The Dark Below Removed from the European Trademark Database [updated]

[Florena]

Every time I see this faulty expansion-after-next logic, it makes me want to kick a small child.

My point isn't 'this means TDB is surely the next expansion' but rather that there are multiple storylines left to address that are being hinted at, and just because the Legion gets foreshadowing in MoP doesn't mean it's a done deal we'll see them next.

[Kaleredar]

Vanilla, I am ready to concede. The story there was all over the place. We fought the elementals, then we fought the dragons, then we fought Old Gods and bugs, then the Scourge, etc.



However, in BC, the Deathwing hints were there. It pretty much established that Deathwing was going to return, and we saw that with Sinestra, Sabellian and all that.



Then in WoTLK, we had nothing as direct as BC, but I do feel that the Garrosh foreshadowing was there. Whether it was as active as in the Burning Crusade, I don't think so, but the path was paved. I feel that MoP was supposed to happen after Cataclysm, as soon as they got done with WoTLK. Is Blizzard lying? Obviously not. The pandaren stuff might have easily have been built around it, but I mean the part where Garrosh went crazed/evil, became a raid boss, etc. I think that could've been planned ever since WoTLK's release. The pandaren stuff, I am willing to admit, came later.


Cataclysm very obviously hinted at N'Zoth and Azshara. Possibly because Azshara was supposed to play a part in the Cataclysm, but I doubt the foreshadowing was left behind very coincidentally when they just so happened to remove the Azshara part of Cataclysm.


Mists of Pandaria is where they hint at the Burning Legion. Of course, for this and the above, we have yet to see if it works out. I'm not saying the "pattern" is 100% accurate or confirmed, but it's not at all faulty. I guess we'll see in 2-3ish years. It could end up being wrong, but it could also end up having some merit. Neither you or I can say it. But the fact that multiple people noticed it is enough to allow for some credit to be given to the idea at the very least.



Which means that you can't objectively state "there is no pattern; everyone who brings it up makes me facepalm, every time it is brought up, I want to kick a baby." etc.

Mists of Pandaria was not originally slated to come after Cataclysm; they've said they were originally planning something else. (Though never said it was)

[Hitei]

Vanilla, I am ready to concede. The story there was all over the place. We fought the elementals, then we fought the dragons, then we fought Old Gods and bugs, then the Scourge, etc.



However, in BC, the Deathwing hints were there. It pretty much established that Deathwing was going to return, and we saw that with Sinestra, Sabellian and all that.



Then in WoTLK, we had nothing as direct as BC, but I do feel that the Garrosh foreshadowing was there. Whether it was as active as in the Burning Crusade, I don't think so, but the path was paved. I feel that MoP was supposed to happen after Cataclysm, as soon as they got done with WoTLK. Is Blizzard lying? Obviously not. The pandaren stuff might have easily have been built around it, but I mean the part where Garrosh went crazed/evil, became a raid boss, etc. I think that could've been planned ever since WoTLK's release. The pandaren stuff, I am willing to admit, came later.


Cataclysm very obviously hinted at N'Zoth and Azshara. Possibly because Azshara was supposed to play a part in the Cataclysm, but I doubt the foreshadowing was not an initial part. I am sure they adjusted that a bit after they removed Azshara as a boss in Cataclysm.


Mists of Pandaria is where they hint at the Burning Legion. Of course, for this and the above, we have yet to see if it works out. I'm not saying the "pattern" is 100% accurate or confirmed, but it's not at all faulty. I guess we'll see in 2-3ish years. It could end up being wrong, but it could also end up having some merit. Neither you or I can say it. But the fact that multiple people noticed it is enough to allow for some credit to be given to the idea at the very least.



Which means that you can't objectively state "there is no pattern; everyone who brings it up makes me facepalm, every time it is brought up, I want to kick a baby." etc.

If Wrath had been a dream expansion, you could claim that the dream portals in vanilla were a hint.
If Wrath had been a Naga expansion, you could claim that BFD was a hint.
If Wrath had been an Old gods expansion, you could claim that AQ was a hint.
If Wrath had been a troll expansion you could claim that ZF and ZG were hints.

