Yeah, I know. That guy and his compatriot Leonard French, are examples of why some attorneys get a bad name. They’re lower and worse than ambulance chasers - except they do it for Patreon and YT views/subs. I have been raging on them over Star Citizen this past year. They’ve been so wrong about everything that it just makes me angry when it became obvious they were just pandering to Star Citizen whales.
Accolade did use the names as brand identifiers via their use of the name in several titles. And no, Atari didn’t abandon them because they were still profiting from them for a time.
Assuming that was directed at me, I think you’re the confused one because I was responding on general terms regarding the premise of what was claimed. Try reading it again. Slowly.
Which titles and which names would those be?
Star Control, 1990
Star Control II, 1992
Star Control Collection, 1994
Star Control 3, 1996
None of those titles appear to use any of the names under discussion.
I was responding to this:
"One thing I think he did have right is that Stardock’s new trademark claims require Accolade to have used the names as brand identifiers. I can’t find any evidence that it did.
And even if it did, then you get to the question of whether they were abandoned by Atari."
The last line is what let me to believe that he was talking about the Star Control name itself.
That explains your confusion, you just read the questions and misinterperted what they were in reference to. None of your points actually had anything to do with what was actually being discussed.
The trademarks being discussed were all the alien names and terms like frungy.
edit: Before you respond please realize I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
No; I was referring to the new trademarks Stardock filed (emphasis added to clarify). They would be vulnerable to the same abandonment claims as the “Star Control” trademark, but before they even get that far, Stardock will have to prove that they were ever established as trademarks in the first place, and (if so) that the chain of assignments from Accolade to Stardock was legally sound.
Maybe; I think this will be fought over in court. The gap in sales spanned at least ten years, which is far wider than the three years of non-use needed to establish prima facie evidence of abandonment. I don’t know whether the subsequent GoG sales can “cure” that abandonment, especially (in the case of the newly claimed trademarks) when the UQM project started using them during that gap.
That’s because my points were about the legal process in general terms of what was being discussed. I know it’s hard to keep up; but try - it’s not hard.
This is true, and is what most of that is going to hinge on. Which is why I brought it up.
It will because there is financial benefit from those sales as it falls within the commercial exploit warrants.
You realize just a few posts ago when you listed the names of the star control games in response to a question about the new trademark applications for the alien names you clearly demonstrated you are the one who can’t keep up, right? I’m sure on some level you realize that your bluster here is totally transparent.
Try toning down the belligerence for once in your life. It’s totally ok to admit a really minor mistake like not realizing what someone was talking about. Your “no you!” reaction isn’t helping you any.
So let’s try to steer things back on track. Since now you must realize the trademark issue was in reference to the new trademarks instead of lashing out with a defensive response why not now comment on that since it was the issue being discussed.
This thread is starting to remind me of a scene in Life of Brian:
BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!
FRANCIS: We are! Ohh.
BRIAN: We mustn’t fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!
EVERYONE: The Judean People’s Front?!
BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!
Splitter!
Nice try. But here are the facts:
To which I responded :
And was followed by:
To which I responded:
I made a legit effort to give an answer to what I believed was a question about the title “names” in use. How was I to know he was talking about something else?
Right.
I’m not above making mistakes. And I wasn’t using any “no you!” rhetoric either. I was merely pointing out how I misunderstood (due to lack of context by the poster I was responding to) the “names” being referred to. I worked with what info was presented to me at the time, without reading into it.
As I am not a lawyer, though I pretend to be one on Internet forums, I have no opposing commentary for what’s already been posted regarding that. I do want to say that while they can retroactively trademark the names, given that the titles to which the names were attached were being commercially exploited, it’s going to be tough to make a case for abandonment I think. The flip-side of that is the law allows you to file a copyright or trademark right up to the day you file a lawsuit related to it. And it’s perfectly legal. In fact, Crytek did the same thing ahead of them suing CIG in Dec 2017. They didn’t have any registered marks for CryEngine in the US up to that point. In an abundance of caution, they filed for it even before the ink dried on the lawsuit which was yet to be served on CIG at the time.
Thank you for the civil response. What you just admitted to was all I was saying, that you were apparently confused about what was being discussed.
On the trademark issue it sounds like we generally agree. The issue of abandonment when it comes to the newly filed trademarks is rather dwarfed by the issue of whether those trademarks ever existed in common law as is being claimed, as they were never used in any capacity remotely resembling a trademark.
