The comments below that link I mentioned are interesting, some very insightful.
One in particularl I liked,
“A devastating magical eruption has tattered the veil between Telara and other planar dimensions. Perilous rifts occur when two planes intersect, allowing passage between different dimensions.
Rift: Planes of Telara™ is a fantasy MMO role-playing game set in a dynamic world being torn apart by powerful rifts from other planes. No part of Telara is truly safe, as rifts between the planes unleash sudden invasions without notice.”
So they havent ripped it off?
No more then Palladium's Rifts has 100 or whatever other science fiction or fantasy works that have used the very same basic concept. The idea of rifts as dimensional tears that allow travel or invasion has been in use for decades in books, games and comics. The lore of R:PoT is really generic tbh and was used heavily before Palladium used it, in Feist's Riftwar works as an example;
It's as feasible to sue someone for using the word 'dragon', 'dungeon', 'hero', or 'quest' as it is 'rift', but I have said all that already.
Look, the confusion I really had is that you suggested the article and legal documents themselves suggested Trion had 'ripped off content', not that a few posters in the comments below had that opinion.
It was pretty misleading as an OP.
Replying to comments in red, how was what I said misleading? Did I link to porn and tell you it was hello kitty?
I am really having a WTF moment right now. Are you arguing semantics? What do you think the lawsuit is about?
The lawsuit is about the name. You stated that it was about content being 'ripped off'. It isnt.
You linked to an article and set of legal documents, it was presented that you was talking about the article and not some comments by random users underneath. I am also not arguing semantics, though it's amusing that your use of the word is wrong in this case, so I guess I maybe now am.
Your assertions have been more then answered anyhow, calmly and rationally, so I think your somewhat hostile response is an over reaction.
Why don't you talk about the actual point I made in the same post about the notion of rifts as dimensional tears that allow invasion or travel being common and derivative, and not being owned by Palladium or anyone else as a concept, rather then being buthurt about me saying that your OP was misleading. In other words, why don't we get back on topic?
I thought the lawsuit was not about the name and was about content. Any "misleading" was unintentional.
In light of that, the lawsuit makes even less sense imo than it did before.
Imo the 2 questions that make sense are:
1. Does a trademark of the name Rift for computer games prevent acompetitor from marketing under the name Rifts.
2. Did PB lose the right to the trademark through lack of effort.
The comments below that link I mentioned are interesting, some very insightful.
One in particularl I liked,
“A devastating magical eruption has tattered the veil between Telara and other planar dimensions. Perilous rifts occur when two planes intersect, allowing passage between different dimensions.
Rift: Planes of Telara™ is a fantasy MMO role-playing game set in a dynamic world being torn apart by powerful rifts from other planes. No part of Telara is truly safe, as rifts between the planes unleash sudden invasions without notice.”
So they havent ripped it off?
No more then Palladium's Rifts has 100 or whatever other science fiction or fantasy works that have used the very same basic concept. The idea of rifts as dimensional tears that allow travel or invasion has been in use for decades in books, games and comics. The lore of R:PoT is really generic tbh and was used heavily before Palladium used it, in Feist's Riftwar works as an example;
It's as feasible to sue someone for using the word 'dragon', 'dungeon', 'hero', or 'quest' as it is 'rift', but I have said all that already.
Look, the confusion I really had is that you suggested the article and legal documents themselves suggested Trion had 'ripped off content', not that a few posters in the comments below had that opinion.
It was pretty misleading as an OP.
Replying to comments in red, how was what I said misleading? Did I link to porn and tell you it was hello kitty?
I am really having a WTF moment right now. Are you arguing semantics? What do you think the lawsuit is about?
The lawsuit is about the name. You stated that it was about content being 'ripped off'. It isnt.
You linked to an article and set of legal documents, it was presented that you was talking about the article and not some comments by random users underneath. I am also not arguing semantics, though it's amusing that your use of the word is wrong in this case, so I guess I maybe now am.
Your assertions have been more then answered anyhow, calmly and rationally, so I think your somewhat hostile response is an over reaction.
Why don't you talk about the actual point I made in the same post about the notion of rifts as dimensional tears that allow invasion or travel being common and derivative, and not being owned by Palladium or anyone else as a concept, rather then being buthurt about me saying that your OP was misleading. In other words, why don't we get back on topic?
