Blizzard and Valve are heading to the courts over the DOTA trademark, which stands for Defense of the Ancients, a custom map that began in the Warcraft 3 era of gaming.
According to the
USPTO Blizzard vs Valve filing, Blizzard are trying to argue that the DOTA trademark has no connection to Valve at all, even though it was a custom map and not one that was specifically designed by Blizzard.
In contrast to Blizzard, Applicant Valve Corporation ("Valve") has never used the mark DOTA in connection with any product or service that currently is available to the public.
By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and in its Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III. Valve has no right to the registration it seeks.
If such registration is issued, it not only will damage Blizzard, but also the legions of Blizzard fans that have worked for years with Blizzard and its products, including by causing consumers to falsely believe that Valve's products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard and are related or connected to Warcraft III.
Also of interest is how Blizzard claims Valve are "one of Blizzard's primary competitors in the PC computer game market", even though Blizzard has never published any other genre besides RTS, MMO or RPG.
Valve are currently in beta stages with their DOTA 2, and are actually using the original team that created the Warcraft 3 map in development. Blizzard have stated they are working on a "Blizzard DOTA", which takes place in the
StarCraft 2 engine.
Leave us a comment below on your thoughts and if we hear anything from either side we will make sure to report it.
Posted 05:52pm 10/2/12
Posted 06:07pm 10/2/12
Posted 06:14pm 10/2/12
Posted 06:14pm 10/2/12
Posted 06:16pm 10/2/12
Posted 06:21pm 10/2/12
I don't know the whole back story but isn't this like iD suing Valve over Team Fortress?
Posted 06:25pm 10/2/12
Blizzard actually never created DOTA, it was just some randoms who made it for WC3. They are now working for Valve with DOTA 2, so really the only way Blizzard "own" the name DOTA is due to a recent change in their TOS, which states any mods are licensed under them.
Posted 06:48pm 10/2/12
I can really see where that promise of Blizz being "hands off" on the corporate culture wise promise went when they got bought out... if anything if it wasn't for what Eorl said about the TOS being conveniently changed as of late to give rights of ownership of mod maps to Blizz and not the makers themselves this wouldn't even fly... the question here is since DotA *was* made before these changes would they be applied retroactively to previous mod maps or not?
Posted 06:57pm 10/2/12
Posted 07:02pm 10/2/12
Will be interesting to see how it plays out in court.
Posted 07:45pm 10/2/12
Posted 08:13pm 10/2/12
My sentiments exactly.
I really don't think that Blizzard have any ground for this. Independent people created the map then got hired by Valve, so really, Valve should own DOTA name now.
Posted 08:29pm 10/2/12
Legally, I think if it goes to court Valve might just have to change the name or somehow convince the court that DOTA doesn't stand for Defence of the Ancients anymore, maybe Defence of T_____ A_____.
That way DOTA2 might be seen as a brand new entity and nothing to do with the original WC3 Defence of the Ancients.
Posted 08:43pm 10/2/12
Posted 09:18pm 10/2/12
One side, Valve trying to trademark that for the last 6-7 years has been associated with WC3 (Blizzard) is wrong.
On the other side, Blizzard had shed loads of time to file this. Why now AFTER all the publicity and beta stuff? Smells bad. Just like Activision.
Posted 10:30pm 10/2/12
It's not even the guys who made DotA who are working at Valve, it's a guy who worked on the most popular derivative after it was created.
From Wikipedia:
This IceFrog guy who simply "worked on" DotA Allstars since 2005 sounds like one of the least entitled to claim ownership of the DotA name and trademark.
Also this:
I agree that Blizzard should have been proactive and taken control of the DotA concept, name, makers, etc. a long time ago to avoid all this bulls*** though.
Posted 10:43pm 10/2/12
Posted 11:18pm 10/2/12
Posted 11:46pm 10/2/12
Posted 12:10am 11/2/12
Posted 12:43am 11/2/12
Poor form Blizzard.
Posted 12:44am 11/2/12
Posted 01:06am 11/2/12
http://www.levyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/morphling.jpg
http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/upload/Warcraft%20III.jpg
http://www.dota2-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/drowranger-550x353.jpg
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081005143411/wowwiki/images/thumb/9/90/SylvanasWar3.JPG/185px-SylvanasWar3.JPG
Posted 01:19am 11/2/12
Blizard and dota are related as much as ID owns Call of Duty franchise because they were on the same engine at some point once in their life.
Posted 01:36am 11/2/12
Still, it's a d*** move when they could have done it so long ago.
Posted 02:38am 11/2/12
Your analogy is flawed because Call of Duty never used any Quake assets in the game, unlike with DotA and Warcraft III (not to mention the fact that the Quake engine was licensed by IW). I'm not saying that it means Blizzard owns it, just that the comparison is not equal.
As I tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to make clear in my previous post, in my opinion too many different people have had significant input into DotA's success for just one of them to then be able to go off to a company and claim rights to the DotA trademark.
Blizzard probably shouldn't have rights to it either. There should be a way to make a certain name un-trademarkable, so that it can continue to be used in the public domain without any companies being able to cash in on it...
Posted 11:19am 11/2/12
Posted 07:16pm 11/2/12
From Wikipedia:
The first version of Defense of the Ancients was released in 2003 by a mapmaker under the alias of Eul who based the map on a previous StarCraft scenario known as "Aeon of Strife".
The thing is Eul also works at Valve.
Posted 07:20pm 11/2/12
Posted 07:54pm 11/2/12
last edited by eXemplar at 19:54:46 11/Feb/12
Posted 10:22pm 11/2/12
Posted 03:28am 12/2/12
Been holding onto this for the right moment ...
Posted 05:19am 12/2/12
Posted 08:36am 12/2/12
Posted 11:09am 12/2/12
Posted 12:17pm 12/2/12
What does releasing the game FTP have to do with a trademark application?!
Posted 12:28pm 12/2/12
They won't be making a profit, which I believe is Blizzard's case.
Posted 12:32pm 12/2/12
I'm pretty sure that trademark law applies regardless of profit ...
Posted 12:51pm 12/2/12
Posted 01:39pm 12/2/12
Posted 02:30pm 12/2/12
Posted 02:47pm 12/2/12
It's a license apparently. This will be interesting though, if Valve does get the trademark, I don't see it being that big of a deal. People will just name DOTA clones something else like LoL and HoN did. Ta da, circumnavigated the system.
Posted 03:16pm 12/2/12
Of course its a license? That's what the L in EULA stands for?!
You mean if Valve doesn't get the trademark?
Posted 03:34pm 12/2/12
No I mean if Valve does get the trademark. They are pursuing DOTA as a trademark, that's why Blizzard has stepped in to rebut it because they feel it shouldn't be a trademark due to how community wise it is.
Posted 03:39pm 12/2/12
I make something using a companies materials = company's Ownership.
what happened to intellectual property?
Posted 04:56pm 12/2/12
What happened to logic?
Posted 05:01pm 12/2/12
Posted 05:04pm 12/2/12
All you map are belong to us
Posted 06:38pm 12/2/12
That's not he same; the license to use the software permits you to own deriviative works.
Maps you make with Blizzard editors do not belong to you, and the EULA is very aggressive. If you don't like this then you should mod using a different tool!
And even if it were for charity it wouldn't matter. You can't bottle and distribute fake Coca-Cola for charity!
Posted 07:08pm 12/2/12
Posted 07:23pm 12/2/12
A EULA doesn't automatically hold in the U.S. just because someone agrees to it. It can be argued in court whether it's fair or possible to adhere to, etc.
Posted 07:34pm 12/2/12
Posted 08:14pm 12/2/12
If it came to it they wouldn't be challenging the validity of "EULAs" in general, but of specific clauses.
Posted 09:26pm 12/2/12
I thought that their EULA was updated late last year.
Posted 09:40pm 12/2/12
Posted 09:59pm 12/2/12
I believe so, but I presume with the newer version afterwards, if there was any, would deem it "under their license".
Posted 10:02pm 12/2/12