Now

Naming and brand · naming-and-brand/Q002 · raised 2026-08-05

Custom domain

The question

Register a custom domain, and if so, which one? Not urgent — the site has a live URL today (https://lor.kris.ai-task-runner.com) and a domain can be pointed at it later with zero rebuild.

Options

• lorgames.net / lorgames.co / playlor.com / lorstudio(s).com — none checked for availability yet.
• Derive from the eventual studio name (see Q001) once that’s settled, rather than picking a Lor-prefixed domain now.
• Do nothing for now. Keep the platform URL; revisit once/if a launch milestone (Kickstarter, store listing) makes a branded domain worth the (small) cost and setup effort.

Recommendation

Do nothing for now. There’s no cost to waiting — lorgames.com (the obvious choice) is taken, and every checked alternative was either rejected already (lor-games.com, lor.games) or unchecked. Revisit alongside Q001 (studio name) so the domain and studio name can be chosen together rather than the domain locking in a name pattern first.

Note, 2026-07-30: Q001 is now answered — the studio is CoCreations, which already owns cocreations.com.au. Hosting the site under a cocreations.com.au subdomain (e.g. lor.cocreations.com.au) is now a live, concrete option worth weighing alongside a dedicated Lor-branded domain. No decision yet — recorded here so it’s not lost, not because it’s settled.

Naming and brand · naming-and-brand/Q003 · raised 2026-08-05

File the LOR class-9 trademark?

The question

Whether to actually file a class-9 (downloadable game software) word-mark application for “LOR” with IP Australia.

Research findings (2026-08-12)

Research only, not legal advice — same caveat as the rest of this epic’s trademark section (see overview.md’s “Non-goals”). This de-risks the two concerns named in the original Recommendation below with web research; it does not replace a lawyer’s read before money is spent. Sources and access dates are listed at the bottom.

1. The Legends of Runeterra collision

• Still actively developed in 2026. Riot Games co-founder Marc Merrill said in May 2025 that LoR “isn’t just surviving or in maintenance mode” and is “adapting, growing, and laying down new roots” — the game had a rocky patch (team-size reduction, pivot toward the single-player “Path of Champions” mode) but was not shut down, and current server-status checks show it fully operational. This is a live, ongoing collision risk, not a fading one — don’t file expecting the name to fall out of use.
• “LoR” is Riot’s own house abbreviation, not just fan slang. The League of Legends wiki’s namespace for the game is literally titled LoR:Legends_of_Runeterra; Riot’s own support site lives at support-legendsofruneterra.riotgames.com and its articles use “LoR” throughout; community sites (Mobalytics, LoR Scout, Mastering Runeterra) all use “LoR” as the standard short form. This matters legally, not just for SEO: under the Australian Trade Marks Act, an unregistered mark can still ground an opposition under s60 (trade mark similar to one that has “acquired a reputation in Australia”) or a common-law passing-off claim, if the reputation attaches to “LoR” itself as a source-identifier — not merely to the full name. Riot using “LoR” as its own recurring shorthand (not just fans) is exactly the kind of fact that would support such a reputation claim, if Riot ever chose to make one.
• But: no evidence found of Riot actually registering “LOR” as a standalone mark, in the US or Australia. Riot’s USPTO filings (searched via Justia’s Riot Games, Inc. owner listing) are for “LEGENDS OF RUNETERRA” spelled out (Reg. Nos. 6284925, 6284926, 6186842, plus pending applications) — no bare “LOR”/“LoR” word mark turned up anywhere in that portfolio, alongside their other registered marks (RIOT GAMES, LEAGUE OF LEGENDS, RIOT PIN, LPL, VCT, etc.). This is consistent with how game studios typically file — the shipped product name, not the community nickname — but it is not proof of absence in Australia specifically; see the ATMOSS gap below.
• Distinguishing the two risk types, as asked:
  • Legal conflict risk at the registration stage (s44): low-to-unconfirmed. IP Australia’s s44 examination compares an application against earlier filed/registered trade marks, not against community slang. No earlier “LOR” registration by Riot was found. This risk is real only if Riot holds an Australian “LOR” registration that wasn’t found here (see below) — an ATMOSS check closes this gap directly.
  • Legal conflict risk post-filing (s60 opposition / passing off): genuinely open, and not resolved by an ATMOSS search alone, because it doesn’t depend on registration — it depends on whether Riot has reputation in “LoR” as a mark in Australia specifically. Plausible given Riot’s own use of the abbreviation, but reputation is a fact question IP Australia’s search tools can’t answer; this is the piece a lawyer’s read (or just accepting the residual risk) actually resolves, not a free tool.
  • Marketing/SEO confusion risk: real and separate from either legal risk above — “LOR” as a search term will always pull Legends of Runeterra results first, given its scale versus this franchise. That’s a discoverability cost regardless of what any registry says, and doesn’t change with a trademark search either way.