I thought the lawsuit was not about the name and was about content. Any "misleading" was unintentional.
In light of that, the lawsuit makes even less sense imo than it did before.
Imo the 2 points that are valid and questionable are:
1. Does a trademark of the name Rift for computer games prevent acompetitor from marketing under the name Rifts.
2. Did PB lose the right to the trademark through lack of effort.
Thats ok Enders, np, I am glad we are on the same page now.
Taking the first point here into consideration, I see no reason why Trions game which is called 'Rift: Planes of Telara' will ever collide with any effort of Palladium's IF they ever get it together enough to get a game in development.
I mean, is them having a game (which after all will be ready 4-5 years from now , if ever) called 'Rifts Online', or 'World of Rifts' going to really confuse anyone or stop them marketing their game? Is the Rifts fanbase really THAT 'unsophisticated'? Thats really the question that needs to be asked.
Do 'Darkfall' or 'Dark Prophecy' feel threatened by Dark Millennium? Because they all share a word after all and might lead to 'confusion'?
Look at, for instance, how many MMORPGs use the word 'quest' in their title... does this lead to wholesale confusion as to which game people are looking for or block them from marketing their game? Do people play 'Adventure Quest' by mistake when they meant to buy 'Everquest'? Have SOE pursued the matter?
If Trion had kept it's original name 'Heroes of Telara', would that have stopped the exisiting MMO 'Heroes of Gaia', or them, from making money? Did Snail Games go to litigation out of fear of it happening?
The answer to all these questions is honestly just no, but then not everyone thinks like Kevin Siembieda (who is not far off the PnP RPG hobby's Derek Smart as a general hate figure for the way he conducts his business).
It's more then obvious that Palladium are just chasing a cash pay off here in order to bolster their falling revenue from a market that is simply leaving them behind.
Even among tabletop RPG circles, Palladium games have always been something of a niche concept. Between Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, and "smaller" companies like AEG and Green Ronin, Palladium's always been known as a "quirky" company at best. More often than not, most tabletop RPGers I've spoken to on the matter either hate everything Palladium Books has done - ESPECIALLY Rifts - or have never heard of them at all.
wow... this thread was such a waste of time to read ^^
some people here accuse others of "not having their facts straight" all the while starting a lot of their sentences with "I heard..." "I read somewhere..." "I think..." - nothing but a heaping pile of hearsay BS....
just wait for that supposed court date or until there are facts...
<S.T.E.A.L.T.H> An Agency that kicks so much ass it has to be written in all capital letters... divided by dots! www.stealth-industries.de
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
"RIFTS" is trademarked and "RIFT" isnt.
Besides its a common word in the English language. And Trion is NOT trying to make pen and paper rpgs.
If they were, then thats another story, but obviously they are not.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
"RIFTS" is trademarked and "RIFT" isnt.
Besides its a common word in the English language. And Trion is NOT trying to make pen and paper rpgs.
If they were, then thats another story, but obviously they are not.
The case is not based on the pen and paper product. It is based on the trademark of the name Rifts for computer gaming. The fact that it is a common english word is irrelevant. If that mattered then the trademark would not have been issued. And de-pluralizing a trademarked name has never as far as I know been sufficient to prevent legal issue. Can you think of even one case where a competing company has gotten away with selling a product in the same industry by just changing 1 letter? Could I sell computers under the Apples brand name? Of course not.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
"RIFTS" is trademarked and "RIFT" isnt.
Besides its a common word in the English language. And Trion is NOT trying to make pen and paper rpgs.
If they were, then thats another story, but obviously they are not.
The case is not based on the pen and paper product. It is based on the trademark of the name Rifts for computer gaming.
The fact that it is a common english word is irrelevant. If that mattered then the trademark would not have been issued.
Its funny you mention this, because Trion is going after them on this as well. Quoted directly from the article,
Trion responded very aggressively to Palladium’s claims. Foremost among their response is the claim that Palladium has no right to the “Rifts” trademark on video games at all! In fact, Trion intends to challenge the trademark with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Here is the relevant section of the filing.
