throbber
To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Stephen McArthur (stephen@smcarthurlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86928557 - VIDEO GAME LAW SCHOOL - N/A
`
`9/30/2016 5:11:12 PM
`
`ECOM120@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`Attachment - 19
`Attachment - 20
`Attachment - 21
`Attachment - 22
`Attachment - 23
`Attachment - 24
`Attachment - 25
`Attachment - 26
`Attachment - 27
`Attachment - 28
`Attachment - 29
`Attachment - 30
`Attachment - 31
`Attachment - 32
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. (cid:160) 86928557
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: VIDEO GAME LAW SCHOOL
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) STEPHEN MCARTHUR
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) The McArthur Law Firm
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Suite 200
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) 11400 W. Olympic Blvd.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160) LOS ANGELES CA 90064
`
`*86928557*
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`LICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`APPLICANT: Stephen McArthur
`
`(cid:160) N/A
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`stephen@smcarthurlaw.com
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/30/2016
`
`THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 26, 2016. (cid:160) In its response applicant, (1) amended the
`identification of services, (2) submitted information about the services, and (3) argued against the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.
`
`(cid:160)N
`
`umber (1) is acceptable and has been entered into the record.
`
`(cid:160)N
`
`umber (2) is not acceptable for the reasons set forth below.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Number (3) arguments have been considered and are found to be unpersuasive.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R.
`§2.63(b).(cid:160) In addition, the following requirement is now made FINAL: Information About the Services Required.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
`
`Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
`Advisory: Supplemental Register Currently Unavailable
`Information about the Services Required
`
`FINAL REFUSAL – SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`
`Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes features of applicant’s services. (cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s services. (cid:160)
`TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl &
`Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420,
`
`1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents , 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the
`possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.(cid:160) See In re The Chamber of
`Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960,
`963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).(cid:160) Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.(cid:160) In re Bayer
`Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applied-for mark, VIDEO GAME LAW SCHOOL, is descriptive of applicant’s services (“ducational services, namely, conducting
`programs in the field of intellectual property and legal services; Educational services, namely, conducting presentations in the fields of
`intellectual property and legal services and distribution of training materials in connection therewith; Educational services, namely, providing
`online instruction in the field of intellectual property and legal services; Educational and entertainment services, namely, a continuing program
`about legal services accessible by means of the Internet; Providing on-line videos featuring intellectual property and legal issues, not
`downloadable” and “Intellectual property consultancy; Legal services, namely, intellectual property consulting services in the field of
`identification, strategy, analytics, and invention; Legal services, namely, preparation of applications for trademark registration; Legal services,
`namely, trademark searching and clearance services; Providing information in the field of intellectual property; Providing information in the field
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`of business law, litigation and intellectual property; Providing on-line information in the field of intellectual property”) because this wording
`describes features of applicant’s services.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he previously attached evidence shows that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “video game” as “an electronic game in which players
`control images on a television or computer screen” and it defines “law school” as “a school that trains people to become lawyers.” (cid:160) In the
`context of applicant’s services, this wording means educational services that train people to become lawyers in the field of law relating to
`electronic games in which players control images on a television or computer screen.(cid:160) Additionally, the attached Internet evidence shows that
`“video game law” is a specialized field of law that includes topics in intellectual property, such as trademarks, copyrights, and patents. (cid:160)
`Therefore, the wording VIDEO GAME LAW SCHOOL is descriptive of applicant’s services.
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`enerally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the services, the combination results in a
`composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.(cid:160) In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012); TMEP
`§1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (TTAB 1988) (holding GROUP SALES BOX OFFICE
`merely descriptive of theater ticket sales services, because such wording “is nothing more than a combination of the two common descriptive
`terms most applicable to applicant’s services which in combination achieve no different status but remain a common descriptive compound
`
`expression”). (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in
`relation to the services is the combined mark registrable.(cid:160) See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A.
`1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant argues that the wording in the applied-for mark “creates a new and unique commercial impression” that competitors do not need to
`“describe Intellectual Property content related videos.” (cid:160) In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of
`applicant’s services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services. (cid:160) Specifically, the words
`“video,” “game,” “law,” and “school” retain their descriptive meanings and do not create a non-descriptive meaning when used together.
`wording merely describes features of applicant’s services.
