UFC Sues Ubisoft Over "Fighters Uncaged"

[JerseySuave4]

Quote: Originally Posted by allBthere

That may be the case, but I fundamentally disagree with it. Also, how much money do you feel ZUFFA is entitled to? Their choice to sue is odd as well since no one is buying the game, most people don't even know it exists. But in the end I disagree with their right to sue over saying "ultimate fighting weapon" in the description on the back of the box. "ultimate fighting weapon" isn't a sport, UFC ultimate fighter or any of that. I think it's a waste of time, money and it's petty.

i dont think they really care about winning money. I think its the principle. They don't want people seeing Ultimate Fighting anything unless it comes from them because they then can't control the image portrayed by the product. They are fighting to make the sport legit and putting something out that is street fighting helps portray the negative stereotype they are trying to distance themself from.

[allBthere]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

i dont think they really care about winning money. I think its the principle. They don't want people seeing Ultimate Fighting anything unless it comes from them because they then can't control the image portrayed by the product. They are fighting to make the sport legit and putting something out that is street fighting helps portray the negative stereotype they are trying to distance themself from.

I understand your point and the points above you, but as I said I just fundamentally disagree with the ability to sue over this.

It's not the title of the game or anywhere in the title, it's only on the back of the box. It's also within a larger context of what else is being written. It also isn't UFC it's a partial 'ultimate fighting' with the 'weapon' addition differeciates it even more.

It's like if I were to write a book with that one line in it I would be sued, like they've somehow patented similar words being put beside one another.

It might be fun to think of alternative cases of the same thing - and see how big (or small) of a deal it would be. For instance let's say I made a work out game for kinect called 'no more fatguy!' and on the back I said it will drive your body to the point of INSANITY! --- now can I expect the insanity people to sue me?

I don't think they should or maybe even could win that case --- but fundamentally for me that is beside the point, I'm arguing that even if it's clear as day that they would win according to the law - I just hate that law and don't think people should be able to sue so easily, especially over language used in the wider context of a descriptive paragraph.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by allBthere

That may be the case, but I fundamentally disagree with it. Also, how much money do you feel ZUFFA is entitled to? Their choice to sue is odd as well since no one is buying the game, most people don't even know it exists. But in the end I disagree with their right to sue over saying "ultimate fighting weapon" in the description on the back of the box. "ultimate fighting weapon" isn't a sport, UFC ultimate fighter or any of that. I think it's a waste of time, money and it's petty.

The UFC HAS to sue to protect its mark. If it didnt, it runs the risk of dilution and another company using the mark. For example, lets say if EA decides that on the back of EA MMA 2 "Create your favorite Ultimate Fighter." They could argue that the UFC failed to protect its mark against Ubisoft and therefore they are permitted to use it in that manner.

The suit isnt about money because the UFC is unlikely to recover much based on the fact the game didnt sell much and they would struggle to prove damage to the park. The suit is about protecting its mark. I promise you the UFC sent several cease and desist letters to Ubisoft asking them to change the wording and Ubisoft responded by refusing. That left the UFC with no choice.

Also the fact that they used the words "Ultimate Fighting Weapon" doesnt mean that Ubi isnt using the UFC's mark. Thats like me opening a fast food restaurant called "McDonalds and Sons" with the sons in small print. Yes, technically I'm not using the Mcdonalds name alone...but I am using the McDonald's name to entice people to come to my place.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by allBthere

I understand your point and the points above you, but as I said I just fundamentally disagree with the ability to sue over this. It's not the title of the game or anywhere in the title, it's only on the back of the box. It's also within a larger context of what else is being written. It also isn't UFC it's a partial 'ultimate fighting' with the 'weapon' addition differeciates it even more. It's like if I were to write a book with that one line in it I would be sued, like they've somehow patented similar words being put beside one another. It might be fun to think of alternative cases of the same thing - and see how big (or small) of a deal it would be. For instance let's say I made a work out game for kinect called 'no more fatguy!' and on the back I said it will drive your body to the point of INSANITY! --- now can I expect the insanity people to sue me? I don't think they should or maybe even could win that case --- but fundamentally for me that is beside the point, I'm arguing that even if it's clear as day that they would win according to the law - I just hate that law and don't think people should be able to sue so easily, especially over language used in the wider context of a descriptive paragraph.

Writing a book with that one line would not invite a suit from the UFC because that use is not a trademark use. You arent using the line to sell your book. The only way that use would invite a suit is if you called your book "The Guide to Ultimate Fighting". That gives the impression that ur book is associated or sponsored by the UFC.

Again, Ubisoft didnt use that line for any reason but to associate its game with the UFC's mark. There are so many other words that Ubi could have used instead of "ultimate"

[JerseySuave4]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Writing a book with that one line would not invite a suit from the UFC because that use is not a trademark use. You arent using the line to sell your book. The only way that use would invite a suit is if you called your book "The Guide to Ultimate Fighting". That gives the impression that ur book is associated or sponsored by the UFC. Again, Ubisoft didnt use that line for any reason but to associate its game with the UFC's mark. There are so many other words that Ubi could have used instead of "ultimate"

if they have it trademarked they have it trademarked. Just like the guys that owned the name Rays Pizza and Famous Rays who sued all of the other Rays pizzas in NY that had variations of that name. It seems stupid that they could trademark those words but Michael Buffer has the "Lets get ready to rumble" trademarked so others can't use that saying without paying him royalties. It may seem petty and stupid but thats the point of a trademark.

[RumbleCard]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

if they have it trademarked they have it trademarked. Just like the guys that owned the name Rays Pizza and Famous Rays who sued all of the other Rays pizzas in NY that had variations of that name. It seems stupid that they could trademark those words but Michael Buffer has the "Lets get ready to rumble" trademarked so others can't use that saying without paying him royalties. It may seem petty and stupid but thats the point of a trademark.

The Rays pizza analogy isn't the same. The word "Ray" is being used as ownership...or to move product based on the use of the word. Its about representation.

You don't own the words Ultimate and Fighting just because you own the trademark for an Ultimate Fighting Company. Now if these guys would have named their game Ultimate Street Fighting then the case is a lot more relevant. You don't take ownership of words you take ownership of what those words represent. Big difference.

[ven0m43]

A "ULTIMATE FIGHTING weapon", to me, has nothing to do with becoming a ULTIMATE FIGHTER who does MMA. I watch the ultimate fighter and have never heard them say they are going to watch ultimate fighting in the cage, etc. When I see, read, or hear "ultimate fighting weapon" I don't think of the ultimate fighter at all. I feel that they are taking the words out of context and twisting it to making it seem that they're referring to their company.

I understand Zuffa's reason to sue over it, since its a fighting game and they dont want to be compared to this. They've been trying to change the idea that MMA is a violent and cruel sport where they;re just trying to hurt/injure the guy.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by ven0m43

A "ULTIMATE FIGHTING weapon", to me, has nothing to do with becoming a ULTIMATE FIGHTER who does MMA. I watch the ultimate fighter and have never heard them say they are going to watch ultimate fighting in the cage, etc. When I see, read, or hear "ultimate fighting weapon" I don't think of the ultimate fighter at all. I feel that they are taking the words out of context and twisting it to making it seem that they're referring to their company. I understand Zuffa's reason to sue over it, since its a fighting game and they dont want to be compared to this. They've been trying to change the idea that MMA is a violent and cruel sport where they;re just trying to hurt/injure the guy.

You guys arent using the law to analyze this suit. Under Trademark law, the case is pretty clear.