Trion Worlds is filing petitions to cancel Palladium Books’ trademark registrations for fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Palladium Books cannot seek injunctive relive based on these registrations and has made no showing of any common law trademark rights.
And de-pluralizing a trademarked name has never as far as I know been sufficient to prevent legal issue. Can you think of even one case where a competing company has gotten away with selling a product in the same industry by just changing 1 letter? Could I sell computers under the Apples brand name? Of course not.
I dont disagree with the apple analogy. But if you want to be technical about it, Palladium didnt make a computer game. They made a game for Nokia N Gage. Does anyone even use those anymore?
What if Apple only made computers and I made a phone called Applez? Sure they could sue me. But you can sue anyone for just about anything.
And really, I am done now talking about this. I hope TRION rips Palladium a new one in court.
If it happens that Trion is successful in having PB's trademark cancelled then of course they win. But it seems to me that hinges on the argument that you cant have a trademark if you dont have a product which I think (I could be wrong) is not true. PB registered the trademark in case they expanded to computer games. The challenge that they have no computer games at present is I think not a valid argument.
If it happens that Trion is successful in having PB's trademark cancelled then of course they win. But it seems to me that hinges on the argument that you cant have a trademark if you dont have a product which I think (I could be wrong) is not true. PB registered the trademark in case they expanded to computer games. The challenge that they have no computer games at present is I think not a valid argument.
You would be incorrect. It is a valid argument. Because Palladium has not developed nor is in the process of developing a video game under the name of Rift.
If you trademark a name, you can not then sit on the trademark and never develop anything. You have to USE the trademark, not sit on it for over ten years without developing anything.
Just think, if you COULD do that, then I could go and trademark a few hundred names, never do anything with them and then wait for someone to try to develop under that name and then sue them. That is exactly what Palladium is doing.
And before you try to bring up the N-Gage game, it does not count. Why? Because if you look up the trademark for THAT game, you will see that it is trademarked SOLELY under the "Promise of Power" trademark, with no mention of Rifts at all in the trademark. Had they put Rifts in that trademark, then Palladium might have a case but, unfortunately for them, they did not do that.
What Palladium is basically doing here is the same as people who register a URL and wait for someone to actually want to use it. It is cyber-squatting at its worst. Palladium is going to lose this case, they better hope that they can settle it in mediation.
You would be incorrect. It is a valid argument. Because Palladium has not developed nor is in the process of developing a video game under the name of Rift.
Are you really sure about that? 2 years ago Kevin wrote that they were negotiations with a computer company about a R.I.F.T.S MMO. I havn't heard more about it but that doesn't mean that they might not actually be working on it.
I think TRION really should have checked this up before they changed the name, or at least offered to buy rights to use the name, that would have been a small sum then, but might be expensive if they lose this case.
You would be incorrect. It is a valid argument. Because Palladium has not developed nor is in the process of developing a video game under the name of Rift.
Are you really sure about that? 2 years ago Kevin wrote that they were negotiations with a computer company about a R.I.F.T.S MMO. I havn't heard more about it but that doesn't mean that they might not actually be working on it.
I think TRION really should have checked this up before they changed the name, or at least offered to buy rights to use the name, that would have been a small sum then, but might be expensive if they lose this case.
Being in "negotiations" is not enough to keep a trademark valid for ten+ years. There has to be active development on it to keep it active for that long. Which, in Rifts case, there is not and never has been. Even Kevin Siembeda has admitted as much during a few of his weekly updates.
Also, believe me, Trion's lawyers checked all of this out before the name was changed. You do not make a 70+ million dollar game and not check stuff like that.
Palladium is about to get smashed into fine powder if they do not find some way to settle in mediation.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
"RIFTS" is trademarked and "RIFT" isnt.
Besides its a common word in the English language. And Trion is NOT trying to make pen and paper rpgs.
If they were, then thats another story, but obviously they are not.
The case is not based on the pen and paper product. It is based on the trademark of the name Rifts for computer gaming. The fact that it is a common english word is irrelevant. If that mattered then the trademark would not have been issued. And de-pluralizing a trademarked name has never as far as I know been sufficient to prevent legal issue. Can you think of even one case where a competing company has gotten away with selling a product in the same industry by just changing 1 letter? Could I sell computers under the Apples brand name? Of course not.
