The Italian company is a trademark squatter who since around 2015 has filed a variety of Commodore trademarks in various European countries in categories OTHER than computers and as diverse as "Men's Underwear" (not kidding). They've intermittently slapped the Commodore name on some generic products like mobile phones developed by other companies and resold them (mostly in Italy). They've tried a few times to get the Computer category trademark too but it was repeatedly challenged and overturned by the company Peri Fractic bought the trademark from. Some of the trademarks they've attempted to file were just for a logo similar to Commodore's and not the name. So you have to examine their claims carefully because they've repeatedly made misleading statements about rights they own. They seem to me like small time opportunists with little capital trying to score easy money around the edges of tenuous trademark claims.
In saying this, I'm not conversely endorsing Peri Fractic's efforts, although they seem at least slightly more serious and at least he's a Commodore enthusiast with some track record who's (apparently) put some meaningful capital at risk to launch products directly related to 1980s Commodore. I love retro 80s computers, had all the Amigas in the 80s and 90s and currently have a collection of well over a hundred different models of 80s computers - but I'm also a deeply experienced business person and at the end of the day, I doubt any of these efforts are going to make any meaningful money (meaning rounded to the nearest million dollars, the net profits after costs will likely be zero).
Ever since Commodore went under I've noticed a strange affliction seems to haunt all Commodore or Amiga legal rights. Everyone who gets involved with them seems to end up wasting money fighting in court over essentially worthless rights. It's like some form of temporary insanity. It makes zero sense and even after chatting with some of these people (who all seem reasonably rational in brief casual conversation), I have no idea what causes it.
Anyway, assuming these Italian opportunists are similarly afflicted, this is sure to be the beginning of yet another pointless multi-year Commodore rights quagmire in a multi-decade string of them. While whatever rights the Italians may still hold (if any) are probably not even for computers and may have been canceled or expired in many major jurisdictions, the Italian legal system is also well-known to be the circus clown car of byzantine, capriciously arbitrary legal systems - so I recommend ignoring this slow-mo train wreck. Fighting over Commodore rights is like mud wrestling with a pig. No one ever wins but the pig enjoys it.
> a Final Fight book might be riskier than, say, a general look at '80s arcade games, or 2D beat-em-ups.
The risk always depends most on how aggressive and/or unreasonable a rights holder chooses to be. A hyper-aggressive litigant with literally zero grounds to sue can still require tens of thousands of dollars and many months to get dismissed if they choose to be maximally obstructive. A legit company in the business of monetizing their IP hopefully won't be quite that bad - but they may not be too far behind given their business focus.
However, a book specifically on their trademark does have the possibility of additional complication from arguably "trading on the name brand" vs just mentioning the brand. If the "Final Fight" logo and game artwork is featured prominently on the cover, it makes it easy for them to claim "the book used our trademark to sell itself".
Of course, the doesn't mean the fair use safe harbor doesn't apply but it does make it more complicated and that increases risk. That's why some books go out of their way not to use trademarked names, logos or artwork on the cover. Like a book that could have been called "Inside Disney" instead being called "Inside the House of Mouse" or similar.
Hopefully, he's verified that whoever sent him the letter actually is the party that owns the rights (because griefer trolls will troll). But to answer your question, generally, it should be possible to write a book about a series of games because fair use is a thing. The key is ensuring you stay on the right side of fair use and that requires paying an IP lawyer with fair use experience to review everything. That's expensive and, at the end of the day, your lawyer's belief that you're not infringing won't stop a rights holder from suing you.
It may not even be that the rights holder is intentionally being mean. A lot of companies have lawyers on retainer and those lawyers run regular automated searches on trademarks their client owns. If they get any hits, by default they advise their client that the client should pay them to send a letter to notify the other party that they own the trademark and have the right to enforce it. Sending a bunch of these letters helps the law firm use up the client's retainer (basically an advance deposit). The firm will also warn the client that not defending their trademarks can potentially lead to weakening or nullifying the trademark. While technically correct, it probably wouldn't apply in a lot of situations but billable hours are billable hours and template letters are easy money.
Ultimately, if you're collecting money for anything that incorporates more than a tiny smidge some big company's trademarked IP, you're going to have legal exposure if they choose to sue. You may win in court but it'll cost well over $100K and take a few years (at best). Many people wonder "Why wouldn't a company just ask for a percentage royalty and make a little money if it sells well?" Sadly, there are a bunch of reasons that mostly fall under the heading of "Why big companies can't afford to do little things." If they grant a license to a hobby project, they can be named as a co-defendant if the project infringes some other company's rights. That means they need to review all the content and approve it, costing lawyer money and taking product manager time. Reviewing and approving it would also create even more potential liability, so it's a never-ending circle. There's also the ever-present concerns about the hobby project not living up to the brand's quality standards. Basically, the way the law works combined with what it costs any big business to just "do something" means it's either "All in " or "All out", and any form of "All in" takes a lot of time and money - so it has to be able to make a lot of money - or it's just not worth doing.
And this is why nice people usually can't make fun little side projects around a big company's IP and just charge enough to cover their costs plus some coffee money.
