Epic Games is no stranger to legal battles, especially as of late. Currently, they're in the midst of a drawn-out fight against Apple, but now they're beginning another court case against another company: Nreal. We've covered Nreal's various products in the past, which range from mixed reality headsets, to smart glasses; the company is one that dabbles in virtual and augmented reality technology, not typically gaming, but that hasn't stopped them from catching Epic Games' attention. Epic posits that Nreal both looks and sounds too similar to their own Unreal Engine, to the point that they're suing Nreal over "willfully trading off Epic’s rights, causing confusion, and acting with callous disregard for Epic’s prior rights", and making a profit by "confusing consumers" with the name.

The lawsuit, which was filed last week, aims to prevent Nreal from obtaining a trademark in the United States. It also appears to be seeking compensation from Nreal for multiple forms of damages and the reimbursement of Epic's legal costs. According to the legal papers, this has been an ongoing issue for years; Nreal attempted to obtain a trademark for its name in 2018, to which Epic Games opposed their application. With the American launch of Nreal's products quickly approaching according to a recent teaser made on the company's Twitter, and reportedly no attempt from them to discuss the problem outside of court, Epic has decided to move forward with the lawsuit.

Source

 

[FAST6191]

We appear to be going round and round in circles here.

From where I sit

Epic, owners of the Unreal trademark as it pertains to games, see a new company called nreal try to come onto the market. nreal being primarily focused on some virtual reality tech and thus also under the same category of trademark or overlapping ones.
Epic, including via their unreal trademark, have a major interest in VR and ancillary/precursor technologies, and even if not it is eminently plausible that they could move into the space (many of their competitors doing very similar things already have* and while I remain dubious myself that this time is the time it happens (still think we are some 7 years out) there are those looking to play and thinking it the next big thing) even if the mere category overlap alone is not enough.
Even if epic/unreal don't typically sanction or stamp peripherals and other technologies with their badge of approval (though there is some on both the software front and hardware front, to say nothing of things like https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/11/theres_a_fortnite_branded_dualshock_4_controller_now ) it never the less remains a common practice in other aspects in industry (many companies owning peripheral makers, sanctioning such things and otherwise doing what needs doing) and a possibility that trademark law is there to afford as a future action. They could turn around and say all new unreal engine games will have this enabled by default and is supported by this device only (exclusivity is a silly thing for VR peripherals but never the less seems to be the way that aspect of things works these days) and would likely be considered a boon to the device maker.
Unreal is a customer focused brand (it being on the box of many things and advertised prominently within the games it features in) and at least theoretically something a customer might use to weigh up the quality of a product**, as they might for its parent company too. Presumably still within good standing and actively used in commerce/protection of it undertaken.

*microsoft, steam, google, sony and arguably facebook all having more than dipped a toe in these waters, and oculus and samsung have their own thing going on with samsung having fairly substantial dealings with epic. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ele...-vr-game-portfolio-with-new-launch-2020-12-14 , https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/franchise/virtual-reality-games/ ... yeah.

**the nature and versions of engines being commonly discussed among the enthusiast set and used as a selling point or detractor at times. How much granny (though it has been in external use since 1999) or something knows unreal engine and thinks can't be all bad like they think Nintendo on the box means "family friendly" I don't know but for the purposes of a court I doubt we would be stretching credibility here, and such things are kind of one of the major reasons for trademarks too.

The contention then comes in as to whether those hearing nreal, which is often pronounced very similarly to unreal (this device is by nreal being a more than plausible phrase to hear, game supported by nreal being another if allowed to come to market), or maybe glancing quickly (harder to sell but has been done) might mistake it for being sanctioned or supporting unreal and thus causing Epic/Unreal some loss of good will by dint of appearing to sanction a potentially poor item or one not as widely supported as they might like. The stupidity of the would be general consumer in trademark cases like this is often quite considerable ( https://notalwaysright.com/ has nothing on what trademark cases often assume when it comes to dealing with the sophistication of the general public, and the granny confuser ploy is fairly well documented in both games and media at large).

Stranger things have happened than nreal being allowed to move forward with such things but at the same time this is well within the standard remit of a trademark dispute.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

I prefer the PCP Station, it is for a much more hardcore fanbase.
View attachment 263512

The virgin ps5 vs the chad pcp station

 

[LightBeam]

Alright then I'll sue people who got a similar name because « idk one day I might get into this business and I would want to use one of my brands, the Unreal headset, so I'll sue them so maybe I'll be able to do it. If I want to. » basically

 

[Deleted User]

... The Comments here are practically what will happen in the Courtroom, from the perspective of why this Case shouldn't be laughed out by the Judge.

As such and as will happen, unless there's an argument that is contradictory to American Law, it's up to the Judge whether this gets through; if it's the first of its kind, then it will become a Precedent for future Cases.

 

[LightBeam]

... The Comments here are practically what will happen in the Courtroom, from the perspective of why this Case shouldn't be laughed out by the Judge.

