Blizzard Sues Over Diablo Movie Title 281
Whatanut writes: "As reported by inside.com in this article, Blizzard Entertainment is suing New Line for using the word Diablo as the title of a movie release. Blizzard wants to make a movie of their own with the same title and feel New Line is only using the word to cash in on the popularity of the Diablo gaming world. Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"? And what kind of precedent would this set if they were to win?"
IMDB (Score:1)
Re:Diabolo Trademark is Dilute (Score:1)
As in, Spanish for the Devil.
Your reasoning applies, but...
What the? (Score:2)
forget this trademark bullshit. DOn't they make computer games? And now they think they can make a movie? New Line was probably doing them a favor to keep from embarassing themselves.
of course (Score:1)
On the other hand, a Blizzard made a game named Diablo and Lamborgini had a car named Diablo and there is no problem. If Blizzard had made Diablo about racing Lamborgini's, then there probably would have been. The movie that New Line is putting out is not about Diablo's storyline so I guess the real test would be whether or not Blizzard had secured rights to the movie name before New Line.
Oh yeah, and there is also a brand of paint balls called diablos that no one had mentioned yet, but that seems kind of irrelevant.
Re:That's nucking futs... (Score:2)
This is very similar to a (hypothetical) case where two movie companies are disputing a movie title, which I beleive is a fairly cut and dry scenario (whomever registered the name first wins). And I would like to point out this case is much more like two movie companies than like Ford and AMD (your example); Blizzard and movie companies are both media, whereas with Ford and AMD you have a dissimilar product.
BTW: Your last point is well taken. I really hope Blizzard realizes what a large market they're overlooking by excluding the linux community.
Re:Diabolo Trademark is Dilute (Score:1)
Re:That's nucking futs... (Score:1)
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
Re:Why not claim ownership of the alphabet? (Score:1)
Id software sues CNN (Score:1)
Id software has filed a defamation of character suit against CNN claiming they were "totally misrepresented" in a story [cnn.com] linking them to a regional shake-up in China.
In a related story [wirednews.com] China is now promoting a defensive strategy in order to curtail further attacks.
Re:diablo is a common word (Score:3)
Actually no. Blizzard also owns the movie title "Diablo" and (in the U.S.) movie titles are registered and duplicates are generally not allowed. New Line don't have much hope, I'd say (IANAL, etc).
Re:Why dont people ever read the stuff they post. (Score:1)
Consequently, while Blizzard dosn't own the title "Diablo" for, say, Spanish language demonology textbooks, they do own it in those two fields.
Because trademark only applies to certain areas, commonly used words can be used in many products. Imagine if every trademark granted covered every use of that word! Companies would be unable to gain a trademark on any pronouncable word, the courts simply wouldn't stand for it!
Blizzard will win this case. I'd be shocked if they lost. The relevant part, that so many have ignored, is the area specific nature of these trademarks. You can make all the Diablo brand toilet paper you want, Bilzzard won't give a damn (pun intended)
This has been another useless post from....
Funny, slightly serious, not a troll (Score:3)
Despite this, and my disclaimer, not one but two people have modded it down as a troll.
Moderation Totals:Troll=2, Insightful=1, Funny=3, Total=6.
I think there is perhaps a Troll Union, with some members having moderator accounts. These Trollerators apply the [-1, Troll] option to any message they perceive as an unauthorized troll. Being semi-literate trolls, they are naturally unable to read through to the end and see that it is a joke.
Re:This legal action is stupid because... (Score:1)
The question is how broad of a trademark Bliz got. More and more movies are being made of video games (whether this is a good trend or not, I leave as an exercise for the reader). It is reasonable to expect that the trademark protection also applies to related media.
Now, if there was something Bliz was supposed to do in order to secure the TM on related media, and they didn't -- they lose in my book. But if they were smart and secured it, I have no problem with them exercising that right.
Lots of trademarks are normal names. Doom, for example. Could I make a movie and call it Doom (ok, ignore for a minute whether anyone has the rights to it) without expecting someone to at least _try_ and prevent me?
Re:Why dont people ever read the stuff they post. (Score:1)
They also made a movie called "Bad Boys" last year, which was a shocker to me because I always think of the Sean Penn/Ally Sheedy movie.
Now we're saying the word "devil" is trademarked.. (Score:1)
Josh
This is bad. (Score:1)
I find it sickening every time I read about someone being sued over using every day words. It is absurd.
Re:Why not claim ownership of the alphabet? (Score:1)
Bear in mind both sets of consequences. (Score:2)
If this ruling goes against Blizzard, I expect to see a lot more "Diablo"-labelled merchandise cropping up, claiming to be unrelated.
I'm not saying that Blizzard _should_ win the lawsuit. I'm just saying that this will be a decision with unpleasant consequences either way it goes.
Re:Focus! Is there likelihood of confusion (Score:1)
(this particular slashdot trend is getting annoying)
Point 2: Blizzard's trademark on Diablo covers, among other things:
Video Games
Motion Pictures
Television Shows
Pajamas
Lunch Boxes and Insulated Beverage Containers
Freud USA owns the trademark on Diablo for circular saws.
Internation Tanning Products owns Diablo as used in conjunction with sun tan oil
And Jason R. Messina owns "The Diablo Project" for use in sound recordings.
Trademarks can be simple, common words, but must be highly specific.
--
When did those rules apply to the word "referee"? (Score:1)
Remember this story [slashdot.org]?
- JoeShmoe
Re:Diabolo Trademark is Dilute (Score:2)
Imagine: Ford Motor company decides it may want to make a movie about Motors.
Does "Motore" (Spanish for "Motor") 'belong' to Ford Motor? Only Ford can forever title movies containing "Motore"?
Imagine: Apple Computer decides it wants to make a movie about "Computer".
Does "Computer" 'belong' to Apple Computer? Only Apple can forever title moveis containing "Computer"?
I reliaze alot of people may argue this or that about 'Law this and Law that' - but lets stop and think for a minute: What are we proposing? That now simple language can be trademarked? Will Future Capitalist Companies not only register 'www.bob.com', 'www.bob.org', 'www.bob.net' but also Trademark "bob the movie', 'bob the soft drink', 'bob the motor oil'. Will we 'sell language' to Capitalists? 20 years from now will all of language been registered as trademarks for businesses?
Before everyone runs off assuming Im a paranoid Slashdotter think long and hard. Watching the MPAA, RIAA, DeCSS, DMCA, UCITA, WTO, World Bank and the FTAA etc etc.. would you assume - for even one second - that what Im describing is not guaranteed to happen?
plutocracy
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Expect more lawsuits as games&movies converge (Score:1)
See:m l [slashdot.org]
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/11/03/01.cfm [www.exn.ca]
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/38/ns-18053.html [zdnet.co.uk]
http://www.youve-got-male.com/ [youve-got-male.com]
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/23/0836256.sht
Is this funny, or is it informative?
