EA Sues EA Over The EA Trademark
from the who's-on-first dept
Kingster writes in to let us know about an interesting trademark infringement case. In this case, the makers of Madden football games, EA (Electronic Arts), is suing the makers of sports wristbands, EA (Energy Armor), for trademark infringement. The main rub here is that Energy Armor markets its wristbands using a logo that is strikingly similar to Electronic Arts logo. Electronic Arts also claims that because Energy Armor markets its wristbands as sports equipment, the trademarks overlap and can cause confusion in the market place.
Electronic Arts has a very strong case for brand confusion and I really don't see any way out of this mess for Energy Armor other than to change its name or lose in court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Are you part of the #occupytechdirt movement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What, are you too afraid of losing your job if you disagree with them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
REALLY!!?? How much, exactly, oh all knowing mega-accountant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like you. How much do you get paid per post? Care to come clean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I make absolutely zero dollars and zero sense from Techdirt. Techdirt has never paid me one dime. Nor have I ever asked them to. I write about what I find interesting, they kindly post my work, and I make reference to that work in my business.
More importantly, why do you care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After all, doesn't everybody here get paid like the shills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can certainly vouch for that. There are times when you make absolutely no 'sense'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Link, please? Not that I really care, I'm just interested in whether or not you're BSing again, TAM....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/10/registry-of-interests.html
Glynn's own blog. Techdirt is one of his three main sources of income.
Don't you feel like you are getting shafted writing for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A commercial blog paid a writer for his product. That's certainly an embarrassment, isn't it? Clearly, this shows that techdirt is somehow shady. It might be different there was an accepted and longstanding practice for publishers to pay writers for their writing.
Seriously, I'm not even sure why this was considered troll-worthy in the first place, let alone of enough import to bring up a second time.
The only explanation I can think of is that you must hate capitalism, you socialist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, no, I don't feel shafted in any way. I love Techdirt. I love the articles, the community, the commenting, even the detractors. The chance to write about something I'm passionate about and have it posted here is rewarding enough for me. In addition, as I mentioned before, I reference my writing for Techdirt in my work, both in my "real" job as a technology consultant, and you better believe I reference my writing for Techdirt in every query letter that goes out to an agent or publisher.
Pay comes in different ways. I assure you, I am EXCEPTIONALLY well paid for what I do with Techdirt, even if that pay isn't based on paper or silver....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about Zach, but I've written a couple of articles for Techdirt, and Mike didn't pay me a dime. (He didn't offer, and I didn't ask.)
The accusation that people are paid to post here is one that has been cropping up recently from those who are trying to slander Techdirt, and it is completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah. Since one person got paid to post articles here, that must mean that everyone who posts comments that you don't agree with are paid to shill Mike's opinions.
Yeah, that makes sense.
This is really just a transparent attempt to discredit the opinions of anyone who vaguely agrees with Mike. It is, of course, total nonsense, and nobody is buying it. I'm sure that won't stop you all from bringing it up ad nauseum, whether relevant or not, since you don't have any response to the merits of the arguments themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright - prevents the public from copying stuff.
Patents - prevents the public from making stuff.
Trademark - protects the public from buying stuff they didn't mean to buy.
Wait, one of those is not like the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though, given what the product is, I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone who is deceived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, I resemble that remark!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, I resemble that remark!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
That said, this seems like a pretty genuine case for EA. Although, considering there's some ill feelings out there for Electronic Arts over things they've done to their customer base, if I did confuse these logos at first glance I'd not have wanted anything to do with Energy Armor products anyway. Gotta keep up my personal boycott, you see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change its name?!
They're similar and off the cuff I might think Energy Armor logo was for EA.
But change their name? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change its name?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change its name?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change its name?!
My other question is: did Electronic Arts lead with a lawsuit, or did they try a cease-and-desist letter first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I know how the stakeholders of this company selected a name, "hmm.. let's think of an established company with great brand recognition in the sports industry and then we can create a knock-off logo." Seriously who would name a company that creates wristbands "Energy Armour", its almost like they are trying to rip on Electronic Arts and UnderAmour. A very flagrant attempt to mislead consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Better go tell some gamers they can now compete in the Olympics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try a little harder, eh?
Nuance, subtlety, the correct mix of confused dignity, righteous anger, and certitude--these things are required to master "Trolling".
Keep at, you'll get, but you need practice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They use pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But given EA's general antics, I'd be more wary of buying one of these things for fear of it trying to use an EULA to lock off access to my own arm, more then trusting that it would be a high-quality product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few giant dysfunctional companies have sued themselves before for violating their own copyright/patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...were you in a hurry while you were reading it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope
First of all, Electronic Arts is a gaming company. One of their titles is sports-related; but they also make Mass Effect, Battlefield, and the Star Wars games. A maker of wristbands is not in the same product space.
