digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

digg trademark opposed by Lucasfilm

ttabvue.uspto.gov — According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the digg trademark is in opposition by Lucasfilm Entertainment Company. Will digg lose its Mark?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • UNL1M1T3D, on 10/12/2007, -125/+33Wow that would really suck if Digg lost its trademark.
    • Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -18/+95http://lucasarts.vintagegaming.org/index.php?do=game&gameid=12 - The shelves are full of this crap, they are hoping the publicity will free up some room in the back for more anatomicaly correct wookies.
    • Sandwiches_Time, on 10/12/2007, -93/+13Seriously, The Dig was such a crappy game.
    • neoform, on 10/12/2007, -20/+125Yes, it would a tragedy if other sites were allowed to say "digg it" instead of "vote it". I think the world as we know it would cease to exist.
    • Software2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+221"The Dig has just one g in it, and Digg doesn't have a 'the' in it."

      Yeah, just like that time those jerks at google stopped people from using gooogle.com
    • gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -22/+133The Dig was a pretty cool game for it's day... It actually had something called a "plot", but I wouldn't expect you to understand.
    • DoodleMaster, on 10/12/2007, -62/+16*comic book guy voice over*

      The you once again Mr. George Lucas BRA-VO*sarcastic clap*

      *end voice over*
    • JanusAmon, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31Hell, Digg might as well sue Diggs for copyright infringement.

      http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cmvntj.2.2
    • andrewgreene, on 10/12/2007, -15/+113Before everyone jumps all over Lucas himself, the possibility that this is just an act of lawyers thinking that they're trying to protect a trademark needs to be considered.

      Granted that may or may not be the case.
    • JockTroll, on 10/12/2007, -93/+50"that would really suck if Digg lost its trademark"

      It would actually be GREAT, only to read the moans and the cries of the whining loserboy nerds who would have just suffered another crushing defeat. Imagine that: George Lucas, one of their idols, ***** on their faces. Oh the hand-wringing! Oh, the useless flailing of arms! The cries of "OMG they're taking our rights away FASCISTS!" and other nonsense.

      Yes, it would be sweet.
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+495You mean this isn't the dig??? I've been duped! All this time I thought I was bringing back a lost civilization!
    • Chrisfromdevon, on 10/12/2007, -32/+4Also Digg is a sub-standard SCUMM game they have no chance of that sticking
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+89*Puts on tinfoil hat*

      Digg have organised for lucasfilm to file an opposition on their trademark in order to strengthen their position. Lucasfilm no longer care about 'The Dig' trademark, as the brand is obsolete and no longer relevant to their business or their merchandising. They have filed what they know to be a frivolous suit with a view to Digg winning with ease, thus setting a precedence for the prevalence of their trademark.

      *Removes tinfoil hat*

      Seriously, it happens. It's a strawman.
    • ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Who you calling substandard scumm? ;)
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Actually that looks like a live trademark (DIGGS). So the suing would be the other way around.

      Owner (APPLICANT) DIGGSPORTSWEAR, INC. CORPORATION 14881 FARMINGTON ROAD LIVONIA MICHIGAN 48154
    • PixelVision, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5@ sandwiches_time

      Get off the internet now you scummbag
    • Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -5/+304Digg wont loose their trademark because a trademarked name implies a product or company. As far as I know "The Dig" wasnt a website full of megalomaniacs who thought that the world revolved around their opinions.

      So since there is no likely confusion between the two trademarks then the suit will be tossed and both trademarks will be enforced. Lucas is just exercising their legal requirement to defend their trademarks or risk losing them. A little overzealous but it provides 100% protection for them in the future.
    • black|math, on 10/12/2007, -2/+641995! Might as well be frozen in carbonite.
    • retawd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+163@Red Eye

      That was funny, accurate, and intelligent. What are you doing on digg?
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Moorbo has contacted the giant creator's of Dig Dug.

      http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0002QWU4G.01-A1FVJNIK8SSHOX._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg



      Let's see what they think of this tiny Lucas human and his so-called copyright claims...
    • novaneil, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2LP Diggs
    • solemnraven, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31i think Tate Diggs should sue them both.
    • ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Oh no! I was working in the backyard when I used my shovel! I used the word 'dig' when I was describing what I was doing. I am so totally screwed now! I am getting served for sure!
    • badfrog, on 10/12/2007, -12/+52Great idea Lucas! Piss off your major demographic!
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Software2 "Yeah, just like that time those jerks at google stopped people from using gooogle.com"

      Which makes me wonder why Lucas hasn't registered thedig.com. Sure, some spammers have it now, but it was probably available in 1995.
    • tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"Yeah, just like that time those jerks at google stopped people from using gooogle.com"

      Well, Google was a made-up word...or at least a different spelling of a real word. I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that a big difference between the two cases would lie there.
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60 Dear Diary: "I think I'm going to sue "Lucasfilm" because their name is too close and similar to my "Mucusfilm".


      And I think George Lucas obviously based Chewbacca on me"


      Signed, The Yeti
    • GyroTech, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2@ tdowling

      "Google was a made-up word"
      Did you really mean that, or that the squat domain Gooogle was made up?? Because that would make a heck of a lot more sense, you know, since google is a real word and all...
    • Soapbar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Yeah its pretty ***** if they are really going to try and go after dig over the trademark,

      However just for the record "The Dig" was a excellent adventure game.
    • mwebb1984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@ GyroTech, "googol" is a real word --- it's 10^100. "google" was a made up word, although it has since been added to the english language, meaning "to search for information on the internet, especially on the Google search engine".
    • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7For any one that needs a little more in depth comparison of Digg and The Dig
      http://btjunkie.org/torrent?do=stat&id=4236902ecd0b9bdd3caf43d8c966ad420ec3d5155741
      The Dig torrent.
    • Mattie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24They should sue these squatters instead:
      http://www.thedigg.com

    • 0004, on 07/04/2008, -11/+3i don't think digg will lose and it will be because of this:

      Domain Name: DIGG.COM
      Created on: 20-Feb-00

      that's 7 years that the site has been here, and Lucas has been sitting on their butts doing nothing.
      i wonder what pissed them off to go after digg so late.... maybe the cisco-apple iphone trademak case ?

      hint for Lucas.... Cisco LOST that case, even if they settled out of court, they settled for practically nothing. it still scores as losing.
      Apple won all the rights to use the name!
    • tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6no, GyroTech, I did mean that Google was a made-up word. Gooogle was too, of course, but it obviously was designed to look like Google. As mentioned above, "google" a re-spelling of "googol," which is 1 with 100 zeros after it.
    • alteratti, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7
      The Dig..
      http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/gif/thedig.gif

      .
    • 0004, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1because of that TYPO that digg had for a few days in the title field and then was corrected ?? omg lol... so lame of Lucas. ROFL
    • elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I thought that trademarks were always granted based on a particular field of business anyway. I don't see how this is a movie... AUUUGGHHH!
    • futureb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@madaxe42

      ridiculous. you can't have someone else undertake a legal action against yourself just for the purpose of winning and strengthening your legal position. any lawyer that did undertake such an action would be in deep sh-t.
    • escheppa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It seems the Lucas legal team has quite a few of these on their hands some more obvious than others http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Lucasfilm%20Entertainment%20Company%20Ltd.
    • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@elhaf
      lucas films reason is this is a website that amongst other things has game news on it. their website asociated with The Dig also has game news on it. that is where they say it infringes on their trademark. which i say is total bs. they dont even own a The dig website.
    • h4x0r1ng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11They must be running out of money. Oh well, time to modify Star Wars again and re-release it.
    • theblt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Did anyone actually read the trademark? It's DIGG Inc., not anything to do with The Dig! On top of that, it was filed in 2006. Digg me down but people need to stop getting making all these assumptions based on the title of the story just because you played or heard of The Dig. DIGG won't lose their trademark, end of story.
    • fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Finally the gaming categories can be ***** off. Somebody find video and podcasting sites with similar trademarks and get them to sue digg to remove that crap.
    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@mwebb1984

      Googol was also a made-up word when the term was coined in 1920.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You should not be allowed to trademark Common words Like Dig Dug and the like. This™ crap™ needs™ to™ end™ now™.
    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Jocktroll

      being a geek I know that a bridge troll is a large thing that lives under a bridge...