- subsolar
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now we're saying the word "devil" is trademarke (Score:2)
It's legal...I think (Score:1)
Maybe it's the same for game titles.
Scratch-o-Matic
Re:diablo is a common word (Score:1)
Re: Aren't we defensive of our Score 5:Funny post? (Score:1)
Oh I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where I wrote "Posts complaining about how stories aren't appropriate for Slashdot are as bad as replies to those posts." (explanation: self-effacing humour, dude)
We don't need posters bitching (albeit couched in 'humour') about irrelevant stories. Not liking to be a bitch, I prefer to poke fun at those posters than be all serious and boring. That way, even if you disagree with me, you shouldn't feel like you have to defend your +5 Funny post, and can still have a good laugh.
In any case, this thread has 300+ comments and growing - Claude E. Shannon's death got 148 messages. What's a better metric? Your personal opinion or the cummulative response of all Slashdot readers. You see the futility of the 'this story is irrelevant' post now?
The fact is, Slashdot editors have far better (and less painful) places to look than your witty complaints in gauging the feasability of "the submission process".
I repeat, shut the hell up.
--
Re:Expect more lawsuits as games&movies converge (Score:1)
"You've Got Mail" is about the worst example possible considering that it was made by Warner Brothers. You know.. as in Time-Warner-AOL
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nightmare (Score:1)
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/trademar
Stinging trademark (Score:2)
Sting * is * his trademark.
KFG
There is a different consideration for common word (Score:2)
So, that's where one big distinction lies: between names which are not common words, and names which are. It gets extremely complicated, though, with quite a few other factors. But one of the cases I always remember is Robert Mondavi versus Arturo Fuente. The Fuente cigar company is an established cigar maker, which produced (at the height of the cigar boom, when they were chic all of a sudden) a special top brand they called the Opus X. They called it Opus X because all the wrapper leaf came from a special field of experimental Cuban seed tobacco, which they all jokingly called "Project X." So when the product neared market, they came up with the name Opus X.
Unbeknownst to them, Robert Mondavi's famous winery had trademarked Opus One not only for wine, but for a cigar brand. Mondavi took Fuente to Court on trademark claims, because of the similarity between Opus One and Opus X.
To cut to the chase, Mondavi lost. Fuente was first to market with a cigar product using "Opus" in the name, and what's more although Opus is not a common word in English it is a plain Latin word often used universally to denote, for example, a composer's works in the order in which they were composed. Mondavi further had argued that there is a similarity between fine cigars and fine wines, since they are often sold in the same shops and are advertised together in related cigar and wine publications. But the Court ruled that, despite any perceptions on Mondavi's part that wines and fine cigars are similar and related products, an average consumer is not going to confuse a wine with "Opus" in the title with a cigar with "Opus" in the title.
I don't feel like looking the case up to refresh my memory about specifics, but these names should be enough for anyone to find the decision online if anyone is interested in such trademark disputes. I'd wager the judge in this case is going to rule in a similar manner, saying that New Line was first to market with a film called *Diablo* and that, both entertainment companies or not, no reasonable consumer is going to confuse a computer game about demons with a film about a drug lord.
Of course, I feel very, very dirty. Yuck; I just defended an AOL/TimeWarner subsidiary. I love New Line films, and now every time I buy one I'm going to be supporting...AOL. Every time I turn on CNN, I'm not only supporting leftist looney Ted Turner, which was bad enough, but now...AOL. I think I'm gonna hurl...
Heidi Wall (Score:2)
Rate me on Picture-rate.com [picture-rate.com]
The Diablo Movie true to the game experience (Score:3)
You're sitting in the theater. The lights dim. A hush falls over the crowd, as the screen lights up. 40 minutes of ads and previews later, film rolls on Blizzard's Diablo, the movie.
Not long after we settle on our hero, a hearty warrior from the barbarian highlands, the film begins skipping frames. The barbarian forges out of the rogue camp, beset upon by skeletons. Despite their being 20 feet away, they swing their axes, and our hero staggers under the blows! Meanwhile, the movie keeps freezing up entirely for a second or two at a time.
Finally, no more than a few minutes into the action, the movie cuts to the familiar Diablo font:
Your Connection Has Been Interrupted
Roll credits.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when can you trademark a title? (Score:2)
There are many movies that have identical titles, and far more that have confusingly similar ones (which is practically equivalent in trademark law). I've never before heard of a lawsuit over it.
I don't think trademark should apply to fiction titles at all. It's simply absurd. Fiction is not supposed to be so important that something like trademark is needed to protect consumers from being tricked into purchasing the wrong product.
For that matter, I still don't see any IP law protecting merchandising rights. It can't be a copyright violation, since a plush toy isn't a copyrightable work. It can't be trademark violation, since characters and locations in a fictional work aren't products. Does anyone out there know why you can't make and sell plush Ewoks without permission from Lucasfilm?
---
You can't trademark "Diablo" - it's a common noun (Score:2)
I don't know if using a non-English noun helps, but in this case, a movie about a Hispanic drug lord, "Diablo" is a perfectly logical name for the (anti)hero and therefore the movie.
By their argument, "Devil in a Blue Dress" cannot be marketed in a Spanish translation - "Diablo en un vestido azul" would violate their trademark. Diablo players in Latin America might think the movie was somehow related. A Hispanic author couldn't publish a book entitled "The Devil Returns" (or anything with "*Devil*") because it violates their trademark.
If New Line can make a movie called "Diablo" without Blizzard's consent, can Blizzard come out with a game called "Nightmare On Elm Street" without New Line's consent?
Can the Catholic Church sue the makers of Deus Ex for using the Latin word for God in their title? Of course not, "Deus" is a dictionary word in Latin, not a created noun.
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
Rader
Chi-Chi's Diablo Sauce! Yum! (Score:2)
Does anybody remember Chi-Chi's Diablo sauce? This was the green salsa that you had to ask for. They had mild, hot, then diablo. You could order any dish you wanted "diablo style" and they would smother it in diablo sauce. I used to order a soft taco Diablo, and it was so hot it was like the Guatamalan insanity peppers from the Simpson's. I'm not kidding, the stuff actually seemed to have some kind of drug effect to the point where I would get all flushed.