`
`(cid:160) This
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant argues that the applied-for mark is not descriptive because its services pertain to intellectual property and not to video games.(cid:160)
`However, the attached Internet evidence shows that video game law is a specialized field of law that includes topics in intellectual property.(cid:160) The
`attached article from WIPO Magazine, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization, states “While questions of privacy and data
`security, content regulation and monetization are key considerations . . . (cid:160) developing a proactive IP strategy to secure appropriate IP rights is
`essential to the success of a developer’s enterprise” and “IP is the lifeblood of the industry.” (cid:160) This evidence shows that intellectual property is
`such a prominent area within video game law that, in the context of applicant’s services, applicant’s applied-for mark is descriptive.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`urther, the examining attorney has attached applicant’s prior registration, U.S. Registration No. 4953261 THE VIDEOGAME LAWYER for
`“Legal services; Legal services, namely, intellectual property consulting services in the field of identification, strategy, analytics, and invention;
`Legal services, namely, preparation of applications for trademark registration; Legal services, namely, trademark searching and clearance
`services; Licensing of intellectual property; Providing legal services in the field of intellectual property,” which is registered on the
`Supplemental Register.(cid:160) Registrations featuring services the same as or similar to applicant’s services are probative evidence on the issue of
`descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or
`registered on the Supplemental Register.(cid:160) See Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co.
`, 958 F.2d 1574, 1581-82, 22 USPQ2d
`1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006); In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618, 1621
`(TTAB 2006).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant states that it is “unaware of any other party currently using the words found in its mark to denote similar or related products.” (cid:160) The
`fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a merely descriptive designation does not necessarily render a word or term incongruous or
`distinctive; as in this case, the evidence shows that VIDEO GAME LAW SCHOOL is merely descriptive.(cid:160) See In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103
`USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001); TMEP §1209.03(c).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`(cid:160) E.g., In re Merrill Lynch,
`pplicant argues that any doubt regarding the mark’s descriptiveness should be resolved on applicant’s behalf.
`Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1571 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Grand Forest Holdings, Inc., 78 USPQ2d
`1152, 1156 (TTAB 2006).(cid:160) However, in the present case, the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the mark is merely descriptive.
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`ased on the evidence and analysis above, applicant’s applied-for mark is merely descriptive and must be refused under Section 2(e)(1).
`
`ased on the foregoing, the refusal based on descriptiveness of applicant’s applied-for mark is maintained and now made FINAL.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant should note the following advisory regarding amendment to the Supplemental Register.
`
`dvisory: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not
`appropriate in the present case.(cid:160) The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the
`Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R.
`§2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application will be
`the date on which applicant met the minimum filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for the amendment to allege use.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b);
`TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.(cid:160) In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for
`conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.(cid:160) TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant is advised that, if the application is amended to seek registration on the Supplemental Register, applicant will be required to disclaim
`“LAW SCHOOL” because such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services.
`(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In
`re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144, 196 USPQ 7, 8 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB
`1986); TMEP §1213.03(b).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`he following is the standardized format for a disclaimer:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “LAW SCHOOL” apart from the mark as shown.
`
`MEP §1213.08(a)(i).
`
`INAL REQUIREMENT – INFORMATION ABOUT THE SERVICES REQUIRED
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n its communication filed on August 26, 2016, applicant submitted the following in response to a request for information about applicant’s
`services: “Fields of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. "Video Games" are not a field of IP. "Video
`Games" are not synonymous with IP.”
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant’s response does not provide information about applicant’s services, therefore, the request for information about applicant’s services
`
`is now made final.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s services because t he nature of
`such services is not clear from the present record.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004);
`TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).(cid:160) Applicant must submit answers to the following:
`
`(1)(cid:160) Does applicant provide educational or legal services in the field of intellectual property, specifically, video games?
`
`Conclusory statements regarding the services will not satisfy this requirement for information.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.(cid:160) In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013)
`(citing In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003);
`TMEP §814).(cid:160) Merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and
`will not make the relevant information of record.(cid:160) See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d at 1457-58.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`ROPER RESPONSE TO FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C.
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).(cid:160) Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
`
`(cid:160)3
`
`7 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review
`procedural issues.(cid:160) TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).(cid:160) The petition fee
`is $100.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their application online
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office
`actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3)
`agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. (cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b);
`TMEP §§819, 820.(cid:160) TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per
`international class of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.(cid:160) However, in certain situations,
`TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring
`
`this additional fee.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Anna H. Rosenblatt/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 120
`(571) 272-4599
`anna.rosenblatt@uspto.gov
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160)
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160) If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`MUSIC. APPS. MOBILE GAMES.
