After the Delhi High Court verdict in the high ticket Scrabble vs Scrabulous litigation, reports on this judgment have been pouring in.
In an interesting editorial titled "Capitalism Kills the Fun ", the Mint states:
"A court decision in India on Wednesday will be of much interest to hundreds of thousands in the global online community. A popular blog on intellectual property rights, SpicyIP, reported that the Delhi high court has ruled on a lawsuit against two Kolkata-based brothers’ online version of the all-time favourite game Scrabble.
Under pressure from the copyright holders—Hasbro and Mattel—Facebook, the host, had banned the huge hit, Scrabulous, in all countries it served last month— except India, which was waiting for this ruling. The high court has now said that the online version can run as it does not infringe any copyright, but it can’t use any name derived from the trademark Scrabble. What will Mattel/Hasbro do now? Two Wharton professors had raised pertinent issues last month. First, as Scrabulous was doing wonders for the Scrabble franchise, a tie-up with it might be smarter than a knee-jerk lawsuit. Second, does the revenue from Scrabble exceed the cost of all negative publicity?
One among the multiple outraged users has questioned if all this is “capitalism’s victory over fun.”
I'm not entirely sure that the assumption of the Wharton professors that Scrabble never attempted to tie up or buy out the Aggarwala brothers is correct. Some online reports/comments suggest that Hasbro/Mattel did negotiate, but that the parties never agreed on the price. Perhaps the lawsuits in India and the US are attempts to drive a hard bargain?
For more details on this controversy, see this excellent review at Techgoss, which is coming to be a wonderful resource for all things relating to the tech sector in India:
"So what happened to the Agarwala brothers after Toy maker Hasbro (who own the rights for Scrabble in US and Canada) got them evicted from Facebook?
The next battle was fought between Mattel (who own the Scrabble rights in the rest of the world) and Agarwala brothers at the Delhi High Court. Mattel wanted the Delhi High Court to ask the Bengal-based brothers to stop using Scrabulous in any shape or form.
The Agarwala brothers had launched a Scrabble like game WordScraper after Facebook banned Scrabulous.
India’s leading IP blog is reporting that the Delhi High Court has given judgment in the Scrabble Vs Scrabulous matter. The Delhi High Court has directed that the Agarwala brothers were restrained from using Scrabulous, Scrabble or any other deceptively similar trademark. The brothers cannot even hyperlink to Scrabble. But the court ruled that Mattel did not have a copyright to their famous board game Scrabble."
Also see this Valleywag report which notes: "The popular Facebook application version had already been banned by the social network, both in the US and in India, but a new version called Wordscraper appeared, but now competes with official versions from Mattel and US rightsholder Hasbro."
In an interesting editorial titled "Capitalism Kills the Fun ", the Mint states:
"A court decision in India on Wednesday will be of much interest to hundreds of thousands in the global online community. A popular blog on intellectual property rights, SpicyIP, reported that the Delhi high court has ruled on a lawsuit against two Kolkata-based brothers’ online version of the all-time favourite game Scrabble.
Under pressure from the copyright holders—Hasbro and Mattel—Facebook, the host, had banned the huge hit, Scrabulous, in all countries it served last month— except India, which was waiting for this ruling. The high court has now said that the online version can run as it does not infringe any copyright, but it can’t use any name derived from the trademark Scrabble. What will Mattel/Hasbro do now? Two Wharton professors had raised pertinent issues last month. First, as Scrabulous was doing wonders for the Scrabble franchise, a tie-up with it might be smarter than a knee-jerk lawsuit. Second, does the revenue from Scrabble exceed the cost of all negative publicity?
One among the multiple outraged users has questioned if all this is “capitalism’s victory over fun.”
I'm not entirely sure that the assumption of the Wharton professors that Scrabble never attempted to tie up or buy out the Aggarwala brothers is correct. Some online reports/comments suggest that Hasbro/Mattel did negotiate, but that the parties never agreed on the price. Perhaps the lawsuits in India and the US are attempts to drive a hard bargain?
For more details on this controversy, see this excellent review at Techgoss, which is coming to be a wonderful resource for all things relating to the tech sector in India:
"So what happened to the Agarwala brothers after Toy maker Hasbro (who own the rights for Scrabble in US and Canada) got them evicted from Facebook?
The next battle was fought between Mattel (who own the Scrabble rights in the rest of the world) and Agarwala brothers at the Delhi High Court. Mattel wanted the Delhi High Court to ask the Bengal-based brothers to stop using Scrabulous in any shape or form.
The Agarwala brothers had launched a Scrabble like game WordScraper after Facebook banned Scrabulous.
India’s leading IP blog is reporting that the Delhi High Court has given judgment in the Scrabble Vs Scrabulous matter. The Delhi High Court has directed that the Agarwala brothers were restrained from using Scrabulous, Scrabble or any other deceptively similar trademark. The brothers cannot even hyperlink to Scrabble. But the court ruled that Mattel did not have a copyright to their famous board game Scrabble."
Also see this Valleywag report which notes: "The popular Facebook application version had already been banned by the social network, both in the US and in India, but a new version called Wordscraper appeared, but now competes with official versions from Mattel and US rightsholder Hasbro."
Dear Shamnad,
ReplyDeleteMint's piece on the case seems a tad immature.
I think your write up made it clear that the order only prevents the use of the mark SCRABULOUS and not the board.
The brothers seem to be free to continue using the board, without reference to the Scrabble trademark.
How then, does "capitalism kill the fun"?
Populism really seems to have come in the way of accurate reporting on Mint's part.
Anon
Dear Anon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I can see where you're coming from, as the statement "capitalism kills" might seem extreme. But the Mint was only borrowing a statement made by an online commentator. Secondly, while the Indian judgment gives them the freedom to operate under a different name, the US courts may not afford them the same luxury. And Facebook has already removed this application, owing to the law suit. So the perverse shadow of this litigation is already causing problems and the Mint may have tried to capture this particular sentiment.