My friend and I are creating a Computer Tycoon game. We're using graphics cards and other real CPUs in the game. So can we use names like GeForce_210 in the game without issues?

Also, if the above doesn't work, can we just change a little bit in the name like LeForce and will that work?

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ If you have to ask in the first place, the default assumption to make in any case like this is no. Maybe it won't be, but how much risk do you want to take that the vendor won't try to sue you anyway (even if they lose... can you afford the fight?). \$\endgroup\$ Jul 1, 2013 at 18:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ Possible duplicates: gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/9660/… gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/14460/… \$\endgroup\$
    – House
    Jul 1, 2013 at 18:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Generally speaking people on this site are just as clueless as you about these laws. I would suggest not using the names and making up your own in game brands to avoid most legal issues. If you really want to use them I would suggest contacting the companies and asking if it is alright with them. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 1, 2013 at 23:51

1 Answer 1


If you change the name, it isn't violating trademark.

The creators of the Simpsons twisted the Apple into a Mapple. Everyone knew it was the parody of Apple. No copyright infridgements.

Rockstar used car models, that were taken from the real world, only to change to logo and the company name. There are cars nearly identical to the ones in real life.


The horror game "Drea D Out" featured an irisphone, which looked like an iphone.

Contact an IP law advisor, that is the only thing you can actually rely on in the matter.

As for the "GEFORCE"_210, don't do it, unless you have written permission from the Nvidia corporation, the word Geforce itself is a trademark. It would be illegal to create a browser named Google-it because it contains the phrase google.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It 'potentially' be violating trademark, not copyright. You still would run the risk of violating the copyright. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 1, 2013 at 19:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Note that the Simpsons or such can get away with it easier. They are not making a show about the Mapple. This proposed game is basically all about the components, though. Removing the Mapple jokes from the Simpsons has little impact while removing the components from this game has a large impact; this is a weak indication that the game is commercializing on said components rather than just including them in a parody. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 1, 2013 at 20:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Sean, They made an entire episode, devoted to the "Think Different" obsession. youtube.com/watch?v=7L2fsubA2-c 30 minutes of a tv episode that parodies apple, is pretty much like creating a game with Apple stuff calling them Papple and adding a half-eaten pear as a logo. The subject stays the same, only the form is different. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 1, 2013 at 21:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There's still arguments to be made than a single episode of a long-running series done as a parody bit is entirely different than trying to make a show that to a large degree is ripping off Apple's trademarks for commercialization. The difference is not obvious; hence why you should get legal advice and not ask a bunch of awkward computer nerds who want to break down complex common-law-based legal issues into simple yes/no boolean conditions. The law doesn't work that way, and one often must ask "how safe is this" rather than "is this safe." Hence why no is always the best answer. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 1, 2013 at 21:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .