Sounds like a simple case of if you don't defend it, you lose it. Epic doesn't have a choice here.
They're defending something they don't own.
Nobody on the face of the Earth would confuse NReal with Unreal.
Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#12Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US laws and case precedents says otherwise.US laws and case precedents says otherwise. Unreal could argue there is no confusion and they'd be in the clear. In fact they have many avenues between "lawsuit" and "losing their trademark". If you disagree, please actually list applicable precedents indicating otherwise.
I believe this should help explain some of the ideas https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...
From that article:
> What Should Trademark Owners Do?
> Trademark owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement and other misuse (e.g., blurring, tarnishment, unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer. At the same time, a complete failure to enforce will lead to a weakening of an owner’s marks, loss of distinctiveness over time and, as we saw in this case, potential forfeiture of certain available remedies.
That implies that _I_ am correct. You do understand that right? Unreal can conclude that their mark isn't being damaged. "Not suing Nreal" is not that same as "a complete failure".
So thank you for proving my point.
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#14It's as if Epic invented the (unheard-of - pun intended) word "unreal"... it's like saying yoga people (yogi?) should bring Lucasfilm to court for the fact that Yoda sounds a lot like Yoga... this world is more f**ed by the day...
[deleted]
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course Epic has a choice.
US laws and case precedents says otherwise. If it's in another country, especially in EU, this is frivolous but US IP laws and case precedents are messy as hell . They could lose this case, but the legal bill is worth it as it allows them to allow future lawsuits which misuses trademark homonyms in a genuinely damaging manner to them (like for example a game engine that sounds like "Unreal") since the defendants can'…
You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
US laws and case precedents says otherwise. If it's in another country, especially in EU, this is frivolous but US IP laws and case precedents are messy as hell . They could lose this case, but the legal bill is worth it as it allows them to allow future lawsuits which misuses trademark homonyms in a genuinely damaging manner to them (like for example a game engine that sounds like "Unreal") since the defendants can'…
You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.
> You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities.
I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this should help explain some of the ideas https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...
From that article: > What Should Trademark Owners Do? > Trademark owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement and other misuse (e.g., blurring, tarnishment, unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence…
Are you ignoring the entire portion above that about how the fraternity and sorority failure to enforce lost them the case?
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this should help explain some of the ideas https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...
From that article: > What Should Trademark Owners Do? > Trademark owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement and other misuse (e.g., blurring, tarnishment, unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence…
> That implies that _I_ am correct. You do understand that right? Unreal can conclude that their mark isn't being damaged. "Not suing Nreal" is not that same as "a complete failure".
I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline (as in that case there's a real separation, this is the reason why you have Linux detergent), but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark. If a future case have concerning the "Unreal" trademarks would have been filed by Epic and the defense have brought up passing-up of Nreal's trademark, the court could have ruled that Epic did in fact not enforced its "Unreal" trademarks and even paved the way to genericize them.
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.
> You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.
> I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.
"arguable" "might decide"
So...they have a choice?
There is nuance to all legal cases. There is nothing in trademark law that says you have to sue anyone who arguably might be infringing on your trademarks. Everything is a balance. Everything is a choice. This case is no different. Unreal absolutely did not need to do this. I understand why lawyers who might want your billings might tell you otherwise. I don't understand why random uninterested parties on the internet would though.
Re: Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
From that article: > What Should Trademark Owners Do? > Trademark owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement and other misuse (e.g., blurring, tarnishment, unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence…
> That implies that _I_ am correct. You do understand that right? Unreal can conclude that their mark isn't being damaged. "Not suing Nreal" is not that same as "a complete failure". I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline (as in that case there's a real separation, this is the reason why you have Linux detergent), but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided t…
Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Nreal actually is infringing on the Unreal trademark. Unreal could conclude otherwise. A court could find that reasonable. A court could disagree with another's company's claims that Unreal isn't defending it's marks for this reason.
So yeah there is a choice. Judges, lawyers and companies are not automatons.