It’s the Stardock side that has tried to claim that P&F never had any copyrights because they only registered them and received formal written assignments from team members. That’s the argument that the fact copyrights exist once a work is put into a fixed form refutes. That argument also seems to be the foundation for many of their expanded claims, and as I and others in this thread have argued, and the youtube lawyer reiterated, that foundation is pretty weak.
No worries. We all have our moments.
That is indeed a valid issue. But from other similar cases which I’ve followed over the years, unless trademarks were actually filed, they can’t be subject to any such breach claims. Copyrights work a bit differently because first use, without ever filing anything, is usually sufficient to withstand said claim. It’s as if someone tried to make a game called Battlecruiser 3000AD. I haven’t renewed that in ages, the IP hasn’t been abandoned because it’s still commercially exploited etc. So if I came across someone using that name, while I would have a case, it would be made stronger if I re-registered the filing, while citing the original. Claims of copyright or trademark abandonment are very - very - difficult to prove and win.
Though they have a long shot in asserting those trademarks, whether or not they were registered or even used within that context, is immaterial (yes - the law is weird like that) to the case. It’s as if I have a race named, Gammulans in my BC3K game. Then some guy decides to use that same name in their game. Sure I can sue them, but I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on unless I can somehow prove first use, that it’s unique etc. And even then, without a specific mark (the names and everything are already covered by copyrights of the works they are used in), it’s going to be quite the battle.
As these things go, there is a very good chance that they will prevail simply because, marks or not, those names were already covered via copyrights of the works they are used in. In fact, they didn’t even have to register the names as that wouldn’t change the argument; but they did so anyway in order to shore up the claim; and also because said name was used in a title.
The key issue is that whoever owns (regardless of registration) the copyrights (even by way of assignment via a purchase), has the upper hand. It’s as if you bought stolen goods from your local fence. Then the real owner shows up. According to the law, criminal conduct (e.g. buying stolen goods, knowing it to be stolen) aside, if the real owner shows up, and shows proof of ownership, you will lose the item and the money you paid the fence for it.
So if Stardock can show that they bought assets covered by copyright they thought were covered, then P&F show up and can prove that those weren’t owned by the parties that sold them to Stardock, then Stardock is screwed. It absolutely does not matter what Stardock thinks because the due diligence was their responsibility. It’s like buying a house without doing a proper home inspection. Then you find termites six months after closing. You can’t hold the seller at fault unless you can prove that they knew there were termites at the time they sold the house.
And if P&F can’t legally prove that they actually own the rights, then legally Stardock own whatever they bought, and it’s up to them to take steps to establish said ownership. Which is probably the impetus for these filings.
Here’s where it gets funny. The language of the sale contract gives Stardock everything covered by those assets - known or unknown. But it also relies on Stardock to do the due diligence. There’s actual language in there actually. So even if something was specifically covered, it’s not easy for P&F to claim ownership if they can’t prove it. In which case, Stardock wins and owns it - by default. It’s as if you buy a house and then discovered a million Dollars in a fake wall. Then the previous owner finds out, claims ownership, and sues you for it. The previous owner won’t have a leg to stand on.
So this entire case hinges on what P&F can prove, and I still assert that it’s going to be very tough for them to win this without being able to show clear evidence of that ownership, and that it never passed along to a third-party, let alone expired after a term.
BTW, since both sides are now making both copyright and trademark claims, it’s quite difficult to infer who you mean by “they” and “their” in a lot of your posts. In many cases, it could be read as talking about either Stardock or P&F.
Then I don’t think it’s properly analogous to the Star Control situation. The abandonment vulnerability stems from the fact that Star Control wasn’t commercially exploited - at all - from 2001 - 2010. It couldn’t have been, because the copyright license from Paul had run out, so any sales would have been illegal.
I don’t see why you think P&F are going to have such difficulty establishing their copyright. They have Paul’s original design notebooks showing the first concept sketches for the game. Just about the entire development team has weighed in on their side, and they’ve got the original contract that divided the IP rights between Accolade and Paul, which says that the only copyrights Accolade received were for the packaging of SC1 and SC2, and for the parts of SC3 that didn’t come from SC1 or SC2. Regardless of how many hands the “Star Control” trademark has passed through since then, if Accolade never owned the copyrights in the first place, Stardock can’t make a plausible claim to own them now.