Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Blizzard Wins Injunction

Blizzard has announced that a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against New Line Cinema, preventing the company from releasing a movie under the name "Diablo." The order also prohibits New Line from using the word "Diablo" in any way, including in combination with other words. This case first was announced back in February, when Blizzard said that they were planning on making a Diablo movie of their own, and this would violate their existing trademark (story).

44 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

44. Hmm Jul 16, 2001, 22:08 anon@24.203
By the way all my posts are jokes.
So in case you didn't get that, I am saying it aloud.
And if you hadn't guessed it you probably don't deserve the life you were given, so I'll summon father... I mean Satan at once and see that he deals with it.

Seasons Greetings!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
43. Re: Thanks Vergs Jul 16, 2001, 21:58 anon@24.203
""fuck you, you're wrong." Judges hate it when you do that."

I knew I shouldn't have listened to my friend when he said that I would go scot free if I said that. He said it was some sort of secret code. So I decided to represent myself with my only argument being "Fuck you". That didn't go too well.

Well, time to go back to the old cell, and so much for my phone call
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
42. Re: Another indignant fop Jul 16, 2001, 19:50 anon@24.203
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if RAMBUS now attacked Blizzard for infringing on their "Diablo memory technology" patents.

Then they will probably sue that video company for infringing on that very same patent.

Then they will probably sue me for quoting their "Diablo memory technology" without explicit written consent.

Then they will probably find that my name infiringes on some of their patents. As does my DNA.

Of course I'll have to "CEASE AND DESIST" usage of my DNA.

Those intellectual property laws get ridiculous at some point. While I am fairly indifferent to whatever happens to that Diablo named character in that movie, Diablo himself (which is supposed to be the lord of darkness, to which I affectionately refer to as Satan [Excuse me if I'm wrong, you'll understand that I have never played through any of those Diablo games]), that Diablo game or Blizzard themselves (they could all fall off the earth overnight and I couldn't care less), I can say that I might somewhat agree with Blizzard IF they weren't trying to stop them from naming a character "Diablo" in a movie. Otherwise since they wanted to stop a movie from being named "Diablo" entirely, I feel that is a completely different matter. Since I believe Blizzard are attempting to make a movie based on "Diablo" themselves, I wholeheartedly agree. I am all for that many of the same type of products (in this case, movies) should never have the same name, unless they are somewhat related. And I am afraid I must also agree to their prohibition of using "Diablo" in conjuction with any words, since "New Line Cinema" could then just rename the movie "The legend of Diablo", "Diablo and testicular cancer" and use it as they want.

And I wonder how Lamborghini feels about all this. Maybe they wanted to make a movie with Lamborghinis named "Diablo" too.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
41. Another indignant fop Jul 16, 2001, 16:13 anon@161.184
I'm personally not convinced about the importance of maintaining such strong intellectual property rights as we have now, but that doesn't change Blizzard's chances of winning the case. I think Vergs and Fat Albert have laid out the legal aspects of this topic very well, and while I know very little about the law, it seems Blizzard has a good case. The main point of contention on this thread seems to be between those who are looking at the case from a purely legal point of view and those who see it as a moral issue. I personally don't feel that laws should strictly dictate morality (i.e., if something is illegal it is not necessarily immoral). This also works in reverse: morality should not necessarily determine legality. So, we are not always acting immorally by breaking the law, though there can certainly still be legal consequences if caught.

Everyone who is outraged by this case is certainly entitled to be so, but they must also realize that Blizzard is acting within their legal rights. Saying, "Blizzard sucks!" or "Trademarks are shit!" will not change the law and will only make people think you are a whiny, inarticulate moron.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
40. Well Jul 16, 2001, 04:30 anon@217.81
"a narrow viewpoint of the world borne out of not leaving one's house that it gets frustrating"

Narrow viewpoints are usually not seen in thier positive light by people who mix black and white and end up with a grey mix. It's called being vague and I would love to suppose that all those defending this are either Blizzard employees or truely vague themselves. The only thing is, a comment like that is as ingnorant as the one I copied above.

What people are saying here is not that Blizzard doesn't have a case. They are pointing out the lack of common sense or the complete nonsense of today's world. Don't try and justify stupidity just by saying there has been a precedent.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
39. Re: Thanks Vergs Jul 12, 2001, 16:06 anon@64.63
Yeah...also, the blank stares and interruptions are frowned least by Texas judges. Hard to believe that argument came from a law student...yipes!