This was back when Chi-Chi's was cool and I was too young to get heartburn. The last time I went back there the menu looked like something from Denny's. I probably wouldn't order those dishes now, but it's a shame to think that you can't get that stuff anymore.
hate to tell Blizzard, but.... (Score:2)
IMDB has 158 entries of movies, tv shows, tv movies, and games with the word "Diablo" in the title including 2 entries by Blizzard. This most recent movie is the ONLY entry on IMDB that succeeded Blizzards games. The earliest movie including "Diablo" in the name seems to be a Spanish movie from 1910.
How does Blizzard figure it has sole rights to use the word "Diablo" in a cinematic work? Sorry fellows, its been done before.
IMDb title search
The following titles matched diablo
(Years searched: 1890 to 2005)
2 x most popular searches
146 x movies
7 x tv-movies
1 x tv series
2 x video games
[total 158]
Most popular searches
Idle Hands (1999)
...aka Diablo metiEla mano, El (1999) (Spain)
Devil's Advocate, The (1997)
...aka Pactar con el diablo (1998) (Spain)
Movies
Diablo (2001)
Diablo a caballo, El (1954)
Diablo andaba en los choclos, El (1946)
Diablo bajo la almohada, Un (1967)
...aka Calda e... infedele (1967) (Italy)
...aka Devil Under the Pillow, A (1967)
...aka Diable sous l'oreiller, Le (1967) (France)
Diablo Cojuelo, El (1971)
Diablo de las Vidalas, El (1950)
Diablo del Mar, El (1935)
Diablo desaparece, El (1954)
Diablo, el santo y el tonto, El (1985)
Diablo en el paraíso, El (1999)
...aka Devil in Paradise (1999) (Europe: English title)
Diablo en persona, El (1973)
Diablo en vacaciones, El (1963)
Diablo está en Zaragoza, El (1910)
Diablo está en Zaragoza, El (1921)
Diablo fuerte (1925)
Diablo metió la pata (1980)
Diablo no es tan diablo, El (1949)
Diablo nunca duerme, El (1994)
...aka Devil Never Sleeps, The (1994)
Diablo oportuno, El (1940)
Diablo sin dama, El (1970)
Diablo también llora, El (1963)
...aka Delitto di Anna Sandoval, Il (1966) (Italy)
Diablo toca la flauta, El (1954)
Diablo y la dama, El (1981)
Agi Murad il diavolo bianco (1959)
...aka White Warrior, The (1959)
...aka Diablo blanco, El (1959) (Spain)
Angel on My Shoulder (1946)
...aka Diablo y yo, El (1946) (Spain)
Arcidiavolo, L' (1966)
...aka Devil in Love, The (1966) (USA)
...aka Diavolo innamorato, Il (1966) (Italy)
...aka Diablo enamorado, El (1966) (Spain)
Casa dell'esorcismo, La (1974)
...aka Devil and the Dead, The (1974)
...aka Devil in the House of Exorcism, The (1974)
...aka Diablo se lleva a los muertos, El (1974) (Spain)
...aka Diavolo e i morti, Il (1974)
...aka House of Exorcism, The (1974) (USA: recut version)
...aka Lisa and the Devil (1974) (USA)
...aka Lisa e il diavolo (1972) (Italy: first title)
...aka Teuflische, Der (1974) (West Germany)
Cinco lobitos (1945)
...aka Diablo são elas..., O (1945)
Devil and Miss Jones, The (1941)
...aka Diablo burlado, El (1941) (Spain)
Devil at 4 O'Clock, The (1961)
...aka Diablo a las cuatro, El (1961) (Spain)
Devil's in Love, The (1933)
...aka Diablo se divierte, El (1933) (Spain)
Diable et les dix commandements, Le (1962)
...aka Devil and the Ten Commandments (1963) (UK)
...aka Devil and the Ten Commandments, The (1963) (USA)
...aka Diable et les 10 commandements, Le (1962) (France: poster title)
...aka Tentazioni quotidiane, Le (1962) (Italy)
...aka Diablo y los diez mandamientos, El (1962) (Spain)
Diable par la queue, Le (1969)
...aka Devil by the Tail, The (1969) (USA)
...aka Diablo por la cola, El (1969) (Spain)
Diable probablement, Le (1977)
...aka Devil Probably, The (1977)
...aka Diablo, probablemente, El (1977) (Spain)
Diavolo in corpo, Il (1986)
...aka Devil in the Flesh (1987) (USA)
...aka Diable au corps, Le (1986) (France)
...aka Diablo en el cuerpo, El (1986) (Spain)
Heaven Can Wait (1943)
...aka Diablo dijo no, El (1943) (Spain)
Hell and High Water (1954)
...aka Diablo de las aguas turbias, El (1954) (Spain)
Idle Hands (1999)
...aka Diablo metiEla mano, El (1999) (Spain)
Indianapolis Speedway (1939)
...aka Devil on Wheels (1939) (UK)
...aka Diablo sobre ruedas, El (1939) (Venezuela)
Sept péchés capitaux, Les (1952)
...aka Sette peccati capitali, I (1952) (Italy)
...aka Sette peccati, I (1952) (Italy)
...aka Seven Deadly Sins, The (1953) (UK) (USA)
...aka Diablo siempre pierde, El (1954) (Spain)
Sorriso del grande tentatore, Il (1975)
...aka Devil Is a Woman, The (1975)
...aka Tempter, The (1975) (UK)
...aka Diablo es una mujer, El (1975) (Venezuela)
Teufel kam aus Akasawa, Der (1971)
...aka Devil Came from Akasava, The (1971)
...aka Diablo que vino de Akasawa, El (1974) (Spain)
Al diablo con amor (1972)
Al diablo con la música (1958)
Al diablo las mujeres (1955)
...aka Por culpa de una mujer (1955) (Mexico)
El Diablo Rides (1939)
Oro diablo (2000)
...aka Devil Gold (2000)
...aka Garimpeiros (2000) (Venezuela: première title)
Al diablo con este cura! (1967)
...aka To Hell with This Priest! (1967)
Cruz Diablo (1934)
...aka Devil's Cross, The (1934)
Pobre diablo (1940)
Con el diablo en el cuerpo (1947)
Con el diablo en el cuerpo (1954)
Duel at Diablo (1966)
...aka Ralph Nelson's Duel at Diablo (1966)
Cruz del diablo, La (1975)
...aka Cross of the Devil (1975) (USA)
...aka Devil's Cross, The (1975)
Eye of the Devil (1967)
...aka 13 (1967)
...aka Ojo del diablo, El (1967) (Spain)
Hermanos Diablo, Los (1959)
Isla del diablo, La (1994)
Pelo del diablo, El (1942)
Cerco del diablo, El (1952)
Due occhi diabolici (1990)
...aka Two Evil Eyes (1990) (USA)
...aka Ojos del diablo, Los (1990) (Spain)
Fallen Angel (1945)
...aka Ángel o diablo? (1945) (Spain)
Hijos del diablo, Los (1978)
Joyas del diablo, Las (1969)