If Cata had been a troll expansion, you could claim that ZA was a hint.
If Cata had been an Azshara expansion, you could claim that SSC was a hint.
If Cata had been a second scourge expansion, you could claim that the Ghostlands quests were a hint.

If Mists had been an Emerald dream expansion, you could claim that the broken world tree in Northrend was a hint.
If Mists had been a Legion expansion, you could claim that the Ethereal and Voidwalker in Violet Hold were a hint.
If Mists had been a Titan expansion, you could claim Ulduar was a hint.
If Mists had been an Azshara expansion, you could claim that the Naga you help fight Kvaldir in Borean was a hint.

Literally any expansion possible can be connected to SOMETHING in a previous expansion. So it's in absolutely no way proof.

It's like trying to say that because you tripped on a curb, and a week later there was an earthquake in Africa.
And then you slipped in a puddle and the next week there was a tsunami in India.
That today, when you fell in a puddle of mud, it's proof that there's going to be a mudslide in California next week.

Hell, Mists wasn't even SUPPOSED to be the current expansion.
They had started on something different, and then changed their minds early in development. So that you'd argue that Wrath was intentionally predicting it two expansions in advance is just silly.

Are their connections between expansions? Of course: it's the SAME game.
You might as well argue that the entire movie Raiders of the Lost Ark was just setting up the warehouse scene in Crystal Skull.

My point isn't 'this means TDB is surely the next expansion' but rather that there are multiple storylines left to address that are being hinted at, and just because the Legion gets foreshadowing in MoP doesn't mean it's a done deal we'll see them next.

I realize this. And I believe that the Dark Below is very likely, and that it's probably an Azshara expansion.
I just find it extremely annoying when people use this line of logic, when it can be made to apply to anything.

[Yarathir]

Mists of Pandaria was not originally slated to come after Cataclysm; they've said they were originally planning something else. (Though never said it was)

I acknowledged that. Of course, what I said is not 100% accurate or even slightly true, but I feel it might be true that they were always planning to make the "Garrosh evil raid boss" thing happen after Cataclysm. With that at the core. Of course, the Pandaren part of that was not part of it yet at that time, of course.

Hell, Mists wasn't even SUPPOSED to be the current expansion.
They had started on something different, and then changed their minds early in development. So that you'd argue that Wrath was intentionally predicting it two expansions in advance is just silly.

Are their connections between expansions? Of course: it's the SAME game.
You might as well argue that the entire movie Raiders of the Lost Ark was just setting up the warehouse scene in Crystal Skull.

I never said they were planning MISTS OF PANDARIA. Just that I think Garrosh becoming evil and a raid boss might have been a part of the core of the expansion after Cataclysm all along. MIGHT have.

[Kaleredar]

My point isn't 'this means TDB is surely the next expansion' but rather that there are multiple storylines left to address that are being hinted at, and just because the Legion gets foreshadowing in MoP doesn't mean it's a done deal we'll see them next.

And my point is that they did WAY more than foreshadow them.

All we know about N'zoth and Azshara are that they're somewhere at the bottom of the ocean planning Azeroth's demise. And all we knew before Wrathion actually SAID "The legion is coming" is that the Burning Legion was ALSO sitting somewhere out in space planning Azeroth's demise. But see, that's the thing... The Legion GOT all of that "they're coming to rape our skulls" build up in Mists of Pandaria. Azshara and N'zoth... got nothin'.

Maybe it would have behooved Blizzard to build up AZSHARA AND N'ZOTH as being the coming evils if indeed they are, instead of pointlessly building up the Legion quite a bit and then just putting them on simmer for a few years while we deal with Azshara and N'zoth who come out of the blue.

- - - Updated - - -

I acknowledged that. Of course, what I said is not 100% accurate or even slightly true, but I feel it might be true that they were always planning to make the "Garrosh evil raid boss" thing happen after Cataclysm. With that at the core. Of course, the Pandaren part of that was not part of it yet at that time, of course.






I never said they were planning MISTS OF PANDARIA. Just that I think Garrosh becoming evil and a raid boss might have been a part of the core of the expansion after Cataclysm all along. MIGHT have.

I don't think they were... or, IF they were, they certainly weren't planning to do it so quickly. Garrosh actually starts to learn how to be a warchief and learn some things about honor throughout Cataclysm... but they just kind of ditch that for Pandaria, because they needed him to be the main villain.

