|
|
Post by Arcadenik on Apr 1, 2009 9:22:44 GMT -5
Hey guys, I'm wondering what's with the issues concerning the Duck Hunt trademark. It seems that Nintendo cannot renew their license to make a new Duck Hunt game under the title "Duck Hunt" because the phrase "Duck Hunt" is too descriptive and that would be bad for the competition. Nintendo could sue any other companies if they used the phrase "Duck Hunt" in their products. I understand that Nintendo recently sued iPhone because iPhone was making a profit out of the Duck Hunt port on iPhone... that told me that while Nintendo doesn't own the phrase "Duck Hunt", they still own the contents of the NES game.
Examples:
- ducks and the dog in WarioWare games
- ducks and clay pigeons in Wii Play
- duck trophy and sticker in Smash Bros. games
- Duck Hunt in Tetris DS
I think other NES games like Excitebike and Punch-Out!! were revived because Nintendo was probably able to renew their licenses to these trademarks because those phrases were not too generic like "Duck Hunt". So, I was thinking that maybe if Nintendo could re-register the trademark under a new name like "Nintendo's Duck Hunt" or "Duck Hunt Dog" because it implies it is Nintendo's version of the duck hunting game with the laughing dog and it is different from other duck hunting games such as Ultimate Duck Hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Apr 1, 2009 9:37:50 GMT -5
"No More Ducks." ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Arcadenik on Apr 1, 2009 9:51:02 GMT -5
LOL like No More Heroes. But better yet, No More Dogs.  most people want to shoot Nintendo's most evil villian. It just seem too easy for Nintendo do simply revive Duck Hunt under a different name, it does not have to be exactly "Duck Hunt" because that's too descriptive according to United States Patent Trademark Office. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Apr 1, 2009 9:53:53 GMT -5
Duck Hunt rocks!
DUCK HUNT DOG FOR BRAWL SSB4!
|
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Apr 1, 2009 9:55:41 GMT -5
^^Kudos You.  Then what about Manhunt? Isn't that just as descriptive? |
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Apr 1, 2009 10:04:24 GMT -5
people want to shoot Nintendo's most evil villian. But then wouldn't it be called "No More Reggie" ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Arcadenik on Apr 1, 2009 10:30:34 GMT -5
LOL nice imitation of me, TVEye. So, the dog is bested by Reggie as the most evil Nintendo villain... who knew? Hey, isn't "Ice Climber" too descriptive, too? It just describes "ice climbing" just like "Duck Hunt" just describes "duck hunting". Could it be why there's no new Ice Climber game, too? "Rock n' Roll Climber" is not too descriptive compared to "Rock Climber". This might mean no revival of the NES game Pro Wrestling because that's too descriptive. There is Fire Pro Wrestling, so why not call it Nintendo Pro Wrestling instead of just Pro Wrestling? This is my reasoning behind my suggestion that Nintendo revive Duck Hunt under the name "Nintendo's Duck Hunt" instead of just "Duck Hunt". |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Apr 1, 2009 10:42:12 GMT -5
Not owning the name doesn't mean you cannot make any further games. I never own my username (obviously), and yet I've been posting under this name for 8 years. And nobody has ever sued me. I did once encounter an art thief though...* *Credits to a dA member, ~stewii, for reporting to me about the theft. And Newgrounds people are pretty harsh in commenting...(blah blah blah blah blah blah) NES game name problem (blah blah blah blah blah blah) Virtual Console. NES Classics. If those names cannot be renewed, why are there these versions of games? And even "Urban Champion" sounds generic if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by Arcadenik on Apr 1, 2009 10:56:01 GMT -5
I really don't get USPTO's logic myself.  You bring up good points though, YoungLink. Nintendo could have easily put Duck Hunt on the Virtual Console with no legal problems because even though the name is generic, the game itself is all Nintendo's property. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Apr 1, 2009 11:03:00 GMT -5
They can even use the name... they just can't trademark it. Which means that other companies can also call their games "Duck Hunt" if they so wish.
That's all this means. Nintendo can't have exclusive rights to the name "Duck Hunt". They still own the copyright on the game and its contents, and could still rightfully sue anyone who used that content or produced something overly derivative of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arcadenik on Apr 1, 2009 11:19:06 GMT -5
That's exactly what I was thinking, Fry. Even though Nintendo don't own the rights to the phrase "Duck Hunt", they still own the rights to the NES game itself and the contents of the game that they could have easily revived Duck Hunt under a different name like "Nintendo's Duck Hunt" or something. Nintendo shouldn't be too greedy and trademark the phrase "Duck Hunt". It is like Donald Trump trying to trademark "you are fired!" I think it was a bit silly on Nintendo's part to try to get exclusive rights on the phrase "Duck Hunt". Thanks for clarifying it for me. I appreciate it.  |
|
most people want to shoot Nintendo's most evil villian.
You bring up good points though, YoungLink. Nintendo could have easily put Duck Hunt on the Virtual Console with no legal problems because even though the name is generic, the game itself is all Nintendo's property.
