Update....

Wow! Randy, that''s a nice article. I love the bandit potato head too.

Listen, is that article going to stay on Willamette Week or will it go into archives in a day or two? Because if you want, I can repost it on makegames.com or something.

BTW, I''m from Portland too. This time of year, I''m glad to be in Las Vegas.

Diana

Well, it certainly is wet up here in Portland this time of the year.

As far as I know, W. Week doesn''t do an online archive. Haven''t talked to them about official repost (or reprint) permission, but I''d obviously like to see that the article stays around online.

Randy Chase
Kellogg Creek Software, Inc.

This is the first I''ve heard of this case, so forgive me if I''m a little clueless.

Is it too late for Wizards to change the name of their game? (I assume it''s a new game or expansion for a game.) If it''s the case that they just made a mistake, could they just change the name?

In the article it discusses that it''s an important factor whether the customers of one company would be the same target customers of the other company. I don''t understand how this can matter. Except for web urls (like www.spiritwars.com, or whatever), I don''t see the games having the same names harmful to either company. Actually, I could see it being helpful. Obviously the lawyers who were discussing it in the article have thought about it more than I have, so could anybody explain this to me? (For example, if I were to make a board game called Diablo, that was like chess, I don''t see how either my company or Blizzard would be hurt by the name sharing.)

Just to be clear, I''m not saying that Kellogg Creek shouldn''t defend their intellectual property.

Jesse Chounard
jesse@k-isilabs.com

Well, it certainly is wet up here in Portland this time of the year.

As far as I know, W. Week doesn''t do an online archive. Haven''t talked to them about official repost (or reprint) permission, but I''d obviously like to see that the article stays around online.

Randy Chase
Kellogg Creek Software, Inc.

"I don''t see the games having the same names harmful to either company. Actually, I could see it being helpful."

How do you suppose that Hasbro or Wizards would react if I were to release a new game called "Monopoly" or "Magic The Gathering" - or any other of the dozens of trademarked names they own?

All I''m asking is for the same legal protection and rights that Hasbro/Wizards have agressively enjoyed in the past.

Randy Chase
Kellogg Creek Software, Inc.

quote:

---

Original post by RandyChase
How do you suppose that Hasbro or Wizards would react if I were to release a new game called "Monopoly" or "Magic The Gathering" - or any other of the dozens of trademarked names they own?

---

I''d expect they''d have their lawyers calling you quickly. The point of my post wasn''t to ask why the lawsuit. I was asking a question about the article. That quote of me taken out of context seems quite different, so please read my post again.

Jesse Chounard
jesse@k-isilabs.com

Sorry Jesse. Guess I wasn''t reading carefully enough before replying. (A danger of doing this while on my first cup of coffee....)

Regarding the question your raised about targeting the same customers. Part of Wizards/Hasbro defense is that the two products are so isolated that they would never target the same people and therefore never create any confusion in the market place. (Here''s a classic example. There are two Lexus trademarks. One for the car, and another for an exclusive online reference database used by law firms. Those don''t conflict because the products are so radically different that no one is going to go to a car dealership trying to buy the legal service.)

In our case, while our games may be different, we can document that we share a very common customer base. (One recent survey of our players showed that well over 90% of them have either bought - or still do buy - products products by Wizards of the Coast.) Accordingly, we feel that they are diluting the value of our legal trademark by using it in a common marketplace that we both actively participate in.

Their other legal counter has been to sue me for "fraud" and decpetion. They say that SpiritWars is such a common part of everyday language that it is not eligible for trademark protection. Accordingly, says their lawsuit, I committed a fraudulent and decptive act by trademarking it. (They say this, of course, after attempting to use it themselves. Figure out that logic.)

(This new lawsuit is actually somewhat hilarious - or would be if someone else was the target of it - when you look at the list of "common" words they own trademarks on: Arabian Nights, The Dark, Ice Age, Magic, Clue, Risk, Sorry, Monopoly, etc...)


