Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CogitoCogito 1863 days ago
> 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.
1 comments
bberenberg 1863 days ago
I believe this should help explain some of the ideas https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...
link
CogitoCogito 1863 days ago
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.

link
zinekeller 1863 days ago
> 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.

link
CogitoCogito 1863 days ago
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.

link
bberenberg 1863 days ago
Are you ignoring the entire portion above that about how the fraternity and sorority failure to enforce lost them the case?
link
CogitoCogito 1863 days ago
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.

link
zinekeller 1863 days ago
> 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.

link
CogitoCogito 1863 days ago
> 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.")

Honestly? Yes I do.

> 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.

This doesn't imply Unreal needs to sue. They could change their mind and decide they were wrong. They could have gone through the process and realized that consumers are not really all that confused. They could decide that Nreal isn't infringing on Unreal. These are all possible outcomes. They are making the _choice_ to sue. They might lose the lawsuit and might later with the benefit of more hindsight decide that they should have dropped the whole issue from day 1.

link