I second

HA!

That's a mighty fine win you've produced there.

Comment of the week. Easy.

Comment of the week. Easy.

network hiccup

LIKE

I'm a pretty fervent supporter of massive intellectual property reform, but this is a clear case of legitimate trademark violation.



Yes, the Oregon Trail is historical in nature. The trademark does not prevent people from making games about the Oregon Trail, it prevents people from calling the game: The Oregon Trail. Legitimate trademarks are designed in a way that protects businesses and consumers from products and services that are confusingly labeled. This is a clear violation of that:



1) The Oregon Trail is a popular video game with a fairly large amount of public awareness.

2) The Oregon Trail is also a social game.

3) The Oregon Trail is a social game on Facebook.

4) FrontierVille Oregon Trail is a social game on Facebook that has nothing to do with TLC's Oregon Trail.



That's a) obviously confusing to consumers and b) is obviously being used by Zynga as a marketing ploy. Zynga is intentionally using a popular and well known trademark, that they don't legally own, in order to enhance their business. That's a cut and dry trademark violation. There's no grey area here.



EDIT: And the fact that TLC and Zynga has previously been working on an Oregon Trail game is an additional strike against them.

You dont know what you are talking about.



One can trademark something like a historical event if it is the title of a game, movie, etc. Now if they where sewing over a trademark for the actual event in reference to the event, then you are correct you cant do that.



Ever wonder why Apple can trademark Apple? its because it applies to Apple computers not apple the fruit. How about you read up on Trade mark law in places other than wikipedia and then share your opinion on this.

*begrudgingly deletes colorful language as he cools down*



Cody... I never said or implied that they _couldn't_ trademark "Oregon Trail".

I don't even see how you interpreted me saying that they "couldn't", let alone with enough confidence to be such an ass. If they did (which I trust), then they obviously "could", and I would be a madman to conclude otherwise. And please, please please please please please don't think you're impressing me with the Apple example as if I haven't heard that before, a hundred million times, in every online trademark argument I've read. Get creative man!



What I am saying is that Frontiervilles Oregon Trail is not infringing on that trademark in any meaningful way, and that this is obviously an opportunistic and/or bitter move on TLC's part. Perhaps Zynga did something else underhanded like stealing IP or assets from their previous deal with TLC, I don't know -- that's a different claim covered by different laws anyway.





Sean, I had a reply for you last night but when I submitted it turned out that I wasn't logged in and lost it. The most interesting thing was this: http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=vietnam&x=0&y=0. I don't see - ethically speaking, not legally speaking - why many different games can be about Vietnam and have Vietnam in the title but TLC seems to feel they are entitled to being the only company that can use another historical event in their title. And though a company making a game about the Oregon Trail can simply not have it in the title, I feel like they should have the right to (as long as it is not just "Oregon Trail" or "The Oregon Trail" - which would be confusing to the consumer).



Once again, I am talking about ethics, not legalities. But I have a legally-framed opinion too. I feel like putting Frontiervilles in front of Oregon Trail puts them in the legal clear, though I could be proven wrong.

There are multiple versions of the Pocahontas cartoon/movie, all from different studios, all legal. Disney does not own the name.

No sir. Microsoft holds onto "Microsoft Windows", and they hold onto "Microsoft Office". They do not hold onto just "Windows" or "Office".