They havent changed 'one letter', nor are they simply 'de-pluralizing' it .
The name of the game is Rift: Planes of Telara, and thats whats being registered.
The second massively based on the name and spirit of the first in content, to say the least, with GW and the IP of Wahammer in the video game market since '95, which puts Warcraft: Orcs and Humans release into it's active dev phase )
Yet you guys getting in a frenzy about R:PoT's name choice don't say anything, and nor did GW sue. (oh and nor do they attempt to sue fans who use their IP on fansites)
I guess not every one has Kevin's view on how to make extra money.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
"RIFTS" is trademarked and "RIFT" isnt.
Besides its a common word in the English language. And Trion is NOT trying to make pen and paper rpgs.
If they were, then thats another story, but obviously they are not.
The case is not based on the pen and paper product. It is based on the trademark of the name Rifts for computer gaming. The fact that it is a common english word is irrelevant. If that mattered then the trademark would not have been issued. And de-pluralizing a trademarked name has never as far as I know been sufficient to prevent legal issue. Can you think of even one case where a competing company has gotten away with selling a product in the same industry by just changing 1 letter? Could I sell computers under the Apples brand name? Of course not.
They havent changed 'one letter', nor are they simply 'de-pluralizing' it .
The name of the game is Rift: Planes of Telara, and thats whats being registered.
I guess that removes the basis of your point?
No it really doesnt. Number one is that my point was against the message I replied to that said it was Rift vs Rifts. He was wrong to say changing a letter makes a difference, and thats all I was concerned with in that post.
As for your broader point, well its a bit difficult to articulate the logical/legal basis but the word rift is the important part and the rest doesnt change it. Imagine if I made a computer game called Everquests: Planes of Telara. No way could I get away with it regardless of how many words I added.
They have a stronger case to say the trademark was abandoned. If Im reading the law correctly if its not sold for 3 consecutive years it can be cause for cancellation. However their claim that the original trademark was a fraud seems unlikely.
Finally to be clear, Im not on PB's "side", and Im not bashing Trion. Just debating an interesting discussion. Im looking forward to Rifts as much as anyone. Also looking forward to hearing how the case is actually argued and how the court bases its final judgement.
Seems very silly to me the next thing you know someone is going to sue over the use of the terms elves dwarves and gnomes. You cant hold the corner on fantasy terms.
"Its better to look ugly and win than pretty and lose"
They havent changed 'one letter', nor are they simply 'de-pluralizing' it .
The name of the game is Rift: Planes of Telara, and thats whats being registered.
I guess that removes the basis of your point?
No it really doesnt.
As for your broader point, well its a bit difficult to articulate the logical/legal basis but the word rift is the important part and the rest doesnt change it. Imagine if I made a computer game called Everquests: Planes of Telara. No way could I get away with it regardless of how many words I added.
No, again I disagree. The fact that 'rift' is a common word ('Rifts' as a single word is the trademark being contested), the same as 'hero', 'quest', or any of the other examples I have given in this thread.
Trion, imo (for whats worth in all this), have every right to use a common word of the English language in their title 'Rift: Planes of Telara'.
'Telara' is a made up word distinctive to the Rift IP so it is obviously protected. The word 'rift' is no more distinctive or created as part of Palladium's IP then the word 'quest' is to SOE's. If Trion had used 'glitterboy', or 'megaverse', or any other part of Palladium's distinctive IP in their game then i would be backing them all the way, no matter what I think of Siembiedia personally.
Did Everquest suffer because of the existance of Adventure Quest? Did MB seek to sue in defence of their game HeroQuest when EQ was launched?
There is an adventure game called 'Quest', under your assertions they have the right to sue SOE for the use of their game's title in Everquest?
I mean, all this is obviously just me saying how I see it and I make no pretence about being a lawyer or how the deciding Judge will see it, but do you see where I am going here?
They have a stronger case to say the trademark was abandoned. If Im reading the law correctly if its not sold for 3 consecutive years it can be cause for cancellation. However their claim that the original trademark was a fraud seems unlikely.