[Rizendragon]

The pandaren stuff, I am willing to admit, came later.

Maybe in it's current incarnation, but:

Why the Pandarens?
As Chris Metzen said in his interview on DirecTV just after opening ceremony, the pandaren race was originally planned to be added as the Alliance race in The Burning Crusade.

There are a number of reasons why that didn't happen, but none of them are because we thought they wouldn't make for compelling characters with interesting stories and living environments. We've wanted to add the pandaren people into the game for a long time. And, when recording feedback over the years from events like BlizzCon and many other avenues, the number one request (by a large margin) has been for us to add pandaren to the game. A lot of people want it and we feel the timing's just right post-Cataclysm.

Pandaren have been thought about and developed for much longer than you and most of the player base know. This goes directly against the "every other" expansion theory.

[swiftbirdman]

Yay! I was hoping it wasn't faked.

[Rizendragon]

I never said they were planning MISTS OF PANDARIA. Just that I think Garrosh becoming evil and a raid boss might have been a part of the core of the expansion after Cataclysm all along. MIGHT have.

I highly doubt that considering what I just posted. I think he was supposed to be the antagonizing asshole, but nothing more for a while. I think it was the player reaction to "orc jesus" that made them go down the road they did with Garrosh. That way they could give Thrall a "fault" since he made a terrible decision in Garrosh as Warchief.

[jd812]

You should probably change the name of the thread to The Dark Below, filed under blizzard, but not blizzard's. It wasn't actually filed in the US and the filing in EU has no reference number, unlike every single one of blizzard's trademarks, which do.

[D4NNYB0Y]

Sooo... question.

Why is D3's next expansion name (theoretically) trademarked just fine on uspto.gov, but this isn't? Lotta gullible peeps on the MMO-C.

Blizz wouldn't have any benefit doing this on EU or whatever.

Do you honestly believe this wasn't discussed in detail in the now 69 pages of this thread?

You should probably change the name of the thread to The Dark Below, filed under blizzard, but not blizzard's. It wasn't actually filed in the US and the filing in EU has no reference number, unlike every single one of blizzard's trademarks, which do.

Reference numbers are entirely optional and are given at the request of the applicant to help them sort through their trademarks. Lack of a reference number is not proof of fraud.

[Xeraxis]

The Dark Below is no longer showing in database searches for OHIM. It is however still showing in Esearch and TMView but both of those sites pull from OAMI so they may have not updated yet.

Edit : It seems I was searching as it was updating ignore this.

[D4NNYB0Y]

The application is now being examined for Absolute Grounds.

- - - Updated - - -

The Dark Below is no longer showing in database searches for OHIM.

Yes, it is.

http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/Requ..._Result_NoReg#

[moveth]

The Dark Below is no longer showing in database searches for OHIM. It is however still showing in Esearch and TMView but both of those sites pull from OAMI so they may have not updated yet.

I just searched it and found it. Elaborate?

[Xeraxis]

The application is now being examined for Absolute Grounds.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, it is.

http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/Requ..._Result_NoReg#

I must have searched right as it was going into absolute grounds. Scratch my original post then.

[jd812]

1 THE DARK BELOW
Trade mark No: 012068268 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 14/08/2013 Date of registration:
Nice Classification: 9, 41 Status: Application under examination
Formalities examination
Classification examination
Searches
Absolute grounds examination
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Trade mark basis: CTM


2 REAPER OF SOULS
Trade mark No: 012064606 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 13/08/2013 Date of registration:
Nice Classification: 9, 41 Status: Application under examination
Formalities examination
Searches
Absolute grounds examination
Classification examination
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM98417EU00/SS/NH
Trade mark basis: CTM


3 CUTE BUT DEADLY
Trade mark No: 011996238 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 18/07/2013 Date of registration:
Nice Classification: 16, 25, 28 Status: Application under examination
Absolute grounds examination
Classification examination
Formalities examination
Searches
Translations
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM98340EU00/SS/NH
Trade mark basis: CTM