      so I'm guessing

      a jocktroll must be a large thing that lives under a jock...
    • Flyfishing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If anything, I'd see Digg losing its trademark to Namco - Makers of Dig Dug.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug
    • joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Errrrrrr. What the *****..
      Even if "Digg" WAS called "Dig" it's still a Verb and The lucas arts word is a Noun.
      Please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't that mean they have zero connection as far as trademarks are concerned?
    • shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@software2

      actually you're completely mistaken, gooogle.com was an attempt to profit by confusing people who were attempting to reach google.com and that's why they were legally suspect. Digg is not trying to pass itself off as a weak Myst rip-off in space computer game.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This doesn't make sense, The Dig has just one g in it, and Digg doesn't have a 'the' in it."

      And... it's not in the same market. The Dig = entertainment, Digg = news coverage. This matters too when resolving disputes, or e.g. a windows washing firm called "Windows Washers" would probably be in conflict with Microsoft's trademark. MS *has* however fought software like "Windows Commander", now forced to be named "Total Commander", but that's because both were software.
    • cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hang on. You mean... you mean this website has nothing to do with Lucasfilm??? *****! I could have sworn this was all about dirt and aliens and *****. Are you sure this site isn't based on the SCUMM engine?

      CNET article:
      http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6161565.html
    • usbserial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://lucasarts.vintagegaming.org/index.php?do=game&gameid=12

      Anyone else instantly recognize the image along the top of that page? It's Maniac Mansion! copyright 1987!
      What a classic.
  • anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+136unbelievable. they're opposing it because apparently lucasarts released a game in 1995 called "The Dig". on that basis they think that digg competes in their arena. laughable. pathetic. maybe george reads digg and will slap his legal staff silly.
    • sirmadog, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Doubt it, Right now George thinks any public spotlight is a good spotlight as long as he is not going to jail and his empire gets its name out there.
    • black|math, on 10/12/2007, -4/+178The best publicity would have been to not ***** up star wars.
    • lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7yeah if this carries on my already low estimation of that bloated children's novel writer Lucas will fall through the bottom.
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Oh my, this is so weak! Have you checked out http://dig.com
    • ohgeetee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22The problem is that the trademark infringement 'industry' perpetuates itself. If a company doesn't go after potential trademark infringements, they can lose the trademark when someone actually does attempt to take it, based on inaction.

      If I understand it correctly, a company could put out a game next year called The Dig, and Lucasarts could file for trademark infringement. The company could then go back and find all of the similar marks not contested by LucasArts and say that the mark wasn't protected properly, therefor given up by LucasArts. I'm not a trademark lawyer, but this is how it was explained to me.
    • nickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The trademark was filed in 2006 so I don't see how it has any relation to the video game.
    • CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6"The best publicity would have been to not ***** up star wars."

      It's ironic that this has almost 50 diggs, yet when anything star wars related hits digg, it's front paged. (ex: HOW TO BUILD UR OWN USB LIGHTSABER!11)
    • sketchydave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I have no idea why ohgeetee is getting dugg down.

      This kind of thing happens all the time, the only reason it made it to the front page is because it happened to be LucasFilm who is contesting it. Most major companies have either a firm or someone in house who looks for this kind of thing. It will never go through, digg is in zero danger, its just a paper trail to show they are actively using and defending their trademark. If they don't use it, they lose it.

      If ONLY the patent office worked the same way.
    • okcomputer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the question is whether there is a likelihood of confusion with respect to the source of the product. i dont really see one. does someone see digg.com and think its associated with lucas films?
    • InferiorWang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hmmm...I was given that game as a present years ago and never got the two confused.
    • robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@inferiorwang,

      Oh well, then that totally clears everything up. I'm glad you have such a firm grasp on the nuances of trademark law. You should get on the phone with George Lucas and Kevin Rose ASAP and make sure they know you're okay with all this.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"on that basis they think that digg competes in their arena"

      And the funny/stupid thing here is that they clearly don't -- digg is a news site, not an entertainment game.
      And the two aren't even spelled the same ("The Dig" vs "Digg"), even if both were games.
  • djackmanson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Probably just a standard "we're doing our job, boss" move. Also maybe a shakedown?
    • kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Lucasarts shaking down Digg? for what, exactly? that'd be like bill gates asking you for a couple million dollars.

      just lawyers being lawyers.
  • djackmanson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+139Actually, now I think about it, LucasArts is perfectly correct.

