Diablo character sparks a trademark fight between Blizzard and Fox

[Orby]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/diablo-4/di...k-blizzard-fox

When you hear the word ‘Diablo’, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Since you’re here, we’re guessing it’s ‘Lord of Terror’, RPG games, and ‘Stay a while, and listen.’ However, it’s also the name of a character on a new animated series that’s set to premiere this month, setting up a showdown in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between Blizzard Entertainment and Fox Media.

The show in question is HouseBroken, an animated sitcom about a therapy dog named Honey and her fellow neighborhood pets. One of those is a nervous and obsessive dog named Diablo, voiced by Arrested Development star Tony Hale. Fox has sought to register the name Diablo with the trademark office, presumably to market show-related merchandise including pet food, pet bowls, and/or treat jars.

Blizzard’s attorneys have objected, and seek to block Fox’s application, arguing in their filing that Fox’s use of the term ‘Diablo’ is “likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive,” and would thus be prohibited under federal trademark law.

Blizzard’s filing (.pdf), amusingly, lists at length the critical accolades its hit series has racked up since it first launched in 1997, as well as each piece of DLC released for Diablo, Diablo II, and Diablo III. The notice of opposition also mentions that Blizzard plans to release Diablo Immortal this year, and carefully notes that Diablo IV is currently under development.

Blizzard’s notice was filed only last week, and so Fox Media’s attorneys have yet to submit a response to the patent office. While we still don’t have a firm Diablo 4 release date, we know that HouseBroken will premiere May 31 on Fox. Diablo II: Resurrected will be out later this year.

I am not all out in understanding these legal battles but ones like this just feel so dumb. As if people are not going to get confused between a cartoon dog and a video game demon. Once again I have no idea how these trademark legal battles operate, but boy do they sound stupid.

Almost most as stupid as having a legal war over a caterpillar cake name. (Oh yea that happened here in the UK recently) :P

[Azerate]

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.

[Egomaniac]

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.

[enigma77]

That's not going to work out for blizzard since diablo literally means devil.

You can't trademark the devil.

[Viikkis]

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.

[Kumorii]

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.

Not exactly one who knows a lot about this, but isn't it more about FoX trying to trademark the name which could cause issues for Blizzard to use it, which is why they try to stop it?

[Neuroticaine]

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.

My guy, the word is literally just Spanish for "devil." Not very original.

That said, corporate legal teams gonna corporate legal team.

[Orby]

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.

There is also a type of wine called Diablo that my sister loves :P

[XDurionX]

You can't just trademark regular words and own them. That's not how any of this works, Blizz.

[Triceron]

Trademarks for TV is not the same as creating something original (ie patent or copyright).

Trademarks are registered for commercial use, and Diablo is a name used commercially by Blizzard, especially. it seems no one has registered a trademark for that name, but Fox is trying to do so, and Blizzard doesn't want them owning that trademark for media/merchandise because it will affect their own use of it. That is what is legally being contested here.

The name 'Diablo' simply existing in other characters in media doesn't mean much because those aren't trademarked characters for the purpose of media or merchandise.

[vian]

About as stupid as trade-marking SKY.

[munkeyinorbit]

You can't just trademark regular words and own them. That's not how any of this works, Blizz.

I don't think you understand this thread. In fact, I am positive you do not understand the thread. Blizzard is not trying to trademark anything.

[Kumorii]

Trademarks for TV is not the same as creating something original (ie patent or copyright).

Trademarks are registered for commercial use, and Diablo is a name used commercially by Blizzard, especially. it seems no one has registered a trademark for that name, but Fox is trying to do so, and Blizzard doesn't want them owning that name which will prevent their own use of it. That is what is legally being contested here.

The name 'Diablo' simply existing in other characters in media doesn't mean much because those aren't trademarked characters for the purpose of media or merchandise.

Sounds like I got it right then. Thanks for the explanation even though I know you didn't reply to me specifically.
Maybe people should be mad at FOX instead of Blizzard then

In fact, Blizzard sounds like the good guys here.

[T-34]

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.

[ThrashMetalFtw]

You can't just trademark regular words and own them. That's not how any of this works, Blizz.

Fox are the ones who are trying to trademark it, Blizz are trying to stop them, for obvious reasons.

[Egomaniac]

Trademarks for TV is not the same as creating something original (ie patent or copyright).

Trademarks are registered for commercial use, and Diablo is a name used commercially by Blizzard, especially. it seems no one has registered a trademark for that name, but Fox is trying to do so, and Blizzard doesn't want them owning that name which will prevent their own use of it. That is what is legally being contested here.

The name 'Diablo' simply existing in other characters in media doesn't mean much because those aren't trademarked characters by name.

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.

[kranur]

That's not going to work out for blizzard since diablo literally means devil.

You can't trademark the devil.

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.

[ClassicPeon]

That's not going to work out for blizzard since diablo literally means devil.

You can't trademark the devil.

So what you are trying to say is that it wont work out for Fox

[Maell]

Aquick google search shows that Blizzard has a trademark for Diablo.
That trademark is marked as entertainmant and thus Blizzard is defending a trademark in the same space (Entertainment).

[SirBeef]

Sounds like I got it right then. Thanks for the explanation even though I know you didn't reply to me specifically.
Maybe people should be mad at FOX instead of Blizzard then

In fact, Blizzard sounds like the good guys here.

It's pretty obvious people's hate binders for Blizzard is redirecting blood away from their brains preventing them from 1, reading the damned article, 2, comprehending what they read or have been explained, and 3, being objective.

Blizzard could find a cure for all illnesses and diseases, give it away for free and the narrative here would be that Blizzard is destroying Big medicine and ruining doctor's lives. Also it just a PR stunt.

But yes, this is Blizzard trying to protect their long running IP so that they can use it in the future without legal issues.