2. Other “LOR” marks in class 9 / class 41 — ATMOSS/WIPO/USPTO search attempted, blocked

Direct, automated queries were attempted against IP Australia’s Australian Trade Mark Search (search.ipaustralia.gov.au), WIPO’s Global Brand Database, and two third-party aggregators (Trademarkia, TrademarkElite). All of them require live interactive use — ATMOSS and WIPO’s database are JavaScript search shells with no results embedded in the page until a human types a query (WIPO’s also sits behind a CAPTCHA); the two aggregators returned HTTP 403 to automated fetches. This means exact hit data (mark/owner/class/status) for “LOR” could not be pulled programmatically — it is not something this research pass can shortcut, same as the TM Checker tool below. General web/news search turned up no reporting of any other “LOR”-mark filing in AU class 9 or 41 by anyone (Riot or otherwise), but that’s a weak negative — absence of news coverage isn’t absence of a filing. This is the one piece of this question that still needs an actual human click-through (see the TM Checker section below — the same ~5-minute ATMOSS visit answers both the distinctiveness pre-check and this exact-hits question together).

3. Distinctiveness of a 3-letter mark

IP Australia’s Trade Marks Examiner’s Manual (manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au, Part 22, “Letters”) draws a clear line by length:

• Single letters generally lack distinguishing capacity without stylisation and usually need evidence of use (e.g. “M” for mobile).
• Two-letter combinations are prima facie capable of distinguishing if they have no descriptive significance in relation to the goods.
• Three-or-more-letter combinations — LOR’s category — are prima facie capable of distinguishing, per the manual’s own reasoning: “there is likely to be less need for use of these combinations” (i.e. three-letter strings are much less likely to be a generic abbreviation everyone needs to use descriptively, unlike “OJ” for orange juice or “CPREA” as an industry acronym). The exception is a well-known acronym/abbreviation for the actual goods — e.g. “LOR” would fail if it were shorthand for a category of software, which it isn’t.
• Applied to this case: “LOR” is coined, not descriptive of “downloadable game software” — it doesn’t describe a genre, mechanic, or feature the way “OJ” describes orange juice. That favours registrability on distinctiveness grounds specifically. This is a different question from the Runeterra-collision risk above (distinctiveness is about the mark’s relationship to the goods, s60/passing-off is about the mark’s relationship to another trader’s reputation) — a mark can clear distinctiveness cleanly and still face a reputation-based challenge, and that’s exactly the shape of this case.

4. TM Checker — confirmed interactive-only, steps for Kris

IP Australia’s free TM Checker (ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/search-existing-trade-marks/tm-checker) is an AI-assisted preliminary-risk tool, but it is JS-driven and cannot be queried non-interactively — there is no URL-parameter or API path that returns a result; it requires a human to open the page, click “Start,” and step through its form. No account is required. This is the one genuinely trivial follow-up left in this whole question:

1. Go to https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/search-existing-trade-marks/tm-checker.
2. Click “Start,” enter “LOR” as a word mark.
3. Select goods/services matching class 9 (downloadable game software).
4. Read the result — it flags likely examination problems (including similar existing marks) but explicitly does not guarantee an outcome.
5. While the page is open, also run the same “LOR” query through the ATMOSS link on the same “search existing trade marks” page — this gets item 2 above (exact hits) for free in the same sitting, since both tools live under the same IP Australia section.

