Client Alert Intellectual Property
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP www.pillsburylaw.com 1
August 26, 2013
Evolving Case Law on the Fair Use of
Famous Trademarks in Video Games
This article was originally published in Law360 on September 9, 2013.
By Sean F. Kane
A recent spate of cases has generally upheld, on First Amendment grounds, a
developer’s right to include unlicensed trademarks in video games. However,
until the body of case law becomes so prevalent that trademark owners
recognize that they cannot possibly succeed in an action involving use in a
video game, it may be wise for developers to be circumspect in what they
include. In many cases, the costs of licensing a trademark may be much less
than demonstrating rights under the First Amendment.
In some of today’s top-grossing video game titles, realism is a key component to the success of the game.
In order to promote authenticity, many of the leading publishers incorporate the names, images and
trademarks of famous brands into the video games. While many of the brands have historically agreed to
the inclusion of their marks, more and more video game publishers are including trademarks in their
games without the owner’s express authorization. For instance, in early May 2013, Electronic Arts issued a
statement saying it will no longer be entering into licensing agreements with gun manufacturers but that it
retains the right to continue to feature branded guns in EA games. "We're telling a story and we have a
point of view," EA's President of Labels Frank Gibeau, said in an interview. "A book doesn't pay for saying
the word 'Colt,' for example." Put another way, EA is asserting its First Amendment, constitutional free
speech right to use trademarks without permission in its ever-more-realistic games.
In the past there has been some question as to whether video games are subject to First Amendment
protections. Some of the early case law found that games like Pong did not contain sufficient creative
elements to warrant First Amendment protection. As video games advanced and their narrative elements
became more complex, the decisions in the case law likewise changed. Finally, in 2011 this question was
clearly addressed by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 131 S.Ct. 2729
(2011). In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that video games have the same free speech
protections as other “expressive works” such as films, books and music. In invalidating a California statute
that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors, the Supreme Court specifically held that video
games qualify for First Amendment protection and that the "basic principles of freedom of speech…do not
Client Alert
Intellectual Property
Client Alert Intellectual Property
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP www.pillsburylaw.com 2
vary" with the creation of a new and different communication medium. The Court stated that "[l]ike the
protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even
social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music)
and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That
suffices to confer First Amendment protection."
Recently, the use of trademarks in video games has become a very hot topic in the courts. In the seminal
1989 case of Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), the Second Circuit crafted a First
Amendment-protected-use test that has been applied in the vast majority of trademark-in-video-game
cases which have followed. The Rogers test consists of two prongs: it asks whether the trademark use is
(1) artistically relevant to the defendant’s work; and (2) explicitly misleading. More specifically, the
defendant has the light burden of showing that the use has some minimal relevance to the artistic goal of
the work, while the plaintiff has the heavy burden of showing that the defendant made an affirmative
statement other than the use of the mark itself which indicated the plaintiff’s approval or endorsement. The
modern Rogers test is thus highly protective of expressive trademark uses. In the following cases, the
application of the Rogers test has been used to determine whether trademark use in a video game was
expressive-work-protected speech.
Novalogic. Inc. v. Activision Blizzard et al.
Novalogic, Inc. filed an action against Activision Blizzard, and others, for federal and state trademark
infringement, false designation of origin, and contributory infringement based on the use of Novalogic’s
trademarks “Delta Force” and a Delta Force logo in Activision’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 video
game and related products. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a very realistic video game and the
weapons, locations, and use of the names and logos of actual combat forces adds to the illusion of
realism. In Novalogic v. Activision Blizzard et al. [No. 12-4011], Activision Blizzard moved to dismiss the
complaint by raising a First Amendment defense.
On June 18, 2013, the California federal court applied the Rogers test and held that Novalogic’s attempt to
enjoin Activision from using the marks at issue was barred on First Amendment grounds. Specifically, the
district court found that use of the “Delta Force” marks in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has significant
artistic relevance and helps to satisfy increasing player demand for authenticity. As to the second Rogers
prong, the court held that Activision Blizzard did not mislead consumers because the “Delta Force” name
and related marks predate Novalogic’s use and have an established and well-known meaning in the public
realm.
Rebellion Devs. Ltd. v. Stardock Entm’t, Inc.
In Rebellion Devs. Ltd. v. Stardock Entm’t, Inc., 2013 WL 194888 (May 9, 2013), the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The underlying
facts were that defendant Stardock released a game titled Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion. As this was
the fourth game in a similarly named series, certain players referred to it simply as Rebellion. Plaintiff
Rebellion filed federal claims in the summer of 2012 for infringement of its trademark, false designation of
origin/unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and related state claims. Stardock moved to dismiss
asserting that the use of “Rebellion” as part of the name of a video game – which is an expressive work –
was protected by the First Amendment Rogers test.
The district court’s opinion acknowledged that application of the Rogers test at the motion to dismiss stage
was an issue of first impression, but supported its decision to grant the motion to dismiss by citing: (1) that
a motion to dismiss may be granted “where the undisputed facts conclusively establish an affirmative
Client Alert Intellectual Property
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP www.pillsburylaw.com 3
defense as a matter of law;” (2) that many courts have analyzed the First Amendment at the motion to
dismiss stage; and (3) another district court ruling that the First Amendment can be an affirmative defense,
which cited to dicta from two previous cases. After stating the applicability of the Rogers test, the district
court applied the test’s two prongs and found that use of the word “Rebellion” as a title to a video game
with a civil war theme easily established artistic relevance. Additionally, the district court held that even if
there was consumer confusion – as was alleged existed by plaintiff – that evidence did not establish the
title was explicitly misleading without further demonstrating an "overt misrepresentation."
