James Bond's owners just opposed the James Pond trademark. Here is what 35 years without registration gets you
A video game franchise that has been in commercial use since 1990, published by Electronic Arts, played by millions, and recognised across the gaming industry for 35 years. You would think that kind of track record would make a trademark registration straightforward.
It didn't.
The story
James Pond first appeared in 1990 as a parody of James Bond. The game, James Pond: Underwater Agent, was developed by Vectordean and Millennium Interactive for the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST. Its sequel, James Pond 2: Codename RoboCod, became one of the most popular platformers of the early 1990s. A third game followed in 1993.
The franchise changed hands over the years. Today, the rights are co-owned by Gameware Europe and System 3. Both companies announced plans last year to revive the franchise with new games, a retro compilation, and merchandise.
As part of that revival, System 3 filed a UK trademark application for "James Pond" covering video games, clothing, toys, and entertainment services.
Within months, the application was opposed by Danjaq LLC, the holding company that controls the copyright and trademarks for the James Bond franchise.
This is the second time
This is not the first time the James Bond owners have blocked a James Pond trademark. In 2012, a similar application was filed at EUIPO (the EU trademark office). Danjaq opposed it. The application was rejected.
Thirteen years later, the same outcome is being pursued at the UK IPO.
Why 35 years of use is not enough
This case highlights a distinction that catches many business owners off guard: using a name commercially and owning a registered trademark for that name are not the same thing.
Lee Curtis, a partner and chartered trademark attorney at HGF, made the point clearly when speaking to World Trademark Review. He noted that System 3 is in a stronger position defending its continued use of the James Pond name than defending its application to register it. The former is longstanding. The latter is new.
In other words, 35 years of selling games under the James Pond name does give System 3 certain common-law rights (passing off, in the UK). But filing a trademark application opens a new process. And in that process, existing rights holders like Danjaq can oppose the registration.
No parody defence in UK trademark law
In the United States, parody can sometimes be a defence in trademark disputes. In the UK, there is no equivalent parody defence under trademark law.
Danjaq does not need to prove that James Pond is a direct copy of James Bond. Under Section 5(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act, it needs to show that the James Pond mark takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the James Bond mark. Given that James Bond is one of the most recognised entertainment brands on the planet, that is a strong position to argue from.
Danjaq has not publicly stated its grounds for opposition, but the World Trademark Review reports it is widely expected to rely on the reputation of the Bond mark.
What this means for every brand owner
The James Pond case is unusual in its scale (a 35-year-old franchise versus a global entertainment brand), but the pattern is common:
A business uses a name for years without registering it as a trademark
When they finally apply for registration, an opposition is filed
The years of use help with common-law rights but do not prevent the registration from being blocked
Most businesses never reach the scale of James Pond. But the same risk applies to any unregistered brand name. If your business has been trading under a name without a trademark registration, you are relying on common-law rights alone. Those rights are harder to enforce, geographically limited, and offer no automatic right to registration.
The monitoring angle
There is another dimension to this case that is easy to overlook. Danjaq monitors trademark filings actively. They spotted the James Pond application and opposed it, just as they did in 2012 at EUIPO.
Large companies and franchise holders routinely monitor the trademark register for filings that could conflict with their brands. This is standard practice for businesses with significant IP portfolios.
Most SMEs do not do this. They register their mark and assume they are protected. They never check whether someone else has filed something similar. The opposition window in the UK is two months from publication. Miss it and you lose the right to oppose at that stage entirely.
Two lessons from James Pond
First: register your trademark. 35 years of commercial use did not stop the James Pond registration from being opposed. If System 3 had registered the mark in the 1990s when the games were at their peak, the landscape today would look very different.
Second: monitor the register. Danjaq spotted the filing because they actively watch for conflicting applications. If someone files a mark similar to yours and you do not find out in time, your options narrow and your costs increase dramatically.
The James Pond case will be decided by the UK IPO in the coming months. Whatever the outcome, it is already a case study in why trademark registration and monitoring should not be left until "someday."