EA sued over Sports Active trademark

By Ellie Gibson Published 7 June, 2010

Company wants $75,000 plus legal fees.

Exercise website the Active Network has filed a lawsuit against Electronic Arts.

The company is complaining that forthcoming Wii, PS3 and iPhone game EA Sports Active 2.0 infringes its trademarks.

As reported by Gamespot, Active Network reckons it owns the right to use the word "active" in relation to all things sporty, such as personal training schedules, fitness chat rooms and workout trackers.

It's claimed that the online functionality in EA Sports Active 2.0 will make it a direct competitor to Active.com. (The previous games didn't have any online options, so the company wasn't bothered.)

Active Network is asking for $75,000 in damages, legal fees, and an injunction that prevents EA from releasing or promoting the new title. EA has yet to comment on the lawsuit.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (26) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Slipstream #1 2 years ago

    Ridiculous. A new law needs to be passed, one that prevents foolish people from owning foolish rights, and prevents them from foolishly making such foolish court claims.

    But seriously these petty suings are running rampant in the industry, something needs to be done.

  • ISmoke #2 2 years ago

    America

  • kangarootoo #3 2 years ago

    $75k doesn't even seem that much by the usual standards of these cases :)



    "A new law needs to be passed..."

    I'd be extremely wary of a new law that went anywhere near the word "foolish".

    How would we determine whether someone's legal claim is foolish? Ooo, I've an idea... we could test it in court. If not there, then where? Down the pub? Across the office using a show of hands?

    Seriously, we can't start creating laws that prevent people from testing the legality of things in a court of law. Testing such things is the reason courts exist. Trying to enforce such a law would (if the law were to be fair) eventually end up in us creating another court... but calling it something else.

  • Evolution #4 2 years ago

    Slipstream = Franziska Von Karma?

  • Kazzahdrane #5 2 years ago

    I notice that everyone jumps on the "this is ridiculous, trademark laws are stupid" bandwagon whenever something like this appears in the news.

    Even though (imo) this looks like a fairly legitimate claim.

    This isn't like Langdell trying to stop anyone using the word "edge" in a game, this is a case of EA using the word "active" in relation to a very specific feature of their new game. Notice that there wasn't any sueing with the first EA Active, because that game didn't include this feature and so didn't (allegedly) infringe on the trademark in question.

  • Stratix #6 2 years ago

    Well I can see the reason they didn't sue the first one is because they probably think they wouldn't get away with it.

    I think it is rediculous how someone can seemingly "posses" a word in the dictionary.

    "WTF, you are calling yourself a baker? But I'M a baker! I'm going to sue you for loss of earnings!"

  • adofessex #7 2 years ago

    I am sorry to inform you all but I have the legal ownership to the letter 'S'. You will all be hearing from my lawyers. Except ISsmoke, you're lucky this time.

  • kangarootoo #8 2 years ago

    ""WTF, you are calling yourself a baker? But I'M a baker! I'm going to sue you for loss of earnings!"

    As examples go, that is rubbish.

    If you had called yourself "The Tasty Bakery" selling your world famous "Tasty Pie" and someone else then opened a shop up the street, also called "The Tasty Bakery", also selling a world famous "Tasty Pie", then the comparison might stand.

  • playgen #9 2 years ago

    Sorry but if you use a completely obvious and commonplace word to name your company, then its your own fault if other companies use that same word in some regard. Its not like they were the first to use the word "active" in relation to sports and exercise, so can they really claim they own the word anyway.

  • Aradiel #10 2 years ago

    "Well I can see the reason they didn't sue the first one is because they probably think they wouldn't get away with it. "

    "Trademark infringement" only becomes important when it causes confusion in the marketplace. Since this group was web based they didn't care about the first one because it didn't involve the internet. The second one does, so people could get confused between the products, hence why they believe it is trademark infringement.

  • reinhart_menken #11 2 years ago

    @Kazzahdrane: I was afraid nobody would bring up that stupid Langdell, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you though. I would agree that it has some shred of legitimacy, if not for the fact that Active Network doesn't make any games. Like the article said, they just think they have the right to use "active" for anything sports related - "personal training schedules, fitness chat rooms and workout trackers". Think about it, they probably think they have rights for shoes, sport watches, free weights, sporty t-shirts, all other equipments. Does that sound right to you?

    That's a bit far, and only a bit less far than Langdell (his Edge applies to everything, even a burger, I imagine, though I have no idea why a burger would be called Edge). It'd be legitimate if they make even the smallest game in terms of scale. There are so many other reasons why this is just a money grab. Another is that EA's thing is called EA Sports Active. It's a game. It'd have been legitimate if it's a network. It's just not right to have rights to one word that encompasses a whole genre.

    @kangarootoo: That's funny, I was just about to pose this question, "Should I have rights to the words "juicy" and "tasty" for all food-related stuff if I register for them?"
    Edited by reinhart_menken at 07/06/10 @ 09:57

  • DutchDemons #12 2 years ago

    ah yes, consumer confusement as an argument. Thank god we have the court to prevent the consumers from being confused!

  • Slipstream #13 2 years ago

    Slipstream = Franziska Von Karma?

    Bingo ;)

  • Macross #14 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo, forgive me if im wrong but wouldnt the difference be more like this:

    you have a bakery called "Tasty Bakers" selling your "Tasty Pies" but then someone opens a shop down the road called "Burt's Yummy Tasty Bakers" selling "Burt's Yummy Tasty Apple Pies".

