CD Projekt RED - Explains Cyberpunk Trademark
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
flabbyjack
Watchdog
- Joined
- November 28, 2007
- Messages
- 64
Fantasy (tm)
Roleplaying Game (tm)
Roleplaying Game (tm)
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 64
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
errrr you didn't read it did you?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Lucky Day
Daywatch
The word "cyberpunk" was coined by William Gibson and popularized in his book Neuromancer.
Its like if some modem company came along and tried to trademark "robotics", a word made up by Isaac Asimov.
The truth is, I bet the good Canadian author has an argument for going beyond trademark and copyrighting the word.
Also, there is this:
Its like if some modem company came along and tried to trademark "robotics", a word made up by Isaac Asimov.
The truth is, I bet the good Canadian author has an argument for going beyond trademark and copyrighting the word.
Also, there is this:
They only trademarked using Cyberpunk in the title of video games to avoid causing confusion with their own Cyberpunk titled game(s).
Going by the examples given as fine in the interview, they aren't going to go crazy like Bethesda was on Scrolls.
Going by the examples given as fine in the interview, they aren't going to go crazy like Bethesda was on Scrolls.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,313
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
And you haven't read the whole interview either Lucky. Jezzz people are offering opinions without knowing what they opinionate about...
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Lucky Day
Daywatch
Ha, come off your mountain! I made sure I read the whole article before posting just in case you would say that.
The best CD Projekt should be able to do is trademark the complete phrase "Cyberpunk 2077" for video games and that's it. If Gibson doesn't mind, and I would think this was the big concern a few groups were concerned about and why they chose a different name or a derivative (save for the publisher above).
update: "Cyberpunk" was coined by Bruce Bethke; William Gibson invented the term "Cyberspace".
Last edited:
BoboTheMighty
SasqWatch
Ha, come off your mountain! I made sure I read the whole article before posting just in case you would say that.
The best CD Projekt should be able to do is trademark the complete phrase "Cyberpunk 2077" for video games and that's it. If Gibson doesn't mind, and I would think this was the big concern a few groups were concerned about and why they chose a different name or a derivative (save for the publisher above).
That's like saying Piranha Bytes owns everything related to word Gothic…which existed a long, long while before the series.
They acquired trademark registrations which were previously owned by R.Talsorian games who published Cyberpunk 2020 by Mike Pondsmith and who is now working with CDPR on 2077.
It's a matter of protecting their brand name, not saying We invented/own Cyberpunk! and everything related to it.
Trademarking Cyberpunk 2077 would make no sense…how likely is it they would make another game with the same name?
Lucky Day
Daywatch
Its like the term Windows which Microsoft almost lost. Its too vague a term - they should not have been given it.
I am looking at the USPTO right now and I am shocked but not surprised they gave it to R. Talsorian Games, Inc. in 2011. I see he claimed the TM as well in his 1988 PnP RPG.
To be clear they made sure the trademark Cyperbpunk 2077 which was registered. But their latest file in 2012 is still open for opposition.
---
Funny, I'm trying to find the trademark for the Gothic video games and I'm having trouble (they list 149 records but I can't seem to show more than 50).
Most trademarks are something derivative of Gothic (i.e. American Gothic) and not Gothic itself. The first thing I think of re: Gothic when it comes to legal ownership is the font.
--
Bruce Bethke's original short story Cyberpunk! circa 1980 with the story behind it.
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/cpunk.htm
This website dates to 1997 and shows it! I am still looking for his 1989 unpublished novelization of it. Check wikipedia for the story of why it went unpublished - it s pretty shocking.
I am looking at the USPTO right now and I am shocked but not surprised they gave it to R. Talsorian Games, Inc. in 2011. I see he claimed the TM as well in his 1988 PnP RPG.
To be clear they made sure the trademark Cyperbpunk 2077 which was registered. But their latest file in 2012 is still open for opposition.
---
Funny, I'm trying to find the trademark for the Gothic video games and I'm having trouble (they list 149 records but I can't seem to show more than 50).
Most trademarks are something derivative of Gothic (i.e. American Gothic) and not Gothic itself. The first thing I think of re: Gothic when it comes to legal ownership is the font.
