Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#171

Post by cosmodisk »

exoque wrote: post #166
cosmodisk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first that came to my mind is Jeep. In some countries it literally means SUV nowadays.The term is so ingrained that pretty much everyone says like this: 'He's got a BMW Jeep' or 'Look, that's a nice looking Jeep, surely it's Mercedes!'. The funniest thing is that nobody can ever see a real Jeep anymore,as nobody buys them( talking about Europe here).

I don't know where in Europe you live but i see lots of Jeeps. BMWs and Mercedes are more prevalent though.

Right now I live in London and all I see are European SUVs (Range Rover,MB,Jaguar,BMW) with an occasional Toyota or Lexus and maybe 1 Jeep out of 10000 other cars.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#172

Post by cosmodisk »

malkia wrote: post #120
thatguy0900 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I've never heard jeep used like that in the U.S. Actual jeeps are pretty common here though.

Born in Bulgaria, can confirm - "Джип", or "Джипка" which is really "Jeep" in bulgarian (and probably other slavic languages). Another one is "Yonica" for any synthesizer. Obviously "Scotch" (more for the tape, than drink). But... What I really love is "Pampers" - yes this is the bulgarian word for... "diapers"... and many more...

We've got it more or less the same in Lithuania with a lot of brands. "Pampers" is the default name for nappies. "Scotch" and "Xerox" are popular in Slavic languages,we never picked these up for some reason. Here,in the UK, the more popular ones are: Stanley Knife( any retractable knife) or Hoover( Vacuum cleaner).

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#173

Post by algorias »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #123
mnemonicsloth wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly anybody remembers nowadays but Elevators and Fridges used to be brand names (of the Otis Elevator company and Frigidaire, respectively). So the endpoint of nobody remembering that your IP is IP has been reached in practice. And more recently there's the PC, which became detached from IBM in record time.

> Elevators and Fridges used to be brand names (of the Otis Elevator company and Frigidaire, respectively) There's no real reason to think "fridge" is shortened from "Frigidaire" as opposed to "refrigerator".

Well, in Spanish a refrigerator can be colloquially called a "frigider". I've never seen it in writing though.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#174

Post by legulere »

smabie wrote: post #2

I 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…

It’s not the company that makes the decision to sue, but the legal department. For the legal department any legal action is good, because it increases their importance and size in the company.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#175

Post by [deleted] »

filoleg wrote: post #13
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, so this serve the companies interest because they're trying to defend their trademark; even if they failed. I doubt Humvee is in danger of becoming a generic term (Jeep is more likely; I cannot tell you much my it annoyed me my ex called her Suzuki 4x4 a "Jeep" .. it's not a Jeep! It's a 4x4 or off-roader.." but if they enter into other trademark battles, the opposing council can't say "Well they haven't tried t…

Interesting you bring up a point about Jeep. Never once in the US I've heard of a non-Jeep-made SUV referred to as a "Jeep". But back when I lived in Russia, every single SUV was referred to as a "Jeep". I don't even know of another word for SUV in Russian. Not trying to argue against you btw, I just personally find stuff like this interesting. EDIT: just checked the wikipedia page for SUV in russian, and yep, in the…

[deleted]

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#176

Post by _zamorano_ »

sgtnoodle wrote: post #145
cosmodisk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first that came to my mind is Jeep. In some countries it literally means SUV nowadays.The term is so ingrained that pretty much everyone says like this: 'He's got a BMW Jeep' or 'Look, that's a nice looking Jeep, surely it's Mercedes!'. The funniest thing is that nobody can ever see a real Jeep anymore,as nobody buys them( talking about Europe here).

There seemed to be tons of Jeep brand SUVs in Italy when I was there in October. Our rental car was one without asking for it, and there were four in a row at our hotel in Amalfi. Maybe they are popular in tourist areas?

Jeep, being part of FCA Group (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles), is closer to Italy automotive industry than any other SUV brand.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#177

Post by BiteCode_dev »

legulere wrote: post #174
smabie wrote: post #2

I 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…

It’s not the company that makes the decision to sue, but the legal department. For the legal department any legal action is good, because it increases their importance and size in the company.

Somebody is above the legal department. That person doesn't care that the department is important or not, only that it's useful.

So how does that happen ?

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#178

Post by m463 »

smabie wrote: post #2

I 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 remember playing a racing game years ago (Gran Turismo maybe?) where the cars weren't allowed to have realistic crash damage because of agreements with the car manufacturers. Meanwhile GTA would let you drive a car until it fell apart. And simpson's hit and run :)

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#179

Post by alkonaut »

crottypeter wrote: post #167
galkk wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The common and slightly derogatory term for an X5/Q7/XC90 type SUV in Swedish is “Stadsjeep” (“city jeep”). The Russian term for that is "parquet jeep"

In the UK we say "Chelsea tractor". Definitely derogatorily.

A difference is that there is no better Swedish term. So if I google "stadsjeep", the top Ad result is from Hyunday saying

"Hyundai Stadsjeepar | Innovation och 5 års garanti | hyundai.se"

So "Hyunday city jeeps, innovation and 5 year warranty | hyundai.se"

I doubt you'd find that for Chelsea Tractor!

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#180

Post by dsr_ »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #116
dsr_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sentence doesn't make sense to me. A trademark can only be defended in the face of an incursion into a protected use. If it's an "other field", then it can't be defended and the suit fails.

Fair enough and technically, I think you're right that it's not a "defense" with legal precedence (and therefore not an actual defense). But, I don't think that reality stops many companies from trying to stop the use of their brand or product in other fields because they believe they're protecting the brand. That said, this AM General case seems to be a licensing case -- they want money for the use of the of their d…

Suppose Activision sets a game in Los Angeles. A crucial mission involves a running battle down Hollywood Boulevard.

Should Graumann's Chinese Theater be entitled to money for the use of the appearance of their famous building?

To what extent should Google pay AM General, Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and so forth for the use of their vehicles' appearances in Streetview?

Finally: someone makes a Mail Simulator game, in which you take the role of being a first-class letter trying to get to a particular house on the other side of the continent. The role of postal vehicle is played by a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV

How much do they owe to Grumman, or to the USPS, or GM?

Post reply on HN