Juego del diablo, El (1978)
Miele del diavolo, Il (1986)
...aka Dangerous Obsession (1986)
...aka Devil's Honey (1986) (literal English title)
...aka Divine Obsession (1986)
...aka Miel del diablo, La (1986) (Spain)
Strange Cargo (1940)
...aka Isla del diablo, La (1940) (Venezuela)
Beat the Devil (1953)
...aka Tesoro dell'Africa, Il (1953) (Italy)
...aka Burla del diablo, La (1953) (Spain)
Day of the Evil Gun (1968)
...aka Armas del diablo, Las (1969) (Mexico)
Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol (1964)
...aka Black God, White Devil (1964)
...aka Dios y el diablo en la tierra del sol (1964) (Spain)
Devil Rides Out, The (1968)
...aka Devil's Bride, The (1968) (USA)
...aka Novia del diablo, La (1968) (Spain)
Día con el diablo, Un (1945)
Fiesta del diablo, La (1931)
Fistol del diablo, El (1961)
Forsaking All Others (1934)
...aka Cuando el diablo asoma (1934) (Spain)
Platos del diablo, Los (1992)
...aka Devil's Plates, The (1992)
Puente del diablo, El (1956)
Roberto el diablo (1957)
Aliento del diablo, El (1993)
...aka Devil's Breath, The (1993)
Amantes del diablo, Las (1971)
...aka Diabolici convegni, I (1971) (Italy)
...aka Feast for the Devil (1971) (USA: video title)
...aka Feast of Satan (1971) (USA: US version)
...aka Night of the Devils (1971) (USA)
Aullido del diablo, El (1987)
...aka Howl of the Devil (1987)
Devil's Agent, The (1961)
...aka Im Namen des Teufels (1961) (West Germany)
...aka Agente del diablo, El (1961) (Spain)
Devil's Doorway (1950)
...aka Puerta del diablo, La (1950) (Spain)
Devil's Hand, The (1962)
...aka Devil's Doll (1962)
...aka Live to Love (1962)
...aka Naked Goddess, The (1962)
...aka Muñeca del diablo, La (1962) (Venezuela)
Devil's Own, The (1997)
...aka Sombra del diablo, La (1997) (Spain)
Devil's Rain, The (1975)
...aka Lluvia del diablo, La (1975) (Spain)
Dineros del diablo, Los (1953)
Garden of Evil (1954)
...aka Jardú del diablo, El (1954) (Spain)
Giant From the Unknown (1958)
...aka Diablo Giant, The (1958)
...aka Giant From Devil's Crag (1958)
...aka Giant From Diablo Point (1958)
Lágrima del diablo, La (1961)
Love Is the Devil (1998)
...aka Ai no akuma (1999) (Japan)
...aka Love Is the Devil (1998) (France)
...aka Love Is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon (1998) (USA)
...aka Amor es el diablo, El (1999) (Argentina)
Madrina del diablo, La (1937)
...aka Devil's Godmother, The (1937)
Montaña del diablo, La (1973)
Poppies Are Also Flowers (1966)
...aka Danger Grows Wild (1966) (UK)
...aka Opium Connection, The (1966)
...aka Poppy Is Also a Flower, The (1966) (USA)
...aka Flores del diablo, Las (1966) (Spain)
Beauté du diable, La (1950)
...aka Beauty and the Devil (1952) (USA)
...aka Beauty of the Devil, The (1950)
...aka Belleza del diablo, La (1950) (Spain)
Bedazzled (1967)
...aka Mi amigo el diablo (1967) (Venezuela)
Carnaval del diablo, El (1936)
Devil's Brigade, The (1968)
...aka Brigada del diablo, La (1968) (Spain)
Espinazo del diablo, El (2001)
...aka Devil's Backbone, The (2001) (Europe: English title) (USA)
Guilty as Sin (1993)
...aka Abogado del diablo, El (1993) (Spain)
Hell Mountain (1998)
...aka Chained Heat 3 (2000) (USA: video box title)
...aka Chained Heat 3: The Horror of Hell Mountain (2000) (UK: video title)
...aka Montaña del diablo, La (1998) (Venezuela)
Herencia del diablo, La (1917)
Hijo de Cruz Diablo, El (1941)
Peyton Place (1957)
...aka Caldera del diablo, La (1957) (Venezuela)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
...aka Semilla del diablo, La (1968) (Spain)
Savage Innocents, The (1959)
...aka Dents du diable, Les (1959) (France)
...aka Ombre bianche (1959) (Italy)
...aka Dientes del diablo, Los (1959) (Spain)
Teufels Advokat, Des (1978)
...aka Devil's Advocate, The (1978) (UK)
...aka Abogado del diablo, El (1978) (Spain)
Vela para el diablo, Una (1973)
...aka Candle for the Devil, A (1973)
...aka It Happened at Nightmare Inn (1973)
...aka Nightmare Hotel (1973)
Venganza del Diablo, La (1954)
Chiesa, La (1988)
...aka Cathedral of Demons (1988)
...aka Church, The (1988)
...aka Demon Cathedral (1988)
...aka Demons 3 (1988)
...aka In the Land of the Demons (1988)
...aka Engendro del diablo, El (1988) (Spain)
Gunfight at Comanche Creek (1964)
...aka Duelo no Rio Diablo (1964) (Portugal)
Hammersmith Is Out (1972)
...aka Pacto con el diablo (1972) (Spain)
Hell Bent (1918)
...aka Three Bad Men, The (1918) (USA: bowdlerized title)
...aka Barranco del diablo, El (1918) (Spain)
Manzanita del diablo, La (1989)
Ride Clear of Diablo (1954)
...aka Breckenridge Story, The (1954) (USA)
Sacristán del diablo, El (1992)
Sorge du diable, Le (1991)
...aka Quimeras del diablo, Las (1991) (Guatemala)
Spina dorsale del diavolo, La (1971)
...aka Deserter, The (1971) (USA)
...aka Djavolja kicma (1971) (Yugoslavia: Serbian title)
...aka Spina dorsale del diavolo, La (1971) (Italy)
...aka Quebrada del diablo, La (1971) (Spain)
Welcome to Hard Times (1967)
...aka Killer on a Horse (1967) (UK)
...aka Bala para el diablo, Una (1967) (Spain)
Adán, Eva y el diablo (1945)
De la piel del diablo (1962)
Demon Knight (1995)
...aka Demon Keeper (1995)
...aka Tales from the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight (1995) (USA: complete title)
...aka Caballero del diablo (1995) (Spain)
Devil's Advocate, The (1997)
...aka Pactar con el diablo (1998) (Spain)
Devil's Disciple, The (1959)
...aka Discúulo del diablo, El (1959) (Spain)
Devil's Messenger (1961)
...aka Mensajera del diablo, La (1961) (Venezuela)
Devil's Triangle, The (1974)
...aka Triángulo del diablo, El (1974) (Venezuela)
Escape from El Diablo (1983)
Quincy Adams Sawyer (1922)
