Yeah there's a game on steam named Cyberpunk 3776, wonder if they'll have some issues when 2077 launches

1. I like your passive-aggressive tone.
2. You make sense.
3. Lawyers don't care about sense so time will tell how that goes if they acquire the trademark they are after.
4. For example what will happen to the game X-com above mentioned, Cyberpunk 3776
5. GOG, if you are reading this, please bring Cybepunk 3776 to GOG. It looks like a good game.

EDIT:Spelling

The trademark- and copyright systems have become a rotten cesspool of corruption and abuse :/

Came here to stomp the OP, went to agree but in the end: If they don't somebody else might and then makes the CP2077 release a hell.

Well, clearly CDPR have a case here, as they will release in 2077, whilst the other one will release afterwards. Clearly a copy ;p

Lol, good point

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thank you for making my day kind sir or madam who posted that link to Cyberpunk 3776.

I'm assuming that the game itself is standard mediocre shovelware, but the review from "IGM" nailed it for me.

I guess they were were hoping people forgot their glasses and mistook the "M"?

Amazed how many people this joke got......
You can't copyright a word.
You could copy right a game called "Cyberpunk" but not the word itself.

None of this has anything to do with copyright. Copyright protects original works, trademarks protect brands.

Actually, CD Projekt is in he right in this case. They're trademarking the title of their game (as they should), not the genre.

The word "Cyberpunk" has already been trademarked for 27 years. Cyberpunk is the name of a roleplaying game series originally released in 1988 (including Cyberpunk 2013 and Cyberpunk 2020) and trademarked in 1990. CDP bought the rights to Cyberpunk so that they could make a computer game based on the Cyberpunk 2020 RPG, and they are naming their game Cyberpunk 2027. Their existing trademark covers books and roleplaying games, but they needed to extend the trademark to include computer games in order to protect themselves against the Tim Langdells of the world.

Registering the title of a game you're developing isn't some nefarious crime - it is simply a good and responsible thing to do, while failing to register it is dangerous. Remember that registering a trademark does not mean claiming ownership of the word. People can continue to use it as they always have, except that using simple variations of the word "Cyberpunk" as the title for a game is off-limits without CDP's permission.

There is such a thing as trademark abuse, but this isn't it.

edit: I must have at some point pressed End instead of Page Down while reading this thread, because I somehow missed that F4LL0UT already gave a good explanation.

What people also tend to forget is that trademarks can also protect the consumer. Trademarks make it illegal to create products with misleading names that imply that they belong to a certain brand. High quality brands will have the trademarks, schemers trying to make a quick buck by hijacking a name will not. A product name alone will allow you, as a consumer, to get an idea about the quality of a product and what other products it is related to.

If true and not April Fools, then this is too broad an overreach. Simply trying to control a single word is far too generic. Hopefully, their submission is rejected.

I think I will apply a trademark for the words "Dragon" and "Dragons" as that would be pretty sweet.

Then I can just make sure nobody can use Dungeons and Dragons, Dragon Age, Dragon Quest, Dragon Warrior, How to Train Your Dragon, Dragon Ball, DragonHeart.....

This is gonna be epic. I am gonna troll for so much bank.

Trademarks don't work like that. If you had successfully registered "Dragon" and "Dragons" as your trademarks then none of those examples would infringe upon your trademark.

You might have had a case against this game though, but that's about it.

This is exactly what has happened many, many times. This is also what CDPR has applied to trademark. It would prevent the use of "Cyberpunk" in any title.

The same Zenimax sued Mojang over the word "Scrolls" . Also [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Skyrim-Scrolls-Minecraft-Markus-Persson-Mojang,13189.html]Here and of letter from Zenimax/Bethesda to Notch. The same when King sued Stoic Studio because their game had the word "Saga" in it [url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/17/5624980/king-settles-trademark-disputes-with-the-banner-saga-developerhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/4/17/5624980/king-settles-trademark-disputes-with-the-banner-saga-developer]Here They also went after anybody with the word Candy in the title but they eventually had that pulled in America.

My example is correct in America and Europe.

Also, you can trademark a single word. Sony as being made up is protected entirely, nobody else can use Sony in any combination or way except fair use in journalism. You can write a book called console wars: How Sony won the business, but you can't have a title like The Sony Adventures, or Sony's Candy Store.

You used to be able to trademark a name like Ford and Kellogg's, but that is no longer allowed. If your name is Adams you can't be sued to change your company name from Adam's Candy Shop because Adam's Auto Body exists.

This is absolutely laughable. The stupidity never ends (and I mean those that actually gives the go ahead stamp and don't see the societal downfall in that). Names like Sony, CD Projekt RED, GOG, Cocio, et cet I can understand because we don't use them in our daily language to describe something.

A guy I went to school with had an information page just like the official yellowpages (gulecider.no vs gulesider.no), and he got a simple threatening letter. In that case it's totally understandable as the names were confusingly similar for a trademarked name.

In Norway we have two very large potatochips companies, KIMS and MAARUD.

KIMS actually tried to trademark the norwegian word for potetochips, "Potetgull" (potatogold), and filed a lawsuit against MAARUD at the same time. Trademarking such common words should never be allowed, and the court actually mentioned that the word "Potetgull" was so commonly integrated in the society that it would be a mistake to allow KIMS to trademark it. If it had come through every company would have to call it potatoflakes or something. I.e. Maarud Potatoflakes.

So, If I made a book about the cyperpunk convention anno 2020, with the title "Lost tales of the CyberPunk convention 2020 " or as a title on my webpage, I would have to pay royalties to CD Projekt RED. Well, in reality I would first have to ask them to use that word in fear of having a lawsuit filed against me.

Ergo, you might say that it's not about owning the word - but that's exactly the effect of it. I understand the need to protect themselves, but I wouldn't try to hide the fact that if I did I wanted to have complete perverse monopoly over the same type of product. Like trademarking "mobile" would hinder competitors to call their devices for "mobile xxx", I think the military would be beyond furious to no longer call their devices for "mobile jammer X-F34 godam unit" or something. XD

Where does protective trade-mark ends, and societal trade-off begins...

EDIT: Anyway, we can praise us lucky to have laws in Europe that give every party protection against absurd lawsuits, mostly at night ;-)

EDIT2: To clarify, I'm not against CD Project RED at all. I'm mostly arguing against trademarking generic words in general, in so many words.

CD Projekt's response:
https://twitter.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/850022540042960896