Maxx Payne vs Max Payne

[Longshot]

I found this one the official Maxx Payne (the wrestler) website. He is apparently suing Rock Star games for 10 million dollars for the usage of "his name" in thier Max Payne video games.

The full article can be found here: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07262003/utah/78687.asp

[Mr. JL]

lol

[Hired Hitman]

uh... there's an Extra X :roll:

[loopydate]

Just wait until "Quadruple H" comes out for Xbox. Heads will roll!

[Corkscrewed]

LOL. He has a little bit of a case, I guess... but frankly, wouldn't he be getting more publicity out of it?

[Kane Knight]

LOL. He has a little bit of a case, I guess... but frankly, wouldn't he be getting more publicity out of it?

He's also getting massive publicity from the case, most likely.

Possibly, he's even counting on it.

[Longshot]

uh... there's an Extra X :roll:

Uh...thats how the wrestler spells it...get a clue. :roll:

The name he has a copyright to are:
Maxx Payne
Max Payne
Maxx Pain
Max Pain
Maximum Payne
Maximus Paynimus
Paxx Mayne
Lucifer Payne
and
Payne Killer

[Mr. JL]

You know were the most F*cked up sociaty when you can sue someone, over a silly little name. I'd tell him to F*** off, but then again, if I was him, 10 million dollars is awfully(sp?) tempting...

[Kane Knight]

Uh...thats how the wrestler spells it...get a clue. :roll:

The name he has a copyright to are:
Maxx Payne
Max Payne
Maxx Pain
Max Pain
Maximum Payne
Maximus Paynimus
Paxx Mayne
Lucifer Payne
and
Payne Killer

Wouldn't it be a trademark?

Not to be too anal or anything.

[Mr. JL]

How much does it cost to "copyright" or "trademark" names anyways???

[Kane Knight]

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2004jan01.htm

Here's the current listing for trademark applications on the name Max Payne

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=73nuam.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Max+Payne&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

And Maxx Payne yields no results. That doesn't mean it's not covered, but the keyword search still revealed nil.

[Mr. JL]

How much does it cost to "copyright" or "trademark" names anyways???

[Kane Knight]

Read the first link. It gives a chart of costs, depending.

[Mr. JL]

Thx. How do those work anyways? I live in Canada and say I go copyright or trademark a name. Then does that mean nobody in Canada can use the name but myself, or does this also apply to the rest of the world? Is there an International Law or something on this?

[Kane Knight]

Thx. How do those work anyways? I live in Canada and say I go copyright or trademark a name. Then does that mean nobody in Canada can use the name but myself, or does this also apply to the rest of the world? Is there an International Law or something on this?

There are international copyrights and TMs, but they function a little differently. I'm not totally sure of the nuances, but some countries refuse to adhere to other nations' copyright laws (coughcoughJAPANcoughsough).

I'm not sure if the US Patent & Trademark office means you're protected in multiple countries, but it'd make sense if the place you're supposed to go to to secure national Trademarks in the Us was the same as the one for international rights...

[KayfabeMan]

I have 2 registered trademarks myself,and I know if someone used my
names (which has happened before) that I'd do everything possible to
make sure that it comes to a hault,and if needed/applicable,get $$ for
it.

HOWEVER,despite him using the name before; I don't believe he has
any legal trademarks on it/them. This is more of a publicity move th-
an anything else.

[KayfabeMan]

uh... there's an Extra X :roll:

Actually,it doesn't matter.

You can't have a Maxx Payne and a Max Payne; because it's
still the same name,no matter what the spelling - even if you
used Max Pain or Max Paynn.

It's kinda like how you can't trademark Toys Are Us,because
esentially it's the same as Toys R' Us,and verbally (and som-
etimes even written) it can cause confusion between the 2.

[Kane Knight]

I have 2 registered trademarks myself,and I know if someone used my
names (which has happened before) that I'd do everything possible to
make sure that it comes to a hault,and if needed/applicable,get $$ for
it.

HOWEVER,despite him using the name before; I don't believe he has
any legal trademarks on it/them. This is more of a publicity move th-
an anything else.

Actually, if he's just recently filed the claim, he may have lost all rights to it already, if he ever had any.

Part of a trademark is that you are legally obligated to fight anyone who infringes on it, or come up with an agreement.

They've already released their second Max Payne game. He's probably pissed away any right by letting the first one sell for so long

[John la Rock]

:lol:

[Hired Hitman]

Okay, but still, isn't it possible for two people to come up with the same idea...

[Disturbed316]

lol what a tard

[Kane Knight]

Okay, but still, isn't it possible for two people to come up with the same idea...

Yes, but if one person trademarks it first, it's theirs. That can still be contested and all...

[Disturbed316]

Does this mean I can sue somebody who has my name too?

[Lamuella]

a name you came up with, or the name you were born with?

[Mr. JL]

What if, for say, you come up with a name but you don't trademark it? You have proof that you used the name, wrestling for a variety of wrestling company's.

Then, someone else "thinks" up the exact name, they then trademark it of whatever. Does that mean, the guy who trademarked it can tell the guy who originally used the name first, but didn't trademark it, to go **** off and stop using his trademark name?

[Kenny]

I found this one the official Maxx Payne (the wrestler) website. He is apparently suing Rock Star games for 10 million dollars for the usage of "his name" in thier Max Payne video games.

The full article can be found here: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07262003/utah/78687.asp

LoL... like anyone even remembers Maxx f*ckin' Payne.

Don't forget about Man Mountain Rock... now THAT's a gimmick.

[KayfabeMan]

What if, for say, you come up with a name but you don't trademark it? You have proof that you used the name, wrestling for a variety of wrestling company's.

Then, someone else "thinks" up the exact name, they then trademark it of whatever. Does that mean, the guy who trademarked it can tell the guy who originally used the name first, but didn't trademark it, to go **** off and stop using his trademark name?

Not completely...

If you have proof that you used it before the other person did,and
that you have/had an intent to trademark it,etc.. (and other fact-
ors),you may be able to contest it.There are alot of details involved
in the whole thing,and you can usually e-mail people at the USPTO
site to get information on things.

[Kane Knight]

What if, for say, you come up with a name but you don't trademark it? You have proof that you used the name, wrestling for a variety of wrestling company's.

Then, someone else "thinks" up the exact name, they then trademark it of whatever. Does that mean, the guy who trademarked it can tell the guy who originally used the name first, but didn't trademark it, to go **** off and stop using his trademark name?

It happens sometimes, but again, it can be contested.

Hell, Spike Lee fought Spike TV over a registered trademark that was never awarded, and that he abandoned. Another dumb example is Richard Garfield's patenting and trademarking some 260+ elements of the game Magic: The Gathering, a game which he admits he took from earlier ideas by other people.

If you think you have a legit claim to a trademark that's already been established by someone else, you can fight it, but since this is new news, I bet he's probably lost any right at this point.

[Rob]

This lawsuit is old and it's pointless. Maxx Payne can prove his used that name for years so wouldn't need a copyright. However, he would need to prove the computer makers are costing him money by using that name which he never will be able to.

[Kane Knight]

Rob's right:

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

Snagged that from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#7

similarly from the site:

"So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa."

I mean, trademark law's pretty flexible, but it probably won't be favorable in this case, since there's very little similarity in the products.

[parkmania]

Another occurence of this is the fact that the "Burlington Coat Factory" chain of stores quite often in its tv ads will include the small type words "Not affiliated with the Burlington Tobacco Company". Although in this instance I'm not sure if it has more to do with name infringement or the fact that the coat factory may not want potential buyers to have a negative stigma which may be associated with the other company.