As such and as will happen, unless there's an argument that is contradictory to American Law, it's up to the Judge whether this gets through; if it's the first of its kind, then it will become a Precedent for future Cases.

Idk it'll go that far, as samcambolt270 said I think they'll go for a settlement and you'll never hear about it again, we just hear it now because it's Epic and Unreal and we want to bash them whenever we can, it'll cost less for both of them. It's clearly not like with the Apple suit where it looks like they really want to be able to release their store on iOS

 

[smf]

Branding a car product with "tessla" could violate trademark, specifically because it could cause confusion. No personally could reasonably get confused by seeing a pair of ar sunglasses that say nreal and think they're made by the game engine or epic games. They are not related in any way.

AR glasses and game engines are just as related as cars and car seat covers.

Nreal ar headsets will be sold on the same shelf in a store as games powered by unreal engine.

If tessla branded car products could violate create confusion then nreal ar glasses that are used to play games using the unreal engine could also create confusion.

Pick a computer accessory that apple don't make and try to sell it with a brand name that people could confuse with apple and see how far your "bbbbbbbut apple don't sell this particular product" argument will go.

Idk it'll go that far, as samcambolt270 said I think they'll go for a settlement and you'll never hear about it again,

Epic tried dealing with it out of court two years ago, but nreal were uncooperative.

So I'm not sure there will be a settlement.

Alright then I'll sue people who got a similar name because « idk one day I might get into this business and I would want to use one of my brands, the Unreal headset, so I'll sue them so maybe I'll be able to do it. If I want to. » basically

Unreal are already in the 3d computer graphics business that the ar headset is also in.

But you can sue whoever you want, it's a waste of money unless you win though.

You seem upset that epic might be able to win.

 

[samcambolt270]

AR glasses and game engines are just as related as cars and car seat covers.

You have literally no idea how trademark law works. Go actually read the laws, caselaw, peer reviewed articles, get a bachelor's degree, then come back.

 

[placebo_yue]

Guys, it doesn't matter if one is a game engine and the other is an AR headset. I can't come up with a streaming service named Mintendo, or a TV brand called Zega, or a clothes brand called Nattel, or a toys brand called Lagitech. I could go on but the point is clear.
Copyrights involve more than the actual specific thing the brand sells or does (if it's a service or an artist or whatever). Meaning, i could probably open a fried chicken store called Beyoncé, but if im a filmmaker or something art-related besides obviously a singer/band, it's most likely a no-no.

Epic is in it's right to sue, Nreal is literally a letter away from being Unreal, and the product is sorta related, it's not a fried chicken store.

 

[samcambolt270]

Guys, it doesn't matter if one is a game engine and the other is an AR headset. I can't come up with a streaming service named Mintendo, or a TV brand called Zega

I'll give you the same advice I gave smf. Go to law school. In particular, study the concept of mark strength, as well as arbitrary and fanciful marks and how those in particular increase the strength of a trademark. "Nintendo" is not a word, meaning that you can't use it for other marks nearly at all. However, if your mark is just a word (Ie: unreal) than that mark is weak and can be used in nearly any context in which the word "unreal" would fit as a descriptive mark for your product (virtual/augmented reality).
This is, of course, not going into the dozens of other reasons epic doesn't have a claim, including dissimilarity of product, but I'll leave that for you to discover when you spend years learning law.

 

[placebo_yue]

I'll give you the same advice I gave smf. Go to law school. In particular, study the concept of mark strength, as well as arbitrary and fanciful marks and how those in particular increase the strength of a trademark. "Nintendo" is not a word, meaning that you can't use it for other marks nearly at all. However, if your mark is just a word (Ie: unreal) than that mark is weak and can be used in nearly any context in which the word "unreal" would fit as a descriptive mark for your product (virtual/augmented reality).
This is, of course, not going into the dozen other reasons pic doesn't have a claim, including dissimilarity of product, but I'll leave that for you to discover when you spend years learning law.

im not gonna study law bro, thanks for your advice but stop telling people to study law, you're free to correct me and put those years to good use tho.

 

[LightBeam]

You seem upset that epic might be able to win.

Not really, it's just that I really don't see the point and the arguments given fail to convince me, but it may be because of my own bias. I don't like Epic that much nowadays that's true, but I can't blame them for defending their properties. It still looks like a reach to me but as you said, the court will decide so whatever, the court will tell me if it really was a reach or not.

To me, « Unreal Engine » is the name, it's the brand, not just « Unreal ». Because we usually say « it uses Unreal Engine 4 » when we talk about a game's engine. We say « it uses Unity » or « Unity Engine » but I have almost never seen someone say « it uses Unreal » because even inside Epic's engines it could describe multiple things : are you talking about Unreal the game ? About Unreal Tournament ? If yes, what game ? Unreal Engine ? But what version ? 1 2 3 or 4 ? Or the 5th that is coming ? While if you say that « a game uses Unity », Unity is its own thing, you can't really confuse it with anything else imo unless there were games that were called « Unity » maybe

But yeah if nobody is going to convince nobody, there's no point, better wait for the court judgement, it was still interesting to talk about it tho

 

[smf]

To me, « Unreal Engine » is the name, it's the brand, not just « Unreal »

I'm not convinced, otherwise the Unreal Development Kit would have been called The Unreal Engine Development Kit.

