up word that lost its protection through the general public using it for all sorts of "moving stairs", but it was initally a valid trademark. Windows never was - and it cost Microsoft $20 million to make Lindows go away rather than have a judge rule against them.
YOu can make a raisin bran cereal and call it "schon's Raisin Bran" - Kelloggs can't come after you. As long as you include YOUR name, to differentiate it from their product, you're okay. So, you can use the name Risk - its only trademarked in conjuction with Hasbro, in the sense of "Hasbro Risk", "schon's Risk" would NOT be an infringement, as Risk is NOT a "made-up" word, but a generic word from everyday english.
Hasbro can go fuck themselves. I have 4 copies of the Risk board game, plus the computer game - but they'll never see another penny from me. This was all bullshit. I also have a lot of their other games - but no more. And they can forget about the xmas gift-giving as well.
The Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal means that Microsoft will not be able to argue at trial that consumers today recognize "Windows" to be a valid brand of operating system proprietary to Microsoft.
The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.
Risk was in the english a LONG time before Hasbro stuck it on a game. Anyone may use it in conjuction with a game, same as anyone may make a raisin bran cereal. and call it raisin bram. Kelloggs Raisin Bran vs Post Raisin Bran. Hasbro Risk vs Your Risk.
Trademarks are subject to dilution. Hasbro isn't in connection with a game company. That's their business name. Risk is - its not their name, its the name of a product, and as such, enjoys a LOT less protection. The Reg had an interesting article on how trademarks get diluted. In this case,
Risk isn't even a trademarkable word - its a generic english term. Same with Windows. Remember how Microsoft backed down and paid Lindows $20 million to go away when the issue looked like it was going to go before a judge?
The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.
Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone.
Here's another way of looking at it: If you can't think of any other term to describe a product, that term probably is generic. So, ask yourself this question: What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than "windows," to describe its product? If you can't think of one, then windows just might be generic.
As a result, if "Windows" is generic for graphical user interfaces, then Microsoft cannot prevent anyone else from using that mark -- or a similar mark, such as "Lindows."
Hasbro better not roll the dice on this one - the defenders dies are all 6s to their snake-eyes
Dude, the trademark rotects the name in association with the VENDOR. Witness the companies that produced "Turbo" products and got away with it by including "Not related to Borland Turbo C" on the box.
We'll find out - I've written the dud asking for the lawyer's email address, and I'm going to demand they specify what they claim is protected, and produce a none-infringing server-based version of the mother fucker.
but if someone makes a DIFFERENT car, they can call it a Ford as well.
Actually, similar things HAVE happened, especially in the software world. Various other companies developed "Turbo" products, and Borland got all pissy. Net result - no name changes, just a disclaimer on the box saying that it ws no relation to "Borland Turbo C".
In other words, "Hasbro Risk" and "Your Risk - no relation to Hasbro", is all that's required. And the day that the newer version gets market share, YOu get to tel Hasbro to put a disclaimer on ITS box saying it is not related to you.
As you pointed out - its about commerce, not about rights. As long as there is a way to differentiate the products, its legal.
Trademarks to NOT grant exclusive rights to use - IOW - it is NOT akin to copyright;
The trademark is only protectable with the actual implementation of the game: IOW - their version of Risk. Your version is NOT the same (different graphics), and may use the name as a TRADEMARK for your product
the lawyer who wrote the smackdown letter knew this, and went out of his way to NOT claim any specific infringements. All he said was the usual "may be a..." "may violate". If there had been anything to stand on, don't you think he would have said so?
Learn your rights. Stand up for them. Fuck the lawyers.
Re:It really works too unfortunately,
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 1
It's the CowboyKneels/goatcx option, you know "bend over and take it like a man":-)
he idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.
So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name. All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick. No wonder Shakespeare said "first we kill all the lawyers."
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.
The name is not protectable - they own a "valid" trademark for the name "Risk" ONLY IN ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR VERSION OF THE GAME. You are free to create your own version of Risk, call it Risk, with the exact same gamplay rules, as long as you implement your own graphics and game pieces.
If youhad bothered to read the email the lawyer sent, he avoided saying that there ware any specific infringments - it was all bullshit. This is because they know that they have no legal leg to stand on.
I've emailed the dude asking for the lawyer's email address so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for. IOW, I'm going to clone the motherfucker, and stick it on a couple of servers (been thinking about it for more than a year, but now I'm pissed!)
