Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsRumble Between the Junglers: Questions about the DotA name
by Mathew McCurley 
Feb 24th 2012 at 9:00AM
Behind the scenes, people are moving about, reading papers and commenting on filings and jockeying around the words of a paragraph to make it "feel" nicer. We don't like using the word "community," one might say, because it is a sympathetic word, and we do not need sympathy at this hearing. Thousands of dollars an hour are thrown at the problem for however long the team needs to work on it. I bet there were a few nice late-night sushi orders.
These are the stars of the show -- two copyright and trademark filing teams, potentially backed up by a litigation team, positioning over the DotA trademark ownership issue. Last week on The Lawbringer, I gave a summary of what is happening between Valve, Blizzard, Riot Games, and the DotA community, concluding that the fight over who owns the DotA name has to be fought now because of a fight brewing for years as the genre grew.
In order to expand our minds just a bit and start thinking like we want to understand the problem, we need to build a framework around the DotA issue with questions about what this is all about. Let's boil the issues down to simple questions.
Why would someone want to trademark DotA?
Trademark is a powerful tool that allows companies, brands, businesses, and creators have control over the brands they create, fighting against brand abuse, unlawful fraud or copying, and diluting a brand's good name through imposters. We like trademarks because they let Coke have the Coke trademark and we, as consumers, know where to go is something is wrong with our Coke. Brands matter, which is why DotA matters.
Not only is trademark powerful in protecting brand identity, but it is supremely powerful in making the trademark holder a glorious amount of money. When you hold powerful and popular trademarks, licensing becomes a second-nature monetary explosion. The Blizzard logo is not cheap, people.
So, money, really. And rights and protection of your brand. But mostly money. Having a trademark also has the added side effect mega-bonus of not being available to your competitors, who are now forbidden to use a popular acronym and name when advertising their products.
Who owns whatever rights there are?
You would think that this would be a simple, open-and-shut, follow-the-paper-trail type thing and we could see who did what work on the original Defense of the Ancients and subsequent versions. Sadly, that's not the case. No one at DotA-Allstars, Guinsoo, IceFrog, or any of the developers, from what I could gather, thought to or sought to trademark the DotA name because it was the community's label. If anything, I'd have pegged the fight would be over the "DotA-Allstars" name, which is still very trademarkable and probably already is.
Who owns what rights? The judge is going to decide, because we don't know. Guinsoo made the popular map, but Eul made the first one. IceFrog took over development of the map but not of DotA-Allstars, Inc., the company founded by Steve Mescon to run the distribution website for DotA-Allstars.
The community, which recently have gained a strong ally in Blizzard, believes the DotA name is a genre descriptor rather than a proper name, game name, or otherwise. The DotA-style map descriptor is synonymous with the game styles of hundreds of custom maps all over Blizzard's games currently, as well as commercial successes Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, and Blizzard's own upcoming Blizzard DOTA.
Does IceFrog, the DotA developer who took over the project after Guinsoo and many other developers went off to work on their own mega-project, have claim to the DotA name? He did take over development of the most popular map variant, but what rights were even available to him when he took over the reins?
My biggest concern over Valve's attempt to trademark DotA is that Gabe Newell doesn't even like the acronym. In an interview with Gamasutra back in August of 2011, Gabe Newell and Erik Johnson sat down with Christian Nutt to discuss DOTA 2. Here's where things get a little weird for me. First, Nutt asks Newell about the MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) genre coming into existence, using the genre name that Riot champions for League of Legends. Gabe responds by saying he doesn't know what MOBA means, and that "action RTS" better describes the genre:
Gabe's confusion as per the genre name is understandable -- we have not come to a consensus as to what to call this genre besides DotA, which we have been calling it since the original DotA days. But what is surprising is that he doesn't even want to lump DOTA 2 in with the other guys' genres -- he has his own.Gamasutra: Suddenly MOBA is a genre, right? Though I don't know if you guys consider Dota 2 MOBA -- that's what [League of Legends developer] Riot calls it.
Gabe Newell: We usually call it an "action RTS", just because that seems to make a lot of sense to customers. If you say that, they have a pretty good idea what you're talking about. I don't even know what MOBA stands for.
The next exchange is the poignant one. Gabe is told what MOBA means, and Erik Johnson acknowledges that naming a young genre is hard because it has to explain to gamers what experience they can expect. Gaming is all about experience control. Gabe professes his love for the "ARTS" acronym and then goes on to say the acronym doesn't matter as long as people know what you're talking about.