`HOME
`FILMETV ii> ART MUSIC APPSKGAMES
`
`ATTORNEYS
`
`SCHOLARSHIPS
`
`comncrus
`
`UNSEL NOW‘
`
`GAME lNDUS'l' V
`
`Apps &
`G a m e S
`
`ADD Ccnsunam
`App Law
`FTC Cw” mvesugauve
`Demands
`App Development
`App Expen Witness
`App Privacy
`Protect Your App
`Video Game Law
`Game Publishing
`Comradfi
`
`Video Game Law
`Similar to other areas of multimedia, video game law has a significant focus
`on copyright and licensing, It's essential that developers understand the
`imponance of having clearand complete paperwork in an effort to prevent
`
`tegal issues in the future Consider the following questions:
`
`- Where did the concept for a game originate? lf you took the idea from
`your favorite comic book orfilm, you should seek permission before
`moving forward
`Did the person who did voice over work sign a contract making clear
`that he or she has no ownership interest in the final product? You
`
`could geta slew of calls from individuals looking foradditional money
`based on the success of a game or app to which they contributed.
`- Does the person or company providing start—up money to devetop
`your game own a stake in your development company, or are they
`simply giving you a loan that must be repaid when your profits start
`rolling in? it you incorrectly assume that you received a loan, you could
`end up with some unwanted business partners who will not go away
`easily.
`imagine you are at E3, GDC, PAX, or lnidecade, and are presented
`with a publishing deal Do you have someone who can help you
`understand what's in the deal, what revisions you should request, or
`whether you should sign it?
`
`0
`
`Contact Us
`Name ’
`
`Fm Nam
`Phone ‘
`
`nu
`in!)
`Email Address ‘
`
`mm Nam“
`
`mm
`
`subject *
`
`Message ‘
`
`Please Read '
`
`Don’t get stopped in your tracks Jovan Johnson provides common sense
`counsel so that you can get it right from the beginning
`Also of interest:
`
`I understand iriai. depending on the nature ol
`my requesti may be mrllacled hya pllllclpal of
`either )ohn5oiI Mot: (Dlll woik 5. Levine. iniia
`Hamnr_ or New uniirriiaan
`
`Publishing Contracts
`App Development Contracts
`App Law
`App Plivaqf
`Copyright Registration
`
`Contact Us xumarpi nkumaimoo1:) o 1] tan: unlouun[A iljjoilnsorwncio [D o rycum
`6230 iurisnire Blvd. M79510: Arigefes. CA 9004s I 570 EICamirio Real215073114, Redwoodcny, CA 940533114
`A!torneyAdveri‘r'sement i copyngmzoio — 2015 i Site Map I Furzy Markefing
`
`

`
`mus //vwvw kentlaw HI edu/courses/\d—courses/\d—sem\mars/v\deo—uame—\aw
`
`09/30/2016 03 51 20 PM
`
`DUWLKLWNKS
`Calendar
`ABA Requireduisclesures
`ISLE
`LegaIServi:es
`393'C"C"'C39‘H‘9"‘
` Givinu
`Ilromunixon soc
`,
`4 Admitted JDStudenls
`-» Faculty Kstafi
`-» Empmyers
`C}-”cqgo.Kenf Co||ege of [gw
`4 Prnspaclwa smuems
`-> Current Students
`-> Alumm
`VLLINOIS INSTVTUTE or TECHNOLOGY
`, r,,.Ema..mr smms
`
`
`counggg
`5
`.
`A
`| Emarl
`1 Pnm 1 i
`I Course Search Resuas
`
`uR5E INFORM,“-.0”
`C0“? "=
`'-AW 533
`Deere-‘=
`JD Pmgram
`Area of
`lnteliectml Property Law
`Sludy:
`course Type: Senuni!
`
`Video Game Law
`ms seminar mu exzmme me vaned xegax rssues
`max have spawned (and contmue to spawn) m we
`video game space sun a reiauvely new irrdusuy
`that comurues to evolve a1 a Iueakneck pace,
`wdeo games requue lawyers to addvess
`suhslamwe areas oflaw in new ways, pamculady
`copynghl and lrademavk (aw The course vunmvs a
`cwman approacn to study persons M games,
`mugs m games, and how psvsons acquire Wags
`m games specrnc topics mcmde: (a) speaaw cupyugm constdevaiions m waeo games, incmamg ran use
`and DMCA prmecuorrs, (In) games as emenammeru products, and concerns of wmem and malule comem
`wins lhevalue and protection omueo games as speech unde( me F1riLAmendInenl;(c) pomrrg or mden
`game content under semegmaasan systems 1!! the us and Europe: (6) confilcts am compromrses wmuu
`the conuactuai rewauousnrps prgame dmleiopevs and game pulitshevs, (e) me expanding role ofgameis
`and merr crmmumuans Ln wdeo games, such as mmugn useigenevated cmwlent, pnayer communal)es. fan
`ficmm. eLc., and m specral legal cvrauerrges and coumwersies arismg from mime gammg and mass:ve1y—
`lnuiupla'yer-oclime games (MMOs) sumems mu hemefitfrom pnor couvse wmkm inteiiectuai pvoperty am
`other relaied Kopncs, e- g , cupyngm Law, Enleflalnlnerat Law, lnlevnet Law, 01 Trademarks and Unfau
`Campelmou, bumrese ale not preveqursues. snuoems man be exnemed to wine and presem to me ciass a
`paper on e Loptc of Lhelr own choosing Gremrrg mu he deteunmed Flom me paper, present:-mon and class
`pamcxpamn
`(added 11/08)
`Credit Hours
`Two credit houvs
`
`aIn24s(3sru.puemcoHegeMLap-, ms.e.sa....r..,rree.s.u...,,
`555 was Adams
`Chwuagn.