Slashdot Mirror
This is ser-i-ous shit. But the streets are clean, and you can leave your door unlocked. Guess it balances out.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1524941,00.as p
Microsoft got hit with this, said "Holy Shit", and dropped their case against Lindows. They also paid Lindows $20,000,000.00 As part of the agreement, Lindows also changed its name to Linspire (hey, pay me $20,000,000.00 I'd change my name to Sue-Ann).As you can see from the judge's statement "that there are serious questions regarding whether Windows is a non-generic name and thus eligible for the protections of federal trademark law", only non-generic names are eligible. Generics aren't. "Risk" by itself is generic. "Hasbro Risk" isn't.
So, wanna try again?
What I think everyone's failed to realize here is that Hasbro missed a real opportunity with this.
Intead of bitchin' and moanin', they could have approched the guy and said, You know, we really like what you've done. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we're flattered you took the time and energy to do this.
How about you include our logo and a link back to our site, so people can check out the "real deal"?
They would have had the Hasbro logo staring people in the face for hours at a time, instead of the seconds you get with any other web ad. And FOR FREE!
This whole thing is reminiscent of Hershey's not wanting their product associated with "little green aliens" and declining to work out a deal for ET. Reeses Pieces picked up the slack, and the rest is his-tor-y.
If Hasbro has any brains, they'll fire the lawyer, who was supposed to be looking out for their best interests, and didn't bother to mention this obvious move, figure out which "suit" was (ir)responsible enough to pull this shit, fire him or her, and fire the dickhead who hired them.
If it wren't so stupid, it would be funny.
Risk is a very good description of what you're doing. Invading is taking a risk. The whole game is about balancing risks. Monopoly - same thing - the best way to win is to be a monopolist. That's another trademark thats unenforceable. The reasons those generic terms were chosen is because they actually reflected the gameplay, as opposed to, say "Pony Go Fish" or "brigbragbrug". The use of a generic term carries the risk that you end up with no trademark rights, because the generic term IS descriptive of a significant point of your product.
You can't use a generic word as the sole basis of a trademark.
Lamp would fail.
Triominos succeeds because it was a word coined to describe a specific product, and didn't exist beforehand, so it does define a specific product on its own. Just as "Microsoft Windows" does. Just as "Hasbro Risk" does.
Remember, Microsoft got the paperwork for "WIndows" as a trademark, then had to walk away, after coughing up $20 million, when they sued Lindows, becaue "Windows" by itself isn't a valid trademark.
The criteria you should be looking at isn't obviousness, or even relevancy to your field - its whether the word existed before. If so, then there is the danger it will become generic, or that it already is. Risk is a generic term that has been in use for hundreds of years. By itself it is not a valid, defendable trademark.
If you read the lawyers' letter, you would have seen the weasel words and the bs, and at least one outright lie - that they claim to own the copyright to the rules of Risk, when game rules are uncopyrightable.
Here's the copyright office take on it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
You can't copyright the rules. And yet they claim they DO own copyright to the rules: They don't. They only own copyright to the text and formatting of the rules. Anyone is free to impliment a game called Risk using similar rules, or no rules at all, and let the user play by the rules they want.So, who are you going to believe - a lawyer stupid enough to put a lie into print, or the copyright office?
Same thing with car companies - Pontiac didn't come up with the term "GTO" - they took it from the Ferarri GTO - but they were allowed to because "Pontiac GTO" is not the same, even though they both refer to cars.
Same thing with Raisin Bran. Kelloggs doesn't own the trademark to it - which is why you see "Post Rasin Bran" and "Kelloggs Raisin Bran". You can't claim trademark to a pre-existing term all by itself.
Look at the smackdown Microsoft got for trying to claim that "Windows", by itself, was their exclusive trademark. Cost them $20 million to find out that they didn't want to go there.
They have no more right to the term "RisK" by itself as a board game name than anyone else.
BTW - dig up a copy of Risk - I've got versions from 2003 and last yer. The 2003 one only mentions "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" as trademarks. This is a case of someone trying to expand their trademark pool. It's bogus.
On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Don't even need a laundry list.
As for trademark, the term "Hasbro Risk" is a valid trademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. You can't trademark a preexisting generic world. YOu CAN trademark a new word you've made up.
Thats why, in the car world, you see plenty of GTOs, GTs, LXs, DXs, etc, but only one Camry.
Your example actually proves my point, because you're wrong:
Car manufacturers HAVE copied each others model names.The Pontiac GTO was named after the Ferarri GTO The Pontiac Esprit is a rip-off of the Lotus Esprit.
The latest? The Ford GT. How many GTs have their been in the past from different manufacturers?
So much for that theory. Toyota could produce an Explorer model if they wanted to. Though who would, with a crap record like Fords'. On the other hand, "Camry", being a made-upword", is much better protected.
