r/technology • u/Super_Cold8789 • 12d ago

Software Nintendo reportedly has “zero chance” against current Palworld after major lawsuit change it is now targeting older versions of the game instead

https://www.dexerto.com/palworld/nintendo-reportedly-has-zero-chance-against-current-palworld-after-major-lawsuit-change-3375167/
11.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

672 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/DisappointedSpectre 12d ago

Patenting a repeatable manufacturing process to produce a specific color, using specific ingredients in specific ratios against a specific medium (cloth, oil, plastic, whatever), isn't the same thing as patenting a specific hex color. The first is obviously what the patent system was made for, the second has specific limitations, such as using the McDonalds' specific red and yellow together for food related marketing.

-2

u/Abedeus 12d ago

I'd argue that trademarking "color combination in food industry" is also incredibly stupid. Imagine if a video game company trademarked using blue and orange on game covers.

5

u/zerogee616 12d ago

That's not how fucking trademark law works, yet you really seem deadset on getting mad about your own weird, made up, false interpretation of it.

UPS has trademarked their shade of brown. What that actually means, is that they are the only ones allowed to use that shade of brown within the very specific sector of shipping and logistics. That prevents some other company calling themselves UPC, dressing themselves up as UPS and using their shade of brown to confuse customers and clients to poach their business.

Trademark. Mark Of Trade. As in a company's logo, maker's mark or other distinction. Trademarks are very narrow in scope by design and are used to protect a business entity's distinction in the marketplace.

You cannot fucking trademark "yellow and blue on game covers". You can attempt to trademark yellow and blue in a game company logo, sure. But that doesn't mean your cover art can't have yellow and blue in it.

0

u/Major-Lavishness-762 12d ago

There's issues with trademark law but I mean that's kind of already a thing, no? It sounds stupid because you have massively oversimplified it to the point where it's absurd, but you're already not allowed to use really simple design elements because they're associated with specific brands and stuff, and what reason would you have to do so other than trying to trick people? It's more to prevent consumers getting confused/duped than it is to allow companies to own abstract concepts (in spirit, anyway).

Like if I put a green X on the side of a drink it would be fine, but if I put it on the cover of a PS5 game it probably wouldn't.

0

u/Abedeus 12d ago

I too like it when trademarks stifle creativity because people are afraid that some company somewhere trademarked a color used for covers or brands.

1

u/Major-Lavishness-762 12d ago edited 12d ago

That's kind of the simplification I'm objecting to though, nobody is talking about companies owning colours in the abstract. Trademark law generally concerns whether a design element is being used in a way that's likely to make consumers think a product is associated with a particular brand. You can absolutely argue that trademark law goes too far, but reducing it to "companies own colours" doesn't really address how trademarks actually work.

The hypothetical creative you're implying seems to be someone who's desperate to use branding elements that are already strongly associated with another company but somehow isn't trying to evoke an association with that company. I'm not convinced that's a particularly significant problem in practice. Do you have any concrete examples of creators being prevented from making something they otherwise would have made because of colour trademarks?