Gabe Newell obviously doesn't like the name DotA for the genre that DOTA 2 itself is a part of. If Gabe doesn't like DotA, why does he want DotA trademarked? Oh, right, brand recognition.Gamasutra: Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.
Erik Johnson: I knew that!
Gabe Newell: I didn't.
EJ: But yeah, naming your genre, especially a young one, is just tool to kind of help explain to customers what kind of game you have.
GN: I also like the acronym for ARTS -- Action RTS.
Gamasutra: That's more charming, I think.
GN: I don't think the name of the genre matters -- as long as customers know what you're talking about.
Here are my two reactions. First, if Gabe doesn't like the acronym DotA because it doesn't tell you anything about the game from the title, which he obviously wants you to be able to glean from the genre descriptor, does that comment on his naming of the product DOTA 2? If DotA is so weak and easily dismissed as the name of the genre, why is it on the front of your box and on Blizzard's upcoming game?
My second reaction was that if DotA isn't a good enough descriptor of the genre, what is? Gabe doesn't even mention DotA as the genre descriptor. Is it action real-time strategy? Maybe. It doesn't feel that way to me. Blizzard DOTA had a very unique feel to it, for instance, utilizing similar mechanics and ideas but introducing vast new concepts that change the flow of the game completely. It's still a DotA-esque online multiplayer experience with hero/champion selection, item purchasing, and lanes of battle, just like everyone else, with a twist.
So DotA is a weak community descriptor of the genre because it does not say anything about what the genre entails or explains the gameplay experience, but is strong enough to warrant trademark protection, exclusive rights, a million-dollar tournament, and the faith of a devout community of gamers? Interesting.
Foolishness
In my opinion, fighting over the DotA name is incredibly foolish. Valve is only stirring up a very passionate group of gamers by trying to take this name. It doesn't matter if that's actually what's happening, but the perception is that Valve wants to take DotA.
Yes, the DotA brand is a money sack waiting to be exploited. We all know this. The problem is that it seems like, for the game's sake, this is out of character. This is really all about the game, right? Games rise and fall based on their gameplay, creativeness, and polish. Valve has proven time and time again that its original products, characters, settings, and stories drive us wild.
For some reason with DotA, however, Valve is fighting a war for legitimacy in the community, one that I don't think it needs to fight. Valve's DOTA 2 will stand on its own merits because it is a Valve-developed title, not only because of the name. Is this really about the intricate and storied lore of the Defense of the Ancients brand, with its rich tale between two ancient forces? No.
The name DotA is fleeting at best, an early descriptor of a genre that will become something grander in the future. Gabe is 100% in the right -- DotA does not describe anything and it will be gone in a matter of years. Smaller, free multiplayer experiences are kings of a growing kingdom. The name DotA is too constraining and in the past. Look forward, look to the future, because the name DotA only lasts as long as you keep using it.
Only one game used to use the name DotA because it was the only game in town. We don't live in that world anymore. Let the community have DotA.
This column is for entertainment only; if you need legal advice, contact a lawyer. For comments or general questions about law or for The Lawbringer, contact Mat at mat@wowinsider.com.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
Nathanyel Feb 24th 2012 11:08AM
brb, checking if "fire" and "wheel" are already trademarked.
DarkWalker Feb 24th 2012 11:28AM
@Nathanyel
You most likely can trademark "Fire" and "Wheel". For specific uses not directly related to their generic meanings. Say, you might trademark "Fire" as a beverage name, or "Wheel" as the brand name for a line of tools.
Heck, "Windows", when used to name computer programs, is trademarked by Microsoft. It's a completely generic term, a dictionary world, otherwise.
And you can't block other people from using your trademarked term for it's generic meaning, or for any use not related to the use you asked your trademark for. It's why Intel had some spectacular flukes trying to block other companies from using the "intel" term as applied to other areas (specially for intelligence or investigation related uses, where it's a common term). It's why WB had spectacular failures trying to protect the "shire" name (besides the name of the place where Hobbits live, it's an actual common name).
DarkWalker Feb 24th 2012 12:12PM
Just to complement, I found a partial list of Google's trademarked terms. Among them:
- Android™
- Chrome™
- Chromium™
- Closure™
- DoubleClick™
- Go™
- Nexus™
- VP6™
- VP8™
A lot of generic terms for a list just from Google, and a partial list at that. You will find an enormous amount of common terms trademarked for specific uses if you actually search for it.
