[kennedy]

Although, what doesn't make sense... How can development on the MMO begin in late 2006, if Zenimax Online didn't even exist at that point? ...Unless it did exist secretly and Zenimax never told us.

Unofficial development before the new company is formed is the most reasonable explanation in my mind. It seems a bit messier that way, especially from a well-established and organized company such as Zenimax.

[Da Missz]

Agreed. That would be ridiculous.

I am hoping that "Use in Commerce" can indeed deviate from their past pattern and that a simple reveal of the game would be sufficient. This is an unknown to which I have no appreciative answer. Perhaps someone could take some time to research other games from companies to see where their "Statement of Use" lines up with the game's release.

Or someone could simply email the US Patent and Trademark office and ask what information would suffice for a Statement of Use for a video game trademark application...

[Marquis deVille]

Or someone could simply email the US Patent and Trademark office and ask what information would suffice for a Statement of Use for a video game trademark application...

By the time we hear back, TESV will have been announced, shown at QuakeCon, released, reviewed, and named one of the best games of all time

[Nadia Nad]

I would like to point out something that might not be immediately obviosu to everyone, but is probably obvious to some people:

When we say use in commerce, some people are incorrectly assuming this means you can buy it.

Wrong. Commerce involving something like a game disc may have occurred legitimately three weeks prior. And that's restricting it to "physical copies". I know at work I've had new release DVDs 2-3 weeks before release. Commerce HAS occurred: the publisher sold the discs to our merchandiser or us directly. I have no idea how long the chain gets, or which ones qualify, but I'm quite certain that commerce occurs well before final delivery of goods to point of sale.

[A Lo RIkIton'ton]

I would like to point out something that might not be immediately obviosu to everyone, but is probably obvious to some people:

When we say use in commerce, some people are incorrectly assuming this means you can buy it.

Wrong. Commerce involving something like a game disc may have occurred legitimately three weeks prior. And that's restricting it to "physical copies". I know at work I've had new release DVDs 2-3 weeks before release. Commerce HAS occurred: the publisher sold the discs to our merchandiser or us directly. I have no idea how long the chain gets, or which ones qualify, but I'm quite certain that commerce occurs well before final delivery of goods to point of sale.

Good point. They could just seel truck loads of games to stores and Amazon etc. and then ship the game when it's ready.

[Trevor Bostwick]

I'm starting to agree with those that say showing it at E3 or QuakeCon is enough to constitute a "use in commerce."

After all, those events aren't for charity. There's money moving around. Right?

A summer release is completely ludicrous.

Plus as others said about the pre-orders.

But also, I wonder, can retailers pre-order the game for their stores?
Like does Amazon or Gamestop or Best Buy pay for a shipment of games before they are available?
Wouldn't that constitute a "use in commerce?"

[Scarlet Devil]

Wrong. Commerce involving something like a game disc may have occurred legitimately three weeks prior. And that's restricting it to "physical copies". I know at work I've had new release DVDs 2-3 weeks before release. Commerce HAS occurred: the publisher sold the discs to our merchandiser or us directly. I have no idea how long the chain gets, or which ones qualify, but I'm quite certain that commerce occurs well before final delivery of goods to point of sale.

I'm starting to agree with those that say showing it at E3 or QuakeCon is enough to constitute a "use in commerce."

After all, those events aren't for charity. There's money moving around. Right?

I had been thinking the same as well, until I saw that in all of Bethesda's previous games they always filed their "Statement of Use" AFTER the game's release. If an announcement and reveal is a sufficient "Use in Commerce" then why did they not file their "Statement of Use" shortly after the announcement? Why wait until after the release? Until I see some evidence showing a "Statement of Use" being filed before a game's release, we have no basis to assume "Skyrim" could be any different.

I do not have the time to invest into any research, which is why I am hoping someone could else could take the time to look into it.