Electronic Arts, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., et al.
On January 6, 2012, Electronic Arts filed a declaratory judgment suit against Textron, Inc. and others
seeking a ruling that its depiction of Bell Helicopters in its video game Battlefield 3 is not an infringement.
Textron responded with counterclaims based on infringement of its trademarks, trade dress and false
designation of origin and sponsorship. In moving to dismiss the counterclaims in the suit, Electronic Arts,
Inc. v. Textron, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:2012cv00118 (N.D.Cal. 2012), EA asked the district court to rule that
it has a right under the First Amendment to depict real-life military helicopters in its video games as an
expressive work, without the permission of the aircraft's maker.
Following its application of the Rogers test to use of the Bell Helicopters in Battlefield 3, the district court
denied EA’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The court noted that under Rogers the contested
trademark use must have “no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some
artistic relevance, unless [it] explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” The district
court found that it is “plausible” that consumers might believe that Textron provided EA with expertise and
knowledge “in order to create its realistic simulation of the actual workings of the Bell-manufactured
helicopters,” thereby failing to meet the second prong of the Rogers test. Thereafter the parties entered
into a confidential settlement agreement and the case dismissed with prejudice on May 20, 2013.
Dillinger, LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.
In Dillinger, LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 795 F.Supp.2d 829, 2011 WL 2446296 (S.D. Ind. June 15, 2011),
the Southern District of Indiana dismissed a case involving the use of “Dillinger” and “Modern Dillinger” as
the name of weapons in the Godfather I and Godfather II video games. The John Dillinger heirs brought
the action against EA alleging trademark infringement, among other claims, for using “Dillinger” to refer to
the Thompson submachine guns (“Tommy guns”) in the games.
In granting summary judgment for EA, the court again applied the Rogers test, and opined that EA's use of
Dillinger's name was protected as use in a "literary work" under the First Amendment. The district court
noted that the Godfather games were based on the well-known novel and films. Moreover, as the Tommy
gun was known to be Dillinger’s weapon of choice, EA’s use of the Dillinger name to refer to the weapons
is artistically relevant to the plotlines of the games and the plaintiff presented no evidence of any consumer
being misled or confused as to the source or content of the video games. Finally, the district court noted
that even if the relationship between Dillinger and the video games is attenuated, as alleged by Dillinger’s
heirs, the “artistic relevance to the underlying work” requirement is very low – it just needs to be above
zero.
E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
In E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth
Circuit affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Rock Star finding that inclusion of the mark “Pig Pen” as
the name of a virtual strip club in the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was protectable speech
Client Alert Intellectual Property
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP www.pillsburylaw.com 4
under the First Amendment. The underlying facts of the case involved allegations of infringement of a real-
world strip club’s “Play Pen” trademark and related trade dress.
Applying the Rogers test, the Ninth Circuit found that Rockstar’s video game re-creation of the Play Pen
met the Rogers test’s relevance prong, as the plot of the game allowed players to experience “gangster”
culture in the fictional California city. That prong, the court reasoned, requires only that “the level of
relevance . . . be above zero” and Rockstar’s “artistic goal . . . to develop a cartoon-style parody of East
Los Angeles” surpassed this hurdle. The court then addressed the second prong of the Rogers test and
noted that Rockstar’s use of the “Pig Pen” trademark did not render such use explicitly misleading. The
Ninth Circuit held that there was nothing to indicate that players of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas would
reasonably believe that the plaintiff produced or otherwise endorsed the video game. Consequently, the
court found that Rockstar’s inclusion of the contested mark was not explicitly misleading and was protected
by the First Amendment.
Conclusion
The recent spate of cases discussed above have generally upheld, on First Amendment grounds, a
developer’s right to include unlicensed trademarks in video games. Following the Supreme Court’s
clarification that video games are expressive works, this right to use trademarks is only becoming even
clearer. So long as a developer can meet the Rogers test and demonstrate that there is even a minimum
of artistic relevance and no explicit misleading of the consumers, inclusion of a trademark in a game
should be subject to the same protection provided to any other expressive works, such as books, music
and movies. As video games continue to evolve to add further realism, cinematic elements and complex
storylines, the case law in this area should continue to favor developers and protect their expressive
works. However, developers should weigh their decision to include an unauthorized Trademark in their
video game against the cost of defending against an infringement claim. While a developer may indeed
prevail under the Rogers test, it will still face the substantial cost of defending the suit until that point.
Therefore, it is important to discuss with knowledgeable legal counsel the decision to include any
unlicensed trademarks in a game under development and weigh the cost and likely outcome of an
infringement suit versus the value to the game of including the trademark. Until the body of case law
becomes so prevalent that trademark owners recognize that they cannot possibly succeed in an action
involving use in a video game, it may be wise for developers to be circumspect in what they include. In
many cases, the costs of licensing a Trademark may be much less than demonstrating rights under the
First Amendment.
If you have any questions about the content of this alert, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom
you regularly work, or the author.
Sean F. Kane
(bio)
New York
+1.212.858.1453
This publication is issued periodically to keep Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP clients and other interested parties
informed of current legal developments that may affect or otherwise be of interest to them. The comments contained herein
do not constitute legal opinion and should no
t be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.
©
2013 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. All Rights Reserved.