I believe MP3 is trademarked, by the way :) The trademark was applied for in 2000, though I'm not sure if it was contested.
Dart118 Feb 24th 2012 11:17AM
WC3 was the "it" game for a long time, heck it still is for alot of people. If you played custom online games, the server would be filled with "DOTA " games. It was a most popular gametype back then, and there's alot of naustalgia tied to the word DotA.
1337 H4 Feb 24th 2012 10:17AM
I started to write a long rant and thought I would keep it short and punchy.
This article is about a specific issue that has been discussed for years at this point among a certain group of people.
The target demographic (people who have interest in the future of DotA style games [Called AoS games before that] and how the trademark will affect both the studios and the gaming landscape) already has the SUPER BASIC bit of information that DotA stands for Defense of the Ancients.
In addition, he says it in the article AND IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHAT IT STANDS FOR. Unless the words BLIZZARD or VALVE are in there, it doesn't fundamentally change the issue at hand.
TL;DR: Play more WC3; know stuff.
1337 H4 Feb 24th 2012 10:19AM
Stupid commenting system -_-....my bad.
Shammytime Feb 24th 2012 10:49AM
I'm not sure in naming the game DoTA 2 that Valve is attempting to describe the game as appose to the game being Defense of the Ancients 2. In that sense it is a just a title much like how Halo 2 or Halflife 2 are titles that connect the new game back to its predecessor.
That said, because of the success of the original DoTA, and how young the genre is in comparison to the amount of say fps, rts, rpg, etc etc. type games are out, the community only has a hand full of comparisons to look at, the prime one being the original. Because of that the use of DoTA has become an indicator of they game map/play style. Riot attempted to use MoBA as a descriptor in order to distance themselves and show the difference in their game, yet when I started playing LoL it was references to DoTA that informed me how the game worked.
Another point could be the usage of names that become assigned to actions. For instance, if someone performs an act of betrayal they maybe called a Benedict Arnold. Plenty of people in history have been traitors, but in the USA it is Arnold's name that we hold synonymous with the act. To much the same, DoTA being the the first widely popular game of its type will, its name will always have a direct connection to genre.
arkhan Feb 24th 2012 12:18PM
"To much the same, DoTA being the the first widely popular game of its type will, its name will always have a direct connection to genre."
You mean like we call all games where you run around in a first person perspective and shoot at things "Dooms"? Saying that DotA is the name of a genre and can't be copyrighted on those grounds is silly. Blizzard doesn't lose their trademark on Diablo just because the gaming industry insists on calling every new game that has some similarities to it a Diablo-clone.
There is a case here, but it has nothing to do with the stuff people go on about in these posts all day. The only relevant question is whether Valve having hired IceFrog gives them justification to hold the DotA trademark.
And seriously, stop painting Valve as this evil, money-grubbing villain in this thing. Valve got themselves "the DotA guy", went ahead with Dota 2 and Blizzard didn't say shit. But now that Blizzard wants to get into the genre too and wants to call their game DotA too it's suddenly all like "the name belongs to the community!!!!!"
You can't have two new DotAs out there, that just confuses retarded people. And Blizzard knew it. So them naming their game Blizzard DOTA was basically them saying "fuck you" to Valve.
DarkWalker Feb 24th 2012 12:02PM
Little tidbit: if he's trying to trademark the name, it's obvious he doesn't want it used as the genre name. It dilutes the brand and reduces the amount of protection available.
It's why Gillette does not want it's name being used as a synonym for razor blades, Xerox insist on it's name not being used as a generic term for copying machines, Google has taken issue with it's name being used as a generic term for searching. When a brand name becomes a common word, part of the trademark protection is lost.
Also, a good name for a game and a good name for a game genre are two very different things. "Platformer" works well as a genre name, but would be a most stupid name for a game. "Super Mario" works well as a game name, but would be stupid as a genre name. If you think about it, most genre names would be stupid or clunky as game names, and vice versa.
BTW, apart from franchising operations, I don't think there is much trademark licensing going around. Companies are (understandably) protective of their trademarks. Instead of licensing, what I usually see around is the trademark owner either subcontracting the company that will make products under the trademark, or doing some kind of partnership while keeping the right to prevent the trademark-using product from being made available if it does not meet the trademark owner's standards.
Armill3 Feb 24th 2012 12:33PM
What did the WC3 map maker Terms of Use have to say on the matter? I have to imagine that they might be controlling. To be sure, much laude and honor to the original creators are due, but if they think they're coming away with any trademark rights stemming from a map they created on a popular game engine, distributed through that game company's web service, they have another thing coming. They were licensed to use the map making toolset, but Blizzard retains the rights.
