Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ultracade has Trademarked MAME & Multiple Arcade Machine E..

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and
has hired lawyers in both the US and UK to go after anyone using the
terms, starting with auctions on eBay (apparently, a Dream Arcades
cabinet auction was pulled because it mentioned MAME...)

In addition, it looks like Mr. Foley may be going after the MAME
emulator itself, claiming that the code that circumvents copy protection
in the CP32 emulation violates the law and is illegal.

This story is just breaking, but I'll report what I find as soon as I
know more...

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:15:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c82f27767eb0841989e11@news:

> It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
> 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and
> has hired lawyers in both the US and UK to go after anyone using the
> terms, starting with auctions on eBay (apparently, a Dream Arcades
> cabinet auction was pulled because it mentioned MAME...)

That's not even funny. I he might be able to dispute the encryption, but
the trademark should be disputable.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=up4ktd...

--
Do you want a free Gaming Console?
http://consoles.prizecube.com/?ref=12216
February 21, 2005 4:49:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Does prior art not apply to something like this? Looks like it hasn't
been approved yet (at least not as of 1/28), so how can he get lawyers to
go after something that hasn't been finalized in his name? *shrug* Guess
I don't get it. Regardless, what a jerk.

The first official release was MAME 0.1, which was released on the evening
of February 5th, 1997 (23:32 +0100)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Kevin Steele wrote:

> It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
> 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and
> has hired lawyers in both the US and UK to go after anyone using the
> terms, starting with auctions on eBay (apparently, a Dream Arcades
> cabinet auction was pulled because it mentioned MAME...)
>
> In addition, it looks like Mr. Foley may be going after the MAME
> emulator itself, claiming that the code that circumvents copy protection
> in the CP32 emulation violates the law and is illegal.
>
> This story is just breaking, but I'll report what I find as soon as I
> know more...
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:57:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Kevin Steele wrote:
> It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
> 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and

I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use the term
MAME and the specific design that appears in the application he has no case.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
What are common law rights?

Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark.
Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first
to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application
with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and
registration. However, there are many benefits of federal trademark
registration.



What is a common law search? How can I do one? Is doing a common law
search necessary?

A common law search involves searching records other than the federal
register and pending application records. It may involve checking phone
directories, yellow pages, industrial directories, state trademark
registers, among others, in an effort to determine if a particular mark
is used by others when they have not filed for a federal trademark
registration. A common law search is not necessary but some find it
beneficial. Telephone numbers for search firms that perform these
searches for a fee can be found in the yellow pages of local phone
directories and through an Internet search.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:57:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
> Kevin Steele wrote:
> > It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
> > 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and
>
> I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use the term
> MAME and the specific design that appears in the application he has no case.
>
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
> What are common law rights?
>
> Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark.
> Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first
> to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application
> with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and
> registration. However, there are many benefits of federal trademark
> registration.

I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use a
mark in _commerce_..."

I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't being
used commercially. Now he wants it.

However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation. That
should be something he can't get away with.

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
February 21, 2005 5:41:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c831259c8b8516c989e12@news:

> usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
>> Kevin Steele wrote:
>> > It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on
>> > January 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine
>> > Emulator", and
>>
>> I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use the
>> term MAME and the specific design that appears in the application he
>> has no case.
>>
>> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
>> What are common law rights?
>>
>> Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
>> trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
>> Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
>> intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
>> the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are many
>> benefits of federal trademark registration.
>
> I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use a
> mark in _commerce_..."
>
> I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't being
> used commercially. Now he wants it.
>
> However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
> something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation. That
> should be something he can't get away with.
>

Others have used the term "Mame" in commerce.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:41:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Unknown thought about it a bit, then said...
> Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1c831259c8b8516c989e12@news:
>
> > usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
> >> Kevin Steele wrote:
> >> > It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on
> >> > January 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine
> >> > Emulator", and
> >>
> >> I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use the
> >> term MAME and the specific design that appears in the application he
> >> has no case.
> >>
> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
> >> What are common law rights?
> >>
> >> Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
> >> trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
> >> Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
> >> intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
> >> the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are many
> >> benefits of federal trademark registration.
> >
> > I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use a
> > mark in _commerce_..."
> >
> > I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't being
> > used commercially. Now he wants it.
> >
> > However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
> > something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation. That
> > should be something he can't get away with.
> >
>
> Others have used the term "Mame" in commerce.