...aka Cataratas del diablo, Las (1922) (Spain)
Sombra de Cruz Diablo, La (1954)
De la part des copains (1970)
...aka Cold Sweat (1974) (USA)
...aka Uomo dalle due ombre, L' (1970) (Italy)
...aka Vrienden laten groeten, De (1970) (Belgium: Flemish title)
...aka Compañeros del diablo, Los (1970) (Spain)
Florentino y el diablo (1995)
Piccolo diavolo, Il (1988)
...aka Little Devil, The (1988)
...aka Soy el pequeño diablo (1988) (Spain)
Anche nel west c'era una volta Dio (1968)
...aka Between God, the Devil and a Winchester (1968)
...aka Entre Dios y el diablo (1970) (Spain)
Visitaciones del diablo, Las (1968)
Ritos sexuales del diablo, Los (1980)
...aka Black Candles (1980)
...aka Hot Fantasies (1980) (USA: video title)
...aka Naked Dreams (1980)
Tarzan and the She-Devil (1953)
...aka Tarzán y la mujer-diablo (1953) (Spain)
30 Winchester per El Diablo (1965)
...aka 30 Winchester for El Diablo (1965)
...aka Gold Train (1965) (USA)
Cayó de la gloria el diablo (1971)
Devil Is a Sissy, The (1936)
...aka Devil Takes the Count, The (1936) (UK)
...aka Demonio es un pobre diablo, El (1936) (Spain)
Entre monjas anda el diablo (1972)
Condemned (1929)
...aka Condemned to Devil's Island (1929)
...aka Condenado a Isla del Diablo (1929) (Argentina)
Entre ficheras anda el diablo - La pulquería 3 (1983)
I Escaped from Devil's Island (1973)
...aka Escape de la Isla del Diablo (1973) (Mexico)
Muertos, la carne y el diablo, Los (1974)
...aka Dead, the Devil and the Flesh, The (1974) (USA)
Esperanza, la presa del diablo (1927)
Lola Colt (1967)
...aka Faccia a faccia con El Diablo (1967) (Italy: alternative title)
Quartier de femmes (1972)
...aka Amantes de la isla del diablo, Los (1975) (Spain)
TV-Movies
Duel (1971/I) (TV)
...aka Diablo sobre ruedas, El (1987) (TV) (Spain)
Next Door (1994) (TV)
...aka Diablo vive enfrente, El (1994) (TV) (Spain)
El Diablo (1990) (TV)
Rio Diablo (1993) (TV)
Guns of Diablo (1964) (TV)
Baffled! (1972) (TV)
...aka Amuleto del diablo, El (1972) (TV) (Spain)
Sleeping with the Devil (1997) (TV)
...aka Durmiendo con el diablo (1997) (TV) (Spain)
TV series
"Sonrisa del diablo, La" (1996) TV series
Video Games
Diablo (1996) (VG)
Diablo II (2000) (VG)
Re:Yet another stupid law suit (Score:2)
Basically what your saying is that the present or popular system is right because it is present and popular. Taking an opportunity to say "I DISAGREE" only to have someon dump 'this is the real world' makes me furious. Change is good. Make decisions for yourself - never assume what is 'normal' is correct. The world is full of problems. The only way to address them is to make changes. Dont be afraid of new thinking. Ever.
Personally, I'd like to see New Line voluntarily change the name of their flick. It'll help them avoid confusion in the box office (there are probably people out there who like crime dramas but don't want to see a fantasy Diablo-themed movie), and it's early enough that they can change their name without worrying about wasted marketing dollars
When did this become important? OR worthy of your brain time? Who cares if these idiots 'lose money on marketing'? Why change the movie title at all? Lets allow two movies titled "Diablo". I propose we allow them to be released on the same day. If a heard of sheeple cannot read the goodamn by-lines for their desired Entertainment Experience screw them - Im tired of watching logic and reality collapse to accomidate the buying habits of Consumo-Droids.
What are you thinking?
Re:You can't trademark "Diablo" - it's a common no (Score:2)
Tch, yeah right, try telling that to Apple
cLive ;-)
It wouldn't set any kind of precedent (Score:2)
Why? Not because Marvel Comics invented the Hulk Hogan persona. No, it's because Marvel Comics has a character who's a big strong guy who's named the Hulk. Hulk Hogan was (arguably) a fictitious character. He was a big, strong guy. Ergo, in Marvel Comics's eyes, his use of that name was infringing on their trademark on big strong guys with this particular word of the English language in their name.
Now, let's take stock here: Hulk Hogan could certainly not bench press 18 tons. Hulk Hogan was certainly not green, and he didn't undergo any particular transformation when he got angry. It could be argued that his use of the word "hulk" was just plain English language, and nothing more.
Then again, you could argue that it WAS something more. And ultimately, somebody decided it was easier (and better for Hogan's career) if they let Marvel claim the trademark and Hogan just went on about his business of being a wrestler.
Nothing really more clandestine or sinister than that. Just like in this Blizzard case. It's just plain ol' trademark law, contract law, entertainment law, and what-have-you
--
Re: Aren't we defensive of our Score 5:Funny post? (Score:2)
Yeah, sorry, trying to do math homework at the same time. Complex humour and complex numbers don't always mix well.
We don't need posters bitching (albeit couched in 'humour') about irrelevant stories. [snip] In any case, this thread has 300+ comments and growing
I'm bitching about misleading stories, really. How many of those 300+ posts are from users who were mislead by the Slashdot story, and are either screaming about a non-issue, or (like me) bitching about how misleading the story was?
You see the futility of the 'this story is irrelevant' post now?
Futility? I achieved my objective--I made some people laugh. Hell, one guy even said my post "is arguably the funniest, most intelligent post [he has] ever seen on Slashdot". You're right about one thing, though--why the hell am I bothering to defend my +5 post?
