Blizzard opposes Valve's DOTA trademark application
by Mathew McCurley 
Feb 13th 2012 at 5:00PM
Valve hired on DOTA developer Icefrog to develop a new DOTA product from the ground up in house. Other DOTA developers went off to form Riot Games, which makes the incredibly popular League of Legends. And even as Riot tries to shift the nomenclature from DOTA to MOBA, the community that started it all is still winning out. Even Valve head honcho Gabe Newell said he didn't like the DOTA or MOBA acronym, instead substituting ARTS, or Action Real Time Strategy, in its place.
Filing an opposition does not necessarily mean that Blizzard wants to trademark DOTA -- it doesn't. Rather, an opposition makes light of information otherwise not seen and shows that there is more at stake and more people and parties have a stake in the word DOTA as being a community-owned term.
Valve and Gabe Newell responded to Blizzard's opposition by stating that the game being developed was a true sequel to DOTA and rightfully should have the moniker trademarked. However, the DOTA genre is still very much a term used to describe the three-lane tower setup of the classic DOTA map.
Blizzard will be releasing its own Blizzard DOTA game in the future through its brand new Battle.net Arcade system.
Filed under: Blizzard, News items
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Henry Feb 13th 2012 5:11PM
I love how Blizzard assumes they own the name "DOTA" when it was simply a mod NOT MADE BY THEM for their game. Dota 2 uses no models or anything from WarCraft III. Blizzard has no right to do this, especially a pathetic move as waiting until the game is almost finished to file this kind of crap. I hope they win, then I hope they turn it around and sue Blizzard for "Blizzard DOTA".
Samuel Feb 13th 2012 5:17PM
Did... did you even read the article?
Moeru Feb 13th 2012 5:22PM
"Filing an opposition does not necessarily mean that Blizzard wants to trademark DOTA -- it doesn't."
No one owns the name, but Blizzard holds the right to trademark the title of the map since it was created within their IP under their terms.
If you make anything using IP that's already out there, even if you do it within the legal rights given to you by the company, the company has the right to remove all support and restrict production if they want.
If they really want to make a sequel, just call it something else. It's not that big a deal, just looks at HoN and LoL. They're popular without the DOTA name slapped onto them.
Ad134 Feb 13th 2012 5:22PM
They can very well try, and yes they do have a right to do this. I don't think there's a chance in hell of Blizzard winning this though. IceFrog works at Valve and Blizzard have.... who exactly? Yes it's stupid, but Blizzard have every right to try, even though they'll most likely fail.
Jerry Feb 13th 2012 5:23PM
You are not understanding the situation.
Blizzard does not claim ownership over the name DOTA, nor do they want to copyright it themselves. What they want is for it to be a community term that can be freely used, much like "Real Time Strategy" or "RolePlaying Game". They are saying it should be used as a way to define what a game is, and not be able to copyright it for a game name.
Blizzard is trying to stop Valve from owning it and keeping it so that no one "owns" it. Blizzard doesn't want to own it themselves.
Dawts Feb 13th 2012 5:24PM
You need to read it again. Blizzard doesn't want the name, they want it to be public domain like it has been for nearly 10 years.
Sumadin Feb 13th 2012 5:26PM
Opposing a trademark =/= Claiming it yourself.
I am sick of people saying that Blizzard are trying to claiming it themself THEY ARE NOT. They also aren't trying to get dota 2 renamed or delayed like that. They are trying to keep the name open, and i think they got a good case.
Fact is the EULA of the WC3 editor states that Blizzard own all rights related to the mods. So them claiming that Valve alone can't have the right to the name is a fair move. A EULA is not legally binding in court(It can't be there is minors involved) but it would still help blizzards case.
Phil Feb 13th 2012 5:28PM
@Henry : Bliz doesn't care if they call the game DOTA. They care about the name becoming a brand of Valve. Since bliz will be releasing their own DOTA, what keeps Valve from suing them later? the name DOTA can't be registered in my opinion. It would be like having a copyright on FPS or RTS.
Also, anything created with the Warcraft 3 editor belongs to Blizzard, ok, maybe the name DOTA doesn't belong to them, but it doesn't belong to Valve either.
Notice that Blizzard isn't trying to register the name for themselves, they just want to keep Valve from owning the name of a genre, which would harm the whole industry.
As much as I love Gabe and Valve, I still have to side with Blizzard on this one.
BlindWorg Feb 13th 2012 5:34PM
Lets get this straight.
Valve is the one trying to trademark the name DOTA when they had previously had no connection to it. They had only hired an developer for the original DOTA, Icefrog, and seem to think that that is enough for their whole company to trademark the name or something.
Blizzard is filing an OPPOSITION, as it is just stated above. At this time, i dont know what their future plans for the trademarking is but right now they are just saying to Valve ''Dude, what gives you the right to do that?''
My piece of my mind on the matter, using common logic and whatever info i have scanned over on the subject without any special knowledge of trademark laws.
jordan Feb 13th 2012 5:34PM
Icefrog wasn't even the first person to use the term DOTA when making the mods. Besides, they signed over legal rights to the name in the Warcraft 3 TOS when they made the mod.
lazymangaka Feb 13th 2012 5:34PM
Did you even read the article? Blizzard's stance is that the term DOTA belongs to the community. They make no claim for it.
Snuzzle Feb 14th 2012 7:11AM
It's more like some company wanting to make a board game called "Board Game" and then trying to slap a trademark on it. And then Parker Bros comes along and goes "Whoa, man, you can't do that." Would you accuse Parker Bros of trying to claim the trademark?
No. They're just saying a board game is a type of game, and you can't trademark that or everyone else calling their game a "board game" gets in trouble. Not cool.
Zanathos Feb 15th 2012 6:37PM
How to internet: Read title of article, skip article, then proceed to offer opinion.
Sumadin Feb 13th 2012 5:15PM
I take it you have a The lawmaker in progress to discuss this.
Jebediah54 Feb 13th 2012 5:44PM
Wow, I read this as the Lawnmaker... needless to say I was quite confused as to why a lawn would be involved.
disembodlment Feb 13th 2012 5:17PM
Whats in a name?
Silversol Feb 14th 2012 12:24AM
I was going to make a comment about Shakespeare suing you. Then I had the scary thought of all the copyrights he'd have (since he's alive again) throughout history of everything that's been made from his works.
Noselacri Feb 13th 2012 5:19PM
Someone didn't read the entire article.
3rd paragraph.
'community-owned term'
Samuel Feb 13th 2012 5:27PM
So... how about that comment system?
Drakkenfyre Feb 13th 2012 5:33PM
I am not quite getting this because there was some controversy when Valve attempted to trademark the name to begin with, and the mod community was up in arms because it looked like a corporate grab of a mod creator's work. They specified that "DOTA2" was "DOTA2", and not "Defense of the Ancients", so they could trademark it without using the original mod's name, and keeping it free for modders to use.
So why Blizzard is jumping on this now, like TWO YEARS after the trademark attempt was announced, I don't know.
As far as Henry goes, they may not use the models, but almost all of the units are clearly based on WarCraft 3. I mean, a blond female spellcaster named Jana? Come on. That has nothing to do with the trademark, but still. It's not like Valve is completely in the clear when the game is obviously still based on WarCraft 3.