    Don't you realise just how many people hear the name 'digg' and think "OMG that must be related to that obscure computer game from 1995 released by George Lucas. I'd better check it out!"

    [/sarcasm]
    • shootdashit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38until this story posted here, i'd honestly never heard of this game. somehow i'm still able to tell the dffierence between the two.
    • stephensoto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thank god LucasArts didn't come out with "The Internets", or we'd all be screwed.
  • troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+205That game was amazing.. I have been visiting this site all these years because I thought that I was playing the game....

    I even wear a spacesuit and everything......
    • Suchmann, on 10/12/2007, -4/+97Thank god someone spoke up. I thought I was alone here.
    • lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4a digg wasn't enough. that was funny so... a superfluous space wasting comment too!
    • StarDal, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Crap.. any way to take back a 'thumbs down' on a comment? Meant to hit 'thumbs up' to troyDoogle7. If not, someone who wasn't going to vote please give him thumbs up.
    • Wooism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"LucasFilm lawyer laughed out of court today when expressing his desire to also file suit over Indigestion.com, and every domain name containing the word digital, or any others containing "dig"."
    • StellarlyAstral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It really wasn't a bad game.
    • Sabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Still my all time favourite adventure game....Boston Low will oen Guybrush Threepwood any day of the week...so long as there aren't swords and insults involved.
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+138meesa tink georgie great bossa. he give me jobba in movie even though mui mui people donna like me.
  • caddar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39This is just another great example of LucasArts trying to "dig" themselves out of the hole their enterprise has fallen into.
  • MadWhack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9In all fairness, I didn't find the game THAT bad!
  • clarkec321, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Only in America... the land of the free (ha)
  • Takuro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25So every time I say "I'll dig into that pile of delicious assorted sandwiches" I'll have to pay George Lucas $2.

    Seriously. They're being redonkulous.
    • bacchus213, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7of course, then you'd have to also deal with the del.icio.us people!
  • thundercleese, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Wonder if LucasArts will go after Disney's http://www.dig.com site... It is a redirect to http://corporate.disney.go.com/wdig/index.html
    • dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Disney Internet Group
    • Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11See that is the problem with this crap. If they go after digg then they should be forced to go after dig.com.

      Besides Digg is copyrighted to Digg is it not? If so wouldn't they have to get their crap checked and this been taken care of when they applied? If Lucas wins then Digg should get all it's money back plus restitution from the govt. for this bull.
    • inboxnews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is not about the word 'dig' or 'digg' in and of itself. It's about the word 'dig' or 'digg' in connection with the classification (description) which says things like 'entertainment' and 'games'. When you file for a TM, you file a name AND classification description. Those two items are tied together. The confusion exists between the two TM filings where the name is similar when used in connection with similar descriptions.

      Are you guys getting this?

      Once again, this is not about the domain name digg.com or dig.com. It's also not about a copyright violation, although it could be. The opposition is about the trademark NAME and DESCRIPTION.
  • CAvenger, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4LucasFilm just made my *****.

    I doubt it will make anyone else's since most people have such a huge-ass loyalty to Star Wars, but this ***** is just unforgivable.
    • xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Why do you care that much to put them on your list? Its not like they are going after you.
    • joaob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2A few thousand dedicated dorks hardly constitutes the use of the words "anyone else".

      sorry.
    • CAvenger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Typical digg.
    • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I let him off with just a wag of my finger. Not even a double wag.
  • loqqq, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2See if Obama or Keith Olbermann can pull some strings. You've done enough for them.
    • Coven, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20I'm sorry...what you said was muffled by Hannity's balls in your mouth. Can you repeat yourself?
    • therealduckie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sometimes there are moments in our life where we say:

      "Brilliant! I wish I had said that."

