'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
hollywoodreporter.com
'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
1–10 of 199 posts
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#2I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and they're no longer going to buy them? It just doesn't make any sense.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of these types of lawsuits stems from the lawyers themselves recommending them and somehow convincing the management to go along with it. After all, they're really the only party that wins regardless of the outcome of the case.
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#3I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
I suspect there's also an aspect of thinking by the company's management that control equals power and leads to profit. Clearly not fully thought through though.
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#4I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#5I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
Ehh, I think Humvee saw a company making a truckload of money and felt they had a right to some of it given that they own a major vehicle that's used in the game. I could easily see an ego-maniacal CEO or founder getting pissed that he's not getting paid for something he feels entitled to.
Maybe they're seeing how pro athletes are licensing their likeness to games and thought they could make a compelling argument for why they should too. Whatever the reason, I also agree with outcome of the suit.
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#6I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
The most common explanation I see for this kind of behavior is that companies have to show that they actively defend their trademarks, which means being indiscriminate against trademark violations.
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#7I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
[deleted]
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#8I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?
This is called trademark erosion. An example of this historically would be aspirin, which was originally a trademarked brand name of Bayer but was legally ruled in 1918 and 1921 to have become genericized, because the company took no actions to prevent others from using the name.
This generally only applies when non-holders use the trademark to market in the same field as the original business, though: not "we went to McDonald's", but rather "welcome to McDonald's (no relation to the corporate giant), would you like fries with that?". It doesn't apply in this case because the Call of Duty series has nothing to do with selling vehicles.
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?
This is called trademark erosion. An example of this historically would be aspirin, which was originally a trademarked brand name of Bayer but was legally ruled in 1918 and 1921 to have become genericized, because the company took no actions to prevent others from using the name. This generally only applies when non-holders use the trademark to market in the same field as the original business, though: not "we went t…
The standard example I've heard is for Trampoline. No one calls them rebound tumblers anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampoline#First_modern_trampo...
I think this is really just a case of lawyers being super-protective. It also pays well, I'm sure.
I think a words like Humvee or even Google have coloquially already lost their meaning--their meaning is polymorphic, it's only a matter of time (100 years is a matter of time) before a better Humvee or Google not released by the original product designer comes along that people will call Humvee or Google anyways.
Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees
#10I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…
I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?
[deleted]