The ruling said, though, that the Agarwala brothers
must stop using the name 'Scrabulous' or any other name that
resembles Scrabble's, according to intellectual property blog Spicy
IP and local press reports.
Rajat and Jayant Agarwala took the world of social networking
site Facebook by storm in the past year with their incredibly
popular game, Scrabulous. Toy companies with rights to Scrabble
objected, though, and Facebook blocked access to the games first in
the US, then in the rest of the world.
The Agarwalas operated in India through RJ Software, which was
taken to court by toy giant Mattel, which has rights to Scrabble
outside of the US.
The Delhi High Court told RJ Software that it could not use the
names Scrabble, Scrabulous or any other "deceptively similar" term
to describe its games, according to Spicy IP. They were also told
not to use such terms in the metadata attached to the game. Such
data can be read by computer systems, such as search engines.
The Agarwalas had argued that the term 'scrabble', which was a
word before it was a game name, was generic and therefore could not
be protected by trade mark law. The court disagreed.
The Court did say, though, that Mattel could not claim copyright
in the game itself. The idea behind the game could not be protected
because copyright does not protect ideas, it said. And the board
could not be protected because it was not original enough, the
Court said.
The board might have been protected by design rights, but none
had been applied for. Indian copyright law does not protect items
that qualify for design protection but fail to apply for it once
that item has been duplicated 50 times, Spicy IP said.
Trade mark law expert Lee Curtis of Pinsent Masons, the law firm
behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that it was no surprise that the law had
largely backed Mattel.
"'This decision from a legal point of view was probably
inevitable. Scrabulous was obviously based on the well known brand
name Scrabble and the public were initially attracted to the online
game due to the similarity with Mattel's board game," he said.
Curtis said, though, that companies in such positions face a
strategic question about whether pursuing such cases actually
advances the aims of a company.
"Whether or not this is pyrrhic legal victory for Mattel, only
time will tell," he said. "Players of Scrabulous are already in
open rebellion on the web. Sometimes bad PR often overwhelms a good
legal case."
