[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.