"No Man's Sky" ran into legal trouble for using the word "sky"

[KnightsHouseGames]

@BornGodsGame

This is an excellent point and something Blizzard talked about a few weeks ago when they were forced to shut down a private vanilla server. It is simply the case if too many people know that someone is breaking your trademark, and you refuse to enforce your trademark, then you might lose it.

I am also changing my name to ´ the artist formerly known as Sky´

Heres the thing

No one was breaking a trademark! At all. Like, not even close!

If the people who designed No Man’s Sky weren’t a game company and were instead an upstart telecom company, and instead of designing a game called “No Man’s Sky” they were naming their company “Sky TV”, then maybe Sky TV would have a case.

Now, unless Sky TV has a product called “No Man’s Sky TV”, which, lemme Google that real quick

Nope! They don’t!

This is not defending any sort of copyright, this is a giant telecom company abusing the law and being assholes. Because thats what they do.

[Ryiah]

@KnightsHouseGames

No one was breaking a trademark! At all. Like, not even close!

I don’t believe it matters whether it’s being broken or not. From the way the results of my own searches have read you simply need to have tried to defend it. Or more precisely the courts need to have seen the records of where you attempted to defend it from others as that’s what they look at to decide if you keep it or not.

[KnightsHouseGames]

@Ryiah

I don’t believe it matters whether it’s being broken or not. From the way the results of my own searches have read you simply need to have tried to defend it. Or more precisely you need to have recorded proof that you have attempted to defend it as that’s what the court system looks at when someone challenges your ownership.

What are they defending though? There is no challenge in the first place, so there is no reason to defend

[Ryiah]

@KnightsHouseGames

What are they defending though?

It isn’t just about defending the trademark against another mark that is identical in appearance. They have to defend against marks that are similar enough that they may confuse a third party. Basically how distinctive the mark is.

@KnightsHouseGames

There is no challenge in the first place, so there is no reason to defend

They are legally obligated to police their mark. If they do not they can lose it.

[Kiwasi]

@KnightsHouseGames

If the people who designed No Man’s Sky weren’t a game company and were instead an upstart telecom company, and instead of designing a game called “No Man’s Sky” they were naming their company “Sky TV”, then maybe Sky TV would have a case.

Except its not outside the realm of possibility that ‘No Man’s Sky’ might have its name shortened to ‘Sky’ by the community or consumer. That is definitely enough to cause brand confusion, as Sky TV is commonly called Sky in marketing. So both products might conceivably be called the same thing by consumers.

It’s also not implausable that Sky might launch into games at some point soon. They are in the business of broadcasting entertainment. It’s not to far a stretch to think they might stream games when the tech is viable. So Sky TV is just ensuring their future business is protected. (This sort of business hoping does happen, remember Apple?).

[KnightsHouseGames]

@Ryiah

They have to defend against marks that are similar enough that they may confuse a third party.

Like I said, there is no challenge. I understand that they are legally obligated to defend their trademark, but this is not even remotely close, any sane person can see that.

Like it doesn’t take a law degree to know that there are certain rules in terms of context and the construction of how a phrase is worded, and it doesn’t even take a small child to know that “No Man’s Sky” and “Sky TV” are obviously phrased differently, and most anyone can see that the context of use is different, given that one is a company name and the other is a product name, so they aren’t really comparable in even that sense. It’s so ridiculously obvious, and theres no way they don’t know that.

These are companies in two different countries in two different industries. The No Man’s Sky people have no secret plans to steal the Sky TV trademark with their little spaceship game. They don’t compete with each other.

It’s like, if I went and trademarked my username for the title of my company tomorrow, would I have to sue every game company that I saw that had the word “Games” in the title? I mean, I’d probably have a more legitimate claim than Sky does, given the fact that my name might actually have the chance of getting mixed up with the dozens of other game companies that have the word “Games” in their name, and I could claim that the word “Games” is vital to the function of my company and that other companies who call themselves “Game” companies who make crappy asset flips and mobile skinnerboxes aren’t actually making what I would define as games.