[Penny Flame]

The following http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/Commerce.htm doesn't say anything new about "use in commerce", but it does give an "in practice" line. Seeing how advertising is seen as a form of commerce here, one could be led to believe that an announcement using official logos and/or other branded media could be a "bona fide use in commerce". Especially if said advertising merchandise and media is sent across state borders.
A quick google-session does also reveal there's some debate on how to interpret trademark law (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/04/trademark_use_i.htm). So we shouldn't feel bad about not really understanding it all, it's apparently not unusual It would be real handy, though, if there were any law-school students or lawyers on these forums to assist us in our interpretations.


(tbh, I haven't read the second article completely, so it might be that the natural language barrier clouded my interpretation)

[john page]

The following http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/Commerce.htm doesn't say anything new about "use in commerce", but it does give an "in practice" line. Seeing how advertising is seen as a form of commerce here, one could be led to believe that an announcement using official logos and/or other branded media could be a "bona fide use in commerce". Especially if said advertising merchandise and media is sent across state borders.
A quick google-session does also reveal there's some debate on how to interpret trademark law (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/04/trademark_use_i.htm). So we shouldn't feel bad about not really understanding it all, it's apparently not unusual It would be real handy, though, if there were any law-school students or lawyers on these forums to assist us in our interpretations.


(tbh, I haven't read the second article completely, so it might be that the natural language barrier clouded my interpretation)

We could always make an announcement in the community discussion forum that we are looking for US law practitioners to help us speculate...it is an option

[Farrah Lee]

I'm listening to the Morrowind title music right now

Anyway, I think, hope and believe that an announcement is close. The trademark, E3 and QuakeCon, the timeline, I think we're good.

Also, all that money they get publishing those lesser titles must be helpful, right?

[Meghan Terry]

I'm listening to the Morrowind title music right now

Anyway, I think, hope and believe that an announcement is close. The trademark, E3 and QuakeCon, the timeline, I think we're good.

Also, all that money they get publishing those lesser titles must be helpful, right?

Yes, though i would prefer it if Beth published maybe 1 or 2 less games and made 1 more, wouldn't you agree :wink_smile:

QUICK EDIT/ HEADS-UP:

Notice how http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/05/11/six-page-preview-in-game-informer/ continues :hubbahubba:

[Zualett]

Yes, though i would prefer it if Beth published maybe 1 or 2 less games and made 1 more, wouldn't you agree :wink_smile:

QUICK EDIT/ HEADS-UP:

Notice how http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/05/11/six-page-preview-in-game-informer/ continues :hubbahubba:

Sure, I agree. But still, green is green, and more money available means more could be put into a new game.

Heh, yes. Even though they aren't themselves making it, I remember the "first five hours" article in GI for Oblivion, where they didn't do more than raid a dungeon or two a few months before release. I practically memorized that article.

Man, I'm eager.

[u gone see]

Not sure if anyone's touched on this, but Note too all, in regards to the "use in commerce", how an article in a magazine could very well be a condition that satifies this. They would have worked out a money deal with Game Informer to run an article on TES V, which in turn would drive game informer sales, etc. I believe this alone justifies "use in commerce". Also, in regards to hats, and t-shirts and stuff, the online store could very well start selling stuff with logos on it. And again, it was brilliantly brought up that pre-orders would most definitely satisfy this. Best Buy has had Fallout New Vegas on pre-order almost since the day it was announced I believe, with a wrong release date of 6/1/2010, but there nevertheless almost immediately after.

[Andrew Tarango]

Not sure if anyone's touched on this, but Note too all, in regards to the "use in commerce", how an article in a magazine could very well be a condition that satifies this. They would have worked out a money deal with Game Informer to run an article on TES V, which in turn would drive game informer sales, etc. I believe this alone justifies "use in commerce". Also, in regards to hats, and t-shirts and stuff, the online store could very well start selling stuff with logos on it. And again, it was brilliantly brought up that pre-orders would most definitely satisfy this. Best Buy has had Fallout New Vegas on pre-order almost since the day it was announced I believe, with a wrong release date of 6/1/2010, but there nevertheless almost immediately after.

