EA Sues EA Over The EA Trademark

from the who's-on-first dept

Kingster writes in to let us know about an interesting trademark infringement case. In this case, the makers of Madden football games, EA (Electronic Arts), is suing the makers of sports wristbands, EA (Energy Armor), for trademark infringement. The main rub here is that Energy Armor markets its wristbands using a logo that is strikingly similar to Electronic Arts logo. Electronic Arts also claims that because Energy Armor markets its wristbands as sports equipment, the trademarks overlap and can cause confusion in the market place.

I can certainly see the concern here. While we have seen a number of dubious trademark lawsuits, most recently with Edge and Scrolls, this is an example of trademark law working as intended. On one hand, we have a business which has spent roughly 30 years building a brand that people recognize and trust and on the other, a business stepping in with a knock off logo used in a way meant to confuse buyers.

Electronic Arts has a very strong case for brand confusion and I really don’t see any way out of this mess for Energy Armor other than to change its name or lose in court.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: ea

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “EA Sues EA Over The EA Trademark”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ahh, that is the mystery. See, Glynn Moody let the cat out of the bag admitting that he gets paid to post on Techdirt (and seemed to be doing a bang up business this week), so I have to assume that everyone else posting on Techdirt as a contributor is getting paid.

Like you. How much do you get paid per post? Care to come clean?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Like you. How much do you get paid per post? Care to come clean?”

I make absolutely zero dollars and zero sense from Techdirt. Techdirt has never paid me one dime. Nor have I ever asked them to. I write about what I find interesting, they kindly post my work, and I make reference to that work in my business.

More importantly, why do you care?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Oh, good lord, this again??

A commercial blog paid a writer for his product. That’s certainly an embarrassment, isn’t it? Clearly, this shows that techdirt is somehow shady. It might be different there was an accepted and longstanding practice for publishers to pay writers for their writing.

Seriously, I’m not even sure why this was considered troll-worthy in the first place, let alone of enough import to bring up a second time.

The only explanation I can think of is that you must hate capitalism, you socialist!

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Fair enough, and thanks for posting the link to back up your statement. It’s….refreshing.

That said, no, I don’t feel shafted in any way. I love Techdirt. I love the articles, the community, the commenting, even the detractors. The chance to write about something I’m passionate about and have it posted here is rewarding enough for me. In addition, as I mentioned before, I reference my writing for Techdirt in my work, both in my “real” job as a technology consultant, and you better believe I reference my writing for Techdirt in every query letter that goes out to an agent or publisher.

Pay comes in different ways. I assure you, I am EXCEPTIONALLY well paid for what I do with Techdirt, even if that pay isn’t based on paper or silver….

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Zach is getting paid.

I don’t know about Zach, but I’ve written a couple of articles for Techdirt, and Mike didn’t pay me a dime. (He didn’t offer, and I didn’t ask.)

The accusation that people are paid to post here is one that has been cropping up recently from those who are trying to slander Techdirt, and it is completely wrong.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ask Glynn Moody. It is completely right.

Ah. Since one person got paid to post articles here, that must mean that everyone who posts comments that you don’t agree with are paid to shill Mike’s opinions.

Yeah, that makes sense.

This is really just a transparent attempt to discredit the opinions of anyone who vaguely agrees with Mike. It is, of course, total nonsense, and nobody is buying it. I’m sure that won’t stop you all from bringing it up ad nauseum, whether relevant or not, since you don’t have any response to the merits of the arguments themselves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.

Heh, that was my first thought too: well, got the “recognize” part right…

That said, this seems like a pretty genuine case for EA. Although, considering there’s some ill feelings out there for Electronic Arts over things they’ve done to their customer base, if I did confuse these logos at first glance I’d not have wanted anything to do with Energy Armor products anyway. Gotta keep up my personal boycott, you see.

Jeffrey Nonken (profile) says:

Re: Change its name?!

Agreed. To me the logo is close enough to cause confusion. But the name? Why, because it has the same initials? Nonsense. Electronic Arts would never have noticed Energy Armor if they hadn’t screwed up with the logo.

