Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Neuroticaine View Post
    My guy, the word is literally just Spanish for "devil." Not very original.

    That said, corporate legal teams gonna corporate legal team.
    Okay, but it's used as a proper name in English, a different language than Spanish, unless you weren't aware.

    "Diablo" doesn't count as a "regular word" in English, as some of you attempt to claim here.

    And yeah, you can definitely trademark and patent basic words as well, steam and valve being the best examples.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by kranur View Post
    Was just about say. How the hell does someone trademark diablo ... it'a like trademarking any other word.
    The only way that will work is if someone makes a video game and calls it Diablo.
    I think you two need to look up what trademarking is and how it relates to this thread. You seem to not have an understanding of what it is or how it works.

  3. #23
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Unda da bridge, mon
    Posts
    1,531
    I mean, if Fox is trademarking a dog named Diablo with a distinct image as intended in their cartoon, I don't see how that can be confused or cause confusion with Blizzard's Diablo franchise given that Blizzard IP is different, both in design and format, unless of course Diablo 4 intended to show the Lord of Terror as a cartoon dog...
    But, I'm also not a lawyer so who knows.

  4. #24
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    23,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    A little torn on this one. Obviously, Blizzard took the name Diablo and built something around it...but they didn't create it.

    here's the "Diablo" Disambiguation page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo

    Just for character names alone you have this:

    Diablo (Disney), a raven in Sleeping Beauty

    Diablo (Marvel Comics), a Fantastic Four villain

    El Diablo (comics), several fictional characters from DC Comics

    A character in the Diablo video game series
    -a playable character in the video game Heroes of the Storm

    A character in the video game Primal Rage

    El Diablo, a superhero in the video game Freedom Force

    El Diablo, a character in The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run

    There's also the fact that "Diablo" just means "Devil" in Spanish

    So Blizzard might have a hard time winning this case.
    The issue is that fox is now trying to trademark diablo.

    its not that blizzard is trying to prevent fox from using the name diablo, its that they are tryign to stop fox from trademarking diablo...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    That's not going to work out for blizzard since diablo literally means devil.

    You can't trademark the devil.
    thats the point, blizzard has not trademarked it, fox is.

    also you can trademark basic words.

    did you know the word sky is literally trademarked? there was a big battle over "no mans sky" because of it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Viikkis View Post
    I would understand if it was a new videogame with Diablo in its name but an animated sitcom with a damn dog named Diablo? No way.
    again this has nothing to do with another company using the name diablo, its that fox is trying to trademark the name diablo.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by XDurionX View Post
    You can't just trademark regular words and own them. That's not how any of this works, Blizz.
    blizzard is not the one trying to trademark it, fox is. and blizzard does not like that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kranur View Post
    Was just about say. How the hell does someone trademark diablo ... it'a like trademarking any other word.
    The only way that will work is if someone makes a video game and calls it Diablo.
    read above, the word sky is trademarked, so was the word edge for a long time, you can trademark literally any basic word, its crazy.

  5. #25
    I mean, if you simple google "trademark blizzard Diablo" you will find the trademark "Diablo" registered for Blizzard here.

    And when you then look in what area it is protected you will find:
    "ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING ON-LINE COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAMES [, ON-LINE PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TIPS AND STRATEGIES FOR COMPUTER GAMES; ARRANGING AND CONDUCTING COMPUTER GAME COMPETITIONS; AND PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION PICTURES ]"

    I don't think there is much left to discuss.

  6. #26
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    23,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Puri View Post
    I mean, if you simple google "trademark blizzard Diablo" you will find the trademark "Diablo" registered for Blizzard here.

    And when you then look in what area it is protected you will find:
    "ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING ON-LINE COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAMES [, ON-LINE PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TIPS AND STRATEGIES FOR COMPUTER GAMES; ARRANGING AND CONDUCTING COMPUTER GAME COMPETITIONS; AND PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION PICTURES ]"

    I don't think there is much left to discuss.
    its of the "diablo series" not the name itself.
    Also they were making a tv show.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jujudrood View Post
    I mean, if Fox is trademarking a dog named Diablo with a distinct image as intended in their cartoon, I don't see how that can be confused or cause confusion with Blizzard's Diablo franchise given that Blizzard IP is different, both in design and format, unless of course Diablo 4 intended to show the Lord of Terror as a cartoon dog...
    But, I'm also not a lawyer so who knows.
    Because there is/was a diablo series planned i think on netflix.
    So yeah "did you see that diablo show, it was ass"
    "Wow blizzard failed again"
    "Wait i meant"
    "nah fuck blizzard!"