I agree that this is where it will be won or lost, no matter what common sense says otherwise either way.
As for the fraud thing.. well, I find it hard to believe that Trion's lawyers would make that assertion unless they had proof... I don't know.
Finally to be clear, Im not on PB's "side", and Im not bashing Trion. Just debating an interesting discussion. Im looking forward to Rifts as much as anyone. Also looking forward to hearing how the case is actually argued and how the court bases its final judgement.
Thats cool, I bear you no anger or bad feeling, we are just chatting
Comments
Imo the 2 questions that make sense are:
1. Does a trademark of the name Rift for computer games prevent a competitor from marketing under the name Rifts.
2. Did PB lose the right to the trademark through lack of effort.
Thats ok Enders, np, I am glad we are on the same page now.
Taking the first point here into consideration, I see no reason why Trions game which is called 'Rift: Planes of Telara' will ever collide with any effort of Palladium's IF they ever get it together enough to get a game in development.
I mean, is them having a game (which after all will be ready 4-5 years from now , if ever) called 'Rifts Online', or 'World of Rifts' going to really confuse anyone or stop them marketing their game? Is the Rifts fanbase really THAT 'unsophisticated'? Thats really the question that needs to be asked.
Do 'Darkfall' or 'Dark Prophecy' feel threatened by Dark Millennium? Because they all share a word after all and might lead to 'confusion'?
Look at, for instance, how many MMORPGs use the word 'quest' in their title... does this lead to wholesale confusion as to which game people are looking for or block them from marketing their game? Do people play 'Adventure Quest' by mistake when they meant to buy 'Everquest'? Have SOE pursued the matter?
If Trion had kept it's original name 'Heroes of Telara', would that have stopped the exisiting MMO 'Heroes of Gaia', or them, from making money? Did Snail Games go to litigation out of fear of it happening?
The answer to all these questions is honestly just no, but then not everyone thinks like Kevin Siembieda (who is not far off the PnP RPG hobby's Derek Smart as a general hate figure for the way he conducts his business).
It's more then obvious that Palladium are just chasing a cash pay off here in order to bolster their falling revenue from a market that is simply leaving them behind.
Lol, at first I had a small tinge of guilt.
But now? psh. Sembieda sounds like a real piece of work.
Even among tabletop RPG circles, Palladium games have always been something of a niche concept. Between Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, and "smaller" companies like AEG and Green Ronin, Palladium's always been known as a "quirky" company at best. More often than not, most tabletop RPGers I've spoken to on the matter either hate everything Palladium Books has done - ESPECIALLY Rifts - or have never heard of them at all.
Not really appropriate, but made me laugh...
wow... this thread was such a waste of time to read ^^
some people here accuse others of "not having their facts straight" all the while starting a lot of their sentences with "I heard..." "I read somewhere..." "I think..." - nothing but a heaping pile of hearsay BS....
just wait for that supposed court date or until there are facts...
<S.T.E.A.L.T.H>
An Agency that kicks so much ass it has to be written in all capital letters... divided by dots!
www.stealth-industries.de
Yet here you are at the end of it, having read it all before adding nothing yourself except insults.
Obvious troll.
It's hard to see how this is anything but a money and attention grab really. Unless there is some personal or business connection that I am missing which implies that the MMO was somehow derived from consultation with Palladium. Palladium doesn't own the name or concept of "rift"; both had been used in fantasy and sci-fi literature for generations before Palladium published Rifts. Not to mention that Palladium can hardly claim that their game "Rifts" was widely recognized or even known.
Its hard to understand how you couldnt see that the registering of a trademark confers ownership of a name.
I don't think Palladium has a leg to stand on. This is there way to get some free press for a dying pnp game.
Steam: Neph
"RIFTS" is trademarked and "RIFT" isnt.
Besides its a common word in the English language. And Trion is NOT trying to make pen and paper rpgs.
If they were, then thats another story, but obviously they are not.
The case is not based on the pen and paper product. It is based on the trademark of the name Rifts for computer gaming. The fact that it is a common english word is irrelevant. If that mattered then the trademark would not have been issued. And de-pluralizing a trademarked name has never as far as I know been sufficient to prevent legal issue. Can you think of even one case where a competing company has gotten away with selling a product in the same industry by just changing 1 letter? Could I sell computers under the Apples brand name? Of course not.