      Coven...I salute you.
  • shaim2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6All the "DIGG" related trademarks: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=v39acp.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=digg&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

    (not surprisingly, Lucas is not on there as they spell it differently)
    • thefat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"This search session has expired. Please start a search session again by clicking on the TRADEMARK icon, if you wish to continue."
  • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The only reason I can think of that they would even try this is if they were developing a sequel. LucasArts has really stumbled lately, and I guess they think they need all the help they can get.
  • cannibaljp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+66in a related story:

    Lucasfilm sues construction project in Boston!
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Took me about 5 seconds then I was LMAO.
  • RyGiL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What about bigdig.com? It just sounds like a collector's edition or something of that nature for LucasArts's game.

    Ooh.. and digthemovie.com... that's just a movie coming out based on the game.

    Then there's digbmx.com, that one is just like the game, except everyone rides bikes.

    Then there's digonsite.com, htdig.com, etc. Wow, LucasArts is gonna be rich!
  • masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4it's a sign of how high digg has risen. it can be seen by the loft lawyers of lucas. hard to imagine this will do anything but cost money.
  • skibumnh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11From the Opposition Filing Document, pg 4, #12:

    "12. Applicant's Mark DIGG is identical or nearly identical to the Opposer's Mark THE DIG. The word "the" included in the opposer's mark is one of the most commonly used English words and its presence or absence is of little note to consumers. The Applicant's the DIGG Mark is confusingly similar in sound, meaning, and appearance to the Opposer's THE DIG mark. The Applicant's registration and use of the DIGG Mark would likely create confusion, mistake, or deception in the minds of prospective purchasers as to the origin or source of the Opposer's Goods associated with THE DIG Mark."
    • etandrib, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Except they aren't similar, don't compete in the same market, and are a decade apart. They are really stretching on this one. I hope the judge gets a good laugh and it brightens his day. : )
    • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Merriam-Webster better watch out, I hear their "D" section is violating copyright law.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The Applicant's the DIGG Mark is confusingly similar in sound..."

      Excuse my stupidity, but is this site known as "the DIGG"?
    • mistermick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"The word "the" included in the opposer's mark is one of the most commonly used English words and its presence or absence is of little note to consumers."

      While this statement is true, it doesn't apply to this case. The game title is a noun not a verb. It refers to the archaeological dig more than the actually digging involved. If you leave "the" out of the title it becomes a verb. If I spoke to someone about the game and called it, "Dig," I'm sure I would receive a confused look and a response of, "Oh, you mean 'The Dig'?"

      Digg is both a noun and a verb. The noun, Digg, refers to the web site, and the verb refers to the action of approving of content on the website. Neither usage requires a "the" proceeding it to clearly identify what it is. I think a precedent should be set that gives "the" a little more credit in trademarks.

      Besides, I find it a little sad that judges have to be told what "the" means.
    • starguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, not "D", but Apple ownes the trademark of the letter "i" and Ebay owns the trademark of the letter "e". /sarchasm (both companies are full of ***** on that one, especially Apple).

      Here's the falacy and where Lucasfilms arguement falls apart. If they say "the" in "the dig" is a common usage word, and as such is not part of their "the dig" supposed trademark, then what they are trademarking is simply the word "dig", which is also a common english word, and impossible to trademark. If they pressed "thedig" together and made a new unique word not in common usage, I would argue you can trademark it, but otherwise, they have no trademark at all on a phrase such as "the dig"... which can be used in conversations, such as "The archaeologists were excited to hear about the new find this morning down at the dig."
    • frishack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What about "dig dug", aren't they preceeding "the dig"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug

      All of these lawsuits are insane.
  • asmitty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but Lucas has to file any trademark case such as this just to show that they are actively trying to protect their trademark. If they don't file this suit, then the next guy can come around and say "Hey, they didn't fight digg.com, so I can make dig.com, or the digg tshirts, or anything similar". Lucas may know this is ridiculous and that they will lose, but still have to pursue to show they still care about The Dig trademark
    • goatomatic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Which makes you wonder if they are considering a sequel. I never played this game, is it similar to the other Lucas Arts adventure games?
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1dig.com already exists.
  • JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41I agree, there are many similarities between The Dig and Digg.