Unreal Engine is a product, Unreal seems more like a brand that covers the games and engine & I think that is what they will argue in court.

This is, of course, not going into the dozens of other reasons epic doesn't have a claim, including dissimilarity of product, but I'll leave that for you to discover when you spend years learning law.

The products don't have to be similar, it only needs for people to be mislead into thinking that the company that renders 3d images has produced a headset for displaying them. In that regard they are certainly related enough for a claim if they were using the name Unreal, without the U the Nreal lawyers can make a counter argument. But for me, they would need to explain why they have the letter N and then the word real. It seems like they want to avoid calling it unreal in print to avoid the trademark, but have it called unreal when speaking to gain association with unreal.

However it very much looks like the products are similar anyway https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nced.187547/gov.uscourts.nced.187547.1.0.pdf

Epic has ten registrations for “UNREAL” alone or in connection with another term for a wide range of goods and services including but not limited to software, video games, virtual worlds, and 3D visualizations, animations, and platforms.

Nreal does not just sell glasses, it has already developed and sold a game to be used with those glasses. Nreal is willfully trading off Epic’s rights, causing confusion, and acting with callous disregard for Epic’s prior rights.

6. Nreal’s use of NREAL, a trademark that looks and sounds virtually identical to Epic’s UNREAL trademark, in connection with products that overlap with Epic’s UNREALbranded products and services is likely to confuse consumers.


According to its pending trademark application, Nreal intends to use the NREAL mark in connection not just with mixed reality glasses that can be used with content created using Unreal Engine, but for “[d]esign and development of computer game software and virtual reality software”—thus positioning itself squarely as a direct competitor to Epic.

Were you absent from law school on the day where they explained you should read the court filing before expressing an opinion of the validity of a case?

 

[samcambolt270]

The products don't have to be similar, it only needs for people to be mislead into thinking that the company that renders 3d images has produced a headset for displaying them.

Yes they do. It literally says that in the law itself verbatim. Besides, The factor holding the most weight among the factors according to the caselaw of polaroid v. polarad is in fact similarity of product.

 

[smf]

Yes they do. It literally says that in the law itself verbatim. Besides, The factor holding the most weight among the factors according to the caselaw of polaroid v. polarad is in fact similarity of product.

Yes, and if you bothered to read polaroid v polarad then you'd know the two companies were mostly operating in entirely different industries. Not just manufacturing different products in the same industry.

Conceding that the bulk of its business is in optics and photography, lines not pursued by defendant,

If polorad had gone any where near photography then they would have lost, even if the products had no relationship to any polaroid products.

If defendant should move into new territory more closely related to optics and photography, different considerations as to laches as well as on the merits will, of course, apply.

The situation with Apple Records was pretty farcical in comparison with this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

 

[samcambolt270]

If defendant should move into new territory more closely related to optics and photography, different considerations as to laches as well as on the merits will, of course, apply.

You literally said quote "products don't have to be similar" then rebut with "but if you read it, you'd know that the case said if their products were similar, they'd have lost." You're arguing against yourself now. The case literally said their products weren't similar.

even if the products had no relationship to any polaroid products.

no, that's not what it said. At all. Literally read the quote you just posted. It says absolutely nothing about "even if their products were not similar." You're adding your own qualifiers to it that do not exist in the text. It argues that if there products were MORE similar, they would have lost. Maybe instead of studying law, you should go back to studying english, because you seem to lack reading comprehension.

 

[smf]

then rebut with "but if you read it, you'd know that the case said if their products were similar, they'd have lost."

No I didn't say that.

you should go back to studying english, because you seem to lack reading comprehension.

You appear to be the one that has no clue how to read what I wrote or the case.

You should stop digging.

 

[samcambolt270]

No, it said they were in different businesses.

Read the whole case, not just a quote you found on google.

 

[smf]

Read the whole case, not just a quote you found on google.

I read the whole case. As you are lying about what I said and what the case says, then it seems we are done.

Neither "Photography" or "optics" is a product.

 

[samcambolt270]

I read the whole case. As you are lying about what I said and what the case says, then it seems we are done.

Oh did you? Then you'd have read the part about how strength of mark widens the range of what can be considered a similar product... but you didn't.

 

[smf]

Oh did you? Then you'd have read the part about how strength of mark widens the range of what can be considered a similar product... but you didn't.

But the decision was based on "photography" and "optics", which aren't specific products they are areas of business.

If you want to play word gymnastics. Nreal and Unreal are 3d graphics products.

The two products don't have to be similar like both headsets or both 3d engines, they are both similar as they are 3d graphics products.

And if you had read the whole of polaroid vs polarad you'd know it supports my argument. Unless you're deluded, which is possible.

And if you read Unreal's filing then you'd know that nreal aren't just making headsets, but you probably don't want to go near that as it also kills your argument.