This all sounds reasonable, and is something I assumed as well, but if this is true then why have they not yet submitted their "Statement of Use" for New Vegas since surely it should have met the "Use in Commerce" benchmark by now according to our assumptions?

[Kayleigh Mcneil]

This all sounds reasonable, and is something I assumed as well, but if this is true then why have they not yet submitted their "Statement of Use" for New Vegas since surely it should have met the "Use in Commerce" benchmark by now according to our assumptions?

Lost in Legal papertrails or bogged down? It's the government, everything is slow...Maybe laziness? (Curse Marketers, they are are almost as bad as lawyers) Haha, dunno, your guess is as good as mine

EDIT: Maybe they are busy filing the TES V "statement of use" first. I wish.

[Cool Man Sam]

I just have to point out another reason why Skyrim is not the MMO. Look at Zenmiax Online's http://www.zenimaxonline.com/ Look at the concept art right there. I doubt that's just placeholder concept art, it's probably a piece of art they made for the game. That certainly does not look like Skyrim.

[Lory Da Costa]

I emailed the USPTO assistance address to see what satisfies use in commerce for a video game. Now I wait

[Matthew Aaron Evans]

I just have to point out another reason why Skyrim is not the MMO. Look at Zenmiax Online's http://www.zenimaxonline.com/ Look at the concept art right there. I doubt that's just placeholder concept art, it's probably a piece of art they made for the game. That certainly does not look like Skyrim.

Erm, I see mountains and plains... that doesn't really exclude Skyrim, does it?

[Marguerite Dabrin]

I just have to point out another reason why Skyrim is not the MMO. Look at Zenmiax Online's http://www.zenimaxonline.com/ Look at the concept art right there. I doubt that's just placeholder concept art, it's probably a piece of art they made for the game. That certainly does not look like Skyrim.

I don't think we can rule anything out based on that picture. For all we know, that could be the developer's view of Hunt Valley, MD

[Sarah Edmunds]

I just have to point out another reason why Skyrim is not the MMO. Look at Zenmiax Online's http://www.zenimaxonline.com/ Look at the concept art right there. I doubt that's just placeholder concept art, it's probably a piece of art they made for the game. That certainly does not look like Skyrim.

Maybe not, but that concept art looks awfully TESty to me. :wink_smile:

...maybe that's where all the Morrowind artists went? :laugh:

[kirsty williams]

I just have to point out another reason why Skyrim is not the MMO. Look at Zenmiax Online's http://www.zenimaxonline.com/ Look at the concept art right there. I doubt that's just placeholder concept art, it's probably a piece of art they made for the game. That certainly does not look like Skyrim.

How do you even know that's video game related?

[Melanie]

I had been thinking the same as well, until I saw that in all of Bethesda's previous games they always filed their "Statement of Use" AFTER the game's release. If an announcement and reveal is a sufficient "Use in Commerce" then why did they not file their "Statement of Use" shortly after the announcement? Why wait until after the release? Until I see some evidence showing a "Statement of Use" being filed before a game's release, we have no basis to assume "Skyrim" could be any different.

Well then, in that case, I really don't know.

This trademark law stuff completely mystifies me.

But I do think that they will have to do something before the trademark expires, otherwise (like I believe Antibody said), why would they file to renew it earlier this year?

I don't know. But I got a feeling something has to happen soon. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Steph]

That's the most assuring thing to me , is that one way or another we will know something soon.

[meghan lock]

yeah, hopefully it won't be the trademark expiration, though.

[Miranda Taylor]

How do you even know that's video game related?

How is it not video game related? It's the background for a company that makes video games, and it certainly looks like something from fantasy, or more likely from their MMO.

Isn't it obvious why it doesn't look like Skyrim? The art is desert. There's no snow, or forests from what I can tell...