    The Dig is about an asteroid hitting Earth potentially causing its destruction, while Digg is bent on the destruction of non-biased information making it to the front page through fanboyism, religious and political interests.

    From the Wikipedia article for The Digg: "While the planet has a high state of technology, it is in a state of decay and appears to be devoid of particularly intelligent animals."

    From Digg: "While Digg's servers have a high state of technology, the user base is in a state of decay and appears to be devoid of particularly intelligent animals."

    From the Wikipedia article for The Dig: "The title 'Dig' refers to the whole process of investigation and exploration of the planet, in order to make the alien machines work again and discover what happened to the lost civilization."

    Try finding a pro PS3 article on the front page of Digg. The level of difficulty is parallel to making alien machines work again.

  • dougm68, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I think K Rose brought this down on digg himself.
    He was the one actively saying no one else can have dig, digg, or dugg in their possession or we'll sue.
    Ok that's not verbatim but you see the point.

    I'm sure Lucas Arts would be happy to negotiate. Is Kevin?

    -GL
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think this might explain it. They're not going to let K-digg throw his little dot.com weight around.

    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Actually, he nicely asked people to stop infringing on it, because if he didnt do that, then someone could call themselves DIGG, be the same kind of site, and the real Digg would have no legal recourse, since they never tried to protect their trademark.

    • lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7yeah i think you're being ***** and assuming negative motivations for Kevin. he HAD to do it to protect ANY future rights he MAY NEED to claim. the laws are such that if you waive your rights once you have a real hard time enforcing them ever again. listen to what he said on Diggnation. some other sleuth can scrawl up the link....
    • mcherm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, he DIDN'T have to. He could have offered free, unlimited, nontransferrable licenses to use his trademark. The recipient of the license acknowledges that Kevin owns the trademark on "Digg", does NOT acknowledge that their use necessarily infringes, and nonetheless accepts a free license to use the trademark. Everyone wins.

      NOTE: I am not licensed as a lawyer, so it is against the law for me to say what I just said if it is legal advice. Thus the above is not legal advise.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh the irony
      the fact starwars vs digg just happened
  • lazy11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2nice!

    i love the trailer for the game:
    http://dig.mixnmojo.com/downloads/digtour_01.mov

    real cinematic qualities!
  • ICANSTANDIT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Gee, I always thought that "dig" was an English word, sometimes overused -- can you dig it? Like "Dig deeper, said Tom gravely!" remember the Swifties? Dig this, Lucas -- there's a British company named Lucas and they manufacture various electrical equipment, lamps, what not. Dig this?

    Maybe Mister Lucas shouls change his name to "dim" instead. Dig?

    DIM could also be an acronym -- for instance, Department (of) Idiotic Manipulation...

    Dig it?
  • fixrim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22What about the game "Dig Dug" it came out in 1982.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug
  • yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What would digg do?

    Perhaps lucas films should take digg's approach on this matter and send digg a cease and desist letter. really puts a new (uglier) face on that old controversy.

    Karma's gonna get ya!!!
  • danswayuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My Name LucasArts: I Think I will grab some press attention
  • ikari1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Actually, I think its part of Trademark Law. If you do not go after parties that use (or kind of use) your trademark, then you begin to lose your trademark. This same kind of thing happened not too long ago when the NFL went after some mom and pop shops for showing NFL games on a big screen television at some bar in Florida.

    From our friends at wikipedia:

    "Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual use of the trademark. These rights will diminish over time if a mark is not actively used. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to removal from the register after a certain period of time.

    All jurisdictions with a mature trademark registration system provide a mechanism for removal in the event of such non use, which is usually a period of either three or five years. The intention to use a trademark can be proven by a wide range of acts as shown in the Wooly Bull and Ashton v Harlee cases.

    In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid."

    I would love to bash "big business" too, but what Lucas Film is doing here is legit.


    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Their mark has dimninished over time, their mark is not in the same business, their mark is nothing like the Digg mark, case closed.
  • Rekkid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Lucasfilm can go to hell.
  • ronin688, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This doesn't pass the laugh test......... I doubt it will get far, it reminds me of when Spike Lee tried to sue "Spike TV" for infringement just before it launched.

