Interplay vs. Bethesda, Continued

The court wrangling over the Fallout MMO is still continuing. Last time, Bethesda claimed Interplay was only allowed to use the Fallout name, not any related brands. If found the claim absurd at the time, and Interplay’s lawyers agree.

Interplay’s lawyer Jeffrey Gersh states that Bethesda’s allegations are (absurd) for a number of reasons, based on both the agreements themselves, and… quotes from statements by Bethesda Softworks executives.
(…)
According to Interplay, Bethesda’s claim that it licensed the rights only to use the Fallout trademark (in connection with a massively multiplayer online game) is incorrect, as the TLA specifies that it is to be used not just with any game, but with (its FALLOUT-branded MMOG… and for no other purpose), while Bethesda’s current interpretation is that Interplay was to create a MMORPG under the Fallout name, but not related in any way to the Fallout brand. If Interplay were required to (divorce the trademark from the source of its good will, which stems from its reputation related to a particular and unique post-apocalyptic game world), Interplay would be denied the benefits of using the trademark at all.

While the meaning of (Fallout-branded MMOG) is not clearly defined in the APA and TLA, Interplay states that it is clear that (Fallout brand) and (Fallout trademark), as parts of the Fallout intellectual property, are two separate concepts, and are not used synonymously. E.g. the APA refers (to the brand and interactive entertainment software property known as “FALLOUT” and to the “FALLOUT” trademark). According to Interplay, it is a distinction that arose in the 2004 Exclusive Licensing Agreement.