Anyone with half a brain would be able to see that that argument is completely assinine on the face of it and it would be detremental to the entire industry to honor such a completely ridiculous lawsuit

And yet it still has more merit than Sky’s argument

@Kiwasi

It’s also not implausable that Sky might launch into games at some point soon.

This idea is effectively equivilant to walking into someone elses house that you don’t know and calling dibs on a chair the owner of the house is sitting in.

The POTENTIAL that Sky TV might make games should not supercede the No Man’s Sky people’s CURRENT ability to make a game. That would be like EA coming out and saying “no one is allowed to make games anymore because any game you’re making, we might want to make someday.”

The fact that this thing even made it to trial to me is pretty much insane, and kinda sad.

[Kiwasi]

Out of curiosity I read some reports on the Microsoft SkyDrive case. In this case it was a pretty clear trade mark infringement. (Even if Microsoft did it unknowingly, by virtue of being American). However the branding clearly confused consumers, BSkyB used as evidence several calls to their help desk by customers looking for support on SkyDrive. At the time BSkyB offered a cloud storage solution of their own.

The case also brought up an interesting point about Google I hadn’t thought of. If I google sky, every result in the front page is related to Sky TV. That is some powerful branding and marketing at work. (It probably also helps that I live in a country where Sky TV has a presence). Right or wrong, many consumers will consider any product with sky in the name as coming from Sky TV. And that had the potential to damage Sky TVs brand.

The cases were different. No Mans Sky is not a clear infringement like SkyDrive was. But there is still potential for consumer confusion.

[Kiwasi]

@KnightsHouseGames

These are companies in two different countries in two different industries. The No Man’s Sky people have no secret plans to steal the Sky TV trademark with their little spaceship game. They don’t compete with each other.

According to Wikipedia No Man’s Sky is developed by Hello Games, headquartered in England. Sky TV is also headquartered in England.

And both companies are in the entertainment industry. It’s not direct competition, but it is competition.

Not saying any of this make it right. But please do some fact checking before posting.

[Ryiah]

@Kiwasi

If I google sky, every result in the front page is related to Sky TV.

Just about the same here and I’m in the USA (Virginia which is East Coast). Only one that isn’t concerns this legal case.

[orb]

In 1975 there was a children’s TV show called Sky. In 1980 Rupert Murdoch’s Sky Channel was founded. If anybody’s suing anyone it’s got to be HTV, who at least had a product in the same field.

[KnightsHouseGames]

@Kiwasi

Out of curiosity I read some reports on the Microsoft SkyDrive case. In this case it was a pretty clear trade mark infringement. (Even if Microsoft did it unknowingly, by virtue of being American). However the branding clearly confused consumers, BSkyB used as evidence several calls to their help desk by customers looking for support on SkyDrive. At the time BSkyB offered a cloud storage solution of their own.

The case also brought up an interesting point about Google I hadn’t thought of. If I google sky, every result in the front page is related to Sky TV. That is some powerful branding and marketing at work. (It probably also helps that I live in a country where Sky TV has a presence). Right or wrong, many consumers will consider any product with sky in the name as coming from Sky TV. And that had the potential to damage Sky TVs brand.

The cases were different. No Mans Sky is not a clear infringement like SkyDrive was. But there is still potential for consumer confusion.

OK, so that Microsoft thing is a pretty huge difference there, you are talking about two directly competing products with very similar names, I’d say they had a legitimate claim there.

But the google thing, theres no merit to that. They used an incredibly common noun as their name, if this was all it took to make sure your company was the only thing that showed up in google results, we are about to see a huge legal civil war amongst the sausage and breakfast food companies who all decided to use “Farm” in their name. Not to mention Google controls the results anyway.

There is probably a 0.1% chance of a mixup. Like, the first thing that actually comes to mind for 99% of english speakers when you say sky is that thing where the clouds are. Should Sky TV sue the Norwegan government for being the closest living legal entity to the Norsemen who associated the word with something other than a Telecom company about 800 years ago? Or should the Norwegan government sue Sky TV because they are the closest living legal entity to the Norsemen who invented the word and used it about 800 years before TV as we know it was even invented?