    To me theres a clear distinction and no confusion between the two, the whole trademark thing has been blown out of proportion, similar to the patent system by greedy people out to make a quick buck. Im not defending EA here as Im sure they are just as bad in their own respect, but the whole thing just reminds me of little kids squabbling in the playground over who gets to play with the pullback car next, but on a corporate level, its frankly a discusting way to see humans behave.

  • kangarootoo #15 2 years ago

    @Macross

    Well your examples are perhaps better ones than mine. There is a strong degree of similarity, in the same market, which could lead to customer confusion. Not confusion to the extent that they think the products are exactly the same thing, but perhaps that your Tasy Apple Pies are made by the same dude up the street who makes Tasty Pies (i.e. me).

    Maybe a customer that fancies apples goes into your shop, thinking you are an extension of my business, and I lose money as a result of that confusion.

    Now that is unlikely in your specific example, as you used the word "Bert". Though the absence of any name from my brand could perhaps lead people who make the initial confusion to believe I am Bert too (and if I started using the word "Bert", you may want to counter sue me as well).

    However, as I said at the start of the thread, how "obvious" a confusion is or isn't is hard to decide fairly. And a court of law is probably the only safe place to do it. We should probably get together first and discuss whether one of us can call our pies something else, but if we couldn't agree, we need a 3rd party to determine who is right... i.e. a court.


    Lets not forget that at the root of all of this is a business that wants to protect its income. Companies don't do this sort of thing for fun, or because they are greedy. Whether Active Network turns out to be wrong or right in this case, they are suing because they are worried that EA is going to end up taking customer from them one way or another.

  • linksdad #16 2 years ago

    $75k seems to be an amount perfectly pitched so that EA settle rather than spend at least as much defending.

  • kangarootoo #17 2 years ago

    @reinhart_menken

    You could indeed trademark those words if the context was specific. It all depends on content though. If your tagline for your orange drink was "Sure is juicy!", someone else using the same tagline would be in trouble. If their tagline was "made from fresh juicy oranges", probably not.

    If your tagline was simply "Juicy!", you would have a tougher time in the same example. But if another company was to start using ther word Juicy in issolation, just like you, things would get mroe complex I think.

    I think key in this case is that both companies don't have much context padding around the use of the word "Active". A sports company called "Active Network", and an online EA product called "Sports Active" (presumably part of the "EA Network";). They are pretty similar, I'm sure everyone would agree.

  • reinhart_menken #18 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: Heh, I wasn't really asking the question but more posing the question to prove a point. I meant just "juicy" and "tasty" for all food. Of course no one should be allowed to have that trademark.

    EA Sports Active is actually a game. That's the name of it, "EA Sports Active". Admittedly, "EA Sports" are printed smaller compared to the big "Active"; regardless, I'm sure that's the name they registered under. Whereas "Active Network" is just a website, where they have sports news and articles and other sports related stuff. Check it out if you haven't. Seems like a big difference to me, though I agree that they don't have much padding in the name, but just generic words.

    Edit: Actually, pardon me. "active.com" is their website with news, articles and whatnot. "activenetwork.com" is their business site, about marketing, management, and other stuff. Still, my point in previous post (not this one - same one with the "Edit" post) stands.
    Edited by reinhart_menken at 07/06/10 @ 12:11

  • Slipstream #19 2 years ago

    I notice that everyone jumps on the "this is ridiculous, trademark laws are stupid" bandwagon whenever something like this appears in the news.

    I have to disagree with you on this one Kazza...

    EA Sports Active (the first one) has been out for a good while now, with no hinderance to it's IP, thus wouldn't you assume it's safe for EA to continue using it? I would've thought so, how were EA to know that a company were waiting in the dark to slam them with a lawsuit if they took the name online.

    Now there are probably hundreds of thousands of online patents, god forbid if EA were to miss taking the word 'Active' online with their product, active is often associated with fitness so the way I see it EA are doing no wrong, this is a ridiculous patent that needs revision, not a lawsuit.

  • Nazo #20 2 years ago

    They should rename it to EA Sports Active - push it to the Edge

  • Gastrian #21 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • LazyNinjaUk #22 2 years ago

    Oh God, this isn't another persona of Tim Langdell is it?

  • Shikasama #23 2 years ago

    I am going to assume that the majority of the comments do not come from american copyright lawyers.

    Based on this, I am going to assume that the majority of people here are talking on a subject they know very little about and what they do know is the kind of 'I know my rights!' law that is often discussed on the internet.

  • Twin_snakes #24 2 years ago

    Hey, Active have you met my Friend Edge?

  • IneptPercy #25 2 years ago

    Love the reference Slipstream! +1

    I do think there legal team have been active...

    Oh no I used the word active, they will be after me now!

  • Lamb #26 2 years ago

    Lamb is releasing: Lamb's Gears of War and Lamb's Killzone 2. :p

    Microsoft and Sony are up in arms and sue.

    Lamb incorporates Lamb's Microsoft and Lamb's Sony and countersues.

    Seriously the trademark system needs to be overhauled. People will associate quality with the actual supplier if its more than a soundbyte.

    Give me something of quality and value to me, when I need it and I will gladly pay for it regardless of who thought of it first.
    Edited by Lamb at 07/06/10 @ 21:13