In general copyright defense, a common term should not be used as an infringing item. Especially when it's not used as a name of a product. In your case it is used to describe a type of game/genre. Similar to the term Puzzle, Shooter, and any other alike. Apple is just bugging you because the request came from a big company like Com2us. I do say go for a fight. You should be safe.
Ok, I've read through this, and I have to say, this kind of amoral behaviour really p!sses me off! And unlike an earlier poster, I do have a pony in this race, a "TD" (not to infringe on a registered trademark) game I've had in design/development for a year. As it happens the game does not use the "trademark" in the title, however... First let me say, I support the use of trademarks, copyrights, and patents, where these legal protections are applied for their intended purpose. Frankly, to prevent the complete opposite of this situation. Where someone is attempting to capitalize on the hard work, and harder earned "good will" (in the specific case of trademarks) of another. Apple is doing pretty much the only thing they can do, which is acknowledge a legally registered trademark, and ensure they have no liability. This situation, on the other hand, smacks of a blatant attempt to corner a popular consumer sub-market through nothing more tangible than "I filed first". Yes they have a game that uses the sub-genre name in their title. There are 3 good ways to deal with a situation like this through the US legal system in my experience: 1) challenge the trademark and have it dismissed. This one has the added bonus, that there is no popular way to defend a broad sweeping trademark like this, simply put, in the public eye, the defendant will lose regardless of court decision. Unfortunately, ran unchecked, it will likely also cause a negative stigma associated with the genre itself, as most of the buying public will forget the details, and simply assume any product bearing that trademark is the defendant. 2) Take the trademark holder to court, and keep them there indefinitely (or until they run out of money). The legal precedent has already been set in the US (US gov vs IBM anti-monopoly trust - 80's, IBM vs SCO, Linux violation of Unix patent early 2000's (I was at IBM at the time...), etc...). It's just as underhanded, but it's highly effective where one side of the case vastly exceeds the other in terms of financial resources. 3) Simply spread the word. Tactics like this inflame lobbyist, consumer watch groups, general public, and businesses alike. It's an extremely risky strategy on at least 3 fronts: a) if successful you'll only hold the market for a short time, as consumers follow their desired products based on gameplay not title. b) eventually the general public finds out... the average joe (the plumber ) gets really bent at what is often associated with the "big guy" using "underhanded" tactics to beat out the "little guy". Personally, I'm going with option 3. They may be doing it, but I'll be d*mned if they're going to do it in a nice quite back room.
There's no way in hell this trademark will hold up to any challenge whatsoever. As many have already said, it's as ridiculous as trying to hold a trademark on a phrase like "shoot 'em up" or "action film".
Lol, this reminds me that there actually was a movie called 'Shoot em up' a couple years ago, maybe they should copyright it
I agree with most of you. Owning the trademark for "Tower Defense" should not be allowed. This phrase indicates a genre. You can't own a trademark for "Adventure" right? Best of luck to the original poster on getting this resolved.
actually. atari had a game called "adventure" and trademarked it. just visit tess (tess.uspto.gov) and enter in the term "adventure" - you will be surprised at how many exist.
An update to my tower defense game Kretures just got bounced for the keywords issue ... absolutely un real ...
This is what all you guys need to do, find the people responsible for this mess and bite them long and hard. Leave an impression in their skin that will last for eternity. That way next time they think about filing a case against you or your company they will look down on their arm and see the bite mark. Afraid and scared for thier lives the evil-doers will immediately push and legal pursueing ideas out of their head! Hope this helps guys, Ryeley Kuykendall Attourney at Law (I specialize in Copyright Law, Trademark Law, Immigration Law, Sex Law, The Law of God, and TouchArcade Law, and Tower Defense Law (oh sh!t im gonna get sued for having Tower Defense in my list of laws. Oh well screw em' ))
Crowther and Woods classic text adventure 'Adventure' was released in '76, predating Atari's game by three years. It's also available on the iPhone via Frotz. If you want to try a bit of history, Download Frotz, go to browse, search for 'Crowther' and download advent.z5. I played about with it for a bit and it seems to be an infocom Z-machine port of the same game I played in '82 (when it was already old) on a mainframe in my first job.
So, any news on this? This is an absurd. They can't patent a game genre. But I'm not from the US, and I can't change this. Any of you guys had any luck?
Seems like it's a dead issue now, Com2uS still holds the trademark but has stopped pursuing it for the last year or so.
