Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM

Speaking of court cases, A Notice of Opposition filed by Blizzard Entertainment contests an effort by Fox to register a trademark for Diablo, a name for which Blizzard owns three trademarks (thanks PCGamesN). The new trademark, apparently for pet-related products, would be based on a dog named Diablo from an animated sitcom called HouseBroken. The show is set to premiere at the end of this month. As Blizzard's complaint notes, this certainly gives them a claim to prior use:
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Blizzard” or “Opposer”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 1 Blizzard Way, Irvine, CA 96218, will be damaged by registration of the mark DIABLO shown in Application Serial Nos. 90/007447 and 90/007509 (“the Applications”), and hereby opposes the registration of each.

The grounds for opposition are as follows:

1. Opposer, through its predecessors, affiliates, licensees, business units and itself, has used the mark DIABLO to identify and distinguish in commerce interactive video games and computer game software and related peripheral and consumer goods and services throughout the United States and internationally. Opposer has used the mark DIABLO in interstate commerce on or in connection with the aforementioned goods/services since at least as early as November 12, 1996.
View : : :
15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
15.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 4, 2021, 07:06
15.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 4, 2021, 07:06
May 4, 2021, 07:06
 
U.S. copyright law is an oxymoron. What is written is one thing, what transpires in court depends totally on how much money you throw at it.
"Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss." - The Who.
Avatar 57379
14.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 19:44
Rilcon
 
14.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 19:44
May 3, 2021, 19:44
 Rilcon
 
This is the same company that countersued warzone.com because, according to them, it's not possible to confuse the Warzone game with CoD:Warzone
https://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&boardid=1&threadid=221057&id=1309512

Apparently actiblizzard thinks consumers are too god damned stupid to differentiate between a dog in a cartoon and a computer fantasy action RPG, but are totally savvy enough to not confuse the online computer game Warzone with the online computer game CoD:Warzone.

Fuck them for trademarking common words.
13.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 19:22
13.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 19:22
May 3, 2021, 19:22
 
They should rebrand it Diabolo :p
12.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 19:01
12.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 19:01
May 3, 2021, 19:01
 
Diablo III had pets, so they gotta defend it. Also, if they're planning on doing a TV series.
'I am' is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that 'I do' is the longest sentence? - GC
Avatar 22024
11.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 16:17
11.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 16:17
May 3, 2021, 16:17
 
eRe4s3r wrote on May 3, 2021, 13:07:
Wallshadows wrote on May 3, 2021, 13:04:
I don't think this is the first time they've thrown down over the usage of the word Diablo.

If you don't defend a trademark you lose it.. so this is not surprising

That's it in a nutshell. It can be construed by the courts that you no longer have any interest in the TM if you don't actively defend it. Then it's about whether it will cause any confusion to consumers or not. Directly from their Notice of Opposition....

"17. Applicant’s DIABLO mark so resembles Opposer’s DIABLO mark when used in connection with Applicant’s Goods as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive, and is therefore precluded from registration under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). "
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
Avatar 25394
10.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 16:05
10.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 16:05
May 3, 2021, 16:05
 
First instance I remember of Blizzard doing this was the movie A Man Apart which was originally to be called Diablo. There was no way anyone could have confused the two, but they still got their way.
9.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 14:04
MattyC
 
9.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 14:04
May 3, 2021, 14:04
 MattyC
 
Nullity wrote on May 3, 2021, 12:41:
IANAL, but isn't US trademark law generally limited to within the same/similar domain? Meaning that since Blizzard's Diablo is a video game, and Fox's Diablo is for pet products, Blizzard's trademark wouldn't really be applicable?

Yes but because of potential future developments and because you have to defend a trademark, it is common for companies to squabble anyway. Apple (think the Beatles) sued Apple (think Jobs and the Woz) over their name despite (other than that one crazy Greek guy) those being two largely unrelated fields at the time.
"I don't like being outside, Smithers... For one thing, there are too many fat children."
Avatar 39012
8.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 14:03
8.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 14:03
May 3, 2021, 14:03
 
Saboth wrote on May 3, 2021, 13:55:
I remember back when Monster Cable was going after anyone trying to use "Monster" in their company or product names. That one was a bit ridiculous as it's a pretty common word, and most of the products/companies had absolutely nothing to do with electronics.
Monster Energy does that nowadays. I was surprised to find out they weren't an extension of Monster Cable. From the Wikipedia page:

Monster Beverage Corporation has been criticized for its policy of suing companies or groups that use the word "Monster", the letter "M", or the word "beast" in their marketing for trademark infringement. By 2019, the company has initiated over a thousand trademark cases that have been reviewed by the US court system or US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,[46] making them a poster child for "trademark bullying" which the USPTO defines as "a trademark owner that uses its trademark rights to harass and intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow."[46][47]

Examples of such lawsuits include the aquarium hobbyist site MonsterFishKeepers.com,[48] Bevreview.com, a beverage review site that published an unfavorable review of the Monster Energy drink[49] and Rock Art Brewery from Vermont that marketed a beer named "Vermonster".[50] That case was even brought up by Senator Patrick Leahy in a study of problematic trademark litigation tactics.[47] Monster Beverage dropped the lawsuit against the microbrewery due to the adverse publicity the lawsuit generated.[51]
7.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 13:55
7.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 13:55
May 3, 2021, 13:55
 
I remember back when Monster Cable was going after anyone trying to use "Monster" in their company or product names. That one was a bit ridiculous as it's a pretty common word, and most of the products/companies had absolutely nothing to do with electronics.
6.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 13:07
6.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 13:07
May 3, 2021, 13:07
 
Wallshadows wrote on May 3, 2021, 13:04:
I don't think this is the first time they've thrown down over the usage of the word Diablo.

If you don't defend a trademark you lose it.. so this is not surprising
Avatar 54727
5.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 13:04
5.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 13:04
May 3, 2021, 13:04
 
I don't think this is the first time they've thrown down over the usage of the word Diablo.
Avatar 50040
4.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 12:50
4.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 12:50
May 3, 2021, 12:50
 
Nullity wrote on May 3, 2021, 12:41:
IANAL, but isn't US trademark law generally limited to within the same/similar domain? Meaning that since Blizzard's Diablo is a video game, and Fox's Diablo is for pet products, Blizzard's trademark wouldn't really be applicable?

Brah, you do know that you can get a Pet in the video game right? Now people will be tricked into buying physical products for their virtual Diablo pets.
Avatar 15164
3.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 12:45
3.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 12:45
May 3, 2021, 12:45
 
GamerGoat wrote on May 3, 2021, 12:44:
Nah, I'm not sure how current this is, but there is (or was) plans for a Diablo inspired netflix series. So Blizzard would definitely get dibs on that, I would think?
https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Diablo_(Netflix)
Ah yes, I suppose that would make things more complicated.
Avatar 58038
2.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 12:44
2.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 12:44
May 3, 2021, 12:44
 
Nah, I'm not sure how current this is, but there is (or was) plans for a Diablo inspired netflix series. So Blizzard would definitely get dibs on that, I would think?
https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Diablo_(Netflix)

1.
 
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM
May 3, 2021, 12:41
1.
Re: Blizzard Opposing Fox's Diablo TM May 3, 2021, 12:41
May 3, 2021, 12:41
 
IANAL, but isn't US trademark law generally limited to within the same/similar domain? Meaning that since Blizzard's Diablo is a video game, and Fox's Diablo is for pet products, Blizzard's trademark wouldn't really be applicable?
Avatar 58038
15 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older