To the anon-post, "Uh, Tomb-Raider sucked, bud," LOL! I loved the tone of that statement. However, I disagree in terms of videogame to movie franchises, it's the highest grossing over (unless you count some Pokeamon videos I have no knowledge about). As for game to anime...give me a break--as if that's ground breaking. Though box office success is no measure of merits, it makes for a strong argument.

--Vergs (at work with no cookies )
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
38. Thanks Vergs Jul 12, 2001, 13:20 Fat Albert
I appreciate the endorsement. I too am a lawyer <shudder> , and I practice trademark law at a firm in New York. So I have a mild familiarity with the subject matter.

To the anonymous law student - go to the library and pick up a copy of McCarthy's on Trademarks. That may help you distinguish between trademark, copyright, and "owning the word." I don't think I'm brilliant because I'm old, but you don't know a damn thing about IP law. Who knows, it might even come in handy someday. At least you'll be able to make a better argument than "fuck you, you're wrong." Judges hate it when you do that.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
37. Re: Blizzard could be wrong... Jul 12, 2001, 11:34 Schnapple
Heh - looks like I flared a few tempers.

Didn't mean to rile so many people, it's just that I see and hear so many comments backed by nothing other than a narrow viewpoint of the world borne out of not leaving one's house that it gets frustrating.

But take the aforementioned Tomb Raider movie for example. "Tomb" and "Raider" are both very common words, but prior to 1996 no one put them together as a phrase connected to anything. Hollywood didn't bother to make a movie called Tomb Raider, though (prior to this year's film, of course). The Diablo movie seemed more iffy to those in Hollywood since it was one common word, not two. Were the movie named The Curse of Diablo then Blizzard wouldn't have had a case (id Software didn't feel threatened by the movie The DOOM Generation).


Take that, you dead horse!

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
36. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 12, 2001, 11:16 anon@199.212

Umm, Tomb Raider sucked ass, bud.

And for a decent game-movie conversion, check out the Street Fighter Alpha animated movie.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
35. Hey, hey, hey! It's Right Albert! Jul 12, 2001, 03:17 Vergs
Just read over Fat's posts again...good explanation...someone here actually knows the law!


Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
34. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 12, 2001, 03:07 Vergs
Wow. I think Fat Albert is the only one on this thread that actually knows what he is talking about. It's interesting that this came up. I remember searching the web for some diablo2 off center pages when I came across the synopsis of this movie..given the success of the Blizzard franchise, I don't blame them for suing. While they may only have a pending "application" for movie rights, they most certainly have product identification--product ID so successful that a second game was spawned (no pun intended).

Quite frankly, I think New Line Cinemas can name the Drug Lord movie something else, like "El Hombre Rojo," because we saw what they did with the Mortal Kombat franchise...

Congrats to Blizzard! Here's to making the THIRD ever decent video-game to movie trasition (sorry, TombRaider beat ya, and so did FinalFantasy--btw, Good luck SquarePics, your film looks awesome and I hope you reap goobs of cash. In that vein, let's remember the shite--Super Mario Bros., Double Dragon, Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat II, Street Fighter--who am I missing).

And for all you naysayers, in the words of Star Jones, "I am a lawyer," and if that ain't good enough for ya, all you law school newbies--I amjured Intellectual Property--so stick that in your pipe in smoke it! (I knew that grade would pay off some day!)


P.S. Was Street Fighter really Raul Julia's last movie? What a waste....


This comment was edited on Jul 12, 03:13.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
33. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 11, 2001, 22:34 anon@24.68
I am taking royalties on the world Hello and hi anyone who uses it will have a to pay me.. thats what bilzzard did with the name of fucking devil him self screw you Blizzard and your shitty ass games  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
32. Blizzard could be wrong... Jul 11, 2001, 21:35 anon@65.13
First off, I am not under 18, I am a law student, so fuck you to all you pompous pricks who think you brilliant cause your old. Second, Blizzard could have a case, but I am still morally against it. It's just like Sierra copyrighting and attacking anyone who uses Red Baron, it's bullshit. Frankly, regardless of Blizzard's filings, I would think the Mexican brancho of the Catholic church probably has the rights to the word. In my opinion, if Blizzard wanted absolute control over the word, then they should have made up their own character, lets not forget that, Blizzard blatantly stole the character of Diablo from religious texts. So, while the judge can say whatever he wants, I say Blizzard should go fuck themselves, and honestly, I'm more frightened by the prospect of actually seeing a Diablo movie (rather have my eyes gouged out) then the damage Blizzard's case may do to the law and basic logic.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
31. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 11, 2001, 16:16 EnsignRedshirt
Hey- I know how the world works, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Rebel against the institution! Anarchy now!