    I guess Lucas Arts lawyers must be hard up for billable hours.
  • ecrater, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2George Lucas sucks and so does Star Wars. Who actually cares about the dumb movies and crappy games that he makes. He will lose because this is completely frivolous. Just stop seeing his dumb movies. That will make him think.
  • jockser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1lucasfarts sues the India for infringements and from now should be called Indiaa
  • ikari1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0why does it cut me off?

    anyhow from wikipedia:

    "Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual use of the trademark. These rights will diminish over time if a mark is not actively used. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to removal from the register after a certain period of time.

    All jurisdictions with a mature trademark registration system provide a mechanism for removal in the event of such non use, which is usually a period of either three or five years. The intention to use a trademark can be proven by a wide range of acts as shown in the Wooly Bull and Ashton v Harlee cases.

    In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid."

    though, Digg has some recourse (again from Wikipedia):

    "For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for acetylsalicylic acid as well (although it is still a trademark in Canada). Xerox for copiers and Band-Aid for adhesive bandages are both trademarks which are at risk of succumbing to genericide, which the respective trademark owners actively seek to prevent. In order to prevent marks becoming generic, trademark owners often contact those who appear to be using the trademark incorrectly, from web page authors to dictionary editors, and request that they cease the improper usage. The proper use of a trademark means using the mark as an adjective, not as a noun or a verb, though for certain trademarks, use as nouns and, less commonly, verbs is common. For example, Adobe sent e-mails to many web authors using the term "photoshopped" telling them that they should only use the term "modified by Adobe® Photoshop® software." VeriPic likewise sends e-mails to reviewers using the term "VeriPic your digital photos" telling them that the proper usage of the term is "protected by the VeriPic® Digital Photo Lab® secured photo database software." Xerox has also purchased print advertisements declaring that "you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox Brand copying machine." Such efforts may or may not be successful in preventing genericism in the long run, which depends less on the mark owner's efforts and more on how the public actually perceives and uses the mark. In fact, legally it is more important that the trademark holder visibly and actively seems to attempt to prevent its trademark from becoming generic, regardless of real success."

    It appears that what LucasFilm is doing is legit, and it also appears that Digg has some recourse.

  • Schwabby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is just corporate bullying. A perfect example of a large company going after a smaller one that is showing potential.
    Lucasfilm has just lost my business.
  • s14sh3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I for one welcome our new LucasArts overlords.


    /suck it, fanboys.
  • MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Who cares if digg.com doesn't have a trademark on "Digg"? What does that matter?

    Oh now I can make bootleg Digg shirts and sell them for $5!! /sarcasm

    A trademark for "Digg" is really pointless unless you are selling 10,000 widgets made by Digg and don't want a consumer to confuse yours with another. A trademark.....trade...mark. A "mark" to show who you are in the "trade". What is digg.com's trade? Articles about ipods?

    I wish there was an emoticon for a "thumbs down" with a fart noise...
    • cirial, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@MatthewDuke

      Your missing the whole point here. It's not about having the trademark just so they can sell merchandise, and if they lose it then anyone can make it. Its about if Digg lost the trademark, you would see tons of other sites pop up.. a few examples would be something like: diggit.com, diggtastic.com, letsdigg.com, etc etc

      What im trying to say here is that other sites would come along, take Digg's general design and the word "Digg", since it has become familiar with people, and is no longer copyrighted. This is the only part that companies dont want to happen.
    • MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@cirial

      You might have just mis-spoke, but I'm sure you realize that copyright != trademark. They are two completely different concepts. We're only talking about the trademarking of the word "Digg" here. Last I checked, there is only one domain at digg.com. Let the other idiots make diggitdude.com. Who cares if it has the same look and feel? Would you *ever* be confused between the two? Would you want someone who couldn't figure out the difference to be on the "real" digg anyway?