From a strategy standpoint, I think that Valve really, really screwed up by not just calling their game "Defense of the Ancients," without abbreviation or the "2." By naming it the way they have, they are tacitly acknowledging that someone somewhere has the rights to the name, and drawing attention to the fact that it is not them.
Bapo Feb 24th 2012 1:10PM
All of this reminds me of the little spat between Bethesda and Mojang when Notch tried making "Scrolls" and Beth told him he couldn't, because it had the word scrolls.
Also, Action RTS sounds kind of meh as a genre. MOBA I think works better, but even then its still kind of bland.
ARTS makes me think of a fast paced rts (to me, that'd be like sc2 or even the older command and conquers) and not so much of what Dota or LoL are
Mycroft Feb 24th 2012 8:40PM
MOBA really doesn't tell me anything about the genre though. Disclaimer: I've never played DotA or anything like it. 'Action RTS' to me gives me something to compare it to, namely overhead-viewing RTS games, and probably focusing a lot less on resource gathering and base infrastructure. 'Multiplayer Online Battle Arena' doesn't give me anything to work with - that type of tag could easily be applied to most multiplayer games today across a wide range of genres, including fighting games and first person shooters.
gamingforumpost Feb 24th 2012 2:31PM
You describe this as "foolish" but I think this is a -brilliant- move by Valve. And "move" it is because it's much more a chess move than anything else. Valve have legally positioned themselves in a win-win scenario.
Obviously Valve wants to call their game DotA but I don't think Valve wants to trademark DotA at all. I think they just want to protect themselves from Bobby Kotick's lawyers (and yes, ultimately BK runs Blizzard) by going on the offensive first. And it's going to work.
Anyone remember The Watchmen movie? A few weeks before it was released Fox claimed to hold the rights and tried to put a stop to the release. Really Fox didn't care about the movie all they wanted was to extort money as they squeezed Warner's balls. It worked and Fox got at least $15M out of that extortion for doing nothing. =THIS= is what Valve is trying to protect itself from... from doing all the work then Bobby Kotick coming in at the last minute and threatening to set fire to the whole thing unless he gets his payola. And that's a fair paranoia. Kotick has done it before, he'll do it again.
No one individual or company can own DotA. Too many hands went into making it. But there's no incentive to get the various people who made it to declare that they don't own it... UNLESS someone who doesn't own it (Valve) claims to own it. Then they all band together (like they are doing now) to stop it.
To Valve, the best way of keeping DotA clear of potential legal trouble in the future is to get all the people who could claim rights to declare in court that it's public domain and can't be trademarked. Soon as they do that, Valve will say "Hey, you're right! Our bad. But thanks for filing that statement on public record so you can never claim otherwise."
Al Feb 24th 2012 5:07PM
I've see some heavy white-knighting of Valve, but your "they're only claiming the name to keep the name free for all the little children" theory just makes my brain hurt.
Assuming they somehow 'tricked' Blizzard into filing a motion now, to avoid one later.. well, there are much easier ways to avoid that. Hell, call it "Dragons of the Arcane" or something and say "We can't keep it if people informally shorten it. Besides, our game came out before Blizzard DoTA.". But given that Valve's idea of Writing Around Trademarks is "We changed the blonde mage's name from Jaina to Jana", and the "We hired one of the second-wave coders, so we totally own the name of a Warcraft 3 map!" rationale of being too lazy to think up a better name than "DOTA 2: Not An Acronym", maybe I'm expecting too much effort.
gamingforumpost Feb 24th 2012 7:26PM
I never said Valve was being a white knight here. The danger to Valve is a lawsuit filed in the future by one of the many creators against them where one of those companies claim ownership with reasonable grounds. By Valve claiming ownership now (pre release) it locks in the legal framework now before they invest too many advertising dollars. Valve's goal is to use the name, not necessarily deny everyone else's access to it.
Al Feb 24th 2012 10:16PM
"By Valve claiming ownership now (pre release) it locks in the legal framework now before they invest too many advertising dollars. Valve's goal is to use the name, not necessarily deny everyone else's access to it."
They could easily just contact the people who made the original version and ask "We're looking to use the acronym of your 3rd party map to an old game, is that cool?" Coming up with an actual name would be good too - I know they called their portal-based game "Portal", but "DOTA 2" is just terrible and uncreative.