- Status
phisheep said:
There is a lawyer that will defend anyone or anything; he hasn't been abandoned.
Lawyers are really expensive. I doubt he can really afford to pay anyone who knows what they are doing. Eventually he may get into trouble because while you are allowed to represent yourself in a lawsuit, I do not think you are allowed to represent your own company/corporation.
bluemax said:
Now this is all very well and good, but IF it works the only thing it'll give him standing in is the claim that he no longer uses his marks. It doesn't alter the fact that he registered them with false evidence which can be proved with just the Edge magazine evidence (easily enough obtained), even if EA's lawyers don't pursue the doctored comic book cover angle too far.
The man is bonkers, frankly. Clearly he will delay as far as possible to avoid the repercussions of this current lawsuit, but EA has in-house lawyers; they're not going to suddenly run out of money to instruct counsel unless they fire them all.
PflargBlarg
Member
El_TigroX said:
Fyi, this isn't an EDGE game. It's someone else's game that he's just pretending is made by his company. On that chaosedge blog it shows the 'Racers' trailer, and it's exactly the same as a trailer for a game made by another company, he simply inserted a logo and tagline for his own company in front of it.
D
Deleted member 20415
Unconfirmed Member
Wormdundee said:
Ah yes, there it is... nuzzled between:
"EDGE, THE EDGE, GAMER'S EDGE, CUTTING EDGE, MAGIC EDGE, EDGE NET are all trademarks of Edge Games, Inc and The Edge Interactive Media, INc. Racers it the trademark of EGI... Developed by IBA Group, published by Edge Games. Executive Producer for Edge Games, Tim Langdell."
Looks like he licensed this game from an IT group: http://www.ibacz.eu/IBA-Developed-Computer-Game
I don't have time to read the entire ChaosEdge blog, but it sounds like he is just buying publishing rights to obscure Eastern European PC games and then publishing them. And by "publishing," I mean he is burning them on to a DVD with some laserjet box art. He doesn't expect anyone to buy this garbage, but needs to be able to walk in to court and claim he is actually releasing games and not trolling trademarks.
ChaosEdge actually got a copy of Racers as well.....but they never even installed it. They just did a 10,000 word analysis of the box or whatever.
ChaosEdge actually got a copy of Racers as well.....but they never even installed it. They just did a 10,000 word analysis of the box or whatever.
Lol, oh my...
(nabbed from toucharcade)
Sequel to Eliss announced - Edgeliss
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40057013@N06/4096463706/
FEZ becomes FEDGE
http://polytroncorporation.com/?p=724
Closure becomes Closure: on the EDGE of reality
http://www.closuregame.com/blog/index.php
LEDGE DISMOUNT
http://secretexit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57
Edgeward McEdgington
http://tedmartens.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/edgeward-mcedgington/
(nabbed from toucharcade)
Sequel to Eliss announced - Edgeliss
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40057013@N06/4096463706/
FEZ becomes FEDGE
http://polytroncorporation.com/?p=724
Closure becomes Closure: on the EDGE of reality
http://www.closuregame.com/blog/index.php
LEDGE DISMOUNT
http://secretexit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57
Edgeward McEdgington
http://tedmartens.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/edgeward-mcedgington/
Cromulent_Word
Member
there's more where those came from....
Keyser Soze
Member
dose said:
First I was:
Then I:
distantmantra
Member
Cromulent_Word said:
Care to share them with the rest of the class?
werewolf2000ad
Member
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Just noticed a booboo in TL's last filing of 9th November.
He makes much of section 503.01 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure, but he has clearly not read the whole manual - or, for that matter some of the other procedural documents.
There's at least two things he has forgotten to do. Looks to me as if there is a bit of an 'oops' moment coming up.
Tim, if you happen to come across this comment, I'm not telling you what they are.
Happy reading.
He makes much of section 503.01 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure, but he has clearly not read the whole manual - or, for that matter some of the other procedural documents.
There's at least two things he has forgotten to do. Looks to me as if there is a bit of an 'oops' moment coming up.
Tim, if you happen to come across this comment, I'm not telling you what they are.
Happy reading.
Diablohead
Member
oracrest said:
bernardobri
Steve, the dog with no powers that we let hang out with us all for some reason
dose said:
Things like that make me proud of this industry.