Part that belongs in Diablo movie (Score:2)
Please, oh god... (Score:2)
Nightmare (Score:2)
Why dont people ever read the stuff they post. (Score:5)
Re:Stinging trademark (Score:2)
KFG
Re:Focus! Is there likelihood of confusion (Score:2)
Point 2 -- of course they have filed applications (intent-to-use applications, BTW) outside their core business. This doesn't mean that: (1) they will obtain registration (for example, you can't protect an individual movie with a trademark, only a series of films); or (2) that even if they did obtain registration, that they are entitled to the use of the mark. (The number of movies sold beforehand incorporating the word Diablo, or its tranlsation, the Devil, are substantial). Finally, it is somewhat difficult to obtain registration of the word "Devil" or a foreign translation thereof, for a movie about devils. (Note that they have already tried once to get this registration, and abandoned it in order to try again).
Even if they could obtain good rights to claim the mark for the purpose of films of whatever kind they are making, this doesn't mean that titles incorporating the word Diablo or Devil are out-of-bounds. As described in my prior posting, the key issue, after providing good title, is to prove likelihood of confusion. Even INCONTESTABLE registrations still require a plaintiff to prove LOC.
Which brings me back, notwithstanding the two points you made, to the point made in my post. Focus on the issue of likelihood of confusion. The Diablo is in the details.
If Blizzard can prove the "cashing in" part... (Score:2)
Unfotunately, I think this case has to fall into one of those "judgement calls" by some judge as to how legitimate the effort of the movie maker is at making a distinct piece of work.
I can also see myself replying to what I just wrote with flame....*sigh*
Re:It does NOT work that way... (Score:2)
If that story is true, then I find it unlikely that it's necessary to actually use or plan to use a trademark in order to own it.
Re:It does NOT work that way... (Score:3)
Google turned up this Salon article [salon.com] about it.
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
1. The name, Diablo, is simply a word for the devil that happens to be the name of blizzards game. It has been used in MANY markets. from Games to hot sauce. where as Nightmare on Elm street is a Title that has alm,ost no other use. If Blizzard successfully sues New Line, does that mean they can be sued by Diablo hot sauce?
2. If the new line title has nothing to do with, and no overly similiar content, then they should be able to use that name, as long as there isn't all ready a movie with that title.
certiamly If I came out with a game called "Shoe", that doesn't mean someone can't use that name for a movie.
So as long as A. there allready isn't a game called "Nightmare on Elm Street"
B. If the game had no overly similiar content of the movie, then Sure Blizzard should be allowed to make the game. But it is a lot tought when you use an original title to name something, then when you take 1 common word out of a language then claim you own all rights to said name.
Re:the word diablo is already own. (Score:2)
This just in! (Score:2)
Blizzard releases exclusive licenses for educational and non-commercial use only, and only for native speakers of English and Spanish, to allow us to use words like "Diablo" or "Blizzard" in a sentence.
Bah. On second thought, sue the pants off of them.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:It does NOT work that way... (Score:2)
Trademark law does work the way I think it does! I'm sorry if I didn't cover all the nuances in a single slashdot post... it's called a summary. FYI, Blizzard did create a "film" that used the name Diablo, a couple years ago I believe. Do a google search for it...
Re:Stinging trademark (Score:2)
lawsuits (Score:2)
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
Blizzard didn't create the name Diablo. It's a name referring to a demon that's been used for a rather long period of time.
Well.. (Score:2)
Several wildly popular video games have been made into movies (mortal combat, street fighter, final fantasy, wing commander, etc...). It's reasonable for Diablo to expect to do the same.
Although... this will depend. If the movie is a sappy love story.... it might be okay. If it has anything at all to do remotely with the theme of the game.... that's bad.
I fail to see similarities here (Score:2)
--
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
Spelling Errors and Trademarks (Score:2)
I misspelled Diablo by adding an 'o'. However, misspelled use of a trademark can still be infringing. Misspelled use, if not defended against by the trademark holder, can still dilute the trademark. One can not have a Appel Computers without infringing Apple Computer's trademark, nor could an Adoobie Systems exist without infringing on Adobe Systems' trademark. Indeed, if an Appel Computers existed both before and after the establishment of Apple Computer's trademark or existed without contest by Apple for an extended period of time, it would still serve to dilute Apple's trademark, despite the different spelling.
As other posters have pointed out, Diablo spelled the same way Blizzard spells it is still a dictionary word in the Spanish language.
Just because a trademark is granted does not mean it is valid, nor does it mean the trademark is immune from dilution.
Re:Heidi Wall (Score:2)
Rate me on Picture-rate.com [picture-rate.com]
Go after Dairy Queen first (Score:5)
Better yet, why doesn't the software company just change its name to 'Generic Ice Cream Treat Entertainment'? Then we might take their complaint, if not seriously, then at least at something closer to its actual value.
'Blizzard Entertainment', my Aunt Fanny.
Re:You can't trademark "Diablo" - it's a common no (Score:2)
Re:Funny, slightly serious, not a troll (Score:3)
If the word is more general and applies to people who post genuinely funny stuff, for the amusement of all, then maybe I am a troll
Of course, I also post the occasional point-by-point rebuttal.
Re:diablo is a common word (Score:2)
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
And at what point can you just make the point that "Hey, we're making a movie about the devil and we're calling it Diablo?"
(Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about the plot, we're just talking what-if's here)
That's nucking futs... (Score:2)
According to the article, the movie's got nothing to do with the setting or theme of the "diablo series" (side note - I found it kind of amusing that two games makes a "series"...). The movie apparently involves a drug lord nicknamed "diablo". Unless we're talking fantasy drug-lord selling DemonCrack to Elves or something, I think Blizzard's just desparate to not have to come up with a new name for their movie, and isn't any more reasonable than (for a hypothetical example) Ford suing AMD for making "Thunderbird" chips [whether Ford was planning to get into the chipmaking business for automobiles sometime in the future or not...]
Given that I don't think there can be any confusion regarding "Diablo, the drug lord" and "Diablo, the fantasy game", I don't see any sign of "trademark dilution" here at all, personally.
Mind you, I had a lot of fun playing Diablo, and will have a lot of fun playing Diable II [and/or III?] if Blizzard ever allows Linux clients for their games, but I still think Blizzard inc. is being unreasonable here...and wasting good money on lawyers that could have gone to hiring Linux coders for their next game! ARGH! :-)
(Potential side benefit of this - perhaps the sheer volume of email I suspect they're going to get from Slashdot readers (a noteworthy proportion of whom are Linux users) will give them a more tangible clue about the potential size of the market composed of Linux Using People Who Are Interested In What Blizzard Is Doing® ...)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Offtopic!?!??? (Score:2)
How come the guy selling all those cheap drugs never comes around when *I* get stuck with moderator duty?
Re:off topic (Score:2)
If I had screwed up like that, I'd want to remain anonymous too.
Re: What is this "humour" concept? (Score:2)
Chill out, take a deep breath, and get a sense of humour, dude.