  7. #27
    The better question is will this new show even last long enough for Fox to bother actually producing merchandise.

    Or perhaps this has revealed Diablo's form in Diablo Immortal lol.

  8. #28
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Unda da bridge, mon
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    its of the "diablo series" not the name itself.
    Also they were making a tv show.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Because there is/was a diablo series planned i think on netflix.
    So yeah "did you see that diablo show, it was ass"
    "Wow blizzard failed again"
    "Wait i meant"
    "nah fuck blizzard!"
    Ah, had no idea they were trying to make a series for it.
    That makes this make more sense.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    A little torn on this one. Obviously, Blizzard took the name Diablo and built something around it...but they didn't create it.

    here's the "Diablo" Disambiguation page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo

    Just for character names alone you have this:

    Diablo (Disney), a raven in Sleeping Beauty

    Diablo (Marvel Comics), a Fantastic Four villain

    El Diablo (comics), several fictional characters from DC Comics

    A character in the Diablo video game series
    -a playable character in the video game Heroes of the Storm

    A character in the video game Primal Rage

    El Diablo, a superhero in the video game Freedom Force

    El Diablo, a character in The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run

    There's also the fact that "Diablo" just means "Devil" in Spanish

    So Blizzard might have a hard time winning this case.
    You are 100% misunderstanding the case. Its Fox trying to trademark the name, Blizzard is trying to block it.

    It reminds me of the Valve case with DoTA. People just have no understanding of what that case was about. Blizzard literally got everything they wanted in that case and people still think they lost.

  10. #30
    Stood in the Fire RCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    NJ US
    Posts
    474
    Makes sense on Blizzards part, but interesting nevertheless. I wonder if this show will even do well enough to make me or anyone else think of it. I see diablo, I think of this game and I think more people do too.

  11. #31
    It's funny when people say you cannot trademark common English words while typing their comments on an iPhone

  12. #32
    how do you trademark the Spanish word for devil???? god and of course it's a Disney owned company pulling this crap.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Well, the issue Blizzard is going to have is making their claim that Fox's character is going to "cause confusion or mistake or to deceive,”... there's no way someone would mistake that cartoon dog with the Lord of Terror. Plus there are all these other characters with that name that haven't caused any confusion.
    Commercial product confusion and legal trademarks are a different beast from talking about how regular people view things.

    Yes, if you go to a store and see a cup with a cartoon dog on it and the name 'Diablo' on it, you're not gonna confuse it for the game series. That isn't what the lawsuit is about.

    'Confusion' is a type of trademark dispute. That is what is being referred to. Like when two trademarks are in conflict in the same domain, such as Diablo branded T shirts or Diablo branded mugs. The trademarks don't need to be similar at all, the confusion part is about two conflicting products of the same name potentially causing product confusion to the consumers based on the name alone. And yes, it can be argued regardless of the actual characters, because sometimes the merch could be sold through the text alone.

    And tbh there is no 'right and wrong' when it comes to trademark dispute, its all legal bullying for profit either way you look at it. Neither Fox nor Blizzard are going to come out as saints from this, both are just trying to capitalize on merch off a brand they're exploiting.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-05-11 at 04:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    A little torn on this one. Obviously, Blizzard took the name Diablo and built something around it...but they didn't create it.

    here's the "Diablo" Disambiguation page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo

    Just for character names alone you have this:

    Diablo (Disney), a raven in Sleeping Beauty

    Diablo (Marvel Comics), a Fantastic Four villain

    El Diablo (comics), several fictional characters from DC Comics

    A character in the Diablo video game series
    -a playable character in the video game Heroes of the Storm

    A character in the video game Primal Rage

    El Diablo, a superhero in the video game Freedom Force

    El Diablo, a character in The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run

    There's also the fact that "Diablo" just means "Devil" in Spanish

    So Blizzard might have a hard time winning this case.
    I agree with this. If the show was titled "Diablo", then I'd agree it could cause confusion.

    As a character name that's inside an 'artistic entity' of a different name, there is very little chance that someone would confuse them because the context that people would use to talk about it would be surrounding the show or the game, and not both (unless they were literally talking about the name itself).

