Atari Trademarks Thread

[TrogdarRobusto]

4 minutes ago, Starwander said:

Do you think there is a estimated ETA on when your team will craft a method of dealing with items that were inappropriately flagged by red points? 

I do not. But I will look into that specifically. 

[Razzie.P]

On 6/2/2024 at 12:39 PM, PowerDubs said:

This seems fishy to me-

 

https://www.cdkeys.com/pc/system-shock-pc-steam

 

On 6/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, TrogdarRobusto said:

we will look

I'd be interested in your findings.   I've seen the "is this legit" conversations pop up for years, but no company has ever provided info proving that it's not, that I've seen.  I think their explanation was something like they "take advantage of exchange rates and discounts" to purchase them cheaply, and resell them.

 

If they're illegal, hopefully you can tell us why.  Otherwise, I dunno... thanks for sharing the deal, PowerDubs.  

[PowerDubs]

Ha.

 

Let's hope it's legit if even just to not have the headaches involved.

 

Just unsure how mass sales at rock bottom help the company.

 

Found it on Slick Deals- so they probably sold a LOT....but didn't make much profit..

[+eebuckeye]

The System Shock remake is currently $16.79 on Steam so I don't see how this is a concern.

[PowerDubs]

15 hours ago, eebuckeye said:

The System Shock remake is currently $16.79 on Steam so I don't see how this is a concern.

 

 

If it is some sort of grey market as some suggest- the price certainly matters on a scale of volume. 

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/482400/System_Shock/

 

I don't know where you saw $16.79- but AFTER you wrote that last night, I received an email saying the game just went on sale for $17.99

 

So 'cdkeys' selling it for $15.39 from $17.99 is a loss of almost 15%... and that's at the current sale price.  Who knows what it was before the sale started yesterday.

 

The cdkeys listing has been on slickdeals for 8 days...and up on their own site for who knows how long before that...

 

So we aren't talking one purchase and saying 'it's just a couple bucks no big deal'.  

 

If the site is somehow not legit- the price doesn't matter because just like a fake Atari t-shirt...Atari would get nothing from the sale.  That would be a huge concern if we start talking thousands of transactions.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

On 6/2/2024 at 4:16 PM, TrogdarRobusto said:

We do not ... which is maddening

IMO, if you really want to make even remotely good of what happened to Andrew, you should get back that website and hand it back to him.

[+jeremiahjt]

1 minute ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

IMO, if you really want to make even remotely good of what happened to Andrew, you should get back that website and hand it back to him.

Wouldn't they have to buy it back?  What if the current owner does not want to sell it?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

11 minutes ago, jeremiahjt said:

Wouldn't they have to buy it back?  What if the current owner does not want to sell it?

If they really want to, I am sure Atari will find a way.

[CPUWIZ]

15 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

If they really want to, I am sure Atari will find a way.

 

They could use the same way they did with Andrew, just sayin'.

[Clint Thompson]

I sent an e-mail in December of 2023 asking about this very thing. For those who don't have 6 fingers on one hand, that's half a year ago.

Got a single response saying: we hope to have this guideline in place very soon.

 

Clearly "hope" and "very soon" are loosely used here. Followed up with another e-mail in April and complete radio silence, not that I'm surprised.

 

At this point, I almost feel as though this "wait but soon" bait is intentional in an attempt to make it seem like "we're doing the right thing by our fan base" showmanship. The recent take-downs over Atari Lynx aftermarket replacement parts by K-Retro being targeted doesn't provide any confidence in matters either. Like, why? Not to mention the points @Starwander has already made.

 

Specifically, in regards to the "Jaguar" logo that has been re-trademarked... if you really want to "do right by your fan base" and handle things differently than past Atari (actually, even past Atari didn't do this crap), then you would leave it open for use without strings attached like it has been for the past 25-years since Hasbro made it public domain. Sure, protect the rights of the re-releases in any hardware/software form that Atari is actively selling (like Atari's 50th for example), it only makes sense. But just to release a game with the logo on it?

 

 

Nonsensical. When it comes to all this TM stuff, "New" Atari isn't proving to be any better than any iteration of "Old" Atari and that's just the truth.

 

Never thought I would say I miss Hasbro...

Edited June 25 by Clint Thompson

[+Starwander]

10 hours ago, Clint Thompson said:

I sent an e-mail in December of 2023 asking about this very thing. For those who don't have 6 fingers on one hand, that's half a year ago.

Got a single response saying: we hope to have this guideline in place very soon.

 

Clearly "hope" and "very soon" are loosely used here. Followed up with another e-mail in April and complete radio silence, not that I'm surprised.

 

At this point, I almost feel as though this "wait but soon" bait is intentional in an attempt to make it seem like "we're doing the right thing by our fan base" showmanship. The recent take-downs over Atari Lynx aftermarket replacement parts by K-Retro being targeted doesn't provide any confidence in matters either. Like, why? Not to mention the points @Starwander has already made.

 

Specifically, in regards to the "Jaguar" logo that has been re-trademarked... if you really want to "do right by your fan base" and handle things differently than past Atari (actually, even past Atari didn't do this crap), then you would leave it open for use without strings attached like it has been for the past 25-years since Hasbro made it public domain. Sure, protect the rights of the re-releases in any hardware/software form that Atari is actively selling (like Atari's 50th for example), it only makes sense. But just to release a game with the logo on it?

 

 

Nonsensical. When it comes to all this TM stuff, "New" Atari isn't proving to be any better than any iteration of "Old" Atari and that's just the truth.

 

Never thought I would say I miss Hasbro...

Well said indeed. Personally I think that their business strategy is to try to generate revenue primarily by trademark and IP enforcement. They have had more than enough time to generate a reasonable pathway for for licensor. They seem more interested in gobbling up IP that's been long abandoned and utilizing this to generate revenue through IP and trademark enforcement.

[+bent_pin]

56 minutes ago, Starwander said:

They seem more interested in gobbling up IP that's been long abandoned and utilizing this to generate revenue through IP and trademark enforcement.

If this is indeed the case, then it should be relatively easy for you to provide a decent list of cases where they've won sizable damages rather than just getting people to stop selling and/or using their IP.

[Spanner]

I do wish one thing from Atari, there website was worldwide because at the moment for us in the UK there is no point looking at it at all because its for the US only "This product is only available for shipping in the United States.", its a shame, I remember them selling PC CD Games worldwide, I still have The Matrix: Path of Neo... I would use the site if I could, can not get hold of the Atari VCS anywhere it not available in the UK at all, if its sold on eBay then it overpriced like £600(about $700) when its only about $299 so I wish we could use the site, not the same buying Atari stuff from Amazon UK(and its limited to what is available) and it costs more money selling stuff by a 3rd party because Amazon gets a cut of the selling price.

Edited June 25 by Spanner

[+Starwander]

8 hours ago, bent_pin said:

If this is indeed the case, then it should be relatively easy for you to provide a decent list of cases where they've won sizable damages rather than just getting people to stop selling and/or using their IP.

https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102gcff/little-consolation-for-hyperkin-as-atari-litigation-games-continue

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/01/ataris-lawsuit-against-a-print-on-demand-service-fizzles-out-atari-v-printify.htm

 

Please do some research on the different cases that they are currently litigating or previously litigated. How much they settled for with Hyperkin is not public because it was settled out of court. There are definitely other cases that they are currently engaging in litigation as well some they have lost and some have been thrown out of court. Just Google Atari lawsuit for trademark enforcement and you can see current and previous cases that they are engaged in.

[Bakasama]

21 hours ago, Clint Thompson said:

Never thought I would say I miss Hasbro...

I don't think you want them after the debacle that is DnD and Star Wars. Supposedly they doing so bad that you can find a lot unbought Hasbro stuff at Ollies.

[+bent_pin]

2 hours ago, Starwander said:

https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102gcff/little-consolation-for-hyperkin-as-atari-litigation-games-continue

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/01/ataris-lawsuit-against-a-print-on-demand-service-fizzles-out-atari-v-printify.htm

 

Please do some research on the different cases that they are currently litigating or previously litigated. How much they settled for with Hyperkin is not public because it was settled out of court. There are definitely other cases that they are currently engaging in litigation as well some they have lost and some have been thrown out of court. Just Google Atari lawsuit for trademark enforcement and you can see current and previous cases that they are engaged in.

