At least three parties are caught up in a convoluted legal tiff regarding the use of the initials “GDC”--the letters often used in the games industry to describe the widely-attended Game Developers Conference series of trade events.

The counsel for United Business Media (UBM), the company that owns GDC organizer Think Services, on March 20 sent a legal notice to LOGIN Conference organizer Peter Freese, demanding that his event’s website remove mention of “China GDC” (CGDC), an event produced by Howell Expo and unrelated to UBM and Think Services’ conferences. LOGIN is a Seattle-based online gaming trade event formally known as OGDC, or Online Game Development Conference.

In a note (pdf) titled “Unfair Competition,” UBM general counsel Irene Jordan told Freese’s company Evergreen Events to “cease and desist from using the name ‘2nd China Game Developers Conference,’ ‘China GDC,’ or the associated initials ‘CGDC,’ along with any other name that incorporates or is confusingly similar to UBM's ‘Game Developers Conference’ and ‘GDC’ trademarks.”

According to a blog post by Freese, LOGIN’s website featured references to Howell’s “CGDC” as an act of good will, as organizers for the two events had agreed to help each other find overseas speakers for their respective conferences. Neither had financial stake in one another’s events, Freese told Edge.

Threatened with legal action, Freese complied and removed mention of Howell’s CGDC, but he’s not happy about it. He leveled frank criticisms at UBM, accusing the company of using “significant legal muscle to suppress independent voices in the games industry and maintain their stranglehold on the minds of ‘game developers.’”

He adds, “Our moral position is that the term ‘game developer’ existed as a generic expression long before UBM began using it for their purchased conference.”

Avoiding confusion

UBM says it wants to reduce confusion between Howell’s “CGDC” and UBM’s own China-based event called “GDC China," which is taking place in Shanghai in October this year, and not related to Howell’s event.

GDC director Meggan Scavio explained in an e-mail responding to Freese’s blog post, “Failure to defend the infringement of our intellectual property could result in a degradation of our legal rights. Therefore, we have no choice from time to time to send legal-type letters when we are confronted with what we believe is a representation that could lead to potential confusion in the marketplace.”

According to Think Services, the contention originates from a 2007 deal between itself and IDG China, a union that purportedly produced the first GDC China.

Think Services says that Howell, which also organizes the ChinaJoy trade show, became involved in the first GDC China near the end of the 2007 event. But that partnership ended in 2008 due to “irreconcilable differences,” Scavio said in a statement on March 4.

Two weeks after Scavio’s claims, Howell fired back at Think Services, saying that Think Service’s assertion that CGDC is an “unofficial” event is “invalid and unfounded.”

Howell contended, “CGDC is an international conference in the publication industry that is approved by the General Administration of Press and Publication of People‘s Republic of China (GAPP). …

“As a Chinese brand under the protection of Chinese law, CGDC is not in any way related to the GDC in America, nor does it need any authorization from Think Services.”

Howell claims that Think Services is the one that is infringing on owned property. “…What was held in China in 2007 was CGDC, not GDC China as Think Services has claimed.

“As such, Howell International believes that it is actually Think Services, by promoting their event, called GDC China 2009, without any authorization from the Organizers of CGDC, and using all prepared materials including photos and audience date, is the organization responsible for any confusions that are coming as a result of the similar event names.”

Howell’s rebuttal left UBM’s counsel unfazed, telling LOGIN’s Freese, “Please note that UBM is closely monitoring this matter and reserves its right to take further action as necessary.”