Comments 3
Re: Commodore Industries Is Trying To Prevent The Revived Commodore International From Using The Iconic Name
The Italian company is a trademark squatter who since around 2015 has filed a variety of Commodore trademarks in various European countries in categories OTHER than computers and as diverse as "Men's Underwear" (not kidding). They've intermittently slapped the Commodore name on some generic products like mobile phones developed by other companies and resold them (mostly in Italy). They've tried a few times to get the Computer category trademark too but it was repeatedly challenged and overturned by the company Peri Fractic bought the trademark from. Some of the trademarks they've attempted to file were just for a logo similar to Commodore's and not the name. So you have to examine their claims carefully because they've repeatedly made misleading statements about rights they own. They seem to me like small time opportunists with little capital trying to score easy money around the edges of tenuous trademark claims.
In saying this, I'm not conversely endorsing Peri Fractic's efforts, although they seem at least slightly more serious and at least he's a Commodore enthusiast with some track record who's (apparently) put some meaningful capital at risk to launch products directly related to 1980s Commodore. I love retro 80s computers, had all the Amigas in the 80s and 90s and currently have a collection of well over a hundred different models of 80s computers - but I'm also a deeply experienced business person and at the end of the day, I doubt any of these efforts are going to make any meaningful money (meaning rounded to the nearest million dollars, the net profits after costs will likely be zero).
Ever since Commodore went under I've noticed a strange affliction seems to haunt all Commodore or Amiga legal rights. Everyone who gets involved with them seems to end up wasting money fighting in court over essentially worthless rights. It's like some form of temporary insanity. It makes zero sense and even after chatting with some of these people (who all seem reasonably rational in brief casual conversation), I have no idea what causes it.
Anyway, assuming these Italian opportunists are similarly afflicted, this is sure to be the beginning of yet another pointless multi-year Commodore rights quagmire in a multi-decade string of them. While whatever rights the Italians may still hold (if any) are probably not even for computers and may have been canceled or expired in many major jurisdictions, the Italian legal system is also well-known to be the circus clown car of byzantine, capriciously arbitrary legal systems - so I recommend ignoring this slow-mo train wreck. Fighting over Commodore rights is like mud wrestling with a pig. No one ever wins but the pig enjoys it.
Re: "I Cannot Take Any Chances" - Final Fight Book Campaign Cancelled Following Message About Its Use Of IP
@smoreon
> a Final Fight book might be riskier than, say, a general look at '80s arcade games, or 2D beat-em-ups.
The risk always depends most on how aggressive and/or unreasonable a rights holder chooses to be. A hyper-aggressive litigant with literally zero grounds to sue can still require tens of thousands of dollars and many months to get dismissed if they choose to be maximally obstructive. A legit company in the business of monetizing their IP hopefully won't be quite that bad - but they may not be too far behind given their business focus.
However, a book specifically on their trademark does have the possibility of additional complication from arguably "trading on the name brand" vs just mentioning the brand. If the "Final Fight" logo and game artwork is featured prominently on the cover, it makes it easy for them to claim "the book used our trademark to sell itself".
Of course, the doesn't mean the fair use safe harbor doesn't apply but it does make it more complicated and that increases risk. That's why some books go out of their way not to use trademarked names, logos or artwork on the cover. Like a book that could have been called "Inside Disney" instead being called "Inside the House of Mouse" or similar.
Re: "I Cannot Take Any Chances" - Final Fight Book Campaign Cancelled Following Message About Its Use Of IP
@smoreon
Hopefully, he's verified that whoever sent him the letter actually is the party that owns the rights (because griefer trolls will troll). But to answer your question, generally, it should be possible to write a book about a series of games because fair use is a thing. The key is ensuring you stay on the right side of fair use and that requires paying an IP lawyer with fair use experience to review everything. That's expensive and, at the end of the day, your lawyer's belief that you're not infringing won't stop a rights holder from suing you.
It may not even be that the rights holder is intentionally being mean. A lot of companies have lawyers on retainer and those lawyers run regular automated searches on trademarks their client owns. If they get any hits, by default they advise their client that the client should pay them to send a letter to notify the other party that they own the trademark and have the right to enforce it. Sending a bunch of these letters helps the law firm use up the client's retainer (basically an advance deposit). The firm will also warn the client that not defending their trademarks can potentially lead to weakening or nullifying the trademark. While technically correct, it probably wouldn't apply in a lot of situations but billable hours are billable hours and template letters are easy money.
Ultimately, if you're collecting money for anything that incorporates more than a tiny smidge some big company's trademarked IP, you're going to have legal exposure if they choose to sue. You may win in court but it'll cost well over $100K and take a few years (at best). Many people wonder "Why wouldn't a company just ask for a percentage royalty and make a little money if it sells well?" Sadly, there are a bunch of reasons that mostly fall under the heading of "Why big companies can't afford to do little things." If they grant a license to a hobby project, they can be named as a co-defendant if the project infringes some other company's rights. That means they need to review all the content and approve it, costing lawyer money and taking product manager time. Reviewing and approving it would also create even more potential liability, so it's a never-ending circle. There's also the ever-present concerns about the hobby project not living up to the brand's quality standards. Basically, the way the law works combined with what it costs any big business to just "do something" means it's either "All in " or "All out", and any form of "All in" takes a lot of time and money - so it has to be able to make a lot of money - or it's just not worth doing.
And this is why nice people usually can't make fun little side projects around a big company's IP and just charge enough to cover their costs plus some coffee money.