SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

[aholbert32]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

They should be able to call it the Southeastern Conference, because south east is a region. But they wouldn't be able to use the SEC's logo, they'd have to use a generic one.

They wont be able to because while Southeastern is a region and Conference is a designation....Southeastern Conference combined is a registered mark.

[superxero27]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

They should be able to call it the Southeastern Conference, because south east is a region. But they wouldn't be able to use the SEC's logo, they'd have to use a generic one.

Except that "Southeastern Conference" is also a trademark, is it not? Like Pacific-12? Conference USA?

[simgamer0005]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Except that "Southeastern Conference" is also a trademark, is it not? Like Pacific-12? Conference USA?

How about "Southeast Conference"?

[superxero27]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

How about "Southeast Conference"?

A little less risky, but I bet that if the O'Bannon case continues on its current track that EA would be way too gun shy about potential litigation to go anywhere near that.

[pietasterp]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

When will the other major conferences follow suit? I would say that EA must be rapidly re-evaluating how much longer they want to be in the business of publishing college sports games....and in related, sad news, this almost certainly means we'll never see another College Hoops 2k game...

[lere2001]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

OK EA! Now jump onto a CFL game!

[Cryolemon]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Exactly. Wake me up when Schools start dropping out. I could give a **** about logos and conference names.

Well yeah, but the worry now is that that will start happening.

[pietasterp]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Exactly. Wake me up when Schools start dropping out. I could give a **** about logos and conference names.

Might not want to get too comfy...I think this is the logical next step.

[aholbert32]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

When will the other major conferences follow suit? I would say that EA must be rapidly re-evaluating how much longer they want to be in the business of publishing college sports games....and in related, sad news, this almost certainly means we'll never see another College Hoops 2k game...

I dont get this line of thinking:

One, I doubt this came as much of a surprise to EA and its lawyers after NCAA pulled out.

Two, EA knows from its past that the only thing that matters is teams. If Alabama pulls out...thats huge. If the SEC pulls out its logo...thats not.

Three, this actually saves EA money. They dont have to shell out a license fee just so they can use a logo.

I dont get how this is bad for EA right now. When the schools start to pull out, thats when the problem begins but as I stated before what incentive does a school have to pull out?

The CLC is already named in the suit. The CLC also provides protection (insurance and indemnification) when it comes to this lawsuit and all legal costs are shared amongst the schools. Why would a school pull itself out of the CLC (and thus out of EA's game) when staying will cost them no more money and pulling out means it doesnt get to share in EA's license money?

[bad_philanthropy]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

Might not want to get too comfy...I think this is the logical next step.

I think this is the trajectory. If athletics conferences are reticent I can only imagine the universities themselves will be wary of legal action. I think at some point the schools and conferences will decide to wait on the ruling before agreeing to license the EA product.

[nortobc]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

A game that won't have near the mass market appeal of a licensed game and hence wouldn't last much longer than 1 season.
Sales is what matters; I highly doubt a non-licensed game (especially since consumers are used to licensed and accurate games) will sell in sufficient numbers to justify its development/existence.

That being said, CFL or Arena League football would be neat...

I totally disagree. There are thousands of die hard college football fans out there. And if a solid customizable football game is created, I guarantee it will sell like hot cakes.

[aholbert32]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I think this is the trajectory. If athletics conferences are reticent I can only imagine the universities themselves will be wary of legal action. I think at some point the schools and conferences will decide to wait on the ruling before agreeing to license the EA product.

The schools are already a part of the lawsuit though.

[Devlin345]

cfl only has 8 teams it would not be worthwhile making one they should just put a cfl mode in madden

[pietasterp]

Re: The SEC Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

I dont get this line of thinking:

One, I doubt this came as much of a surprise to EA and its lawyers after NCAA pulled out.

Two, EA knows from its past that the only thing that matters is teams. If Alabama pulls out...thats huge. If the SEC pulls out its logo...thats not.

Three, this actually saves EA money. They dont have to shell out a license fee just so they can use a logo.

I dont get how this is bad for EA right now. When the schools start to pull out, thats when the problem begins but as I stated before what incentive does a school have to pull out?

The CLC is already named in the suit. The CLC also provides protection (insurance and indemnification) when it comes to this lawsuit and all legal costs are shared amongst the schools. Why would a school pull itself out of the CLC (and thus out of EA's game) when staying will cost them no more money and pulling out means it doesnt get to share in EA's license money?

Time will tell; you may be right. But I think some people (myself among them) view this as a dominos situation, with one falling after another in succession. I think without the cover of the conferences and CLC, the individual schools may be more exposed in a legal sense to future similar litigation (which I would guess is what all of these pre-emptive moves are about).

It's true that not having to shell out for a license saves EA money in a direct sense, but if the number of people that don't buy the game because there is no "SEC" (no SEC title game, branding, etc.) results in a loss of revenue greater than the upfront fixed cost of securing the license, it will be a net loss for EA. My guess is that there are a lot of people that won't buy the game if there is no "SEC" in it, since most purchasers of the game are casual gamers, not hardcore, and just want to take Alabama or LSU to the SEC title game.

I think it's easy to envision individual schools, i.e. Notre Dame, taking a similar prophylactic tack as the conferences and reducing their exposure to future litigation. I would imagine that the logic of the SEC and B1G pulling out of their EA deals is the same calculus as exists for the individual schools. I don't know what's going to happen, and I don't know the law or the case well enough to say with any confidence, but it seems to me that it's only a matter of time before schools start bailing.

[pietasterp]

Re: SEC, Big Ten Won't License Trademarks in Future Video Games

The schools are already a part of the lawsuit though.

Collectively or individually? There are really 116+ defendents in the O'Bannan suit? I'm not asking rhetorically - I don't know the details of the case.