It’s huge ideas like this that drive home just how ridiculous and frivilous this whole thing is. Because at this point you’re looking at a company trying to take a word that belongs to all of us, and claiming all uses of it as theirs

[KnightsHouseGames]

@Kiwasi

According to Wikipedia No Man’s Sky is developed by Hello Games, headquartered in England. Sky TV is also headquartered in England.

OK, thats fair, I assumed it was an American company because the guy who spoke for the company at E3 year before last had an American accent.

[orb]

@KnightsHouseGames

I assumed it was an American company because the guy who spoke for the company at E3 year before last had an American accent.

That was possibly a Sony representative.

I thought we already had precedent for common words in different fields. Except in Germany, where a detergent named Linux is making a stink.

[Dracones]

@Kiwasi

The case also brought up an interesting point about Google I hadn’t thought of. If I google sky, every result in the front page is related to Sky TV. That is some powerful branding and marketing at work. (It probably also helps that I live in a country where Sky TV has a presence). Right or wrong, many consumers will consider any product with sky in the name as coming from Sky TV. And that had the potential to damage Sky TVs brand.

BS. If I google Blizzard I get a video game company as the top result. That doesn’t mean Dairy Queen can’t sell a shake called Blizzard. In fact there are 260 trademarks in the US with the word Blizzard in it. Oh, and there are nearly 8000 trademarks in the US with the word Sky in it.

I guess Sky TV better get a hopping and sue Blue Sky Drones and Sky Gourmet before people start calling them up to complain about drone strikes or to order hummus.

The issue are UK courts acting out of control when it comes to trademarks and a big company with enough cash to bully people around. The trademark system really doesn’t require the level of abuse we’re seeing here.

[Martin_H]

@MD_Reptile

then again it is important to protect anything that brands a company

The German Telekom once tried to trademark the color magenta…

@theANMATOR2b

Maybe we could all start branding like Prince did - the symbol.

A surprising number of simple logos already exist and are trademarked somewhere. It’s just much harder to make sure one hasn’t been trademarked yet, because you can’t search for shapes as easily as for words.

If I ever have to name a game, maybe I’ll just use a random combination of 4 to 5 letters that means nothing and gives no significant search engine results.

[orb]

If you want to name a game the Unicode symbol “poo” it’s quite possible you’ll be safe though.

[zenGarden]

Nane your game “No man’s SkyLimit”
And that’s it , you avoid wasting 3 years with a crazy copyright

[catimus]

@zenGarden

Nane your game “No man’s SkyLimit”
And that’s it , you avoid wasting 3 years with a crazy copyright

Not copyright, it was a trademark. 2 different things…

This area of law can get very confusing, my fiancee works in it, and when ever she talks to me about it, it can just go straight over my head some times…

The important thing to note, for both sides, unless you’ve read the case, you don’t know all the facts. And as i said, it can get VERY confusing…

By the way, words that are trademarked can still be used (ie Apple) just as long as its not in the same industry (ie can’t have Apple in a tech company ect… but in a fruit shop should be fine)

[ZJP]

BTW

[Cepheid_1]

This is such a stupid and petty legal battle, but that’s just big corporations summed up for ya. Sky likely caused this issue because they’re big enough that they can afford to bully every little no-name and hobbyist who even comes within a whiff of the word “sky” in a product name use. It ensures that their branding stays wholly unique as no-one else around can even use a hint of the word.

Having said that, I feel their major concern was with the phrasing of the products name. Whilst anyone can quickly and aptly figure out that No Man’s Sky is in fact nothing more than a video game. The title can be misconstrued as another company name.

“No Man’s Sky” can be thought of as cheap competitor to Sky’s subscription service by use of the phrase “No Man’s”. The title implies a poor/working man’s version of their service which is likely where they felt they had legal grounds to attempt a bullying campaign against the company.