I dont disagree with the apple analogy. But if you want to be technical about it, Palladium didnt make a computer game. They made a game for Nokia N Gage. Does anyone even use those anymore?
What if Apple only made computers and I made a phone called Applez? Sure they could sue me. But you can sue anyone for just about anything.
And really, I am done now talking about this. I hope TRION rips Palladium a new one in court.
If it happens that Trion is successful in having PB's trademark cancelled then of course they win. But it seems to me that hinges on the argument that you cant have a trademark if you dont have a product which I think (I could be wrong) is not true. PB registered the trademark in case they expanded to computer games. The challenge that they have no computer games at present is I think not a valid argument.
You would be incorrect. It is a valid argument. Because Palladium has not developed nor is in the process of developing a video game under the name of Rift.
If you trademark a name, you can not then sit on the trademark and never develop anything. You have to USE the trademark, not sit on it for over ten years without developing anything.
Just think, if you COULD do that, then I could go and trademark a few hundred names, never do anything with them and then wait for someone to try to develop under that name and then sue them. That is exactly what Palladium is doing.
And before you try to bring up the N-Gage game, it does not count. Why? Because if you look up the trademark for THAT game, you will see that it is trademarked SOLELY under the "Promise of Power" trademark, with no mention of Rifts at all in the trademark. Had they put Rifts in that trademark, then Palladium might have a case but, unfortunately for them, they did not do that.
What Palladium is basically doing here is the same as people who register a URL and wait for someone to actually want to use it. It is cyber-squatting at its worst. Palladium is going to lose this case, they better hope that they can settle it in mediation.
Are you really sure about that? 2 years ago Kevin wrote that they were negotiations with a computer company about a R.I.F.T.S MMO. I havn't heard more about it but that doesn't mean that they might not actually be working on it.
I think TRION really should have checked this up before they changed the name, or at least offered to buy rights to use the name, that would have been a small sum then, but might be expensive if they lose this case.
You have a point but he would have to show they were "actually working on it".
Being in "negotiations" is not enough to keep a trademark valid for ten+ years. There has to be active development on it to keep it active for that long. Which, in Rifts case, there is not and never has been. Even Kevin Siembeda has admitted as much during a few of his weekly updates.
Also, believe me, Trion's lawyers checked all of this out before the name was changed. You do not make a 70+ million dollar game and not check stuff like that.
Palladium is about to get smashed into fine powder if they do not find some way to settle in mediation.
They havent changed 'one letter', nor are they simply 'de-pluralizing' it .
The name of the game is Rift: Planes of Telara, and thats whats being registered.
I guess that removes the basis of your point?
Warhammer. Warcraft.
The second massively based on the name and spirit of the first in content, to say the least, with GW and the IP of Wahammer in the video game market since '95, which puts Warcraft: Orcs and Humans release into it's active dev phase )
Yet you guys getting in a frenzy about R:PoT's name choice don't say anything, and nor did GW sue. (oh and nor do they attempt to sue fans who use their IP on fansites)
I guess not every one has Kevin's view on how to make extra money.
No it really doesnt. Number one is that my point was against the message I replied to that said it was Rift vs Rifts. He was wrong to say changing a letter makes a difference, and thats all I was concerned with in that post.
As for your broader point, well its a bit difficult to articulate the logical/legal basis but the word rift is the important part and the rest doesnt change it. Imagine if I made a computer game called Everquests: Planes of Telara. No way could I get away with it regardless of how many words I added.
They have a stronger case to say the trademark was abandoned. If Im reading the law correctly if its not sold for 3 consecutive years it can be cause for cancellation. However their claim that the original trademark was a fraud seems unlikely.
Finally to be clear, Im not on PB's "side", and Im not bashing Trion. Just debating an interesting discussion. Im looking forward to Rifts as much as anyone. Also looking forward to hearing how the case is actually argued and how the court bases its final judgement.
Seems very silly to me the next thing you know someone is going to sue over the use of the terms elves dwarves and gnomes. You cant hold the corner on fantasy terms.
"Its better to look ugly and win than pretty and lose"