`\L mam seer rem i317)§l55flflfl\FgK nammaazmz
`
`1-,
`r..
`.
`fifififin Owe“ ’
`
`
`
`

`
`t1t‘[D//W\NwWIDO int/wioo rnaqazine/en/2014/02/article 0002 html
`
`09/30/2016 04 Ol 27 PM
`
`WIPOWOHLD INTELLEGTUAL PHOPEHYY ORGANIZATION
`
`IP Services
`
`Policy
`
`Cooperation
`
`Reference
`
`About tP
`
`tnside WIPO
`
`Search WIPO
`
`}J
`
`
`
`Home 3 F\boul|F‘
`
`i
`
`\.’»|FO7rlags2l'ie 3 ZDH > ZIZOT4
`
`WIPO I MAGAZINE
`
`Video Games and IP: A Global Perspective
`Apnl2U14
`
`By David Greenspan, Senior Director ofLegal and Business Affairs, Namco Bandai Games America
`(USA), S. Gregory Boyd, Partner and Chairman of Interactive Entertainment Group, Frankfurt Kumit
`Klein & Selz PC (USA), Jas Purewat, Senior Associate, Osborne Clarke (USA)
`
`Since the launch of the first mainstream game consoie by Nintendo in 1985, video
`games have become a global industry worth an estimated US$65 billion. It is the
`fastest growing sector of the entertainment industry and an important driver of
`economic growth, creating millions of jobs, generating much-needed tax revenues
`and offering exciting opportunities for talented creators and engineers from all
`corners of the globe.
`
`Unlike other creative industries, video games draw on the worlds of both technology and creativity.
`They fuse cutting-edge technology and imaginative artistic expression. The computer code underlying
`a game transforms ideas into rich expressions of visual art which come alive on a range of devices —
`consoles, computers, tablets and smartphones.
`
`

`
`hm: //www WIDO int/WlD0 maqazime/en/2014/02/article 0002 html
`
`O9/30/20i6 04 Oi 27 PM
`
`in we global Aden games mmn, i~;:.cm1 an esnmate<| us;
`
`‘er. am ill: cmzliral mpact i. oeirrgfE‘ta~7r=J1:stl‘eworld .:-mm : Electronic Arts
`
`her
`
`A global phenomenon
`The cultural impact of the industry is being felt across the world. It has become a global phenomenon
`with recent major successes from studios in countries as diverse as Belarus (Wargamingmet), China
`(with Tencent and Perfect World) and Finland (with Supercell and Rovio).
`Over the last 20 years, the demographics of players have changed dramatically. Gone are the days
`when the average video game player was a teenage boy playing alone and firing away at bad guys in
`front of a television screen at home. Today, the average video game player will be thirty something,
`as likely to be female as male, will play on multiple devices and can come from anywhere in the
`world.
`
`
`Dramatic changes, exciting opportun ies
`Advances in technology have also dramatically changed the games themselves, spawning a wide
`range of new formats, stories, and genres. Games are in fact as varied as the imagination of the
`developers, featuring realistic graphics, voice-overs, use of motion capture technology giving
`characters fluid movements, music equal to film scores and original story lines. The development and
`marketing budgets for major game titles often rival those of the movie industry.
`
`

`
`hm: //www WIDO lrlt/WlD0 maqazlne/en/2014/02/article 0002 html
`
`O9/30/20l6 04 Ol 27 PM
`
`While still dominated by multi-billion dollar hardware companies such as Sony, Nintendo, Microsott,
`Apple, and Samsung and publishers such as Activision, Electronic Arts (EA) and King (mobile), new
`technologies have opened up the gaming industry to many new independent developers. W|PO‘s
`recent publication, Mastering the Game: Business and Legal Issues for Video Game Developers
`provides established developers as well as new market entrants with infonnation about how to
`develop a proactive strategy to secure the IP rights in their work for its distribution and use. The guide
`explores, in very practical ten'ns, the range of legal and business issues facing developers at various
`stages of the process of developing a game and transtonning it from a concept into a marketable
`product. It further underlines the importance of negotiating contracts to define who owns the IP rights
`in a work.
