Lawsuit alleges New York Lottery and Scientific Games infringed trademark

Comment #8

KY Floyd — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:58:16 GMT

What got them into trouble is the fact they made a scratch-off game in the likeness of the Gameologist's scratch-off game

If that's what got them in trouble, why isn't the lawsuit for patent or copyright infringement? Assuming the information their attorney chose to release is correct (and it's the only info alleged info we have), they have chosen only to file for trademark infringement. That, based on their own claim, makes this about the trademark.

Comment #7

BaristaExpress — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:10:20 GMT

BLING BLINGTM (the Mark) and duly registered the Mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2003.

Yet, the Complaint states that over the following three years, the Lottery and Scientific Games conspired to use Gameologist's (Mark) without entering into a licensing agreement with Gameologist infringing on Gameologist's protected intellectual property.

KY, your last paragraph is what it's all about! SG and the NY Lottery used Gameologist's protected intellectual property wit... [ More ]

Comment #6

KY Floyd — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:57:05 GMT

Maybe it's just because I don't know what comprehension skills are, but I think you've suggested that the lottery and SG have actually stolen the plaintiff's game. I can't really be sure, because you don't say what protected property you believe is being used, though the *press release* makes that point clearly:

the Lottery and Scientific Games conspired to use Gameologist's Mark

The lawsuit only claims infringement of their trademark. The trademark is Bling Bling and nothing more. Absen... [ More ]

Comment #5

BaristaExpress — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:47:54 GMT

Hey KY, I think you need to re-learn what comprehension skills are and how they can help you present a good factual argument when the need arises! But so far you haven't a hope in the world in doing anything remotely close to that from what you have shown here in your writing above.

Below is what I copied and pasted form the article it's self.

Gameologist developed the lottery scratch-off game BLING BLINGTM (the Mark) and duly registered the Mark with the United States Patent and Trademark... [ More ]

Comment #4

duckman — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:25:58 GMT

Whether or not they changed it intentionally doesn't matter. However they arrived at the new name, the key question will be is the public likely to confuse the two and does one term dilute the other. Common words can be protected within certain industries or classifications. Apple is one example. In the case of Bling Bling and Bada Bling, assuming both terms relate to the gaming/lottery industry, it will come down to likliness of confusion if it goes to trial.

Comment #3

KY Floyd — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:24:49 GMT

What makes you think they changed bling bling to get bada bling ? It seems pretty clear to me that they got bada bling by adding an L to bada bing which was a common expression long before the plaintiffs got their trademark. Bada bing essentially means something is easy, which ties in very well with lottery marketing. Even worse for the plaintiffs' case, bling and bling bling have both been in common use since well before they applied for the trademark. When you use a common word as a trademark... [ More ]

Comment #2

duckman — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:42:58 GMT

The attorneys and court will have to sort that one out as it has all the makings of a classic trademark infringement lawsuit.

One of the key tests in trademark cases is liklihood of confusion. So, are consumers likely to think that BADA BLING is related in some way to BLING BLING ? Does BADA BLING dilute (or lessen) the value of BLING BLING ? It looks like the New York Lottery and Scientific Games believe they changed BLING BLING just enough to not infringe on the existing trademark. The p... [ More ]

Comment #1

MysteryMan424 — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:00:35 GMT

Instead of bailouts why doesn't everyone start selling scratch-offs

Lawsuit alleges New York Lottery and Scientific Games infringed trademark

Lottery Post — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:37:42 GMT

Small company says N.Y. Lottery stole game concept and title

Press Release: November 21, 2008

NEW YORK, NY According to Balestriere Lanza PLLC, the Gameologist Group LLC (Gameologist), a New Jersey based and minority-owned small business, filed a complaint in New Jersey Federal District Court, suing the New York Lottery (the Lottery) and Scientific Games, Inc. (Scientific Games), for infringing on its trademark.

Gameologist developed the lottery scratch-off game BLING BLINGTM (the Mark