You quoted my comment, but I don't believe that you actually read it. I asked for cases where they actually won sizable claims. To which you replied with one case that fizzled and one case that they almost lost and thus must have taken a much smaller settlement than actually sought. Further the case for which they did get a settlement was for core Atari tech developed in house, not some IP that they just gobbled up.

12 hours ago, Starwander said:

gobbling up IP that's been long abandoned and utilizing this to generate revenue through IP and trademark enforcement.

 

I still see no evidence of your claims that Atari is building a business around suing people over IP that they've recently acquired. There's a big difference between building a reputation as a clear protector of one's IP and being a litigious letch.

[+Starwander]

12 hours ago, bent_pin said:

You quoted my comment, but I don't believe that you actually read it. I asked for cases where they actually won sizable claims. To which you replied with one case that fizzled and one case that they almost lost and thus must have taken a much smaller settlement than actually sought. Further the case for which they did get a settlement was for core Atari tech developed in house, not some IP that they just gobbled up.

 

I still see no evidence of your claims that Atari is building a business around suing people over IP that they've recently acquired. There's a big difference between building a reputation as a clear protector of one's IP and being a litigious letch.

Just to make it clear the case with Hyperkin had nothing to do with Atari technology. They argued that the design of the controller was trademarkable despite the fact that their design patent had expired along time ago. Basically they didn't want them producing replicas of the original Atari 2600 controllers even though these are over 40 years old. So it wasn't core technology of the company. It was basically just the design and look of the controller that they were suing about.

 

Nintendo is a good example of how a company smartly enforces their intellectual property. You don't see them suing people for reproducing replicas of old controllers in fact when they had the Nintendo store on their website previously the used to refer people to the secondary market to purchase repair parts and accessories for their old systems. They understood that these people were producing items to keep their old systems alive and therefore people interested in using the technology so that they would purchase their new technology. Sega, PlayStation, Xbox also don't go after people for making replicas of old controllers. What they do is allow people like Hyperkin to make pennies on the dollar reproducing old technology while they innovate.

 

Back to the original argument just because they haven't been successful to date doesn't mean that it invalidates my argument. Suing somebody about the design of a controller when that controller is 40 years old just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I hope it doesn't make a lot of sense to you either, but if it does I guess we'll just have to disagree there. Other companies realize that people producing repair parts, accessories and homebrew games for old game systems that have long been passed on only serves to foster a community around that particular company's products. That community then in turn ends up buying and supporting new technology and products that the company produces.

 

Another point to my argument is supported by the fact that without a pathway for licensure this argues that they have no intention of allowing people to use their IP in a legal way. Nintendo, Sega, PlayStation, Xbox may not provide a licensure option either but at least they don't go after people who are supporting long abandoned consoles. Basically you can't have it both ways and say that you want to support the community and allow people to support your long abandoned consoles but at the same time aggressively go after them for IP and trademark infringements. There is definitely a balancing act between the two and you need to have a pathway for licensure or you need to back off and let people have some degree of freedom.

 

I want to make it clear that they have the right to defend their trademarks and intellectual property but the method that they are going about this is so stringent and so aggressive that it's putting a bad taste in people's mouth. When you're going off on small individuals that are making homebrew projects and selling may be a dozen of them because of IP from 40 years ago that just doesn't make sense to me. These people are the ones that actually keep the community alive and keep people interested by continuing to support the systems of the past. They are not the enemy and shouldn't be treated as such. But since they don't have a path for licensure currently and they are aggressively going after the small community members it's hard not to feel the way I do. You may disagree but the evidence so far and how they approach the situation argues otherwise for myself.

 

Anyway I put in my two cents and I've said enough.

 

 

[+bent_pin]

2 hours ago, Starwander said:

Just to make it clear the case with Hyperkin had nothing to do with Atari technology. They argued that the design of the controller was trademarkable despite the fact that their design patent had expired along time ago. Basically they didn't want them producing replicas of the original Atari 2600 controllers even though these are over 40 years old. So it wasn't core technology of the company. It was basically just the design and look of the controller that they were suing about.