Perhaps, but none have trademarked it (at least in the context of
"Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator")

I just wonder what sort of legal challenge one can make against a
trademark application, and how much it'll cost...

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
February 21, 2005 5:52:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c831630df1e8b9a989e13@news:

> Unknown thought about it a bit, then said...
>> Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1c831259c8b8516c989e12@news:
>>
>> > usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
>> >> Kevin Steele wrote:
>> >> > It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on
>> >> > January 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine
>> >> > Emulator", and
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use
>> >> the term MAME and the specific design that appears in the
>> >> application he has no case.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
>> >> What are common law rights?
>> >>
>> >> Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
>> >> trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
>> >> Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
>> >> intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
>> >> the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are
>> >> many benefits of federal trademark registration.
>> >
>> > I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use
>> > a mark in _commerce_..."
>> >
>> > I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't
>> > being used commercially. Now he wants it.
>> >
>> > However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
>> > something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation.
>> > That should be something he can't get away with.
>> >
>>
>> Others have used the term "Mame" in commerce.
>
> Perhaps, but none have trademarked it (at least in the context of
> "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator")
>
> I just wonder what sort of legal challenge one can make against a
> trademark application, and how much it'll cost...
>

I'd pitch in. Mamers need to mount a counteroffensive. What he is
doing is wrong in every sense.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:52:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Who the f**k does this guy think he is? Ultracades are the bigest pieces of
s**t... what an arsehole...

I hope he realizes he is messing with thousands of mamers, and if he shuts
"it" down, things will not be pretty for him...


"Unknown" <unknown@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9603D4590576Dsilentunknownonesbcg@151.164.30.44...
> Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1c831630df1e8b9a989e13@news:
>
>> Unknown thought about it a bit, then said...
>>> Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
>>> news:MPG.1c831259c8b8516c989e12@news:
>>>
>>> > usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
>>> >> Kevin Steele wrote:
>>> >> > It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on
>>> >> > January 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine
>>> >> > Emulator", and
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use
>>> >> the term MAME and the specific design that appears in the
>>> >> application he has no case.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
>>> >> What are common law rights?
>>> >>
>>> >> Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
>>> >> trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
>>> >> Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
>>> >> intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
>>> >> the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are
>>> >> many benefits of federal trademark registration.
>>> >
>>> > I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use
>>> > a mark in _commerce_..."
>>> >
>>> > I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't
>>> > being used commercially. Now he wants it.
>>> >
>>> > However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
>>> > something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation.
>>> > That should be something he can't get away with.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Others have used the term "Mame" in commerce.
>>
>> Perhaps, but none have trademarked it (at least in the context of
>> "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator")
>>
>> I just wonder what sort of legal challenge one can make against a
>> trademark application, and how much it'll cost...
>>
>
> I'd pitch in. Mamers need to mount a counteroffensive. What he is
> doing is wrong in every sense.
February 21, 2005 9:23:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=...



All contract information of attorney.