My other question is: did Electronic Arts lead with a lawsuit, or did they try a cease-and-desist letter first?

Anonymous Coward says:

Where is Mike to stop this type of article from appearing on TechDirt, is he sleeping or ill?

I think I know how the stakeholders of this company selected a name, “hmm.. let’s think of an established company with great brand recognition in the sports industry and then we can create a knock-off logo.” Seriously who would name a company that creates wristbands “Energy Armour”, its almost like they are trying to rip on Electronic Arts and UnderAmour. A very flagrant attempt to mislead consumers.

Karl (profile) says:


I disagree with this article completely.

First of all, Electronic Arts is a gaming company. One of their titles is sports-related; but they also make Mass Effect, Battlefield, and the Star Wars games. A maker of wristbands is not in the same product space.

To see how dangerous this is, turn it around. Suppose Energy Armor was in business for thirty years, and then Electronic Arts wanted to put out Madden NFL. They would be prevented from doing so, due to a trademark violation against Energy Armor. Electronic Arts – which had, until that point, built up a brand around its video games – would have to change its logo across its entire product line to put out the game.

Second of all, the logos have different fonts, and the lettering looks very different. The only things they have in common are that they are “e” and “a,” with the “e” being slanted.

To see how common this style is, let’s again flip it around, and see how often something similar is used with A and E.

Applied Engineering:

Associated Engineering:

Alexander Emelyanenko:

Atlantic Express:

This is not to say that Energy Armor is not intentionally deceiving consumers. But it has nothing to do with Electronic Arts. It has to do with the fact that their “negative ion” wristbands are 100% snake oil, no more legit than homeopathy or phrenology.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Nope

While those examples are similar they all look to be derived from Danish/Norwegian letter (windows code = ALT+0198) and not stylized like the EA (game) logo and very similar.

The overlap here is mostly because EA (game) distributes a lot of physical goods as advertising for their sports game.

Heck if EA (bands) had used a different color or texture background then there wouldn’t be as strong as a case.

Nick (profile) says:

Re: Nope

I agree with you totally. I worry what would happen if we’re allowing companies to dictate how the logos of other companies look, considering the ONLY similarities are the slant of the E. The font is different, the branch of the A even comes in a different direction (and is a bolt of lightning), and the danged company name is below the logo.

This would be a very dangerous precedent if we can allow companies to essentially trademark a slanted letter.

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Nope

Electronic Arts does more than make sports themed video games, they have a whole line of merchandise that ties into their EA Sports line of games. They also do a lot of promotional work with major league sports teams as well as athletic equipment.

So Yes, I can see someone catching a glance of these wrist bands at the mall and thinking they are Electronic Arts sponsored wrist bands.

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Nope

The phrase ‘Energy Armor’ is not the emphasis of the log though. The emphasis is the initials ‘EA’ as it is the largest part.

While yes, there are differentiating marks to the logos, as you point out, they are similar enough that when confronted with a bunch of Electronic Arts merchandise and some Energy Armor merchandise next to it, a customer could be confused.

Now an informed customer, one who takes the time to research their purchase, would not be confused. However, we are talking about a large scale of customers. How many of them take the time to carefully study the product they are looking to buy, especially with wrist bands?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Nope

No – how the various holders of similar AE marks haven’t bothered to sue each other.

Actually, it was about how the typographical idea of slanting one letter to match another is incredibly common. (In “AE,” the first letter, “A,” is slanted to the right, so its right leg is the horizontal part of the E. In “EA,” it’s the reverse – the first letter, “E,” is slanted to the right, to match the “A.”)

Aside from having the letters “E” and “A,” this is the only thing the logos have in common.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Nope

But that’s wrong, because the mark you refer to is not AE but ?.

The marks that I linked to did not use “AE” as a single vowel, but used them as an abbreviation for the letters “A” and “E.”

In any case, I think it just proves my point. The idea of slanting one letter to match another, is so common-sense, that it has been used to combine letters for as long as that vowel has been around.