Secondly, IP has probably never been a bigger issues than it is today, affected parties include both geeks and "gravelbangers".
Sure, IP in general is a big issue, but this is a relatively uncontroversial and non-noteworthy case of IP enforcement. Blizzard beat New Line to the punch in registering the "Diablo" movie mark, and now they're enforcing it. It's big guy-vs.-big guy, and the right one is winning. Aside from the fact that Blizzard also happens to make games, that's totally not a geek issue. Would you like to see similar stories like "Blizzard Janitor Charged with Assault of Junior Co-op Student", "Blizzard Handles an Isolated Incident of a Bad CD", etc.?
If they reveal something new (i.e Blizzard is planning on making a Diablo movie)
Then the story should have been "Blizzard to Make Diablo, Diablo II Movies". We don't need stories like this with inflammatory, misleading headlines. They decrease Slashdot's credibility, and make it impossible to rely on story descriptions to figure out what's going on.
Perhaps if enough people bitch about it, Hemos and CmdrTaco will do something to fix the submission process. Of course, not liking to be a bitch, I prefer to poke fun at the issue rather than be all serious and boring. That way, even if you disagree with me, you can still have a good laugh. Try it sometime.
Coming soon to a theater near you... (Score:2)
Win2K - A thriller that deals with an end-of-the world scenario brought about by the upgrading of the world's computers. Based on an almost-true story involving the Y2k issue.
Aqua/X - A Noah Wyle driven action/adventure involving one man's quest to change the look and feel of the computing world forever.
Amidala - A documentary that explores the Anonymous Coward's fascination with Natalie Portman and hot grits. Special guest cameos by CowboyNeal, CmdrTaco, Hemos, and more.
---
iMOLEn
Re:Nothing new. Groucho Marx did this with Casabla (Score:2)
Expect more lawsuits as games&movies converge (Score:2)
Trademark law is based on the notion that certain words can be claimed for exclusive use within certain domains -- each domain is mutually exclusive of the others and so there's little overlap. Or at least that's the theory. Now, as games and movies are starting to converge, there's considerable overlap. And so trademark disputes like this aren't as absurd as they'd have seemed forty years ago.
It may be videogames and movies today, but what else will converge tomorrow? Businesses are (justifiably) merging and consolidating, and companies like AOL have their toes in every kiddy pool from here to Tijuana. AOL may own the trademarks for "buddy list" and "you've got mail", but can they extend those trademarks to other media such as movies? Don't laugh; there was a movie called "You've Got Mail" a few years ago. How much do you think AOL could've sued for?
And as this consolidation spreads throughout all industries, will we soon have a situation similar to the one we have with DNS tables where a single global registry of trademarks is enforced in all contexts? I'm not sure there's even a problem with that, but you have to admit, it'll take some getting used to.
In this analysis, Blizzard legitimately owns "Diablo". The movie companies will just have to pick a different name. It's the same problem they've had with not treading on each other's movie names for the last hundred years. Have you seen any other movies named "Dinosaur" since Disney came out with that movie? How about "American" since "American Beauty" won its oscar? This is just business as usual.
Re:Blizard to copyright the devil in all forms. (Score:2)
Re:Bear in mind both sets of consequences. (Score:2)
As it turns out however, Blizzard trademarked it specifically in the context of a movie, so they really do have a legit case. If they intended to make a movie with that name (shown by the trademark), and someone else tries to, Blizzard should win.
Re:Blizard to copyright the devil in all forms. (Score:2)
Re:Why dont people ever read the stuff they post. (Score:2)
Similarly confusing titles that leap to mind are: "Blown Away" and "Blown Away", "The Chase", and "The Chase", "Il Postino" and "The Postman".
-m
This is stupid (Score:2)
And you can search IMDb to see many movies with "diablo" in their titles (maybe that's because "diablo" is a word from the dictionary).
-jfedor
strange.. (Score:5)
Well, according this entry [uspto.gov] in TESS [uspto.gov], since Dec. 26, 2000, officially and possibly as early as April 26, 1996.
Also note the clause:
It looks like they DO in fact own the rights to make movies called Diablo, and they're certainly allowed to try anyone else who moves in on their territory..
IANAL though.
It's not a trademark on the word (Score:5)
Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?
"How can Blizzard trademark a word? That's so stupid!"
They're not trying to trademark the word. They have an existing trademark on the word Diablo when used in conjunction with a movie title: "In the complaint, Blizzard said it intends to produce a film called Diablo and based on the game. The suit notes Blizzard owns a trademark, filed in April 1996 and approved in July 2000, for that Diablo movie mark, which the suit also notes is currently being contested by New Line. Further, Blizzard also has a pending application for a movie called Diablo II: Salvation, filed in February 1997 and approved in July 2000."
***
Rights to the name? Who needs it? (Score:2)
Remember TSR? At one point they tried to copyright the word "Nazi" because of one of their games! Granted, they lost, but imagine if they hadn't!
The metal band Metallica (now of Napster fame, or infamy) has recently started suing people making just about anything (including purfume) with the name Metallica in it.
In that case, however, I do see a bit of a point. They're afraid the name is going to get overused and become a generic name for metal bands. Believe it or not, both the words Refridgerator and Zipper were registered trademarks, but eventually it just became generic terms for everyday items.
But today, it seems like EVERYTHING is trademarked.
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
I realize that the same name is going to be used on different products, but game and movie companies are both in the entertainment industry, car manufacturers are not. If a company came out with a van called the Diablo, I'm sure lamborghini would have a legitimate complaint about it while Blizzard wouldn't.
Re:Expect more lawsuits as games&movies converge (Score:2)
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
That depends. Does New Line own the trademark "Nightmare on Elm Street" as it relates to computer software and services?
Because Blizzard owns the trademark on "Diablo" as it relates to movie titles.
Focus! Is there likelihood of confusion (Score:2)
If there's LOC, then a plaintiff can win. If not, then a plaintiff cannot win.
This is why there can be ABC for a television network, ABC for a pizzeria chain and ABC for a chain of liquor stores. It is why Apple records and Apple computer can coexist. Nobody in the relevant markets would be confused by the usage. On the other hand, an Apple mainframe computer manufacturer would probably have quite a few problems as a defendant.
This is what a plaintiff would need to prove: that there is a likelihood that a movie named Diablo will confuse a consumer to think, wrongly, that Blizzard had created, been affiliated with or sponsored the film.
And you simply can't tell until something actually happens. I can envision facts where LOC would be virtually automatic, and circumstances where loc would be virtually impossible to show.