`
`While many have cashed in on the public's seemingly insatiable appetite for video games, and there
`is still huge potential tor growth, there are also significant risks and uncertainties. These are related,
`in particular, to the rising costs facing the industry — a major flop can severely impact a publishers or
`developers business - and the need to keep pace with constantly evolving tastes in tem1s at the
`games consumers want to play, how they want to play them and how they want to purchase them.
`
`The Lord of the Rings and derivative works
`Acquiring the right to make a derivative work — a new work derived from an existing copyright
`work can be a complex process.
`To make The Lord oft.he Rings trilogy. Peter Jackson had to obtain a license from the Saul
`Zaentz Company which holds movie rights to To|kien’s work. As a derivative work the trilogy was
`copyrightable as a newwork and licensable in its own right.
`In 2001, Electronic Arts (EA) developed the first Battle for Middle Earth game on the basis of a
`license from Peter Jackson filrns. Under this license EA could only produce game content, or a
`derivative work that came from the Jackson films. However, in 2005 while creating the sequel to
`Battle Ibrllliddle Earth and other Rings games, EA acquired a license to produce a game based
`on Tolkien‘s published works. This opened up a great deal of new territory for creativity.
`
`Just a few years ago, games (played on consoles) were sold mainly through retail outlets, and while
`physical console and computer sales still generate a substantial proportion of industry revenue,
`mobile gaming (games played using mobile devices) has become the fastest growing sector of the
`industry. Digital distribution is expanding as a result of lower entry barriers and costs. At the same
`time, the marketplace is becoming ever more crowded, making it ditticult to distinguish one game
`
`

`
`hm: //www WIDO ll‘It/WlD0 maqazlHe/en/2014/02/article 0002 html
`
`09/30/2016 04 Ol 27 PM
`
`from another.
`
`The video game industry is constantly evolving creatively (how a game looks), technologically (the
`hardware and software that bring the games to life) and commercially (the business models used
`distribute games to consumers). With such innovations, come new challenges.
`
`Defining the rules of the game
`The core legal issues facing all entities involved in the video game ecosystem - developers,
`financiers, publishers and distributors - locus on ensuring that appropriate legal arrangements are in
`place to enable the development, financing and distribution of games. While questions of privacy and
`data security, content regulation and monetization are key considerations (and are covered in the
`publication), developing a proactive IP strategy to secure appropriate IP rights is essential to the
`success of a developefs enterprise.
`Game Project and IP Law
`Gopvyngllt
`Trme Secret
`Music
`Customer mailing lists
`
`Patent
`Hardware technial snlutions
`
`Tlademallr
`Company
`name
`
`company logo
`Game IIIIS
`
`Game subtine
`
`Irnremlve game play or game design elements
`TBCIIIIICHI I'lllt!lla1l0fIS Slltifl HS SDTIVMTE, IISIWOTKIIIQ Of
`database design
`
`Cane
`SIGN
`
`CHBIEUEIS
`Art
`Box design
`
`WCIISIIE
`design
`
`Pricing intonnanon
`PIIDIISHBF EBIIIHCIS
`
`MHd|6‘Wal'E COMBCB
`Developercontacts
`Inmuse development
`IDOB
`DEBI terms
`
`IP is the lifeblood of the industry. IP rights are associated both with the tools used to develop games
`and the content included in a game. For example, copyright safeguards the creative and artistic
`expression that goes into the software (the code), the artwork and the sound (and music) of a game.
`It developers want to create a new work on the basis of an existing copyrighted work, a so-called
`derivative, then they must first secure the appropriate licenses from the copyright holders. An
`
`

`
`htlll //www WIDO ll‘It/WlD0 maqazlme/en/2014/02/article 0002 html
`
`O9/30/20i6 04 Ol 27 PM
`
`example of a derivative work is Shrekthe game which was based on Shrek the film. The process can
`also work the other way. When filmmakers want to develop a film on the basis of the story line of a
`successful game they too must secure rights from the right holders of the original work, for example,
`Doom the movie was based on Doom the game.
`
`Trademarks protect the names and logos associated with a game and its characters and can be used
`to set a company and its games apart from others in the minds of consumers; patents

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket