Intellectual property disputes are increasingly common in the creative industries, often escalating quickly with legal letters. A recent public exchange highlights this issue, as comic book author Olivier Gay claims he received legal correspondence regarding his work, L’Académie Clair-Obscur. The dispute centers around the title’s similarity to the name of the role-playing game Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, developed by Sandfall Interactive, with the game developer requesting Gay cease sales of his comic. The situation underscores the complexities of protecting intellectual property, particularly when brand recognition extends beyond the original medium.
A Naming Conflict Emerges
The Case of “Clair-Obscur” in Gaming and Comics
The issue stems from the title L’Académie Clair-Obscur, a comic book published by Drakoo, written by Olivier Gay, and illustrated by Grelin. According to Gay, “Clair-Obscur” refers to a specific magical technique central to the comic’s fantasy school setting, where a peasant attends an academy typically reserved for the elite. He maintains this is an internal element of the comic’s universe and not intended to capitalize on the popularity of the video game. Gay asserts the project was pitched in 2019 and a contract signed in March 2024, prior to the game’s release. Meanwhile, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 has quickly gained recognition with a distinctive title and strong identity. As a game’s name becomes well-known, it becomes a valuable asset, subject to search queries, commentary, and potential confusion.
Even if two works are distinct—a video game versus a comic book—the title can create a perceived connection in how people actually use search engines, receive recommendations, or browse stores and social media. Legal action may aim to reduce the risk that the public briefly believes there’s an official connection, a derivative product, or a collaboration. This focuses on perceptions, not intentions, as intellectual property protection often prioritizes appearances and avoids ambiguity.
What is Publicly Known
Currently, the publicly available information indicates a lawyer’s letter requesting Gay halt sales of the comic under its current name, not a court-ordered ban. The language is important; “banned” is often used colloquially, although legally it may be a cease and desist letter or a request for a voluntary withdrawal, aiming for an amicable agreement or a title change. This nuance is significant: a letter is not a judgment, but it can be enough to prompt a decision, especially if the recipient lacks the resources to defend themselves.
Gay has stated he does not wish to pursue a legal battle due to a lack of “energy” and “budget,” while too expressing appreciation for Sandfall Interactive and their game—a challenging position to be in. Without access to the legal documents, the exact basis of the request (trademark, risk of confusion, or other factors) remains unclear. Still, the situation illustrates a common practice within the industry: proactive legal measures.
“I just received a letter from a lawyer (…) who is asking me to stop selling my comic (…) entitled “L’Académie Clair-Obscur”.”
(Public statement by Olivier Gay on X.)
Why These Conflicts Are Increasing
Ten years ago, a title might have remained confined to its specific category. Today, everything is indexed, tagged, and cross-referenced. A video game license can simultaneously exist on platforms like Steam and various consoles, social media, wikis, videos, streams, and potentially expand into novels, series, art books, and even concerts. The name becomes a universal entry point. Any disruption to this can impact visibility, reputation, customer support (“is this official?”), search rankings (“why am I seeing a comic when I search for the game?”), and commercial opportunities (collaborations, spin-offs).
The speed of social media further complicates matters. Stories can go viral, screenshots circulate, and the issue quickly becomes a moral debate before the details are understood. Companies often adopt a “firewall” approach: acting quickly and decisively to prevent confusion. However, this industrial logic can clash with the reality of authors and small publishers, for whom a title change represents concrete costs.
Trademarks, Titles, and Confusion: How It Works
Work Title vs. Trademark: Two Protections, Two Approaches
The public often conflates concepts like copyright, trademarks, and intellectual property. However, it can be simplified: a work title can be protected under certain conditions, particularly if it’s distinctive and associated with an identified work. A trademark—when registered for specific categories—protects a sign (word, logo, name) used to distinguish products and services. Studios and publishers often invest in registering and defending trademarks to secure commercial use of a name.
The challenge arises when two works can coexist if their domains are different. However, the video game industry is no longer an isolated domain. A license can extend to merchandise, publishing, audiovisual adaptations, and events. When a game is titled Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and a comic is titled L’Académie Clair-Obscur, legal counsel immediately focuses on the common segment (culture/pop, storytelling, entertainment products) and the shared portion of the name (“Clair-Obscur”), especially if the game gains prominence.
“Risk of Confusion”: The Core Issue
The key concept is confusion. It’s not about plagiarism, copying, or idea theft. The question is: could an average consumer believe there’s a connection? This belief doesn’t need to be strong; it’s enough if someone thinks the comic is an “official comic,” a “spin-off,” a “derivative product,” or even an “adaptation.” In a market saturated with cross-media franchises, this isn’t far-fetched.
The issue is that this logic doesn’t measure the author’s good faith or the creative timeline. It measures real-world usage: the name circulates, is shared, and summarized. The more visible a title becomes, the more it attracts content that doesn’t belong to it—sometimes innocently, sometimes opportunistically. For a rights holder, allowing potential confusion can also pose a strategic problem: inaction can create the impression that the name is “weak,” “tolerant,” or “abandoned,” complicating future defenses. This is difficult to accept, but intellectual property is also a game of consistency: you don’t have to challenge everything, but if you never challenge anything, you’ll be tested.
The Argument of Prior Art: Helpful, But Not a Guarantee
Many believe that if their work existed first, it’s untouchable. In reality, it’s more nuanced. Prior art can be important—creation dates, publication, commercial use, and any existing registrations—but it doesn’t automatically negate arguments about confusion. The distinction lies between:
- having an idea in 2019,
- pitching a project,
- signing a contract,
- and publicly marketing a work under that title on a large scale.
The closer you get to public usage (sales, promotion, bookstore presence, indexing), the stronger the case becomes. Conversely, if the other party has a well-established name and believes coexistence creates ambiguity, they may pursue action even if the other project “was born” earlier. This highlights the most unfair aspect of the situation: the law isn’t just about “who is right,” it’s also about “who can afford to fight.”
What This Reveals About the Industry: Protecting a License, Avoiding Backlash
Protective Reflexes: Studios, Publishers, Lawyers, and Brand Management
For a studio or publisher, a game’s name isn’t merely aesthetic; it’s a marketing anchor, a reference point for the press, a keyword for platforms, and an identifier for stores. When the game succeeds, everything related to the name becomes sensitive. Most organizations have processes in place: monitoring, alerts, legal advice, and sometimes standardized actions. This isn’t necessarily malicious; it’s often routine, like a security patch: you fix things before they explode.
However, this pragmatism can backfire. Even when legally defensible, a studio perceived as “bullying” a comic book author can create a negative public perception. On social media, this quickly turns into accusations of abuse and exploitation. The industry’s reliance on public sentiment means that even a legally sound decision can become a public relations nightmare, especially if the author communicates calmly and provides a clear timeline.
The Impact on Creators: Costs, Time, and Energy
Changing a title isn’t just modifying a line on a cover. It requires rewriting a portion of the project’s life:
- recreating graphic elements (cover, spine, logo, variations),
- updating bookstore listings, databases, and catalogs,
- correcting promotional materials, scheduled posts, and press releases,
- managing reader confusion (“is this the same series?”),
- and potentially absorbing losses on already-produced materials.
Beyond that, there’s the stress, the feeling of injustice, and the drain on mental energy. Gay highlights a common experience among creators: even if you believe you’re in the right, pursuing a legal battle is a luxury. In a creative field with tight margins, many choose the rational solution: renaming to survive, not to surrender. It’s a form of “administrative game over” where you lose not because you’re wrong, but because the fight is too expensive.
“Not having the energy or the money to engage in a legal battle, I am going to change the name.”
(Position attributed to Olivier Gay in his public statement.)
Communication: When Legal Defense Damages the Image
The irony is that both sides can be “consistent” in their logic—and yet create a lose-lose situation.
- Rights holder: wanting to avoid confusion and protect a trademark.
- Author: wanting to defend their work, prior art, and good faith.
- Public: seeing a more powerful actor “attacking.”
In the video game industry, sentiment is fuel. The public forgives many bugs but is less tolerant of perceived injustice. Even if Sandfall Interactive didn’t anticipate the reaction or if the decision came from a broader chain of command, the public impact remains the same: the story is what matters. The lesson is that when acting quickly legally, you must also think about “narrative”—not in the sense of manipulation, but in the sense of explanation. Without minimal transparency, the void is filled with interpretations.
How to Avoid a Collision: Best Practices for Creators and Rights Holders
Verify Before Naming: Simple Searches, Registrations, and Alerts
Prevention doesn’t eliminate risk, but it significantly reduces it. For an author, publisher, or small studio, a few simple steps can avoid a head-on collision: conduct basic searches on stores (Steam/console stores, online bookstores), trademark databases, social media, and see if a term is already associated with a highly visible universe. It’s not glamorous, but it’s the “tutorial” of the creative business: do it once, and you’ll save yourself a whole dungeon of suffering.
Rights holders can also refine their monitoring: not all similarities are equal. An identical title in a completely unrelated sector isn’t the same problem as a similar title in entertainment. And an old, documented, good-faith project isn’t the same as an opportunistic product that emerged in the wake of a success. The law doesn’t easily read intentions—but humans do perceive them. And the public judges quickly.
Negotiate Rather Than “Nuke”: Coexistence, Subtitles, Agreements
Between “letting it go” and “striking hard,” there are solutions for coexistence. For example:
- adjusting a title (adding a distinctive subtitle),
- modifying graphic design to avoid visual proximity,
- clearly stating the absence of a connection (“independent work, not affiliated”),
- or reaching an agreement outlining usage.
Of course, this requires time, goodwill, and a willingness to dialogue. But it’s often less costly than triggering a public crisis. Especially when the other party is an independent creator: even if you win legally, you can lose socially. And today, reputation is as real an asset as a trademark registration.
Keep Evidence: Pitch, Exchanges, Dates, Versions
Finally, document everything. Keep emails from pitches, dated synopses, source files, exchanges with the publisher, contracts, and graphic elements in version control. Not to “prepare for war,” but to be able to tell the project’s story credibly if a conflict arises. In the current case, Gay relies on a timeline (pitch, signature) to show he didn’t “jump on” the game’s release.
Even if it doesn’t resolve everything, it often changes the dynamic: a discussion becomes more rational when both sides can present dates, parameters, and evidence. Without that, you’re left with the worst-case scenario: having to choose between surrendering and going into debt, with a storm of comments confusing “name similarity” and “theft.”
In a Nutshell
The “Clair-Obscur” case reminds us of a simple truth: in the cultural industries, a name is property, and property must be defended—sometimes too quickly, sometimes too forcefully, often without considering the human impact. While the reported action aims to avoid confusion and protect a brand, it also illustrates the fragility of creators facing the legal machine: even a coincidence, even a claimed prior art, can lead to a title change simply due to a lack of resources. And for both video games and comics, the lesson is twofold: creators should proactively research and document, and rights holders should explain and engage in dialogue, lest they turn legitimate protection into lasting negative publicity.