* I seriously doubt that Blizzard's Diablo mark has achieved the requisite amount of famousness to raise a claim based upon a dilution theory, but under today's cases, who knows? If so, then likelihood of dilution might also be relevant.
Re:Expect more lawsuits as games&movies converge (Score:2)
How much they could've sued for?!
Try how much do you think they paid the movie producers for product placement and other forms of indirect advertising! I'll bet it's well into the tens of millions.
-Matt
Re:diablo is a common word (Score:4)
You obviously don't understand how trademarks work. Trademarks are made for words or groups of words or logos in regards to a specific area, e.g. "movies" or "cars."
Whether or not it's a "common" word has nothing to do with trademark infringement, or whether you are granted a trademark. For example, the word "be" is very common, and yet Be Inc. has a trademark for that word, but only as it relates to computer software and services, and only when used in certain ways [be.com] .
Likewise, Blizzard has a trademark on the word Diablo as it relates to movie titles. Therefore, they won't be sued by Lamborghini, and they will probably win against New Line.
Re:diablo is a common word (Score:2)
Can we do an Ask
Diabolo Trademark is Dilute (Score:2)
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Diabolo was a dictionary word and the name of a game long before Blizzard started using it. If Blizzard wanted a strong trademark, they should have picked something a bit more unique.
Gavelbang.org: the Latest for Lawyers (Score:5)
Just in case you missed it, here's the summary: Blizzard already owns the "Diablo" movie mark. It was applied for years ago, and granted last year. New Line is trying to contest it, but Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to ask for an injunction.
Now that we've gotten that straight, I'd like to know why such a stupid story was posted. This is Slashdot: News for Nerds, not Gavelbang: the Latest for Lawyers, and we should only be hearing about lawsuits if they are of some great import to the geek community (i.e., DeCSS, DMCA, etc.). The reasons I can see are as follows:
Theory 1: IP Lawyers have a betting pool on which of their lawsuits will make it onto Slashdot, and Hemos is getting kickbacks from Blizzard's legal team.
Supporting evidence: The stock of VA Linux, Slashdot's parent company, has tanked severely [bigcharts.com], leaving Hemos and CmdrTaco desperate for alternative sources of income.
Theory 2: Slashdot is run by trolls, who are, in turn, secretly controlled by leading figures in the open source community. These open source leaders hope to sow confusion and dismay among their enemies--the commercial software companies. Villifying a popular gamemaker [blizzard.com] is a stall tactic while Free Software hackers frantically try to make decent Free (as in software) games, games being the driving force behind the computer industry these days (what the hell else do you need a 1.2 GHz processor for?).
Supporting Evidence: Heidi Wall [slashdot.org], arguably the most influential of the trolls since Signal 11 (check the number of fake Heidi Wall accounts), is really a pseudonym for Larry Wall. On "her" user info page, Heidi lists her email as heidi@heidiwall.NOcjb.SPAMnet. A quick visit to heidiwall.cjb.net [cjb.net] will reveal that it's actually a mirror of www.perl.com [perl.com]. Furthermore, Heidi's
Theory 3: Nobody actually reads the stories they submit or post.
Supporting evidence: A good look at this [slashdot.org] should be sufficient, but if you want more, consider this very article.Since they were granted the movie mark "Diablo" in July 2000, fool.
Theory 2 is my personal favourite, and also this guy's [theonion.com] favourite, but YMMV. For the terminally clueless, this is supposed to be funny.
Prior Art? (Score:2)
But it seems to me that this has some application here as well. Since the title Diablo does apply to something that is previously existing, and is arguably a work of art. Prior Art, if you will.
In a totally unrelated example, I recall reading someplace that someone in Moscow was marketing "Windows 98 Vodka" for a while. Now agreed, it had nothing to do with MS, it had nothing to do with software, etc. But why was that name chosen? to take advantadge of the free publicity of the software product. or something like that.
So it is just slightly conceivable that one company wants to take advantadge of the prior marketing efforts of another company in another field. Thank god we haven't seen a tv show called "Windows 2000". What would that be like? (I will pause for a moment while you let that trickle through your minds.)
In any case, I can see some company either innocently getting the movie mark, in which case, there is a conflict due to prior art. Or someone choosing to use the name, hoping to cash in on the name, but saying all along that they were innocent.
In an unrelated situation, Microsoft had to settle a case with some other company because that other company had the prior ownership of the name "Internet Explorer" and a product on the market before Microsoft did. They still had to settle it.
And there are a few other situations where trade marks had to be settled, never mind the situation with cybersquatters. For Example, there is that whole fiasco between EToys (NEWS FLASH -soon to be Bankrupt!) and the Artist collective EToy.
So there is alot to say about "prior art" when it comes to trademarks, and possible marketable ideas.
Re:Yet another stupid law suit (Score:2)
On the other hand, there's been at least 6 movies in the last century that have all been titled "Snow". Are they guilty of copyright infringement? Probably not.
So, what's the difference? How could I create a movie called "Snow", but then go out and write a book called "Harry Potter and the Crystal Chariot" and watch my ass get sued back to the stone age? Unfortunately, and I think this is where many Slashdotters who like their world in nice logical terms get frustrated, there is no clear cut logical distinction. It's more the "Oh, c'mon" factor. If a court can essentially declare, "Oh, c'mon you big jerk! You're trying to ride somebody else's coattails without any work on your own," it counts as copyright infringement. (Yep, it's inconsistent, unpredictable, and, at times, unfair. But that's life.)
This particular case is kinda iffy. On the one hand, a modern day movie about a drug lord named Diablo is a little different than, say, a fantasy flick. But I know that the Slashdot story originally caught my interest because it included the words "Diablo" and "movie".
Plus, there's the problem of what happens when Blizzard comes out with a Diablo movie of their own. Is New Line going to come out and sue them?
Personally, I'd like to see New Line voluntarily change the name of their flick. It'll help them avoid confusion in the box office (there are probably people out there who like crime dramas but don't want to see a fantasy Diablo-themed movie), and it's early enough that they can change their name without worrying about wasted marketing dollars.
It does NOT work that way... (Score:4)
Well, guess what: that's not good enough. The trademark will be invalidated, even if the judge is a total head-in-arse moron, he will still see from out his arse that Blizzard filed an invalid trademark request since they had no legitimate prospects of making a Diablo movie any time this century. Heck, it *is* a new century, and Blizzard doesn't even have a script, five years after filing the trademark request.
Guess what: if trademark law worked the way you think it does, then no one could ever name a product or business anything. Every piece of shit lawyer and bloodsucking IP leech with brains enough to file a trademark application could just think up every good word for every good use, and trademark them all, waiting around for someone to want to name something and then extorting money from them. Fortunately, it does not work that way.
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...