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
30. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 11, 2001, 14:18 anon@24.42
By posting that "they can't do that!" and "no, words are free", and "you can't copyright that!" you basically give yourself away as someone who is younger than the age of 18, and therefore knows absolutely nothing of how the real world works.

...And by posting that, you---ah, forget it. Not on Blue's.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
29. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 11, 2001, 10:41 anon@208.35

Thank you mister smart guy. I can rest easy now.

Thanks again oh enlightened one!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
28. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 11, 2001, 09:43 Schnapple
By posting that "they can't do that!" and "no, words are free", and "you can't copyright that!" you basically give yourself away as someone who is younger than the age of 18, and therefore knows absolutely nothing of how the real world works. Yes they can, no they're not, and yes they did.

The bottom line is that if you think you have a leg to stand on ("hey! they can't do that, we wanted to make a Diablo movie!") then take it to court - the Judge will decide if you have a right or not. And we're not talking like they're suing Mom and Pop over making Diablo Barbeque sauce, it's a movie studio. They'll whine and cry, rename the movie, and go on to make Austin Powers 3: Shagfinger.

But for a humorous take on this whole matter, hit today's Penny Arcade:

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
27. Re: Blizzard is right Jul 11, 2001, 00:52 Fat Albert
And I claim "I". All attempts to use the first person noun will have to pay a licensing fee to me. Since "I" can also be used in words, you will now have to substitute "!" in any and all circumstances.

So get used to talk!ng l!ke th!s from now on. By the way, you can stop us!ng "E" as well; as soon as my !P b!d on the f!fth letter clears, you'll have to use "@" unl@ss you want a lawsu!t slapp@d on you.

Just so @v@ryon@ can s@@ how th!s l!n@ of th!nk!ng, tak@n to th@ @xtr@m@, b@com@s tr@m@ndously s!lly. "Jell-O" and "zipper" w@r@ mad@ up words, and @nt!r@ly trad@markabl@. "Diablo" !s not, and should not b@.

That's funny, it's just not the way the law works. A word is only trademarkable based on its use on a given product. So Blizzard can't claim the right to the word Diablo and make all Spanish-speaking people stop talking about the devil. But they can claim rights to the name on a game because they were the first to use it. And someone else can claim it on toilet paper.

Even if the name is made up of common words, if people think of a single company's product it can be a trademark. Pop Tarts are a good example. The main exception is when one of the common words describes the product itself, it can still be used by others. So Royal Crown Cola is a trademark, but "Cola" can be used by Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola too.

And you can also protect similar products. So another company couldn't come out with Pop Tarts microwave pastries or Coca-Cola frozen bars. Everyone would think that the makers of the toaster pastries and soda pop were responsible. Same thing with a movie with the same name as a game (e.g. Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, etc.). People will think they are related. And the reason that a company gets protection is that if the microwave thingies suck, then Kellogg's is going to have a bunch of mad people calling them about a product that wasn't their fault. Same thing with a Diablo movie, if it tanks then Blizzard will never get people to see their movie or (the biggest problem) rent it in the video store if everyone thinks it's the other movie that blows.

But you can't just decide that you want to own a letter or a word and keep everyone from using it for any purpose whatsoever. And you don't get to license the use of the name in common speech - just on a product. In fact, there are a bunch of other registrations for Diablo, like furniture, they just aren't confusing with the games so Blizzard can't sue them.

Th@ tr@m@ndously s!lly th!ng would b@ to r@quir@ an @ntir@ly mad@ up vocabulary for product nam@s and g!v@ no prot@ct!on to w@ll-known products lik@ Spr!nt, Moos@h@ad, Goody@ar, AT&T, Appl@, Quak@, Unr@al, Disn@y, or Blu@'s N@ws.

This comment was edited on Jul 11, 00:54.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
26. Re: Trademarking a word Jul 10, 2001, 23:31 anon@24.168
For those in the know, how can you trademark a simple, common everyday word? Even if it isn't an English word? I can see trademarking a phrase or other combination of words that would relate to your 'product', but this?
And I don't see how more people would relate the word Diablo to this game rather than it's meaning as a simple word. Seems almost like trademarking gone too far.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
25. Re: No subject Jul 10, 2001, 22:58 anon@24.42
You can use the system to look it up:
and if you have cookies turned on in your browser, it will remember it for you after the first time you log in.

Cookies were the problem: They happily logged on for me for six months while I slowly forgot I even had a password---then I reformatted. But since you were kind enough to post the link for me, I will go get myself another cookie (right after I post this one ;P) Thanks.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
44 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


Blue's News logo