It may already have been out for several months, but after a trademark dispute Battlestation: Harbinger from Finnish developer Bugbyte has been required to rename its space-based rougelike. The new title has yet to be officially confirmed but, according to their own forums, it appears it will be Battlevoid: Harbinger.
In early July, initial news of the trademark problem was announced on the Bugbyte forums, their social media outlets and the Steam page for Battlestation: Harbinger, but strangely not on Kickstarter itself. It’s not clear which other developer raised the trademark issue with the word ‘battlestation’ but luckily there was no threat of legal action as long as Bugbyte renamed all the games in their Battlestation series within three weeks.
Members on the Bugbyte forums were invited to suggest possible alternatives which actually attracted some nominations that are a good deal more memorable than Battlestation (I would have loved for it have been Spacey McSpaceBase or Admiral Spacepants) but in the end it was a series of similarly generic titles that members were prompted to vote for. The second voting round options consisted of Astroverse (which had survived from the first round of voting), Battlevoid, Havocspace, Vividpace and Voidbattles.
What I find fascinating about this whole situation is the fact Bugbyte have a whole series of Battlestation games and have been developing them for some time (Battlestation: Humanity’s Last Hope was a failed Kickstarter way back in 2014) yet had never checked into the validity of their own game title. In fact their announcements on the issue included this frankly incredible admission:
“We did not know the rules of how trademarks works, we were just excited to create games and came up with a name that we thought was fitting for the series. You live and you learn.”
You live and learn indeed. Maybe Kickstarter should look into making sure all new projects are given some basic trademarking and legal advice going forwards! In any case, a new update for Battlestation: Harbinger looks set to be introduced next week which will activate the name change and also introduce a number of bonus ships for players to try out – including one called the BSE Trademark in memory of this event.
(Update August 15 2016 : As of August 1st the new name of Battlevoid: Harbinger was officially confirmed, along with changes to Bugbyte’s two previous titles, now known as Battlevoid: Classic and Battlevoid: First Contact.)
Okay, I’m more than slightly confused here. The term “battlestation” is not something which ANY GAME PRODUCER can claim credit for. It’s been around for centuries… as a standard part of all naval warfare. (It’s a command to send people to the station they’re assigned to during battle conditions.)
Now… early in the Sci-fi era, sci-fi writers started talking about space-borne military bases as “battlestations.”
So… whoever THREATENED LEGAL ACTION here is on literally zero valid footing.
If they had any actual claim to the term “battlestation,” maybe though ought to sue George Lucas and 20th Century Fox… since, in 1977, the film “Star Wars” described the Death Star as a “Battlestation” multiple times.
No… someone STUPIDLY threatened to sue over this… claiming that they “owned” a term which they, themselves, have no right to, by their own argument. And Bugbyte simply surrendered, to avoid the hassle. (I guess I can’t blame them for that.)
But… I really, REALLY want to know who threatened to sue over this… so I can NEVER, EVER, EVER BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM, EVER AGAIN, and strongly discourage everyone I run across to do the same.
I don’t pretend to have any specialist knowledge about trademarking but I imagine it would be possible to trademark the term ‘battlestation’ for a specific use, in this case for the title of a videogame.
In terms of who the other publisher was, I’ve got a pretty good idea but Bugbyte have asked people not to speculate so I’ll leave it at that.
Well, I do have a bit of knowledge on the subject of intellectual property… of which “trademarks” are one subcategory. So I can speak fairly authoritatively on this matter.
You can sue anyone for anything, at any time. That’s what happened here. WINNING your suit is a whole ‘nother issue, however. And I’m confident that the “plaintiff” (or rather, potential plaintiff) in this matter would have never had a chance of winning. I strongly suspect that they KNEW that they had no chance of winning, too… and were using this mainly as a “bullying” tactic.
One of the main issues in intellectual property law is proving that the thing which is claimed to be “owned” is, in fact, something which is the creation or legal property of the person claiming ownership. And the simplest test to prove, or disprove, that… is what I referred to in my first note. You have to prove that the idea in question was invented BY YOU… or was invented by someone else who had that right and transferred to you.
Now… that’s literally all there is to do with copyright and patent “intellectual property.” “Trademark” intellectual property is actually a little bit different. But not in the main area I describe, above, only in terms of “what is being claimed to be owned.”
For copyright… you’re talking about actual content… prose, video, etc. For patent, you’re talking about physical inventions (including software concepts, but not specific pieces of software… ie, you can patent “sequential databases” or things along those lines but not a particular piece of software which happens to be a “sequential database.”)
For “trademarks,” you’re talking about branding. That CAN INCLUDE a word or phrase… but unless that word or phrase is utterly unique, never before spoken in any context, it is NOT POSSIBLE TO TRADEMARK A PHRASE. You can only trademark a phrase “in context.” Usually, in the context of being combined with music, graphics, etc. And it can still be a violation of a trademark if someone uses different language but “substantially imitates” your work. For instance, the “Coke Swirl” is as important as the words “Coca Cola” or “Coke” on the label of your favorite soft drink. If I were to make “Cohe” on a swirl backdrop, intended to PURPOSEFULLY IMITATE AND CONFUSE with the real product, that would be a violation of the trademark. And if I were to do so for any purpose other than parody… if I were to attempt to do commerce using the insignia… I would be almost guaranteed to be found (by a jury) to have violated the trademark of Coca Cola.
But… the term “Battlestation?” I’m sorry, but that term existed LONG BEFORE the supposed “plaintiff” in this claim was born, I’ll put money on it. I’m sure that the term existed as early as the late 1940s… because I’ve read a novel from that period where the term was used. I know that it was used in Star Wars, as well, as I mentioned before… and BOTH USES PRE-DATE ANY CLAIM MADE BY THE “PLAINTIFF.”
So… if I were the folks who were behind this game, and some NITWIT attempted to claim that they “owned the word ‘battlestation,'”… I’d simply tell them “OK, let’s let a jury decide.”
I can guarantee, the moment that they went to an actual lawyer to represent them in the case, he’d advise them to grow up and stop acting like bratty children. Which is what they were doing.