Total time: about 5 minutes, exactly as the original Recommendation below estimated.

5. Timing / non-use removal — grounds the “file now vs file near launch” trade-off

Current Australian rule (Trade Marks Act 1995, as amended, applying to marks filed on or after 24 February 2019 — which any new filing would be): a newly registered mark has a 3-year grace period of immunity from non-use removal, running from the date the mark is entered on the Register (not the filing date) — a s92(4)(b) non-use removal application can’t even be lodged until 3 years after registration, and then only for a mark that’s had a further continuous 3-year period of non-use ending one month before the removal application. In practice: filing now buys roughly 3+ years of safety before non-use becomes a live risk at all, and given registration itself takes ~7 months, the real exposure window (registered-but-unused) before the franchise plausibly ships is comfortably inside that grace period even on the “file now” branch. This meaningfully weakens the “don’t file at all, for now” option’s stated rationale below — the non-use risk it warns about doesn’t actually bite for years, not immediately.

Sources (accessed 2026-08-12)

• Marc Merrill on LoR’s status (TheGamer)
• LoR server status (technobezz)
• Legends of Runeterra Wiki namespace LoR: (League of Legends Wiki)
• Riot Games, Inc. trademark portfolio (Justia Trademarks)
• LEGENDS OF RUNETERRA USPTO filing detail (Justia Trademarks)
• IP Australia Trade Marks Examiner’s Manual, Part 22.8 “Letters”
• IP Australia Trade Marks Examiner’s Manual, Part 22.3 “Inherent adaptation to distinguish”
• TM Checker tool (IP Australia)
• Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s60 (AustLII)
• Non-use removal grace period explainer (Australian Trade Mark Law and Practice, CAUL OER)
• Non-use dates explainer (Gestalt Law)
• IP Australia’s own ATMOSS (search.ipaustralia.gov.au) and WIPO’s Global Brand Database (branddb.wipo.int) were checked directly and confirmed to require interactive/CAPTCHA-gated human use — no results could be retrieved programmatically (see item 2 above).

Options

• File now. Protects the franchise name early. Costs: A$250/class minimum standard application (or A$330 for TM Headstart pre-assessment), ~7 months to register, A$400/class every 10 years to renew. The 3-letter-distinctiveness risk is now researched and favourable (LOR is prima facie registrable — see finding 3). The Runeterra collision is now understood precisely: low risk at the registration-examination stage (no earlier “LOR” mark found; s44 doesn’t reach community slang), but a genuine, unresolved reputation-based risk (s60/passing-off) that no free tool fully closes — see finding 1. Non-use isn’t a near-term concern either way — see finding 5.
• Run IP Australia’s free TM Checker (and, in the same sitting, ATMOSS) first, then decide. Costs nothing, ~5 minutes, confirmed to require a human click-through (finding 4) — closes the one remaining unknown (finding 2: whether any other party, including Riot, already holds an AU “LOR” registration in class 9/41) before spending anything.
• Don’t file at all, for now. The franchise has shipped nothing yet. Weaker than it first appears: the “non-use is a near-term risk” premise doesn’t hold — the 3-year grace period (finding 5) means non-use isn’t a live concern for years after filing, well past this franchise’s Christmas 2026 target.

Recommendation

Run the TM Checker + ATMOSS 5-minute check (finding 4), then file. The research above resolves everything the original Recommendation deferred except one narrow, genuinely irreducible fact question — whether an AU “LOR” registration already exists (finding 2) — which needs a human click, not more research. Distinctiveness now looks favourable (finding 3), the registration-stage collision risk with Runeterra looks low (finding 1), and the non-use concern that motivated “don’t file at all” doesn’t actually bite on this timeline (finding 5). The one thing this research can’t resolve is the residual s60/reputation risk from Riot’s own use of “LoR” as a house abbreviation (finding 1) — that’s a judgement call about acceptable risk, not a fact IP Australia’s tools will ever answer, and is exactly the kind of thing worth a lawyer’s five-minute read (same lawyer already needed for Q004) rather than resolving it here.

Naming and brand · naming-and-brand/Q004 · raised 2026-08-12

Confirm legal-review items before publishing the Copyright & IP notice

The question

A draft Copyright & Intellectual Property notice for the public site has been written (site/src/pages/copyright.astro + .md.ts twin, plus site/public/ai.txt, site/public/robots.txt, and small sitewide hooks in Base.astro/Footer.astro/llms.txt.ts — see naming-and-brand/001). It asserts broad “all rights reserved” ownership on behalf of CoCreations Australia Pty Ltd over the project’s names, systems, characters, and creative works. Before it is built and pushed live, several items in it need a decision or a lawyer’s read rather than an agent’s guess:

1. Rights-holding entity. ANSWERED 2026-08-12. Kris confirmed via ABN Lookup (https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=86632857277) that CoCreations Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 86 632 857 277, ACN 632 857 277 — Australian Private Company, ABN active from 11 Apr 2019, main business location QLD 4552) owns all the IP, not Kris personally. brand/brand.json now carries studioAbn/studioAcn alongside studioLegalName as the single source of truth, and every notice surface (copyright page, its markdown mirror, JSON-LD, ai.txt, the sitewide <meta name="copyright"> tag, and the footer) reads the ABN-qualified name from there. This item no longer blocks anything below.
2. Jurisdiction(s) to name, if any beyond the implicit Australian one from the entity.
3. Third-party human contributors. Robby’s hand-drawn art (first attempt) and other family collaborators depicted or quoted across the series may need an explicit assignment or licence to CoCreations for the “all rights reserved by CoCreations” claim to be airtight as to their specific contributions. Not assumed true in the draft — flagged instead.
4. AI-generated assets (PixelLab character art) sit in an unsettled area of copyright law as to whether they’re copyrightable subject matter at all in every relevant jurisdiction. The draft claims them as proprietary/protected content rather than asserting copyright over them specifically, but that phrasing choice deserves a legal read, not an agent’s judgement call.
5. Trademark vs. copyright framing. The draft is careful to say “claimed,” never “registered” (no trademark is filed — see naming-and-brand/questions/003-trademark-filing.md, still open), but the overall trademark/copyright distinction in the notice should get an explicit lawyer’s sign-off before it’s presented publicly as authoritative.

Status: still open. Item 1 is resolved; items 2–5 still need a lawyer’s read before naming-and-brand/001 can leave needs-input. This question stays open until all five are settled.

Options

• Get a lawyer’s read on the five items above before publishing, then push the already-written draft with whatever wording changes come back. Lowest risk: a public IP notice with a wrong entity name, an overclaimed AI-art copyright, or unassigned contributor rights is the kind of mistake that’s awkward to walk back once it’s been live and citable.
• Publish as-is now, iterate later. Faster, and the draft is already conservative in most of the ways that matter (hedges the trademark claim, carves out third-party fonts explicitly, flags AI art as “proprietary” rather than “copyrighted”). Risk is publishing something that needs a correction later, which is a worse look for a legal notice specifically than for ordinary site copy.
• Publish a reduced version now (drop the AI-art and third-party-contributor specifics, keep the broad catch-all and the core ownership/no-licence/AI-scraper language) and expand once the fuller review lands. Middle ground — ships the protective baseline sooner, defers the parts that are genuinely unsettled.

Recommendation

Get the lawyer’s read first. This is the one page on the site whose entire purpose is to be relied on as an authoritative statement of rights — an error in it (an unenforceable overclaim, unassigned contributor rights) costs more credibility than the few weeks’ delay costs momentum. The draft is otherwise ready to go the moment sign-off lands: no further drafting work is expected, just a review pass against the four remaining items above (item 1 is resolved).