With trademarks its usualy quite diffirent. Because context matters a lot there. Sure, it can be a very common word or name on that. But once its used as a trademark (and in diablo’s case it is due to there being multiple games) it can be blocking for others to use.
Even if it randomly matches, it can still cause a conflict, even if it would be clear they are diffirent. Note that the i-robot case was not an issue because the dash in the name was a clear diffirence towards apples style of branding. And thats just the concept of having a small i in front of the name.
Yeah, I don’t know how Blizzard was able to Trademark Diablo, but it is a registered Trademark. They shouldn’t have been able to, it’s not an original name. It’s just Spanish for Devil.
Notice, however, that Blizzard is not Trademarked, but Blizzard Entertainment is instead. You can’t own English words, but apparently you can own Spanish words?
Indeed. It’s the context that makes the difference. Another example could be Blizzard called their first game “Diablo” and it’s listen in Wikipedia as “Diablo, the game”, because there are other things known as “Diablo”.
Another game uses technically the name of the Devil: “Devil may cry”, but now just swap the word Devil with “Diabo may cry” or swap the term “Diablo” to “Devil” and then you have the confusion, because the difference is it’s a term from a different language, but it is still problematic for native spain speaker since Diablo means Devil.
Good question… probably with a lot money in their pocket and Spanish for America might be inferior to English, even though it was Cristoph Columbus, man from spain, who found “America”.
No not at all. We are talking about the name “Diablo” and not about the design/characters and such of the game. If you look on copyright, you have to keep in mind the context of it’s meaning.
* [Diablo (Disney)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_(Disney)), a raven in *Sleeping Beauty*
* [Diablo (Marvel Comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_(Marvel_Comics)), a Fantastic Four villain
* [El Diablo (comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Diablo_(comics)), several fictional characters from DC Comics
* a character in the *[Diablo video game series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_(series))*
* a playable character in the video game *[Heroes of the Storm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_of_the_Storm)*
* a character in the video game *[Primal Rage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_Rage)*
* El Diablo, a superhero in the video game *[Freedom Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Force_(2002_video_game))*
* El Diablo, a character in *[The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_SpongeBob_Movie:_Sponge_on_the_Run)*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo
Just a few things, who are known as Diablo. And I didn’t even refered to the more common meaning of “The Devil” (from the Bible).
Thing is, designs and kits would fall under “copyright” (and possibly even “patent”), not “trademark”… I think…
Point being, there are differences between those concepts (and probably some other/s I’m forgetting at the moment), which most of us “leymen” (who aren’t specialized in IP laws) aren’t usually aware of.
For example, you can use the name “Goku” for a character, since that’s just the japanese version of the name of a character from a novel old enough to be in public domain, but you can’t use the character’s likeness (his hairdo being the most distinguishing/unique feature about it), because that’s copyrighted.
On the other hand, “Vegeta” probably is trademarked (by Toriyama and/or Shonen Jump and/or Toei and/or Banda), since that’s a made-up word.
Of course, because this name is a unique creation from Akira Toryama and not a common word for something like Diablo for Devil. It’s like “Blizzard Entertainment” is protected, but “Blizzard” don’t. Because the last word is just a description of a heavy snowfall.
most of dbz character names are puns/references. If something is ‘trademarked’ or otherwise owned about them, then it might be a specific kanji and not all instances of the name. (ie, they make distinctions between goku and goku cuz one is the public domain for son wukong)
sayans are vegetables.
genyu force are dairy products
the brief family are articles of clothing
cold demons are… cold.
As I said, only, and only if the other new Diablo character looks alike and is part of a roguelike videogame or something like that, then Blizzard can really do something about it (and probably win). But they can’t do anything about the name nor the concept “Diablo” per sé.
This is a misunderstanding. They don’t have the rights to the word “Diablo”, but they do have the rights to a roguelike videogame named “Diablo”. Tricky, but easy to understand once you comprehend how it works.
Literally anyone can have a character named Diablo in their work, as long as it is applied (so to speak) to something else than a rogue like videogame, and doesn’t share key elements of design.
Per example, you could have a robot or a mecha named Diablo with horns and tails and what not in a fighting franchise, no problem, amigo, simply make sure it doesn’t totally looks alike the Diablo character from the Blizzard’s Entertainment Diablo franchise, and you are good to go.
The same for naming a movie Diablo, or a book or whatever. Perhaps even a videogame if the genre is different enough, 'cause the trademark protects the videogame territory, properly a roguelike RPG to be more precise (this would be much more difficult, though).
And let us not forget parodies!!! never forget the power of parodies and other fair use over trademarks
Yeah, I’m aware of that, and it’s precisely because the words is changed a little that I thought they would trademark it (“Raditz” instead of the word “Radish”, for example).
Pretty sure many of them don’t even have a kanji spelling, since puns need to be written phonetically and not by meaning, 'cause japanese is weird like that. (I’m not sure if Dragonball Goku is written with other kanji, though. Like they are also read “Son Goku”, but have a different and probably humorous meaning).
I did not know about the condiment, though.
That’s pretty funny to me
Anyway, it was probably a bad example. I didn’t bother checking if either character has a trademark (I don’t even know how to check that, if I’m honest), which is why I said “probably trademarked”.
But my point was that just because the name/title of a work or character can’t be trademarked (because of being a common word or whatever), that doesn’t mean the contents aren’t protected.
They didn’t trademark the name or word “Diablo,” they trademarked the stylized logo, the character, and the franchise name.
Nobody else can use the character, the name of the franchise, or its logo (except for fair-use) without Blizzard’s permission.
They can still use the word or name “Diablo” freely though. Invent a new character, you can call them Diablo, you just have to make sure they’re distinct enough from Blizzard’s character.
It seems Fox, on the other hand, is actually trying to claim the rights to the word “Diablo,” which is a big no-no.
For example : James Cameron trademarked Avatar, which meant the movie of the series Avatar had to use a different name. But he doesn’t own the rights to the use of the word Avatar.
I’d almost agree with you on Blizzard overreacting, but with the way copyright laws are right now they’re actually in the right to be very protective. In all likelihood, the other trademark attempt will just take on the show’s name and all will be good.