"TonyT" <proroc@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:FseSd.8513$Z6.1990@fe08.lga...
> Who the f**k does this guy think he is? Ultracades are the bigest pieces
of
> s**t... what an arsehole...
>
> I hope he realizes he is messing with thousands of mamers, and if he shuts
> "it" down, things will not be pretty for him...
>
>
> "Unknown" <unknown@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9603D4590576Dsilentunknownonesbcg@151.164.30.44...
> > Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
> > news:MPG.1c831630df1e8b9a989e13@news:
> >
> >> Unknown thought about it a bit, then said...
> >>> Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
> >>> news:MPG.1c831259c8b8516c989e12@news:
> >>>
> >>> > usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
> >>> >> Kevin Steele wrote:
> >>> >> > It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on
> >>> >> > January 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine
> >>> >> > Emulator", and
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use
> >>> >> the term MAME and the specific design that appears in the
> >>> >> application he has no case.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
> >>> >> What are common law rights?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
> >>> >> trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
> >>> >> Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
> >>> >> intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
> >>> >> the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are
> >>> >> many benefits of federal trademark registration.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use
> >>> > a mark in _commerce_..."
> >>> >
> >>> > I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't
> >>> > being used commercially. Now he wants it.
> >>> >
> >>> > However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
> >>> > something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation.
> >>> > That should be something he can't get away with.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Others have used the term "Mame" in commerce.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but none have trademarked it (at least in the context of
> >> "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator")
> >>
> >> I just wonder what sort of legal challenge one can make against a
> >> trademark application, and how much it'll cost...
> >>
> >
> > I'd pitch in. Mamers need to mount a counteroffensive. What he is
> > doing is wrong in every sense.
>
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:36:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

That is terrible. What a ******* *******

Ian
The Pinny Parlour
www.thepinnyparlour.com



"Kevin Steele" <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c82f27767eb0841989e11@news...
> It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
> 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator", and
> has hired lawyers in both the US and UK to go after anyone using the
> terms, starting with auctions on eBay (apparently, a Dream Arcades
> cabinet auction was pulled because it mentioned MAME...)
>
> In addition, it looks like Mr. Foley may be going after the MAME
> emulator itself, claiming that the code that circumvents copy protection
> in the CP32 emulation violates the law and is illegal.
>
> This story is just breaking, but I'll report what I find as soon as I
> know more...
>
> --
> Kevin Steele
> RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
> www.retroblast.com
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:22:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Kevin Steele wrote:
> Unknown thought about it a bit, then said...
>
>>Kevin Steele <net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote in
>>news:MPG.1c831259c8b8516c989e12@news:
>>
>>
>>>usenet thought about it a bit, then said...
>>>
>>>>Kevin Steele wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on
>>>>>January 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine
>>>>>Emulator", and
>>>>
>>>>I don't know what his point is. If he was not the first to use the
>>>>term MAME and the specific design that appears in the application he
>>>>has no case.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001
>>>>What are common law rights?
>>>>
>>>>Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
>>>>trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
>>>>Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
>>>>intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has
>>>>the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there are many
>>>>benefits of federal trademark registration.
>>>
>>>I think the key phrase here is "Generally, the first to either use a
>>>mark in _commerce_..."
>>>
>>>I.e., while the MAME team has been using MAME for ages, it isn't being
>>>used commercially. Now he wants it.
>>>
>>>However, he's also trying to trademark the distinctive MAME logo,
>>>something that can be claimed by someone else as their creation. That
>>>should be something he can't get away with.
>>>
>>
>>Others have used the term "Mame" in commerce.
>
>
> Perhaps, but none have trademarked it (at least in the context of
> "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator")
>
> I just wonder what sort of legal challenge one can make against a
> trademark application, and how much it'll cost...

It is not required to register a trademark to own it. Simply pointing
out the prior use to the reviewer should be enough to deny the
trademark. I would bet that the MAME license that prohibits commercial
use (it does prohibit that, right?) would be enough to deny him
trademark status if the owner cared enough to object.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Unknown" <unknown@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9603D4590576Dsilentunknownonesbcg@151.164.30.44...

>> I just wonder what sort of legal challenge one can make against a
>> trademark application, and how much it'll cost...
> I'd pitch in. Mamers need to mount a counteroffensive. What he is
> doing is wrong in every sense.

Ditto - Count me & my wallet in also.

Brett
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:27:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Does the name really matter?

