RisenLazarus

My guess is that there were slot machines with a similar trademark to the one his client wanted to use as the name of their game. When two goods in the same class of goods share a trade name, the one that used it first (has "priority") gets exclusive rights to the mark (or at least wherever it might cause confusion). He successfully convinced the PTO that they are two different classes, so even if a slot machine has priority on the name, they're in different classes and thus wouldn't cause confusion.

Looking back on it, Crazy Steve was such an impressive role for Jerry Trainor. What a monster that guy is.

Hey Ryan. Big fan of yours and other lawyers in the scene paving the way for a better legal landscape in gaming.

As a refresher, I'm writing a paper this semester that is focused on esports broadcasting and the copyright issues involved there. Based on the attorneys I've spoken with (and the ones they've spoken with), it seems to be a fairly black-and-white issue that any organization looking to make money hosting and/or broadcasting an esports event needs a license from the IP holder. Whether in basic infringement analysis (derivative use, broadcast, and performance rights) or moral rights analysis (controlling the integrity of the work), most people seem to think it fairly clear that a license is needed.

But that puts a serious hinge in competition in the esports industry. As I'm sure you know, the different esports industries at the moment are becoming more and more centralized. My primary argument regarding the need for license will be fair use, based on the transformative nature of turning a co-op/multiplayer game into a spectator experience. But that argument seems fairly week when the broadcaster is already licensing out to some (but not all) broadcasters; it's no longer transformative and has an obvious impact on the market for the good.

I was wondering: what do you think (1) about that fair use argument both for new esports (Overwatch if/when it becomes one for example) and already existing esports (LoL, CS, Halo, etc.), (2) about an anti-trust argument - preventing IP holders from making the broadcast industry of their games anti-competitive, and (3) about an argument that copyright doesn't actually extend to uses like esports?

The third argument is interesting to me, but not very convincing. The idea is that copyright law did not conceive of limiting any and all uses of the work, almost akin to the exhaustion doctrine. So when a work is being used in a context outside of its artistic/scientific purpose - when a game turns into a sport - the exclusive rights shouldn't be extended to it.

Sorry for the long question, this issue and copyright law in general is just fascinating for me. Professional leagues being built around owned intellectual property brings so many new issues, and I'd love to know what a practicing game-IP attorney thinks about them.

First things first, moral rights? You're American. Stop it with those, they don't exist here ;)

But but, the Berne Convention! :>

Thanks for your input. It's going to be a stretch, and I think the fair use argument is pretty shallow. But it's one worth making, especially if I can be one of the first to write about it.

Sure thing. Hopefully I have some real headway on the paper by then too.