Paul Hobbs (profile) says:

Re: Nope

Whoa! Just a minute there partner. I am a licensed, practising Phrenologist and member of the British Phrenological Society. It sounds to me like you could benefit from a consultation.

So don’t be dissing Phrenology. It is to science what Scientology is to religion – completely legitimate, grounded in verifiable fact, and of tremendous benefit to those who receive its ministrations.

indieThing says:

Re: Nope

I’m surprised we haven’t heard of them sueing others. Whilst working for EA (games), I looked out of the window in one of the London offices and saw a van parked outside with almost the exact same logo as EA, more so than this one, but they were a plumbing company. I mentioned it in passing to a colleague, and we both had a good laugh wondering when they would be sued.

Paul Alan Levy (profile) says:

Good comment from Karl

My reaction is similar to Karl’s but perhaps less strongly. Electronic Arts’ argument is that the two companies are in related markets, in that both sell their products by association with the same sports and athletes; they may also appeal to similar groups of consumers. This may well be a contestable case, depending on the facts, although Energy Armor’s product is pure nonsense as Karl notes, and besides it may well lack the finances to cover the cost of the litigation.

P3T3R5ON (profile) says:

"... and can cause confusion in the market place..."

Confusion in the market place? Really?!

At what store will I be going to shopping an EA marked item and suddenly by the wrong one… a shirt instead of a video game? Yes there are places and products where the name is simply how you refer to the product, Coach purses for example. When refering to the product it’s always a coach purse because just labeling it purse doesn’t count… or so says my wife. Now I don’t say it’s an EA game because calling it just ‘game’ would suddenly change how it is referred to. EA sells video games for around the same price as other video game companies. However when you talk Coach vs. Mossimo were talking a couple of hundred bucks in price difference.

In the end, saying that confusion is the source why one logo should never have any amount of similarity to another is simply saying ‘i can’t trust consumers to by my product based off of the logo alone’… thanks for the trust… i’ll go buy somebody elses product not because of the log but because of the product.

Jim Tarber says:

Nice Title, Shame About The Body

The only thing of any value in this article is the title. The rest is hogwash like the litigation itself.

If you went to 100 graphic artists and asked for an EA logo, probably 95 of them would come up with a similar merged/sloping logo. I don’t believe there is any intent to leverage the EA name, and that the full “Energy Armor” text below the logo should make that very clear.

Electronic Arts can’t hold a trademark on every use of the EA abbreviation. There are bound to be physical products out there with similar logos to theirs, both before and after the “original” EA was founded. Karl said it well, TechDirt has done some great stories, but this article is tabloid junk.

If Electronic Arts changes their logo next year, and it’s similar to some other company in another market space, I hope they have just painted a big red target on their backs with this, but arguing the market spaces need not be too close. Hey, it’s their argument. I hope someone else uses it against them.

Viln (profile) says:

How dare they...

I was shocked and appalled to hear some of Energy Armor’s business practices. First, they bought up a bunch of other companies who created and manufactured sports bracelets, thereby diminishing competition and diversity. They placed biometric chips in the bracelets to prevent the items from being resold, traded, given or shared with other people… mentioned in passing in overly complex EULA. The chips of course were unnecessarily prominent and caused abrasion, rashes and occasional jolts of electricity or burn marks on the wrists of legitimate, lawful, paying consumers. What’s worse, they arrogantly dismissed requests and recommendations from their sporting customers and insisted they knew for a fact that everyone wanted their bracelets either pink or fecal brown, with clunky bulky attachments that occasionally restricted hand movement.

What’s that? Energy Armor didn’t do any of those things?

Then how the hell are they being confused with EA?

Tom Anderson (user link) says:

The anglification of a nearby letter shouldn’t be reason to stamp on any other EA out there. The thickness, lightning, round top of the A, etc. are obviously not inspired by EA’s logo. The only people who would be confused by this are people who don’t know that EA stands for Electronic Arts.

On the other hand, the logo for EA Sports is much more similar. It has the text SPORTS below the EA logo. The EA Sports logo is also trademarked, so I’m wondering if gamasutra just mixed up which trademark is being threatened here.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...