Is this common sense or do you have reason to know? I'll tell you that I was struck by the similarity -- I mean not enough to be confused, but I happen to be very familiar with what Valve is, what Half-Life the video game is, and who Anthony Cumia is. So there's no way that I'd ever confuse Half-Life the video game by Valve with Half-Life the shitty production company by Anthony Cumia.
...but not everyone is like me or has my same weird/sad tastes. My understanding is that, if you own IP, you have the right to avoid the likelihood of confusion between your IP and someone else's with respect to any reasonable person, not just people who are intimately familiar with the players involved. I could completely see someone who never really got that into video games but borrowed Halflife from a friend back in 1999 saying "Whoa -- the people who made that video game I kind of liked back in the day are producing this shit pure shit? Huh. Guess they were a one-hit wonder."
All you have to do is look up a registered trademark and it specifies exactly what the trademark can be used for. A company can't claim infringement on something the trademark doesn't cover.
Isn't Half-Life a brand name for Valve? What's the distinction between the Half-Life series of games from Valve and the iPhone series of phones from Apple?
I think that's just because there are a lot more physical products than there are software programs; humans have been making shit for millennia, but the software thing really only took off in the last 30 years or so.
In any case, that doesn't sound like a legal distinction to me. Can software programs not be brands? Is Windows not a branded product for Microsoft because it's intangible? Or QuickBooks for Intuit? Can I open Ted's QuickBooks Car Emporium because QuickBooks isn't a brand and their trademark doesn't extend to cars?
That's why I said usually. If you look it up there is a distinction made in a standard trademark and a brand name, not just legally, but in the way the trademark is registered. Valve would have needed to establish Half-Life as a brand name, which I do not believe they did.
If you look it up there is a distinction made in a standard trademark and a brand name, not just legally, but in the way the trademark is registered.
Not really; all trademarks are brands, and you can have an unregistered "brand" that functions as an unregistered trademark (that's dumb because you limit yourself to common law rights, but it's possible nonetheless).
Valve would have needed to establish Half-Life as a brand name, which I do not believe they did.
No they wouldn't, and even if they did, they haven't really had occasion to yet. I mean who would they make that showing to? The USPTO? All they care about when you register a trademark or a patent is evaluating whether a patent or trademarks can be properly registered. If the issue of what conflicts with what comes up anywhere, it comes up to a court after a dispute arises. (And, assuming that the "brand" issue is a legally relevant thing, a court would determine it and not the USPTO.)
And, in any case, a trademark's protectability isn't limited to its definition. A mark holder's rights aren't limited to the goods or services listed in their registration. The test is likelihood of confusion. The similarity of the goods being offered is a factor, but it's not the whole analysis. The Ninth Circuit articulates the test as follows:
strength of the mark;
proximity of the goods;
similarity of the marks;
evidence of actual confusion;
marketing channels used;
type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser;
defendant's intent in selecting the mark; and
likelihood of expansion of the product lines.
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F. 2d 341, 348-49 (9th. Cir 1979) (Link
I don't know whether a court would apply those factors and find a likelihood of confusion or not, but if Valve wanted to bring the lawsuit it wouldn't be frivolous, and it wouldn't have anything to do with a difference between brands and trademarks.
The main issue in this particular instance is Anthony's dumb little LLC is a trade name, and not a trademark. The likelihood of a company that owns a trademark of a name going after some dumb, drunk guinea using the same name for a trade name is extremely unlikely.
I do enjoy the fact that we have been discussing this for hours in a thread that was deleted by the OP.
EDIT: It's also pointless as it's no longer the name of his LLC. Shows how much I pay attention to his "network."
All you have to do is look up a registered trademark and it specifies exactly what the trademark can be used for. A company can't claim infringement on something the trademark doesn't cover.
That's why I said usually. If you look it up there is a distinction made in a standard trademark and a brand name, not just legally, but in the way the trademark is registered. Valve would have needed to establish Half-Life as a brand name, which I do not believe they did.
The main issue in this particular instance is Anthony's dumb little LLC is a trade name, and not a trademark. The likelihood of a company that owns a trademark of a name going after some dumb, drunk guinea using the same name for a trade name is extremely unlikely.
I do enjoy the fact that we have been discussing this for hours in a thread that was deleted by the OP.
EDIT: It's also pointless as it's no longer the name of his LLC. Shows how much I pay attention to his "network."
16 comments
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
Short answer, no. The name Half-Life is trademarked by Valve for use in video games and related merchandise.
2 Mod_Impersonator 2016-03-15
It's still a pretty stupid way to name your company.
0 [deleted] 2016-03-15
[deleted]
0 TobyTheRobot 2016-03-15
Is this common sense or do you have reason to know? I'll tell you that I was struck by the similarity -- I mean not enough to be confused, but I happen to be very familiar with what Valve is, what Half-Life the video game is, and who Anthony Cumia is. So there's no way that I'd ever confuse Half-Life the video game by Valve with Half-Life the shitty production company by Anthony Cumia.