To see how dangerous this is, turn it around. Suppose Energy Armor was in business for thirty years, and then Electronic Arts wanted to put out Madden NFL. They would be prevented from doing so, due to a trademark violation against Energy Armor. Electronic Arts - which had, until that point, built up a brand around its video games - would have to change its logo across its entire product line to put out the game.
Second of all, the logos have different fonts, and the lettering looks very different. The only things they have in common are that they are "e" and "a," with the "e" being slanted.
To see how common this style is, let's again flip it around, and see how often something similar is used with A and E.
Applied Engineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Engineering
Associated Engineering:
http://www.ae.ca/
Alexander Emelyanenko:
http://www.emelyanenko.com/en/ae_team/
Atlantic Express:
http://www.atlanticexpress.com/
This is not to say that Energy Armor is not intentionally deceiving consumers. But it has nothing to do with Electronic Arts. It has to do with the fact that their "negative ion" wristbands are 100% snake oil, no more legit than homeopathy or phrenology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
The overlap here is mostly because EA (game) distributes a lot of physical goods as advertising for their sports game.
Heck if EA (bands) had used a different color or texture background then there wouldn't be as strong as a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
This would be a very dangerous precedent if we can allow companies to essentially trademark a slanted letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
So Yes, I can see someone catching a glance of these wrist bands at the mall and thinking they are Electronic Arts sponsored wrist bands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
While yes, there are differentiating marks to the logos, as you point out, they are similar enough that when confronted with a bunch of Electronic Arts merchandise and some Energy Armor merchandise next to it, a customer could be confused.
Now an informed customer, one who takes the time to research their purchase, would not be confused. However, we are talking about a large scale of customers. How many of them take the time to carefully study the product they are looking to buy, especially with wrist bands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
No - how the various holders of similar AE marks haven'tbothered to sue each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
Actually, it was about how the typographical idea of slanting one letter to match another is incredibly common. (In "AE," the first letter, "A," is slanted to the right, so its right leg is the horizontal part of the E. In "EA," it's the reverse - the first letter, "E," is slanted to the right, to match the "A.")
Aside from having the letters "E" and "A," this is the only thing the logos have in common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope
The marks that I linked to did not use "AE" as a single vowel, but used them as an abbreviation for the letters "A" and "E."
In any case, I think it just proves my point. The idea of slanting one letter to match another, is so common-sense, that it has been used to combine letters for as long as that vowel has been around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
So don't be dissing Phrenology. It is to science what Scientology is to religion - completely legitimate, grounded in verifiable fact, and of tremendous benefit to those who receive its ministrations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recognize and trust? Are we still talking about EA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good comment from Karl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good comment from Karl
I probably worded it a bit stronger than I intended, but hopefully I made my point.
I do see a remote possibility for trademark confusion; I just happen to disagree that it crosses the line into infringement.
And, yeah, the product is pure nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the ride, please.
I sit here stunned my entire world has just collapsed.
This has not been a good day on the internet, this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... and can cause confusion in the market place..."
At what store will I be going to shopping an EA marked item and suddenly by the wrong one... a shirt instead of a video game? Yes there are places and products where the name is simply how you refer to the product, Coach purses for example. When refering to the product it's always a coach purse because just labeling it purse doesn't count... or so says my wife. Now I don't say it's an EA game because calling it just 'game' would suddenly change how it is referred to. EA sells video games for around the same price as other video game companies. However when you talk Coach vs. Mossimo were talking a couple of hundred bucks in price difference.
In the end, saying that confusion is the source why one logo should never have any amount of similarity to another is simply saying 'i can't trust consumers to by my product based off of the logo alone'... thanks for the trust... i'll go buy somebody elses product not because of the log but because of the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Title, Shame About The Body
If you went to 100 graphic artists and asked for an EA logo, probably 95 of them would come up with a similar merged/sloping logo. I don't believe there is any intent to leverage the EA name, and that the full "Energy Armor" text below the logo should make that very clear.
Electronic Arts can't hold a trademark on every use of the EA abbreviation. There are bound to be physical products out there with similar logos to theirs, both before and after the "original" EA was founded. Karl said it well, TechDirt has done some great stories, but this article is tabloid junk.
If Electronic Arts changes their logo next year, and it's similar to some other company in another market space, I hope they have just painted a big red target on their backs with this, but arguing the market spaces need not be too close. Hey, it's their argument. I hope someone else uses it against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dare they...
What's that? Energy Armor didn't do any of those things?
Then how the hell are they being confused with EA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logo
> for Energy Armor other than to change its name
> or lose in court.
The don't need to change their name. Just stop using the deceptively similar EA logo.
Other than the logo, there's nothing confusing about the two businesses at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, the logo for EA Sports is much more similar. It has the text SPORTS below the EA logo. The EA Sports logo is also trademarked, so I'm wondering if gamasutra just mixed up which trademark is being threatened here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EA is right for once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]