Randy Chase
Kellogg Creek Software, Inc.

quote:

---

Original post by RandyChase
(Here''s a classic example. There are two Lexus trademarks. One for the car, and another for an exclusive online reference database used by law firms. Those don''t conflict because the products are so radically different that no one is going to go to a car dealership trying to buy the legal service.)

---

This is why I mentioned that it might be a good thing. Until this lawsuit I hadn''t heard of your game. (Meaning, I learned of it today, and when I get home from work, I plan to check it out, as it sounds right up my alley.) People trying to find info on WotC''s version of The Spirit Wars could stumble accidentally into your page, potentially giving you more customers because you share the name.

quote:

---

Accordingly, we feel that they are diluting the value of our legal trademark by using it in a common marketplace that we both actively participate in.

---

Okay, I buy that. It''s your name, and you don''t want anybody else to use it. That''s good enough for me. I hope you can prove to the courts that it is your name, and not a common term.

quote:

---

(This new lawsuit is actually somewhat hilarious - or would be if someone else was the target of it - when you look at the list of "common" words they own trademarks on: Arabian Nights, The Dark, Ice Age, Magic, Clue, Risk, Sorry, Monopoly, etc...)

---

Ha! That''s very funny. They have a ton of common names... Antiquities, Legends, Chronicles, Portals. Those all seem much more common than Spirit Wars. (Which, doesn''t seem very common at all to me.)

I wish you luck in your effort.

Jesse Chounard
jesse@k-isilabs.com

Jesse,

There''s another very important thing I should have mentioned - and one that I too often forget when discussing this situation.

If you do not aggressively protect your trademark from infringements, that can be grounds to have it delcared invalid. If I simply let Hasbro use "The Spirit Wars" (TM) as a valid mark, I in effect create a valid legal basis for them to have my mark declared "inactive"; at which time they could legally trademark it. (And if they did that, do you think for a second that they would benevolently let me continue using it? Not a chance.)

So, I literally had no choice but to file the law suit (attempts to talk about the "problem" with them were not productive), or end up in a situation where they could eventually own the name and be suing me for using it.

Weird world we live in. And a very treacherous ones at times for us little guys to manuever through.

Randy

Randy Chase
Kellogg Creek Software, Inc.

Mech: A common word used to describe a hulking, manlike machine piloted by a human. It is derived from the word mechanized. It is a shortened form of mecha, as in mechagodzilla, mecharodan etc. It is especially used often in game magezines to describe many titles that have these large battlesuits. Common as it is the trademark for it is owned by the FASA corporation, creators of BattleTech and MechWarrior line of games and books. It is fine to use the term, but if I were to write a book called say... The Mech Warrior or even the Mech Pilot I'd be liable to get my pants sued off. My point being that Hasbro has no right to claim in their defence that the term SpiritWars is a common name (Which it's not, but it sounds really cool!)to win the lawsuit. If they had a game that references to a past war call the spirit wars that would be fine, but not to create a "Game" that has almost the exact name. I hope that you win this lawsuit that it will help refine trademark law in the favor of those that already own the trademark.

Edited by - ghoulflesh on December 25, 2000 8:57:45 AM

The name Hasboro is tainted in the gaming field.

Hasboro Interactive & WoC have produced computer games.

A "coincidental" collision of the name SpiritWars cannot be acceptable, because it would be not unreasonable for people too see a magic expansion called spiritwars and a computer game spritwars and think the two are related.

People are boycotting hasboro products.

The public awareness of the magic expansion & Hasboro''s displaced reputation will lead people to boycott a video game by the same name.

If the name trade mark infridged SpiritWars name is tarnish by Hasboro & WoC, it will cause Kellogg Creek Software a lose of sales.


Please estimate the losses and apply legal multiplers.
Stick it to them.

Magmai Kai Holmlor
- The disgruntled & disillusioned