  15. #35
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    67,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Someone at Fox obviously did not put enough research (or any for that matter) into the name. I don't think it's stupid at all. Diablo is Diablo, and it's a proper name of the chief demon in a huge franchise. You don't just go naming random shit with that name and claiming it yours.
    It isn't originally a proper name. Originally, it's just Spanish for "devil".

    Trying to claim trademark on this is like trying to claim Marvel can sue anyone who calls anything a "sword" because they have S.W.O.R.D. as an agency in Wandavision. That just isn't how anything works. You couldn't even sue if they made a devil character in a show and alled that devil character "Diablo".

    Fox is 100% in the wrong and their application should have been summarily rejected by the trademark office.

  16. #36
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    23,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Jujudrood View Post
    Ah, had no idea they were trying to make a series for it.
    That makes this make more sense.
    https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Diablo_(Netflix)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It isn't originally a proper name. Originally, it's just Spanish for "devil".

    Trying to claim trademark on this is like trying to claim Marvel can sue anyone who calls anything a "sword" because they have S.W.O.R.D. as an agency in Wandavision. That just isn't how anything works. You couldn't even sue if they made a devil character in a show and alled that devil character "Diablo".

    Fox is 100% in the wrong and their application should have been summarily rejected by the trademark office.
    Again that is literally how trademark works...
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36575684

    no mans sky literally had to fight a battle because it had the word "sky" in its name
    Microsoft was going to call their "one drive" sky drive, but they lost and had to call it one drive instead of sky drive. luckily no mans sky was able to win their suit.

  17. #37
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    67,408
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    Again that is literally how trademark works...
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36575684

    no mans sky literally had to fight a battle because it had the word "sky" in its name
    Microsoft was going to call their "one drive" sky drive, but they lost and had to call it one drive instead of sky drive. luckily no mans sky was able to win their suit.
    And that's just a demonstration that trademark law has been abused beyond belief.

    You should not be able to trademark basic words like that. If a company doesn't want to face a possibility of confusion, they can name their product something actually unique.

    What next, trademark the name "John" because of the film John Carter, and sue anyone who ever makes a film with a character named "John" in it? This shit's ridiculous and should be laughed out of court.

  18. #38
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    23,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And that's just a demonstration that trademark law has been abused beyond belief.

    You should not be able to trademark basic words like that. If a company doesn't want to face a possibility of confusion, they can name their product something actually unique.

    What next, trademark the name "John" because of the film John Carter, and sue anyone who ever makes a film with a character named "John" in it? This shit's ridiculous and should be laughed out of court.
    You dont evewn know the half of it. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ally-cancelled

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by T-34 View Post
    Any big company must protects its trademarks or right to use a name, no matter how stupid or petty it might seem.

    A couple of petty examples from my country, Denmark:

    1. Carlsberg, the big Danish beer producer, went after a camping-site named Carlsberg, but had to withdraw the case because the camping-site was named after the hill it was situated on, even though "Carlsberg" as a trademark was much older than the camping-site.
    2. A guy here build a copy of Elvis' Graceland and named it "Graceland". He had to rename it to the "Memphis Mansion" after the Elvis estate went after him.

    In this case we have one huge multi-billion company, Fox, in the entertainment business that wants to trademark a name that another multi-billion company in the same business has used for many years. So Blizzard is simply obliged to defend that it can use "Diablo".

    The main issue here is whether "Diablo" is so common that you can't trademark it or stop other companies from using the same name.
    It is also an issue whether a common word is used as a trademark in completly different or similar business areas.

    For example "Apple" is a trademark of a producer of very specific electronic products and no other company can use the word "apple" within those areas.
    But the company "Apple" can't stop companies using the word "apple" when we talk about the fruit/food etc. business as it is a common word describing something and not a name as such.
    This is basically what I've heard, as well. Blizzard is pretty much obligated to defend the name, due to how the trademarks work, or you might actually lose... some of the trademark protections? Or something along those lines? I can't quite remember. Maybe someone can shed some light on that?

    Anyway, the point is, is that these lawsuits don't necessarily stem from some pettiness over the name. They do it, because they are obligated to do it.
    Last edited by Santti; 2021-05-11 at 05:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    Money laundering, especially prior to his election? I couldn't give a flying fuck.

  20. #40
    Unless the dog is big, red, with horns and fire... there is no way this passes a court.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •