On August 8th, 2010, Valve filed for the trademark "DOTA" in anticipation of their latest title, DOTA 2. Just over a year later, the final stages of this process have arrived. The US Patent and Trademark Office is ready to give Valve the DOTA trademark and all the rights therein, but not everyone thinks this is the right decision.
With the close of BlizzCon and the continued production of games like Blizzard DOTA for StarCraft II, someone is going to have to answer that question very soon. Blizzard has asserted that "DOTA" is a term owned by the community and that no one should have a right to it.
Does anyone own the DOTA name? Should Valve be allowed to own it, or should we follow Blizzard's advice and leave the name to the community that developed the game in the first place?
Blizzard's Mike Morhaime reiterated this during last weekend's BlizzCon, stating in an interview with Eurogamer, "Our opinion about the situation is that the DOTA name really should belong to the community. I think that it's been part of the Warcraft 3 community for a very long time, and we would like to see the community continue being able to use that name, and having an exclusive mark owned by a competitor doesn't feel right to us."
As far as the US Patent and Trademark Office is concerned, Valve is free to take the DOTA trademark. Before final approval, though, the USPTO publishes its rationale so others may oppose the decision. If no one challenges Valve's application, the USPTO will file the mark and afford Valve full trademark protection for DOTA. That future doesn't sit well with Blizzard.
Who came up with DOTA, anyway? DotA, short for "Defense of the Ancients," started as a mod for the Blizzard-owned property Warcraft III. I won't go into the history of DotA too much, but suffice it to say that the creation was a product of Blizzard and the modding community. It's an interesting spin on the traditional RTS structure that has helped to create an entirely new genre of game, spawning titles like Riot Games' League of Legends and Gas Powered Games' Demigod. Who among these creators should own the rights to the name DOTA is confusing at best.
But maybe no one should own the rights to DOTA. A trademark needs to identify a product, and whether or not DOTA identifies anything specifically is highly questionable. As the community uses it, and as it is used across the internet as a whole, DOTA seems more to denote a genre of game rather than a specific title. It seems to me the phrase "DOTA" has become a descriptor similar to the likes of FPS or RTS.
Of course, there is a difference. Real-Time Strategy and First-Person-Shooter are very clearly descriptors of a certain type of game; as descriptions of a product, they are not traditionally granted any kind of trademark. DOTA as "Defense of the Ancients" is in no way descriptive, but the community does have an implicit understanding of what this series of letters means.
A better argument may be that DOTA has become "generic." A word that is considered "generic" does not get trademark protection because it is just too common to point to a specific product. A word like "zipper" was at one time the name of a company and a product, but today we have no notion of this, only an understanding that it is a common device. If DOTA is a genre rather than a singular game, then it is likely too "generic" for trademark protection. Of course, there are also those who say MOBA is the genre, so who knows how a court might feel about this.
There is one other wrinkle that might serve as a defense for Valve: "DOTA" and "DotA" are technically different marks. If Valve could argue that DOTA is its property and DotA is everything else it might have a case for the trademark. Then again, neither company can seem to keep their naming conventions straight. If anyone would have a claim to the use of "DotA," you would think it would be Blizzard. Yet Blizzard chooses to use DOTA in its title. Valve is trademarking "DOTA" and many of its ads say DOTA 2, yet its own website uses "Dota" repeatedly. Raise your hand if you're feeling confused.
So with all these potential attacks on Valve's DOTA application, why hasn't anyone sued? Blizzard is in a tough spot. Since Blizzard has stated it thinks the community is responsible for the DOTA mark, the company can't really claim it has any rights to DOTA and therefore doesn't have any right to sue Valve.
Does that mean Valve gets to trademark DOTA without challenge? Thankfully, no. This is a good example of how the USPTO actually does do some things right. In the current phase of Valve's DOTA trademark application, the USPTO has published their findings "for opposition," basically meaning it is looking for someone to tell the office it is wrong for granting Valve the trademark. The paperwork has already been filed to extend this timeframe to allow for debate on the issue, and Blizzard will no doubt be strongly voicing its opinion. The USPTO will be free to change its opinion on the DOTA trademark afterward, all without going to court.
Amazing, right?
Valve seems to think they have some sort of claim to DOTA, but if the company is afforded the trademark a reckoning between Blizzard and Valve is bound to occur. Valve will need to start policing the mark, which will certainly mean suing Blizzard for their upcoming DOTA titles and might even mean suing modders for their own DOTA creations. It all sounds a bit scary and would only serve to stifle the future growth of what has thus far been a runaway community success story. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.
Contest:
4:00 PM on 10.26.2011 | 
How does it belong in any way to Blizzard? By that logic Red Orchestra belongs to Epic, and Team Fortress belongs to ID. Blizzard had no involvement in the creation of Dota except the mod happened to use their engine.
As much as I like Valve, if there is justice in this world, they should not be permitted to trademark 'DOTA', and I find myself agreeing with Mike Morhaime: DotA is a community creation. And I too also fear a stupid and pointless legal battle between Valve and Blizzard should Valve get DOTA trademarked.
This "it belongs to the community" stuff comes off insincere when they start hyping thier own now and thier best answer to community involvement elsewhere is paying gold farmers and not genuine content creators like Valve does in TF2. Or hire mod creators like Valve does.
I don't play Blizzard stuff and only Valve stuff on console but I know which community I'll join when I get a new PC.
It's not Blizzard's.
(Trollface)
The piece of this that I'm particularly lost on is where does valve come in on this story? I know that they are making DOTA2, but did they just see a cool mod and say "hey thats cool, were going to do the sequel and own it now!"?
blarg.
That's all I got.
But then again copyright laws can suck my cock.
League of Legends calls itself a MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) for legal reasons (read: they don't want to be sued by Blizzard and now Valve). Its not actually a widely accepted term.
Last I checked, one of the original creators of Original DOTA was hired by Valve for it. Icefrog or somesuchlike. Others went on to do other things, like a DOTA-Allstars creator going on to create League of Legends.
Valve are in their right to trademark it, but that doesn't precisely mean they're right to. Honestly, I'm on their side in this, because from everything I've read and seen of Valve's side of it, they don't intend to start the sue-machine. Sure, it'll be confusing telling apart the acronymery/initialism, but they seem to be aiming to just make their product covered by it.
Not an Edge situation, and highly unlikely it'll become a Scrolls style occurrence.
Let me first state that I know nothing about DOTA...at all. I literally did not even knew what it meant before this article, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
But what I think is hurting Blizzards position in this case is that they themselves have content that has "DOTA" in the title. With that in mind, it seems strange for them to argue that it has become a generic term. After all, we don't call Call of Duty "Activision FPS" do we? It does not seem likely that a product will be marketed purely by using generic terms; you need name recognition to sell your stuff. I think it's likely that Blizzard is going for that, and not the generic term. And since Blizzard DOTA is coming up, Blizzard has a huge interest in preventing Valve from getting the trademark.
But indeed, I think that the most important aspect is whether or not people, gamers, speak of "a DOTA". Is the gamer in question "playing a DOTA", or is he "playing a arena-based game that resembles DOTA"?
I will withhold further judgment, because as I mention I am not at all familiar with these types of games or their communities, but I think that aspects like that will be the decisive factor here.
You're right that I chose not to go into the history for the sake of the article's length, but I disagree that the history says anything dispositive about who owns what. The original map and concept for DotA was created by a user named Eul. Steve "Guinsoo" Feak woud later build on this idea, creating a structure closer to what we know as DotA today. IceFrog would pick up this mod and continue iterating on it. IceFrog is now working for Valve.
I do not agree with your assertion though that this means IceFrog "owns" DOTA and can give Valve the rights to the DOTA name. That's what this debate is about.
DOTA is a distinct product, referring to a certain canon of game champions, and it may have popularized the genre, but definitely did not invent it. I'd argue that honor lies with Aeon of Strife, the gloriously overkill mod for Starcraft, which laid the basic framework for the original DOTA: waves of minions crashing into each other, with a single player-controlled hero to level up and duke it out with others.
So I don't think that the genre argument holds much water. Focus on the others, like original ownership agreements between original devs, perhaps. I think it's a tough argument for why Valve shouldn't get it because previous devs left it for other things. On the other hand, Valve is the one who needs to take action if Blizz goes ahead with the DOTA name, and that's bad community rep for Valve.
Good point to bring up with Aeon of Strife. That was earliest example I could find of the game type as well. DotA wasn't the first, but if it has become a common moniker for that style of game then it might be considered to be the genre. Gamers stand at different points of savvy on the issue, so what is a MOBA to some might be DOTA to others. Whether or not DOTA can be considered a genre is simply one of the possible issues that could be brought up in trying to stop Valve from getting the trademark, not necessarily the best argument to be made.
Seriously, this stuff is ridiculous. It's only got meaning so long as there are so few games like it, which eventually it won't. VALVe can own it because they will do justice to it... And they paid for it. IT's a damned name.
You know, like TheRemedy said.
Sorry, but the reason IceFrog took over was because the original guys stopped developing. They could have pulled the mod alltogether, but they let IceFrog take control of it. It ceased to be their baby the moment IceFrog took over and began to add/change the game.
Valve hired IceFrog and he took the concept forward. Unless those creators can prove that IceFrog stole their IP witout their permission, it's tough luck for them.
Also, the following is from Warcraft 3 Editor EULA.
"C. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to: [ . . . . ]
(iii) use or allow third parties to use the Editor and the New Materials created thereby for commercial purposes including, but not limited to, distribution of New Materials on a stand-alone basis or packaged with other software or hardware through any and all distribution channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution without the express written consent of Blizzard;"
There is strong debate on whether or not Blizzard owns the IP of custom maps.
Valve lost a bit of my respect by trying to copywrite the name, its just fucking stupid.
@ Brock
Sorry, but the reason IceFrog took over was because the original guys stopped developing. They could have pulled the mod alltogether, but they let IceFrog take control of it. It ceased to be their baby the moment IceFrog took over and began to add/change the game.
Valve hired IceFrog and he took the concept forward. Unless those creators can prove that IceFrog stole their IP witout their permission, it's tough luck for them.
What a bunch of babies.
Besides that, I keep forgetting about this game anyway. For a Valve release, this seems really dull and needless. I've never anticipated a Valve game less. There have been scores of games exactly like it for years. It's just too late for a game like this to blow minds.
Always thought the genre was called AoS (Aeon of Strife) anyway...
Nobody owns DOTA.
The community owns it.
I actually don't mind Blizzard's use of DOTA because it's not used as a name, but in a name. "Pokemon Red" is not a trademark for "Red", etc. They are using DOTA as a genre, like Mario RPG. It makes sense. DOTA the IP, in that context, seems silly.
I agree with both of you that there is nothing genre describing about the phrase "Defense of the Ancients." That's why I mentioned that if it is "descriptive" it would have to be an implicit understanding by the gaming community. MOBA certainly seems a better name for the genre, I'm just not sure that this is the accepted term.
I think claiming DOTA is a bad idea, especially when creating a new name for this game would be simple. They're using DOTA for the name recognition, but it's getting the wrong kind of recognition. Valve is trying to create a DOTA mythos from scratch, which is cool, but calling it DOTA does them no favors. Calling your product the most commonly used name for that product connotes a certain blandness.
Trying too hard to be what? Too be a sequel to a mod as the name implies?
Now THAT is a question. Touche.