Lawyers have made questionable legal shakedowns an industry in Germany because there is a uniquely German legal procedure called “Abmahnung” - anybody can basically send anyone else such a letter, claiming some legal infringement (without the need to prove anything) and asking to pay (a virtual amount for alleged) damages to avoid a legal injunction. The receiver of such a letter is usually pressed having to make a decision if fighting the procedure incurs more costs than just paying the initial demand.
The entertainment industry in Germany is using this method trying to collect money from tens of thousands of P2P users.
Well, [sic] comes to alert that there’s something abnormal in the text, yet it is quoted as is in its original form and thus absolve editorial of any suspicion for error on their behalf.
So, assuming Eurogamer is using British grammar, it would, when quoting source verbatim of American spelling, use it.
Don’t forget to then put a thread here with a follow up article on the consumerist and/or GI.biz so Apple gets crucified, justly this time.
Put them against the fence and execute them all to the last.
While I was aware of what it means, I wasn’t aware some places used it to mark standard, variant spellings. But as long as PC Gamer doesn’t start writing things like “Grey [sic] Wardens”, I guess I don’t have much to worry about.
Game Politics is reporting that Edge Games has filed suit against EA over Mirror’s Edge.
“From a press release announcing the lawsuit:”
…Edge Games sent a cease-and-desist letter in July 2007 after learning of EA’s intentions to launch Mirror’s Edge. Rather than responding to the letter, the lawsuit states, EA instead filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in an attempt to register the Mirror’s Edge name. The USPTO denied the application in early 2008, stating that EA’s planned use of Mirror’s Edge would likely cause confusion with several registered trademarks maintained by Edge Games.
…which just happens to leave out that EA was given a chance to respond to the challenge to the initial dispute but chose to abandon the application instead, and reapplied and was successfully granted a trademark on it in a more refined form in 2009. If I’m reading the trademark database correctly, anyway.
I was pointed to a post on NIS America’s message board made earlier last month about the disappearance of Cross Edge from their site. I was shocked to find out why.
As I understand it, he’s been trying to use the fact that he’s reached settlements like that with companies before as a kind of de facto proof that his trademark claim is legitimate in his current lawsuits. Fortunately EA’s lawyers aren’t buying it and have pointed out that settlements don’t count as actual judgments by the USPTO and don’t set any precedent.
“The record contains numerous items of evidence that plaintiff wilfully committed fraud against the USPTO in obtaining and/or maintaining registrations for many of the asserted ‘EDGE’ marks, possibly warranting criminal penalties if the misrepresentations prove true,” the judge wrote.
“The record contains numerous items of evidence that plaintiff wilfully committed fraud against the USPTO in obtaining and/or maintaining registrations for many of the asserted ‘EDGE’ marks, possibly warranting criminal penalties if the misrepresentations prove true,”
If that quote is accurate, that’s pretty strong stuff. You rarely see judges making that sort of comments.
Welcome to a world of pain, hope he gets taken to the cleaners.
There are more damning bits in that article worth highlighting:
The judge also grants credence to evidence presented by EA that EDGE presented doctored box art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in order to fraudulently establish its right to ‘EDGE’ and related trademarks.
Even if Langdell’s rights to the ‘EDGE’ name bear out, though, the judge found that EA’s use of the word in the Mirror’s Edge title was unlikely to cause the “market confusion” or “irreparable harm” necessary to sustain the trademark infringement claim. “It is an open question whether plaintiff’s business activities legitimately extend beyond trolling various gaming-related industries for licensing opportunities,” the judge wrote.