The Atari 2600 controller is iconic to Atari's branding and was part of the tech developed by Atari for the first generation of consoles with interchangeable software. It is indeed core tech. Also the suit also had to do with the new consoles using Atari cartridges directly, so the case was about core tech.

 

2 hours ago, Starwander said:

Suing somebody about the design of a controller when that controller is 40 years old just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I hope it doesn't make a lot of sense to you either, but if it does I guess we'll just have to disagree there.

It doesn't have to make sense to you, you didn't build a brand around it, Atari did.

 

2 hours ago, Starwander said:

Another point to my argument is supported by the fact that without a pathway for licensure this argues that they have no intention of allowing people to use their IP in a legal way. Nintendo, Sega, PlayStation, Xbox may not provide a licensure option either but at least they don't go after people who are supporting long abandoned consoles. Basically you can't have it both ways and say that you want to support the community and allow people to support your long abandoned consoles but at the same time aggressively go after them for IP and trademark infringements. There is definitely a balancing act between the two and you need to have a pathway for licensure or you need to back off and let people have some degree of freedom.

My understanding is that Atari is currently working out a method for developers to use Atari owned IP independent of Atari. If that agreement takes six months, a year, or five years it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is in process. Those who cannot wait have an unlimited number of other platforms for which they can develop, but it would be a shame if they didn't wait.

 

Overall though, nothing you've said in any way shape or form show that Atari is:

On 6/25/2024 at 8:46 AM, Starwander said:

more interested in gobbling up IP that's been long abandoned and utilizing this to generate revenue through IP and trademark enforcement.

Rather the opposite. It just seems that you are entirely too impatient to wait for something that takes time, money and effort to develop. They may be holding off on it while they continue their acquisitions as each one may put a different legal wrinkle in the agreement, who knows? The point is that there are any number of valid reasons as to why they haven't finished it yet, none of which are really your business. 

 

I'm not trying to denigrate your opinion. I just don't see any real backing for it. I think instead that you would do better to stay positive about the situation and accept that they are indeed working on it at their pace.

 

My suggestion is that you develop what you want and be poised for the licensure agreement. That way you can hit the ground first with validly licensed products. 

[Clint Thompson]

Curiously, your bent pin is clearly hell bent on favoring Atari's side regardless so there's really little point in debating it, facts be damned. Though, it doesn't really make sense. Unless you're in bed with them, in which case that would make sense, seeing as how you've only been on AA for a little over a year but defending to the death for the corporate powers that be. Your argument is completely discrediting those of us in the community who have historically salvaged and preserved more Atari artifacts with countless hobbyist contributions toward what Atari is overall. Clearly all of which is benefiting current Atari more than any Atari iteration has cared to ever do for the community in return (Hasbro aside) and once again, now only for their own self-serving purpose to try and re-build itself for monetary gain.

 

Weep weep weep all you may on how "oh, they're a business, this is what they're supposed to do" in which case, I will 100% disagree.

 

Your argument about being impatient for something to be licensed (specifically in my example, a 25-year old Jaguar logo that had been completely Public Domain until "new" Atari came to the party), is quite absurd if there's any true honesty about it. Clearly you have no real skin in the game or understand just how deeply rooted not only the Atari community is but the core issue at hand here and how it's being wiggled in some grandiose light. Sure, we can all hold the candle of light and hope for best until everyone is dead but if that's really your stance, you're obviously completely missing the point but you already know this.

 

7 hours ago, bent_pin said:

Overall though, nothing you've said in any way shape or form show that Atari is: more interested in gobbling up IP that's been long abandoned and utilizing this to generate revenue through IP and trademark enforcement.

 

Literally immediately after Atari purchased the rights to Intellivision, they started making branded T-shirts available for sale. I'm not sure how much more blatant you have to be in proving such an obvious point but there you go.

 

Edited June 26 by Clint Thompson

[PowerDubs]

God Clint... you are looking foolish.

 

First off- "benefiting current Atari more than any Atari iteration has cared to ever do for the community in return (Hasbro aside) and once again, now only for their own self-serving purpose to try and re-build itself for monetary gain."

 

Can't do one without the other.  Derp. 

