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.