Old?
http://www.develop-online.net/news/33382/Langdell-Edge-by-Mobigame-isnt-fair
Oh, and apparently Edge Games has a board now, who actually direct all this. Not Tim Langdell. Yeah right...
http://www.develop-online.net/news/33382/Langdell-Edge-by-Mobigame-isnt-fair
Oh, and apparently Edge Games has a board now, who actually direct all this. Not Tim Langdell. Yeah right...
SecretBonusPoint
Banned
Why do Apple keep pulling the game down? Not exactly painting the picture of a dev-friendly delivery system by cow-towing to someone that is clearly insane and whose world is hopefully soon to collapse in on itself.
Referring to himself as "a board" is real delusional madness :lol
Referring to himself as "a board" is real delusional madness :lol
AceBandage
Banned
Why is this man allowed to exist?
SecretBonusPoint
Banned
Yeah...well...perhaps where I'm from, towing cows in front of people is an act of obedience and submission as well okay! OKAY?!
I will get back to you on this matter when the SecretBonusPoint board have reached a verdict.
I will get back to you on this matter when the SecretBonusPoint board have reached a verdict.
charlequin
Banned
SecretBonusPoint said:
Apple's iPhone environment is like the most conceivably opposite thing imaginable to a "dev-friendly delivery system."
SecretBonusPoint said:
Well, strictly speaking, while Edge has the "Edge" trademark registered in the US with respect to videogames, Apple is oblidged to at least approach Mobigames. Until the trademark is declared invalid by the USPTO (which may happen via the EA action), Langdell has a legal claim. Changing the name to "Edge by Mobigames" doesn't necessarily avoid infringement entirely. "Edgy" as Mobigames first offered would have I would argue, though the dick move by Langdell was to trademark that too.
The biggest problem with trademark law is that infringement is not black and white. Infringement occurs when there is a chance for consumers to confuse products or services which make it very grey and ambiguous.
That being said, I just went to the USPTO site (http://tess2.uspto.gov/) and checked up on the situation, and there are conflicting registrations which is odd. Info is below, Edge registered trademark first, then the Mobigames registered trademark. The USPTO should not have allowed the Mobigames registration seeing as it overlaps the use and categories the existing Edge registration had. The fact they allowed it confuses matters.
Word Mark EDGE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer game software, computer game programs, video game software, video game programs, computer game software that may be downloaded from a global computer network, video game software that may be downloaded from a global computer network, computers, plug-in boards, peripheral devices, flash cards, video game accessories, video game peripherals, games designed for use with mobile entertainment devices. FIRST USE: 19840601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78807479
Filing Date February 5, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) EDGE GAMES, INC. CORPORATION 530 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE #171 PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91101
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Prior Registrations 1853705;2219837;7502940
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Word Mark EDGE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Apparatus for recording, transmitting, reproducing or processing sound or images; data processing and computer equipment; computer game software
IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Games, namely, board games, puzzles, Toys, namely, building blocks
IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment, namely, organization of computer and video game competitions, providing online computer games
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 79067304
Filing Date January 12, 2009
Current Filing Basis 66A
Original Filing Basis 66A
International Registration Number 0998834
Owner (APPLICANT) MOBIGAME S.A.R.L. FRANCE 85 boulevard Pasteur F-75015 PARIS FRANCE
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
At long last something has happened here - 22nd February decision:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-14.pdf
Here's a summary:
Langdell's motion to dismiss denied (hurrah!)
EA's allegations of fraud denied (boo!)
EA have 30 days to re-allege fraud properly (hurrah!)
Langdell then has 30 days to respond (hurrah - as it it's a proper deadline)
EA's motion for court attorney to attend discovery hearing granted (hurrah!)
On a quick hurrah v boo count EA is winning.
Expect some fireworks/meltdown over the next two months. Should be good fun.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-14.pdf
Here's a summary:
Langdell's motion to dismiss denied (hurrah!)
EA's allegations of fraud denied (boo!)
EA have 30 days to re-allege fraud properly (hurrah!)
Langdell then has 30 days to respond (hurrah - as it it's a proper deadline)
EA's motion for court attorney to attend discovery hearing granted (hurrah!)
On a quick hurrah v boo count EA is winning.
Expect some fireworks/meltdown over the next two months. Should be good fun.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Soneet said:
This isn't a criminal court, so that won't happen. Not here at least.
However, it does raise an interesting tactical point - if EA does re-allege fraud (and it seems in their best interests to), then Langdell's best option would seem to be to give up at this stage and concede the trademarks - otherwise he is likely to be in real danger of his only real choice being between admitting fraud or committing perjury, either of which could easily lead to criminal charges.
