Epic Games sues AR company Nreal for sounding too much like ‘Unreal’
25 points by nixy 4 years ago | 29 comments- adrianvoica 4 years agoIt's as if Epic invented the (unheard-of - pun intended) word "unreal"... it's like saying yoga people (yogi?) should bring Lucasfilm to court for the fact that Yoda sounds a lot like Yoga... this world is more f**ed by the day...
- nailer 4 years agoEpic associated the word Unreal with 3D tech. UE supports VR and I imagine will probably support AR too. Seems fine to me.
- nix23 4 years agoIt's unreal how f*ck'd this world is.
I Grill now my self-made and better BigMac (EU Citizen BTW)
- Doxin 4 years agoExcept that unreal and nreal have significant overlap in their target audience.
- 4 years ago
- nailer 4 years ago
- cridenour 4 years agoSounds like a simple case of if you don't defend it, you lose it. Epic doesn't have a choice here.
- grammarnazzzi 4 years agoThey're defending something they don't own.
Nobody on the face of the Earth would confuse NReal with Unreal.
- vineyardmike 4 years agoIf you hear those said outloud you could totally confuse them
- saurik 4 years agoThat sarcasm is some of the most subtle I have seen in a while; I applaud you, my good sir ;P.
- tmccrary55 4 years agoForreal
- vineyardmike 4 years ago
- CogitoCogito 4 years agoOf course Epic has a choice.
- zinekeller 4 years agoUS laws and case precedents says otherwise. If it's in another country, especially in EU, this is frivolous but US IP laws and case precedents are messy as hell. They could lose this case, but the legal bill is worth it as it allows them to allow future lawsuits which misuses trademark homonyms in a genuinely damaging manner to them (like for example a game engine that sounds like "Unreal") since the defendants can't use Nreal's trademark as something they have deliberately left undefended and argue that the "Unreal" has genericised enough that they should use a similar homonym.
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).
- laumars 4 years agoYou don’t need to challenge every instance of vague similarities. The law actually states that but for some reason that clause gets overlooked by nearly every casual reader of HN in favour of the popular misconception that companies have to venture into the ridiculous or else they somehow instantly lose their trademark.
- CogitoCogito 4 years ago> US laws and case precedents says otherwise.US laws and case precedents says otherwise.
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.
- laumars 4 years ago
- kahrl 4 years agoThey can chose to lose their own trademark?
- grammarnazzzi 4 years agoNo. They are choosing to steal someone else's trademark
- grammarnazzzi 4 years ago
- zinekeller 4 years ago
- grammarnazzzi 4 years ago
- loa_in_ 4 years agoSince EG doesn't exist in AR market they are going to lose. Or at least should.
- carstenhag 4 years agoAs their Unreal Engine does allow you to create AR/VR experiences, you are imo wrong. It's not as clear as "nreal makes soda, Epic Games makes an engine and video games"
- carstenhag 4 years ago
- pelagicAustral 4 years agoAH! Epic.