The problem is not Rockstar. In my opinion, it is the law firm.
I have been a Rockstar Games fan my whole life. I am waiting for the next Grand Theft Auto like everyone else. None of that mattered when the opposition landed, and none of it will matter to you if one lands on your name.
This is an opinion piece. The facts in it are linked to the public record. The conclusions are mine, Carl B. Brock, founder of BrockStar Media Corp and the applicant in Opposition No. 91295390.
Let me say the fan part plainly, because people assume the book is a grudge against the games. It is not. I grew up on these titles. I will be playing Grand Theft Auto VI the week it ships. Being a fan and being opposed by the same company are two different experiences, and the second one taught me this: fan or no fan, if you let them, they will squash you like a bug.
Where I think the problem sits
Personally, I do not think the problem is Rockstar, and I am not even sure it is Take-Two's management. In my opinion the problem is the law firm representing them. In my opinion, a program like this is about justifying billable hours by any means necessary: every extension request, every thirty-mark notice of opposition, every "let's have a brief call" email is time on a clock. That is my own view, and you do not have to take it from me. You can ask Andrea L. Calvaruso and Kelli D. Ortega of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP why they decided to jump out there on a mark that looks nothing like their client's, for a class their client does nothing in.
Here is what their own emails say. On February 21, 2025, Ms. Ortega wrote that her client's rights in the ROCKSTAR marks are "very strong and nearly exclusive for their covered goods and services." On March 7, 2025, she wrote: "As I've repeatedly explained, Take-Two is not objecting to or trying to prevent your use or registration of the word mark BROCKSTAR MEDIA." Both sentences were written while a thirty-mark opposition against that exact mark sat on the Board's docket. If the client was not objecting, who was? The case, with the exhibits.
A company that trademarked BULLY
Maybe it is a testament to why they trademarked the word BULLY itself. They want to be the bully. I say that as a joke, but the registrations are not a joke: BULLY is a federally registered mark of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., four times over. It is quite odd, when you look at the register, how many common everyday words they have decided belong to them: MAFIA, DOTS, CIVILIZATION, GTA (also the Greater Toronto Area, as GTA Technology LLC learned when it got an extension-of-time notice this April), MIDNIGHT CLUB, and the single letter R, which Take-Two has used this year to put the Royal Academy of Dance, a database company called Redis, and a film collective on notice. Every one is verified against USPTO records here.
A registration is not wrong because the word is ordinary. Plenty of famous marks are dictionary words. The question is what you do with it. What Take-Two does with it, 125 times in three years, is what this site is about.
What I would say to the firm
You withdrew. You never said why. Your client could not come back, because the Board dismissed with prejudice. If the opposition was righteous, defend it. If it was not, say so to the next small business before you bill the next extension request. That is my opinion. The record is yours to answer.
What I would say to a small business owner
Answer on time. Read their portfolio before you read their letter. Know what Rule 2.106(c) does once your answer is in. And do not assume that "we are not objecting to your mark" means they are not objecting to your mark. All of it is in the book, with the citations, because I had to learn it the hard way and you should not have to.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Ms. Calvaruso and Ms. Ortega are welcome to respond; a response will be published in full and linked from this page. Write to brockstarmediacorp@gmail.com.