--
Bruce Bethke's original short story Cyberpunk! circa 1980 with the story behind it.
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/cpunk.htm
This website dates to 1997 and shows it! I am still looking for his 1989 unpublished novelization of it. Check wikipedia for the story of why it went unpublished - it s pretty shocking.
Last edited:
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Absolutely. Silliness beyond belief!
Let's say they didn't. On Monday (or a year from now) some trademark vulture, trademarks it and sends a polite letter to CDPR telling them that they are infringing their copy right. So please pay us 2 million dollars or cease and desist.
It's all in the frigging article. Read it before you yap.
Let's say they didn't. On Monday (or a year from now) some trademark vulture, trademarks it and sends a polite letter to CDPR telling them that they are infringing their copy right. So please pay us 2 million dollars or cease and desist.
It's all in the frigging article. Read it before you yap.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Lucky Day
Daywatch
Exactly. Its a rubber stamp office - as long as your paperwork is in order the US gov't is glad to take your money.
A hundred years ago the country was so sick of the Robber Barons and their monopolies Teddy Roosevelt was elected and the courts paved the way for men like Henry Ford to give us Model-T's by ruling against frivolous patents.
Worse, in this case someone is trying to steal a property that doesn't belong to them. Its not like the Siroteks stealing Wizardry from Woodhead and Greenberg but its clearly overreach.
And as some in other forums point out, if this were EA or another such company they hate they would be all over this. Instead, because this is CD Project is such a great company that doesn't play corporate games or shenanigans they get a free pass thanks to their "reasonable explanation".
Xian
Sentinel
I remember when Microsoft went after a lot of apps that used the name Windows. I have used Windows Commander for years as a file manager, and they had to change the name to Total Commander.
http://www.ghisler.com/name.htm
I think a lot of that was brought on due to the Lindows Linux distribution when they were sued by Microsoft around that time and settled, costing Microsoft around $20 million to have the Lindows trademark transferred. Lindows changed their name to Linspire.
khaight
Sentinel
It is worth pointing out that what CDProjekt RED is doing here is consistent with the way American trademark law operates, as the examples of "Apple" and "Windows" demonstrate. There's nothing unusual about companies trademarking the central elements of their brand names, even when those central elements are standard English words. CDProjekt RED is simply doing what companies do given the legal regime under which they live. It isn't fair to slam them for that as though they were doing something unusually nefarious. (It would be fair to single them out for criticism if they tried to abuse their trademark in cases where no brand confusion was likely, as Bethesda did with the "Scrolls" trademark.)
If you have an issue with trademark law, criticize the law. Don't blame companies for doing what they have to do to protect their branding plans under the law as written.
If you have an issue with trademark law, criticize the law. Don't blame companies for doing what they have to do to protect their branding plans under the law as written.
Lucky Day
Daywatch
Did you not read what Xian pointed out? Microsoft almost lost a case over Windows - they settled for $20m to keep the judge from making a decision if the company promised to change the name. Of course, Walmart was involved in this. They were largely trying to squeeze MS for a cheaper license.
Also, Apple had to make a sizeable settlement with the Beatles - twice.
Also, Apple had to make a sizeable settlement with the Beatles - twice.
khaight
Sentinel
The Apple case was unusual. Trademarks don't cover any use of the trademarked term, only ones that are likely to create brand confusion. Apple's trademark did not cover uses in music, which was originally not a problem for them because they were a computer company and there was no crossover with Apple Music. Then iTunes came along and suddenly two trademarks that had previously been in different industries and thus not considered confusable came into conflict. Hence the settlement with the Beatles.
I'm not familiar with the Windows settlement, but I'd guess that Microsoft was trying to do something like Bethesda -- claiming wide coverage for the mark in cases where there actually was no possibility of brand confusion. In such cases, yes, the abuser should be smacked down. But that's an issue of trying to enforce a trademark claim inappropriately, not a problem with the trademark itself existing.
I'm not familiar with the Windows settlement, but I'd guess that Microsoft was trying to do something like Bethesda -- claiming wide coverage for the mark in cases where there actually was no possibility of brand confusion. In such cases, yes, the abuser should be smacked down. But that's an issue of trying to enforce a trademark claim inappropriately, not a problem with the trademark itself existing.