Let him spend\waste his money.
If it comes to it that he owns the MAME trademark\name or whatever and is
believed to be mounting a challenge to the existance of the emulator and
its continuing development, just change the name of the emulator.

Found this related article at Slashdot

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/21/04152...
&mode=nocomment&tid=203&tid=17&tid=10

It puts a bit of a interesting spin on it.
Anybody who thinks ebay sellers etc are big scumbags, yet disagree also
with this new drama are strongly advised to have a look at it, as they have
been using the same arguements, which he is now using to support his case,
for years.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 2:28:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Kevin Steele wrote:

> It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
> 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator",
<snip>

Feel free to email him at david@davidrfoley.com or david@hyperware.com to
let him know what a good idea he has.

Don't get yourselves in trouble with stupid threats.

He must be good friends with Darl McBride (of SCO for those who don't know).
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 7:17:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

usenet's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> It is not required to register a trademark to own it. Simply pointing
> out the prior use to the reviewer should be enough to deny the
> trademark. I would bet that the MAME license that prohibits commercial
> use (it does prohibit that, right?) would be enough to deny him
> trademark status if the owner cared enough to object.

Problem is, you have to point that out to the person handling it because
they do not look.
February 23, 2005 12:13:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

AWS wrote:

> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/21/04152...

Thanks for this link. Clears up some things.

> It puts a bit of a interesting spin on it.

Yes. His argument seems to make the point that the evil forces against
whom his company is fighting are the E-bay resellers. I can see that as
a legitimate reason to fight this battle.

But, I'm sure if free MAME emulators, the ROM distribution
sites/services/bittorrents, etc. all disappeared tomorrow, they wouldn't
be upset about the effect that would have on their business. They say
they're not "against hobbyists", but it's hard to define what is a hobby
and what is playing a pirated game. The current "geek factor" required
to use MAME is also a barrier towards wide-scale usage.

Quoting the above article:

> A majority of the publishers who
> own the copyrighted material have
> not paid much attention to this
> marketplace, as until recently it
> has not had a huge commercial impact.
> But now, there are websites and eBay
> sellers selling machines that directly
> compete with legitimate publishers
> like us who publish games from Capcom,
> Taito, Midway, Atari and others, or
> publishers like Namco that publish Ms.
> Pac-Man/Galaga or the Donkey
> Kong/Mario Bros. machines.

The curious question about the point he makes here is the sheer numbers
(or proportions) of the MAME competition. How many people use MAME as a
hobbyist (i.e., setting up the system with their own time, finding ways
to get roms, etc.) as opposed to those "vast majority of unintelligent
consumers" (to paraphrase, using the author's terms) who buy
illegitimate packages of MAME systems off of E-bay? One could argue that
the resellers are simply making MAME user-friendly.

I think if one day Capcom, Taito, etc. began to see some major impact on
their market from MAME, just as the MPAA have with respect to
peer-to-peer, then there might be something to worry about. However, I
suppose that the size (in terms of $) of the arcade and movie markets
are orders of magnitude apart. Today, at least, MAME is much harder to
set up and exploit than Kazaa or E-mule, etc. One day, this may all be
different. I suspect this is only the start, and the future holds more
of these conflicts.

> Anybody who thinks ebay sellers etc are big scumbags, yet disagree also
> with this new drama are strongly advised to have a look at it, as they have
> been using the same arguements, which he is now using to support his case,
> for years.

Sorry, but I don't follow you here, probably because I'm not familiar
with the arguments the E-bay sellers have been using. Could you please
elucidate?
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:26:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SMC <no@spam.org> wrote in news:p an.2005.02.21.12.28.40.302408@spam.org:

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0500, Kevin Steele wrote:
>
>> It looks like David Foley of Ultracade filed for a trademark on January
>> 11th, 2005 for both "MAME" and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator",
> <snip>
>
> He must be good friends with Darl McBride (of SCO for those who don't
> know).

Or Tim Eckels?
!