[zinekeller]

US laws and case precedents says otherwise. If it's in another country, especially in EU, this is frivolous but US IP laws and case precedents are messy as hell. They could lose this case, but the legal bill is worth it as it allows them to allow future lawsuits which misuses trademark homonyms in a genuinely damaging manner to them (like for example a game engine that sounds like "Unreal") since the defendants can't use Nreal's trademark as something they have deliberately left undefended and argue that the "Unreal" has genericised enough that they should use a similar homonym.

Similarly, Epic haven't defended their "Unreal" trademark in China against Nreal because trademark laws there are actually sensible: sure, if someone counterfeit their engine it is unlikely that there would be a case against it (which contrary to first impressions counterfeiters tends to be a small operation and can quickly shut down when there's signs a legal trouble) but if a Chinese company flagrantly displayed the Unreal trademarks against Epic's wishes, they can sue it (and it happened already and prevailed a couple of times there).

[laumars]

You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.

[zinekeller]

> You don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities.

I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.

[CogitoCogito]

> I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.

"arguable" "might decide"

So...they have a choice?

There is nuance to all legal cases. There is nothing in trademark law that says you have to sue anyone who arguably might be infringing on your trademarks. Everything is a balance. Everything is a choice. This case is no different. Unreal absolutely did not need to do this. I understand why lawyers who might want your billings might tell you otherwise. I don't understand why random uninterested parties on the internet would though.

[laumars]

Using “real” in a company name making virtual reality products is entirely understandable given “real” is exactly the type of jargon people use when describing how effective and immersive a particular product in VR is.

Yes, Epic had a game called Unreal, but so many games exist using common terms. It would be ridiculous if every company went after every dictionary term like this. It’s hard enough naming things as it is and the problem is only going to get worse.

All cases like these do is harm smaller projects and start ups who don’t have the resources to fight.

[CogitoCogito]

> US laws and case precedents says otherwise.US laws and case precedents says otherwise.

Unreal could argue there is no confusion and they'd be in the clear. In fact they have many avenues between "lawsuit" and "losing their trademark". If you disagree, please actually list applicable precedents indicating otherwise.

[bberenberg]

I believe this should help explain some of the ideas https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...

[CogitoCogito]

From that article:

> What Should Trademark Owners Do?

> Trademark owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement and other misuse (e.g., blurring, tarnishment, unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer. At the same time, a complete failure to enforce will lead to a weakening of an owner’s marks, loss of distinctiveness over time and, as we saw in this case, potential forfeiture of certain available remedies.

That implies that _I_ am correct. You do understand that right? Unreal can conclude that their mark isn't being damaged. "Not suing Nreal" is not that same as "a complete failure".

So thank you for proving my point.

[zinekeller]

> That implies that _I_ am correct. You do understand that right? Unreal can conclude that their mark isn't being damaged. "Not suing Nreal" is not that same as "a complete failure".

I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline (as in that case there's a real separation, this is the reason why you have Linux detergent), but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark. If a future case have concerning the "Unreal" trademarks would have been filed by Epic and the defense have brought up passing-up of Nreal's trademark, the court could have ruled that Epic did in fact not enforced its "Unreal" trademarks and even paved the way to genericize them.

[CogitoCogito]

Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Nreal actually is infringing on the Unreal trademark. Unreal could conclude otherwise. A court could find that reasonable. A court could disagree with another's company's claims that Unreal isn't defending it's marks for this reason.

So yeah there is a choice. Judges, lawyers and companies are not automatons.

[bberenberg]

Are you ignoring the entire portion above that about how the fraternity and sorority failure to enforce lost them the case?

[CogitoCogito]

No. I just don't find it as relevant as this:

"A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer."

That directly supports me. Interesting how you seem to be ignoring that.

[zinekeller]

> That directly supports me. Interesting how you seem to be ignoring that.

Let's analyze the phrase carefully.

> A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict.

> and it’s developed a demo game called Nreal Tower.

You, personally, might not confuse this with Unreal but do you think that an average person can differentiate between Epic's product and Nreal's product? (I'm pretty sure though that the answer to that is "I don't care, I don't really play computer/video games.")

> or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer.

Epic knows that Nreal exists back in 2018

> Epic and Nreal have been quietly fighting over the “Unreal” trademark for years. Epic filed to block Nreal’s trademark in 2018, and the companies discussed a settlement after that. But Epic’s suit claims the discussion was “fruitless.”

In other words, it was already known to them that Nreal exists as a company and they have attempted to settle this previously. In other words, this is a continuation of a 2018 lawsuit.