MomoPufflet
Member
Hopefully public execution is still on the table. In seriousness though, I really cannot see this guy ever admitting to being the scum that he is, directly or indirectly. His ego is too big and his bizarre grandiosity too pathological. He is like a humorless Rod Blagojevich, but worse. He will go to jail and "think" he's doing it on principal (which isn't entirely bad, but I really cannot see him getting anything remotely approaching what he deserves).
That said, when the hell is the Edge game coming back to the iPhone store permanently? They keep re-pulling it randomly and it hasn't been back for several months.
That said, when the hell is the Edge game coming back to the iPhone store permanently? They keep re-pulling it randomly and it hasn't been back for several months.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
There has been some movement here.
Yesterday. 19 March 2010 and only a few days before EAs deadline for representing their allegations of fraud, Langdell (aka Edge Games) filed a further motion to dismiss.
It isnt a very good one! Youll find it here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-15.pdf
In effect he moans at the Trademark Board (not a good idea IMHO) for treating his previous motion under res judicata rather than stare decisis and goes into several pages trying to justify this.
Just in case anyone is interested, res judicata is where a matter has already been fully litigated between the parties (here it wasnt, as EA was not a party to the previous action) and stare decisis is where a previous decision of law is binding on subsequent decisions (which doesnt apply here because the previous matter was settled and not brought to court, and besides even if it was a decision it was a decision of fact rather than of law so this is a crap submission).
So this is nothing more than a delaying tactic, yet again. But it remains to be seen just how swiftly the TTAB can get around to dismissing it.
I suspect they will just ignore it and then Langdell will complain that the deadlines havent been moved again, at which stage there should be some fireworks, and possibly the chance for EA to claim judgment in default.
In the short term it does not affect the case timetable so as things stand theres only another 30-something days before Langdell will be forced into an answer.
Also yesterday, I found there is another case going on here between the same parties:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193736&pty=OPP&eno=4
Im not yet sure how these two interact, but I expect a further update to be made in the next week or so.
(Dont know if anyone is still interested in this, but I intend to keep posting updates as/when anything happens since it will probably all get very exciting at some stage).
Yesterday. 19 March 2010 and only a few days before EAs deadline for representing their allegations of fraud, Langdell (aka Edge Games) filed a further motion to dismiss.
It isnt a very good one! Youll find it here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-15.pdf
In effect he moans at the Trademark Board (not a good idea IMHO) for treating his previous motion under res judicata rather than stare decisis and goes into several pages trying to justify this.
Just in case anyone is interested, res judicata is where a matter has already been fully litigated between the parties (here it wasnt, as EA was not a party to the previous action) and stare decisis is where a previous decision of law is binding on subsequent decisions (which doesnt apply here because the previous matter was settled and not brought to court, and besides even if it was a decision it was a decision of fact rather than of law so this is a crap submission).
So this is nothing more than a delaying tactic, yet again. But it remains to be seen just how swiftly the TTAB can get around to dismissing it.
I suspect they will just ignore it and then Langdell will complain that the deadlines havent been moved again, at which stage there should be some fireworks, and possibly the chance for EA to claim judgment in default.
In the short term it does not affect the case timetable so as things stand theres only another 30-something days before Langdell will be forced into an answer.
Also yesterday, I found there is another case going on here between the same parties:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193736&pty=OPP&eno=4
Im not yet sure how these two interact, but I expect a further update to be made in the next week or so.
(Dont know if anyone is still interested in this, but I intend to keep posting updates as/when anything happens since it will probably all get very exciting at some stage).
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
thanks for the update. I don't have anything to add, but I appreciate hearing it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Monocle said:
Thanks for the responses, guys. Means I'm not crying in the wilderness!
My take on it at present is that the outcome of the actual case is (pretty well) solely dependent on EA not giving up. So if any of you guys have means of expressing love to EA over this, go do it.
I'd prefer that EA particularise the fraud allegations in the next few days - it's a big tactical advantage if they have the evidence lined up. But then, I'm seeing this as a spectator rather than a participant.
The outcome for Langdell depends very much on how deep a hole he digs for himself during these proceedings. If it gets as far as discovery he is potentially in very deep trouble indeed, and he appears to be doing the most he can to avoid it.
It is very noticeable that he is making the motions himself and not through lawyers. Any law firm involved is keeping sensibly in the background. I would if I had him as a client.
- Status