Risk is a pre-existing word. As such, it does not enjoy trademark protection, even in its own product domain. Same as GTO with cars. Same as PS2 in the digital world. Same as Windows.
The law doesn't provide protection, either under copyright or under trademark, for generic words. For example, Windows is not a trademark of Microsoft. They learned that lesson the hard way, and it cost them $20 million to avoid hearing a judge say that (google Microsoft Lindows)
Trademark protection only is valid for non-generic, coined terms, and even then it can be lost by neglect, or adoption by the public as a generic (Escalator is a good example). But you can NOT trademark a term such as "Raisin Bran" and expect to win in court. Kelloggs can't sue Post, because only the terms "Kelloggs Raisin Bran" or "Post Raisin Bran" are protected, not "Raisin Bran" by itself.
So you can create a game called "kimvette RISK" and there's nothing they can do except bluster and threaten.
Here's the actual letter they wrote:
Translation: If this sneaks by your bullshit detector, I p0wn you. Hopefully, you won't check to see exactly what the law says ...
Of course, the law says otherwise - they do NOT "own" the rules The rules to the game of Risk are not protected by copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
They may have a piece of paper from the trademark office saying that, but its unenforceable. You can no more trademark the work "Risk" in connection with a game than you can trademark "Windows" in connection with computers. Microsoft found that out, and it cost the $20 Million to get Lindows to walk away from Microsoft's own lawsuit. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Trademark is only enforceable on terms that are not generic - in other words, a word YOU make up, not one you find in a dictionary.
Translation: I'm throwing a whole bunch of legal shit against the wall, in the hope that some will stic
YOu Can't Successfully Trademark A Generic Word.
You might get the paperwork passed, and then use it to intimidate people who don't know better, but thats all its good for. You can call it Risk, use the same rules, same gameplay,etc. You DO have to supply your own original artwork, and text, and packaging. It will be known as "Anonymous Coward Risk", not "Hasbro Risk". And those two terms are covered by treademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. It's a generic word, not a "coined" term that is trade-markable.
Think about Windows. Microsoft paid Lindows $20 million after a judge publicly stated he doubted they would be able to show that Windows, even though trademarked, had any actual protection under trademark law. Microsoft is unable to defend Windows as a proper trademark, becuase it isn't. They CAN defend "Microsoft Windows", but that's it.
Trademarks were designed to give a LIMITED protection for products - and with this protection comes the obligation not to use a term that is too generic, or that has been in use prior to your using it. Both Windows and Risk are generic english words.
BTW, get an older copy fo Risk and look at the box - even the 2003 version doesn't claim "RISK" as a trademark. Only the latest versions do - and remember, Risk goes back decades. Hasbro is playing Monopoly here.
Risk is no more a trademark than Windows is - ask Microsoft. They got burned when they tried to enforce their spurious "trademark" against Lindows. $20 million it cost them to get Lindows to walk away from the case.
You can't trademark a generic word. Just as you can create "Xarius Raisin Bran", and neither Kelloggs nor Post can come after you (just as they can't go after each other, either).
Hasbro screwed up here. They tried to expand their claims, and exposed the fact that they don't have all that much protection. Earlier boxed versions of the game only claim the company names as trademarks. Its only the latest ones that try to work "RISK" into the claims - and only in all-caps format.
So make "Xarius Risk" without fear - and use the same gameplay, the same rules. Just use original artwork.
This didn't mean they had a case in even one of those sites.
Trademark protection of words, as opposed to made-up terms, is weak. "Electrolux" is a tradmark that can be protected. Neither Risk nor Windows can be - as Microsoft found out the hard way when they cut Lindows a check for $20 million.
If Microsoft can screw up that badly, so can Hasbro.
Incidently, get an older boxed version of the game - it only has "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" listed as trademarks on the box - they do not list "RISK" as a trademark, because they knew it wasn't protectable. Someone is trying a "lets expand our portfolio" game here.
Just a few quick notes: Hasbro only recently tried to claim that the name Risk is copyrighted. I have a pre-2003 game, and they only claim trademark and/or copyright protection on Hasbro and Parker Brothers in that one.
On a more recent version, they claim trademark and/or copyright on Hasbro, Parker Bros, and RISK (all capitals). They do NOT claim trademark in either case on "Risk", only the stylized "RISK". Big difference in trademark law, but even then, they make a mistake. They also clame copyright on the rules, and the rules are not, by law, copyrightable, only the particular text used in their version.
My guess - someone was looking to try to expand their claims, 40 years after the fact. RISK has been around for a LONG time.
As I pointed out elsewhere, generic terms are not trade-markable on their own, only in connection with the company name.
Microsoft found this out the hard way with ther failed action against Lindows.
To be fully proof from misuse by others IN THE SAME FIELD, it has to be a "made-up" word - one that you can then claim uniqueness for your product. For example, if I make a new OS, and I call it the "redoxical", since the term "redoxical" doesn't exist before I coin it and apply it to MY product, it is protected. If on the other hand, I call it a "Windows" cOS, since windows isn't a "made-up" term, I do not get to claim exclusive use - only use with MY version.
Hence, "Microsoft Windows:" is protected, but "Windows" as the term for an operating system is not. It cost Microsoft $20 million to get Lindows to walk away from that one, and the judge had already stated his doubts that Microsoft would succeed. That's why Microsoft will pay up every time rather than go to court. They screwed up when they picked the name, and used a generic term.
This is also why IBM couldn't go after Sony over the PS2, even though IBM had already created their line of computing devices a decade earlier using the same name. PS2 is not distinct enough to be considered fully trademarkable. It thus enjoys protection only when used in conjunction with the company name - "IBM PSS" vs "Sony PS2"
Its also why Intel had to invent the "Pentium" brand - you can't copyright a term like "586". Generic.
Heck, even the X-Box is on shaky ground - any computer running X Windows back in the days when the console was the norm, would be referred to as an "X Box". Thats what I was calling them, and I'm sure I wasn't alone.
You CANNOT trademark a generic english word.
You might succeed in getting the paperwork passed, but it won't pass muster in court.
http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/tech/windows.html
The word "escalator" was a made-up word that lost its protection through the general public using it for all sorts of "moving stairs", but it was initally a valid trademark. Windows never was - and it cost Microsoft $20 million to make Lindows go away rather than have a judge rule against them.YOu can make a raisin bran cereal and call it "schon's Raisin Bran" - Kelloggs can't come after you. As long as you include YOUR name, to differentiate it from their product, you're okay. So, you can use the name Risk - its only trademarked in conjuction with Hasbro, in the sense of "Hasbro Risk", "schon's Risk" would NOT be an infringement, as Risk is NOT a "made-up" word, but a generic word from everyday english.
Hasbro can go fuck themselves. I have 4 copies of the Risk board game, plus the computer game - but they'll never see another penny from me. This was all bullshit. I also have a lot of their other games - but no more. And they can forget about the xmas gift-giving as well.
Trademarks are subject to dilution. Hasbro isn't in connection with a game company. That's their business name. Risk is - its not their name, its the name of a product, and as such, enjoys a LOT less protection. The Reg had an interesting article on how trademarks get diluted. In this case, Risk isn't even a trademarkable word - its a generic english term. Same with Windows. Remember how Microsoft backed down and paid Lindows $20 million to go away when the issue looked like it was going to go before a judge?
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg- 2002-04-all.html
Hasbro better not roll the dice on this one - the defenders dies are all 6s to their snake-eyes
Nope. Can't patent them either.
We'll find out - I've written the dud asking for the lawyer's email address, and I'm going to demand they specify what they claim is protected, and produce a none-infringing server-based version of the mother fucker.
Actually, similar things HAVE happened, especially in the software world. Various other companies developed "Turbo" products, and Borland got all pissy. Net result - no name changes, just a disclaimer on the box saying that it ws no relation to "Borland Turbo C".
In other words, "Hasbro Risk" and "Your Risk - no relation to Hasbro", is all that's required. And the day that the newer version gets market share, YOu get to tel Hasbro to put a disclaimer on ITS box saying it is not related to you.
As you pointed out - its about commerce, not about rights. As long as there is a way to differentiate the products, its legal.
Learn your rights. Stand up for them. Fuck the lawyers.
It's the CowboyKneels/goatcx option, you know "bend over and take it like a man" :-)
Here's what the US Copyright office has to say about it - and they should know http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name. All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick. No wonder Shakespeare said "first we kill all the lawyers."
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
The name is not protectable - they own a "valid" trademark for the name "Risk" ONLY IN ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR VERSION OF THE GAME. You are free to create your own version of Risk, call it Risk, with the exact same gamplay rules, as long as you implement your own graphics and game pieces.If youhad bothered to read the email the lawyer sent, he avoided saying that there ware any specific infringments - it was all bullshit. This is because they know that they have no legal leg to stand on.
I've emailed the dude asking for the lawyer's email address so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for. IOW, I'm going to clone the motherfucker, and stick it on a couple of servers (been thinking about it for more than a year, but now I'm pissed!)