...but not everyone is like me or has my same weird/sad tastes. My understanding is that, if you own IP, you have the right to avoid the likelihood of confusion between your IP and someone else's with respect to any reasonable person, not just people who are intimately familiar with the players involved. I could completely see someone who never really got that into video games but borrowed Halflife from a friend back in 1999 saying "Whoa -- the people who made that video game I kind of liked back in the day are producing this shit pure shit? Huh. Guess they were a one-hit wonder."
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
All you have to do is look up a registered trademark and it specifies exactly what the trademark can be used for. A company can't claim infringement on something the trademark doesn't cover.
1 TobyTheRobot 2016-03-15
Suppose I opened a car dealership and I called it "iPhone Fine Quality Pre-Owned Vehicles." Problem?
2 CookieHaid 2016-03-15
I think the problem would be you being a retard for naming your used-car dealership after a smart-phone.
2 TobyTheRobot 2016-03-15
The extent to which I'm a retard is not in question, sir. I just want to know if I'm going to be sued for being a retard.
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
iPhone is a brand name, which is a completely different legal issue. Yes, that would be a problem.
1 TobyTheRobot 2016-03-15
Isn't Half-Life a brand name for Valve? What's the distinction between the Half-Life series of games from Valve and the iPhone series of phones from Apple?
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
Brand names usually refer to physical products. Coke, iPhone, Band-Aid, Starbucks, etc.
1 TobyTheRobot 2016-03-15
I think that's just because there are a lot more physical products than there are software programs; humans have been making shit for millennia, but the software thing really only took off in the last 30 years or so.
In any case, that doesn't sound like a legal distinction to me. Can software programs not be brands? Is Windows not a branded product for Microsoft because it's intangible? Or QuickBooks for Intuit? Can I open Ted's QuickBooks Car Emporium because QuickBooks isn't a brand and their trademark doesn't extend to cars?
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
That's why I said usually. If you look it up there is a distinction made in a standard trademark and a brand name, not just legally, but in the way the trademark is registered. Valve would have needed to establish Half-Life as a brand name, which I do not believe they did.
1 TobyTheRobot 2016-03-15
Not really; all trademarks are brands, and you can have an unregistered "brand" that functions as an unregistered trademark (that's dumb because you limit yourself to common law rights, but it's possible nonetheless).
No they wouldn't, and even if they did, they haven't really had occasion to yet. I mean who would they make that showing to? The USPTO? All they care about when you register a trademark or a patent is evaluating whether a patent or trademarks can be properly registered. If the issue of what conflicts with what comes up anywhere, it comes up to a court after a dispute arises. (And, assuming that the "brand" issue is a legally relevant thing, a court would determine it and not the USPTO.)
And, in any case, a trademark's protectability isn't limited to its definition. A mark holder's rights aren't limited to the goods or services listed in their registration. The test is likelihood of confusion. The similarity of the goods being offered is a factor, but it's not the whole analysis. The Ninth Circuit articulates the test as follows:
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F. 2d 341, 348-49 (9th. Cir 1979) (Link
I don't know whether a court would apply those factors and find a likelihood of confusion or not, but if Valve wanted to bring the lawsuit it wouldn't be frivolous, and it wouldn't have anything to do with a difference between brands and trademarks.
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
The main issue in this particular instance is Anthony's dumb little LLC is a trade name, and not a trademark. The likelihood of a company that owns a trademark of a name going after some dumb, drunk guinea using the same name for a trade name is extremely unlikely.
I do enjoy the fact that we have been discussing this for hours in a thread that was deleted by the OP.
EDIT: It's also pointless as it's no longer the name of his LLC. Shows how much I pay attention to his "network."
1 [deleted] 2016-03-15
[deleted]
1 SlappyJiggler 2016-03-15
Are they ever gonna make another fucking Half-Life game?
1 Leeham721 2016-03-15
In the last VR demo Valve released there were references to HL3 files, so at some recent point it was in development.
https://steamdb.info/blog/mining-the-aperture-robot-repair-vr-demo/
1 [deleted] 2016-03-15
[deleted]
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
All you have to do is look up a registered trademark and it specifies exactly what the trademark can be used for. A company can't claim infringement on something the trademark doesn't cover.
1 Leeham721 2016-03-15
In the last VR demo Valve released there were references to HL3 files, so at some recent point it was in development.
https://steamdb.info/blog/mining-the-aperture-robot-repair-vr-demo/
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
That's why I said usually. If you look it up there is a distinction made in a standard trademark and a brand name, not just legally, but in the way the trademark is registered. Valve would have needed to establish Half-Life as a brand name, which I do not believe they did.
1 SpudsBuckleyJr 2016-03-15
The main issue in this particular instance is Anthony's dumb little LLC is a trade name, and not a trademark. The likelihood of a company that owns a trademark of a name going after some dumb, drunk guinea using the same name for a trade name is extremely unlikely.
I do enjoy the fact that we have been discussing this for hours in a thread that was deleted by the OP.
EDIT: It's also pointless as it's no longer the name of his LLC. Shows how much I pay attention to his "network."