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

 

[samcambolt270]

But the decision was based on "photography" and "optics", which aren't products.

No it wasn't. It was based on four totally different factors, two of which hinged specifically on quote "the dissimilarity of their product" and absolutely none of which even referenced the industry. You think a random quote in the middle is the justification for the decision? Read the actual case, not just a brief on law.justia.com.

 

[smf]

No it wasn't. It was based on four totally different factors, two of which hinged specifically on quote "the dissimilarity of their product" and absolutely none of which even referenced the industry. You think a random quote in the middle is the justification for the decision? Read the actual case, not just a brief on law.justia.com.

I'm trying to find the quotes you pulled out in the case and it doesn't find them.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...,122,127,129&case=2293827617926067028&scilh=0

Are you paraphrasing?

The important part for me is.

What gives us some pause is defendant's heavy involvement in a phase of electronics that lies closer to plaintiff's business, namely, television.

 

[samcambolt270]

I'm trying to find the quotes you pulled out in the case and it doesn't find them.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...,122,127,129&case=2293827617926067028&scilh=0

Are you paraphrasing?

That's because that's not the case. That's an appeal.

 

[smf]

That's because that's not the case. That's an appeal.

Right, which supersedes the case. Why bother with the original case when the decision that matters is the appeal.

 

[samcambolt270]

Right, which supersedes the case.

No, it only supercedes if it doesn't affirm the case. It affirmed, making the decision stand. Their reasoning for maintaining a decision does not change the caselaw regarding the decision.

 

[smf]

No, it only supercedes if it doesn't affirm the case. It affirmed, making the decision stand. Their reasoning for maintaining a decision does not change the caselaw regarding the decision.

No, the appeals court can come to the same conclusion for a different reason.

The original case does not become case law just because the appeals court comes to the same conclusion, that's just daft.

The reasons for coming to the conclusion given in the last appeal are all that is important.

If you went to law school then ask for a refund.

 

[samcambolt270]

the appeals court can come to the same conclusion for a different reason.

Yes, but that does not make their reasoning become caselaw. They can affirm the decision for whatever reason they see fit and it does not make future cases take those reasons into account. Affirmations only hold for the decision.

The original case does not become case law just because the appeals court comes to the same conclusion, that's just daft.

The original case becomes caselaw by simply being decided and being unique in ways that change or add to understanding of the definitions set forth by the laws in question. The appeal coming to the same conclusion does not supercede the original courts reasoning or change caselaw. THAT is daft.

 

[smf]

The original case becomes caselaw by simply being decided and being unique in ways that change or add to understanding of the definitions set forth by the laws in question. The appeal coming to the same conclusion does not supercede the original courts reasoning or change caselaw. THAT is daft.

The original court partly based their decision on laches, which the appeals court pointed out and explained how their decision might have been different if that wasn't the case & that is important. It would be pointless if the lower courts ignored the appeals courts guidance as it will just end up there again the next time. Unreal vs Nreal does not have the same issue as Epic have not delayed.

But also Nreal appear to be making 3d software as well, so it doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of our time arguing over polaroid vs polarad as their conclusion seems to be particularly irrelevant as it was based on completely different industries & not just similar products in the same industry.

Which I've tried pointing out, but you seem to have trouble understanding because you just want to win & so are willing to misrepresent what I've said to do so.

If you want to actually discuss this then maybe act a bit more lawerly. I'll run everything you say past my trademark lawyer, she loves all this kind of stuff.

 

[samcambolt270]

The original court partly based their decision on laches, which the appeals court pointed out and explained how their decision might have been different if that wasn't the case.

The appeal's speculation of what could have happened were circumstances different is not caselaw and is not relevent. Circumstances were not different and the case's original reasoning remains caselaw. The original case's decision, including the factors I've quoted that current courts still use are what's valid, not the appeal's speculation.

But also Nreal appear to be making 3d software as well

Games are not game engines. Were the trademark strong (fanciful and arbitrary) then it would almost certainly be considered similar, but it isn't. Regardless, that's irrelevant.

If you want to actually discuss this then maybe act a bit more lawerly.

If you want to actually discuss this then maybe actually try to understand how the law works and don't google random shit acting like you know what it means. Apparently, quoting cases, summarizing laws and correcting people who clearly don't know what they're talking about isn't lawyerly. You've clearly never met one if you think that's the case. You've so far floundered to understand the bare minimum layman's knowledge of how law works. Take your own advice.