 

Without money there would be no Atari to support this community / projects / products.

 

 

Next-  "25-year old Jaguar logo that had been completely Public Domain until "new" Atari came to the party"  

 

I think you need to read about what public domain entails.

 

 

Lastly- "Literally immediately after Atari purchased the rights to Intellivision, they started making branded T-shirts available for sale" as a response commenting about 'long abandoned IP'- again DERP.

 

If it was abandoned... there would not have been lawyers and a transaction from one company to another for the legal ownership.

 

 

[Clint Thompson]

We don't have to bring God into this. Pointing out facts does not make me appear foolish.

 

You've also got it the wrong way around, which is unfortunate. Without the community, there would be no Atari and that in itself is the point.

 

To be clear, this was not an ask from the community. We've been getting on just fine without whatever your idea of Atari's "so-called" support is for 20+ years now. Case in point: we've had to make our own PCBs, cartridge shells, controllers, boxes and even games for the consoles we love. Do I think some of the things Atari is doing now is cool? Absolutely. The CX78 joypads are awesome (I just got two in the mail yesterday) and I think it's great that they are re-releasing some of the rare, hard to find Atari 7800 titles but again, that's not what we're talking about as an issue here.

 

Lastly to re-iterate, no other iteration of Atari has required homebrew developers to obtain a license agreement just to signify the console in which their game is being made for and for that reason alone, it's absolutely absurd to try and argue otherwise.

[PMMS]

Hello
I think my question is related to this topic of discussion,
There you go, I'm going to make a video on youtube for the advertising of the special Atari GemTos convention in France.
The idea of the video is to add archive footage of Atari as well as footage of today's Atari.

This video is not made to sell the brand's products but just to announce my event.
My question is: am I allowed to make this kind of video using the Logo?
Thank you

 

Manu

[Giles N]

It seems to me Atari is still very dependent on the core-fanbase, and it would be surprising if they at all would have any invested interest in making things overtly difficult for these. But if Atari then could be a channel - indirectly or directly - for promotion of hobbyist or enthusiast labour, they’d still need to ensure it stands legally, not just to make money, but to not be picked apart in a industry with competition etc.

So, a good way to go about things (and if I’m wrong here, I’ll just stand corrected) would be to 

- describe what sort of projects that are Atari-related, you want to do, and which parts that could need some clearance from Atari for it to get going or happen.

 
Just describe potential projects and ask what stuff are covered by fair-use or educational purposes, or which projects needs Atari to send to a mail saying

‘Yes, you can do it,

Yours,

 Atari’

… perhaps sounding a tad more legally sophisticated…

 

I mean if anyone on AA would want go make a Jaguar game from an Intellivision IP, - Atari owns now the rights to lots of stuff there, but probably have little interest in spending as much money as possible, on something some homebrewer already would both be emotionally and skillfully better equipped to do…

 

…so why not have Homebrewers license-sheet ready…?

 

I’m not into all the fancy jurisdictional wording, but having some standard forms,sheets, open-contracts* or quite simply contracts, ready for use, could on occasions make for win-win situations (<— guess this is the core target here), the homebrewer gets freedom to legally create using an IP, and Atari lets it either live its life here on AA or actually uses it further according to contract with the coder/homebrewer-team.

 

Learning from past mistakes are core; become too dominant over others’ works can be a bit of a turn-off, not getting something new happening within Atari circles makes for stagnation, while it is actually necessary to simultaneously protect Atari against other actual - real or big - market-competitors in order not to loose money. Like; the Atari-folks may sometimes need to take a second close look if in doubt, and ask themselves; are we (really) loosing money over this…? I mean, if you loose followers, you end up loosing money which isn’t so good for business.

—

* since I’m unfamilar with the real terms, what I mean is if someone wants to make a game for the Jag or the Lynx or the 7800 of an Intellivision (or whatever Atari-held)IP, wants it to be play-tested ‘as usual’ here on AA, update by update through user input, still unsure if it’ll land as a complete product, have some contract allowing such toying around without something severly binding, just the most necessary legal stuff.

 

People with better a overview of the legalities can comment and correct everything here.

 
It’s written as suggestions.

 

Edited Saturday at 10:28 AM by Giles N