I Grill now my self-made and better BigMac (EU Citizen BTW)
Nobody on the face of the Earth would confuse NReal with Unreal.
Similarly, Epic haven't defended their "Unreal" trademark in China against Nreal because trademark laws there are actually sensible: sure, if someone counterfeit their engine it is unlikely that there would be a case against it (which contrary to first impressions counterfeiters tends to be a small operation and can quickly shut down when there's signs a legal trouble) but if a Chinese company flagrantly displayed the Unreal trademarks against Epic's wishes, they can sue it (and it happened already and prevailed a couple of times there).
I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline, but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark.
"arguable" "might decide"
So...they have a choice?
There is nuance to all legal cases. There is nothing in trademark law that says you have to sue anyone who arguably might be infringing on your trademarks. Everything is a balance. Everything is a choice. This case is no different. Unreal absolutely did not need to do this. I understand why lawyers who might want your billings might tell you otherwise. I don't understand why random uninterested parties on the internet would though.
Yes, Epic had a game called Unreal, but so many games exist using common terms. It would be ridiculous if every company went after every dictionary term like this. It’s hard enough naming things as it is and the problem is only going to get worse.
All cases like these do is harm smaller projects and start ups who don’t have the resources to fight.
Unreal could argue there is no confusion and they'd be in the clear. In fact they have many avenues between "lawsuit" and "losing their trademark". If you disagree, please actually list applicable precedents indicating otherwise.
> What Should Trademark Owners Do?
> Trademark owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement and other misuse (e.g., blurring, tarnishment, unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer. At the same time, a complete failure to enforce will lead to a weakening of an owner’s marks, loss of distinctiveness over time and, as we saw in this case, potential forfeiture of certain available remedies.
That implies that _I_ am correct. You do understand that right? Unreal can conclude that their mark isn't being damaged. "Not suing Nreal" is not that same as "a complete failure".
So thank you for proving my point.
I would agree if Nreal were a supermarket chain or an airline (as in that case there's a real separation, this is the reason why you have Linux detergent), but since Nreal is (arguably) in a gaming business Epic's lawyers might decided that it's too close to their own trademark. If a future case have concerning the "Unreal" trademarks would have been filed by Epic and the defense have brought up passing-up of Nreal's trademark, the court could have ruled that Epic did in fact not enforced its "Unreal" trademarks and even paved the way to genericize them.
So yeah there is a choice. Judges, lawyers and companies are not automatons.
"A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer."
That directly supports me. Interesting how you seem to be ignoring that.
Let's analyze the phrase carefully.
> A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict.
> and it’s developed a demo game called Nreal Tower.
You, personally, might not confuse this with Unreal but do you think that an average person can differentiate between Epic's product and Nreal's product? (I'm pretty sure though that the answer to that is "I don't care, I don't really play computer/video games.")
> or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer.
Epic knows that Nreal exists back in 2018
> Epic and Nreal have been quietly fighting over the “Unreal” trademark for years. Epic filed to block Nreal’s trademark in 2018, and the companies discussed a settlement after that. But Epic’s suit claims the discussion was “fruitless.”
In other words, it was already known to them that Nreal exists as a company and they have attempted to settle this previously. In other words, this is a continuation of a 2018 lawsuit.
Honestly? Yes I do.
> In other words, it was already known to them that Nreal exists as a company and they have attempted to settle this previously. In other words, this is a continuation of a 2018 lawsuit.
This doesn't imply Unreal needs to sue. They could change their mind and decide they were wrong. They could have gone through the process and realized that consumers are not really all that confused. They could decide that Nreal isn't infringing on Unreal. These are all possible outcomes. They are making the _choice_ to sue. They might lose the lawsuit and might later with the benefit of more hindsight decide that they should have dropped the whole issue from day 1.