by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
edge, mirror's edge, tim langdell, trademark, video games


Court Denies Injunction Against EA Over Tim Langdell's 'Edge' Trademark; Slams Langdell

from the trademark-trolls dept

We've covered a few different stories about a guy named Tim Langdell who held a trademark on the term "edge" in video games, which he had used many years ago, and still sorta kinda maybe uses as part of his operation, "Edge Games." And yet, he seemed to think that trademark law means he owns the word, as it relates to video games, forever. So he's been threatening iPhone developers and sued EA, claiming the company's Mirrors Edge series violates his trademarks. EA has fought back strongly against the claims, and Brian alerts us to the news that a court has denied Langdell's injunction request and slammed Langdell in the process, suggesting underhanded practices which could result in criminal penalties.
The court has denied Edge Games' motion for injunction, citing that it believes that Langdell made fraudulent statements to the US Patent and Trademark Office and strongly believes that Langdell is "suspect" and has been "trolling" the game industry for licensing opportunities. His actions could possibly warrant "criminal penalties."
When a judge calls you a troll and threatens you with criminal penalties in a lawsuit you initiated... you've got problems. Reading through the actual ruling is incredible, in what it describes about what Langdell has done. I would argue that the above paragraph significantly downplays Langdell's actions, which the court notes, at one point, that the evidence suggests Langdell "willfully committed fraud." You can see the full ruling here:
After discussing the background of the case, it jumps right into the part where it accuses Langdell of faking evidence (the judge even italicizes: "It was faked." in the ruling). The judge was even kind enough to include an image comparing an apparently faked magazine cover that Langdell sent to the USPTO, which the USPTO relied on:
The ruling goes through a series of other situations that appear to be blatant misrepresentations by Langdell in order to secure the trademark in question. For example, there's a comic book cover, which Langdell scanned and used to show the USPTO that he was still using the mark in commerce. Only problem? The comic book was published by another company. Oh, and it was published over a decade earlier, meaning it wasn't a very good example of how Langdell was using it in commerce at all. And, then there were some other similar situations:
For example, Dr. Langdell's declaration asserted that Edge Games has been selling the video game Mythora (supposedly bearing the "EDGE" mark) since 2004. Curiously, while the exterior packaging submitted by Dr. Langdell to the USPTO for the Mythora video game included a website address "," this website wasn't even registered by Edge Games until October 2008 -- nearly four years after the game's purported release.... The USPTO relied upon this questionable video-game packaging when it renewed plaintiff's "EDGE" mark in 2009
The ruling goes on to note many more cases of images sent to the USPTO, where the images appear to be doctored, even mockingly saying after one such "real" and "submitted" comparison:
"Once again playing "spot the differences," the specimen submitted to the USPTO appears to have been doctored in three material ways."
This is a judge who is not happy.

The more you read, the more bizarre it gets. Since it's questionable as to whether or not Langdell had really been using these marks in commerce all along, EA's lawyers tried to see if he's really using them today. So it went and tried to buy some of the games he's claiming to sell... and they got error messages every time.

At this point, one would hope that Langdell realizes it's time to back off. He could, in theory, push for a full trial (this was just a move to get an injunction), but he must realize that his chances of winning this case are about as close to zero as you can imagine -- and the deeper he digs, the more trouble he may find himself in.

The story is yet another example of the dangers of trying to abuse the legal system sometimes. It can certainly come back to bite you.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Oct 7th, 2010 @ 4:33pm

    Awesome. Absolutely awesome.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2010 @ 4:41pm

    "it can certainly come back to bite you."

    Only if you're NOT a multibillion-dollar corporation with lawyers enough to form an army division.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2010 @ 8:03pm

    Stupid trademark troll versus EA?

    I find myself wishing they could both lose the case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Oct 7th, 2010 @ 11:48pm


    An optimist says that regardless of who wins, one of them will definitely lose.
    A pessimist says that regardless of who loses, one of them will definitely win.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    mikeinrichmond (profile), Oct 8th, 2010 @ 3:48am

    It's too bad that there will most likely never be any " criminal penalities". Throw a few of these guys in jail for a couple of years minimal and we will finally see the trolls think twice before they sue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2010 @ 5:40am

    The best way to sum it up is to read the completely bogus 5-star review for "Racers" on Amazon: showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar

    I've never seen anything so remarkably ridiculous.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    techinabox (profile), Oct 8th, 2010 @ 6:25am

    Personally I found MrMarmite's review to be quite helpful and rather amusing. amp;nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2010 @ 8:38am


    hehe. Grab it now!® really?

    In Soviet Russia, It Grabs You!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    JustMe (profile), Oct 8th, 2010 @ 11:22am

    OK, I know the publisher wrote the review

    But seriously? Who talks about the typesetting of trademarks on the box cover in a game review?

    "From the sublime cover art through to the numerous and tastefully typeset trademarks that adorn the back of the case, Racers« is a real looker."

    This guy is a chump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    Andrew (profile), Oct 8th, 2010 @ 1:44pm


    I rarely do more than skim the court rulings posted here, but this one I managed to read from start to finish. It was a hilarious smackdown of the idiot.

    And guys, do you realize that the review was probably written by someone *mocking* the trademarks, and not the company itself? Especially how it added a (tm) after 'edge' in the middle of a sentence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.