At the center of many trademark disputes are questions about how consumers interpret brand names and product relationships. A dispute between Riot Games and gaming accessory manufacturer T2M Gaming illustrates the relevance of consumer perception evidence in trademark litigation, even though the matter settled.
Case Background
Riot Games filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court in California against T2M Gaming and T2M Sports. Riot Games develops video games and organizes esports competitions. It owns registered trademarks for the name “Riot” in connection with video games and related services. Riot Games is known for League of Legends and, according to the complaint, the name “Riot” is closely associated with its games and esports activities. Players and members of the gaming community refer to Riot Games simply as “Riot,” and the company maintains partnerships across gaming platforms, hardware, and mobile applications.
T2M is a manufacturer of peripherals for connecting gaming systems. In 2018, the company introduced a mobile gaming controller called Rotor Riot, and in 2021, the controller was rebranded as RiotPWR. In court, Riot Games alleged that T2M’s use of the word “Riot” in connection with gaming hardware created the potential for consumer confusion about whether the products were associated with the developer. According to the complaint, the company received customer support inquiries suggesting that some consumers believed the controllers were affiliated with Riot Games.
Settlement and Potential Consumer Survey Use
In 2021, T2M filed trademark applications for RiotPWR domestically and internationally, while already holding a European Union registration for Rotor Riot. Riot Games opposed the applications. The dispute concluded in June 2023 with a settlement. Under the agreement, T2M agreed to stop manufacturing and selling the controller at issue, withdraw the trademark applications it had filed in the United States, cancel registrations containing the word “Riot,” and discontinue domain names that include the term.
Although the case did not proceed to trial, it raised questions about how courts evaluate consumer perception in trademark disputes involving brand names used within the same industry.
Adjudicating Consumer Confusion
If the case had continued, survey research could have addressed several issues raised by the parties. If Riot Games claimed that its brand was well known within the gaming community, a brand awareness or fame survey could assess the extent to which consumers recognized the name and associated it with the company’s products and services.
The results of an awareness study may also help determine which type of likelihood-of-confusion survey would be appropriate. When a senior mark is widely recognized, experts may employ an Eveready-format survey to measure confusion. If the mark is less well-known, but the products appear together in the marketplace, a Squirt-style survey may be used.
Consumer Perception in Trademark Litigation
Trademark disputes frequently involve questions about brand recognition, product origin, and consumer understanding. Courts often rely on empirical evidence, including well-designed surveys, to evaluate these issues. IMS Legal Strategies works with experts who design and conduct consumer surveys used in trademark litigation, including studies measuring brand awareness, likelihood of confusion, and consumer decision-making.