      The only thing this would hurt is merchandising and I'm not really concerned with that...
  • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What you have to look for at are the International Class Numbers and it's descriptions. Digg has gone after Class 041 with a description:

    Providing online news and information in the field of technology, namely, computer games and computer enhancements for games

    and 042 with a description:

    Providing online news and information in the field of technology, namely, computer software and hardware; providing customized online web pages featuring user defined information, which includes search engines and online links to other websites

    If LucasArts is going to make a case against Digg.com they have to prove that they had those classes & descriptions first. If LA can't prove that, then Kevin Rose and Co. are in the clear.

    Believe me, I can form a landscaping company called Digg, Inc. and register a trademark/servicemark for the name. If Kevin Rose ever wants to go into the landscaping business he would never be able to do it with the Digg, Inc. name because he would be violating my trade/servicemark.
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why isn't there an iPod landscaping company?
  • houdoken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6They must need money.

    From the claim - "Applicant's Mark DIGG is identical or nearly identical to Opposer's Mark THE DIG"

    Ok. Let's compare.

    Digg logo - look at the top of the page.

    The Dig logo - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/7224/imgs/thedig.gif

    They are neither identical nor are they nearly identical.

    1) They are two entirely different typefaces.
    2) Capitalization.
    3) The word "The"
    4) The additional "g".

    From a design standpoint, they aren't even close.

    Even if their concern is that of similar sounding domain names (or future domain names), if you tell someone to go to thedig.com (or wherever) what average user will forget the word "the" and add an additional "g" to the word?

    Lucasfilm should be aware that digg's user base contains a high percentage of their target consumers. Why would they pursue this? Do they know who they'd be pissing off?
  • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91175510-OPP-1.pdf
    • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read number 18 it says that digg is not using the digg trademark on a tech news site.

      that is good to know that i haven't been reading digg for the last year.
  • grahamcase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6LucasArts next move is to oppose the city of Boston over its use of, "The Big Dig" for their highway construction project...
  • sciencebase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Totally unrelated, really, but just to show that the bigger fish tend to win - Google did for Chmoogle.com despite there not being in the same trade, Chmoogle now goes by the far less elegant, but altogether more informative name of e-molecules.com so Digg.com could become...hmmmm...let's think e-storiesaboutlinuxmacsawesomepicturestutorialbloghatinghowto.com or something similar
  • kerplunk83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg 2.0 was built on "The Dig" game engine! Gees didn't all you guys know that.

    Seriously though, Lucasfilms by default will oppose any TM that looks anything like anything they own instantly without thinking and then will drop out after more review. It is a reflect of a lawyer to file opposition before it could be too late to do so. Don't worry Digg will not lose, well unless they get a judge who is a big Star Wars fan!
  • sciencebase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1cos if they lose their trademark, they won't be able to call themselves digg.com any more, this isn't just about selling Digg widgets.
  • kidcodea, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3they should have waited till google had bought digg...

    /sarcasm
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Google, eh? Sounds like a case for anyone who makes goggles!
    • MrDo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ze goggles, they do nothing!
    • bubba9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Search ebay for google. You'll see some googles in automotive parts.
  • TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Think about this

    Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back


    before you say "***** LUCASFILM"
    • geoffoliver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Thought about it. They still suck.
    • astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No no... think about "Star Wars Episode I and II" and then say that....
  • modex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3give me a goddam break... i have nothing else to say
  • jimohagan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This makes less sense than the Beatles Apple Core label going head to head with Apple Computers!
  • TOMHTML, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It seems that there is an other company which use the mark "Digg" :
    -----
    DIGG
    >ROLA MOÇA INDÚSTRIA E COMÉRCIO CONFECÇÕES LTDA.
    -----
    http://tinyurl.com/29aex5
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I'm™ glad™ they™ brought™ this™ up™. It™ seems™ that™ LucasFilm is™ violating™ several™ of® my™ trademarks.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I previously trademarked the word violating™, I'm going to have to ask you to cease and desist.

      Try using the word "rape and pillaging"
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0*words
    • diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I™ have just trademarked the letter "i".


  • itsbecca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think a pretty major flaw in this case is the fact that "The Dig" is no longer manufactured or sold. Therefore, any "confusion" will not result in any lost profits for Lucas Arts and these "prospective purchases" just plain don't exist when it comes to "The Dig".
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.