4 HEARTHSTONE
Trade mark No: 011964921 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 08/07/2013 Date of registration:
Nice Classification: 9, 41 Status: Application under examination
Absolute grounds examination
Classification examination
Formalities examination
Searches
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM98308EU00/SS/NH
Trade mark basis: CTM


5 BLIZZARD ALL-STARS
Trade mark No: 011319589 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 05/11/2012 Date of registration: 20/03/2013
Nice Classification: 9, 16, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM96922EU00/SS/NH/TF
Trade mark basis: CTM

6 BATTLETAG
Trade mark No: 010929685 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 31/05/2012 Date of registration:
Nice Classification: 35 Status: Application opposed
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM96408EU00/SS/NH
Trade mark basis: CTM

7 MISTS OF PANDARIA
Trade mark No: 010210912 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 22/08/2011 Date of registration: 24/01/2012
Nice Classification: 9, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM95254EU00/SS/NH/TF
Trade mark basis: CTM

8 N00BZ
Trade mark No: 008289373 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 08/05/2009 Date of registration: 01/12/2009
Nice Classification: 28 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM91522EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

9 HEART OF THE SWARM
Trade mark No: 007305972 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 10/10/2008 Date of registration: 10/06/2009
Nice Classification: 9, 16, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM90577EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

10 WINGS OF LIBERTY
Trade mark No: 007305881 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 10/10/2008 Date of registration: 17/09/2010
Nice Classification: 9, 16, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM90576EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

11 LEGACY OF THE VOID
Trade mark No: 007305642 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 10/10/2008 Date of registration: 29/07/2009
Nice Classification: 9, 16, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM90575EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

12 BLIZZCAST
Trade mark No: 006856595 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 23/04/2008 Date of registration: 21/01/2009
Nice Classification: 9 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM89674EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

13 STARCRAFT
Trade mark No: 006701445 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 26/02/2008 Date of registration: 23/01/2009
Nice Classification: 9, 16, 25, 28, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM89424EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

14 BATTLECHAT
Trade mark No: 006580062 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 14/01/2008 Date of registration: 11/12/2008
Nice Classification: 38 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM89210EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

15 WRATH OF THE LICH KING
Trade mark No: 006155501 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 31/07/2007 Date of registration: 16/01/2009
Nice Classification: 9, 16, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM88483EU00/SS
Trade mark basis: CTM

16 DIABLO
Trade mark No: 004939377 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 03/03/2006 Date of registration: 11/04/2007
Nice Classification: 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: TM85746EU00/SS/KW
Trade mark basis: CTM

17 THE BURNING CRUSADE
Trade mark No: 004448676 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 12/05/2005 Date of registration: 30/06/2006
Nice Classification: 9 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: C2775
Trade mark basis: CTM

18 BLIZZCON
Trade mark No: 004392114 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 15/04/2005 Date of registration: 18/05/2006
Nice Classification: 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: C2753
Trade mark basis: CTM

19 WORLD OF WARCRAFT
Trade mark No: 004366928 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 30/03/2005 Date of registration: 02/05/2006
Nice Classification: 16, 28 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: C2731
Trade mark basis: CTM

20 WOW
Trade mark No: 004126595 Type of mark: Word
Filing date: 15/11/2004 Date of registration: 05/08/2009
Nice Classification: 9, 35, 41 Status: Registered
Publication of registration
Name of the owner: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
Applicant’s reference: C2668
Trade mark basis: CTM

[moveth]

I must have searched right as it was going into absolute grounds. Scratch my original post then.

Ah. Makes sense. Another step forward though, seems promising at this point. The Absolute Grounds step is probably the most important one, honestly.

[Xeraxis]

I just searched it and found it. Elaborate?

I assume I must have searched while it was updating its status so it spit back a result showing that it was no longer in the system.

[D4NNYB0Y]

I must have searched right as it was going into absolute grounds. Scratch my original post then.

Sometimes the system kind of screws up. I've had it disappear for a split second on TMview. Not sure what it means, might just be an internal error.

[Florena]

Wait what the heck is 'cute but deadly?'

[jd812]

Reference numbers are entirely optional and are given at the request of the applicant to help them sort through their trademarks. Lack of a reference number is not proof of fraud.

no but isn't it odd that every single one of blizzards trademarks have one save for The Dark Below? Because it isn't Blizzards