That's what your missing: Amaterasu is being used as the title of the game. It's not like Nintendo gets money when ever you use Amaterasu. It just stops someone else making a game called "Amaterasu."

So should we expect a Mario appearance in a game about a Shinto deity next.

So Nintendo made enough money to buy a god.

Let's make that an internet meme.

That's why I had the idea to patent Allah and its concept too, trademark is good to protect the name, but not to gather royalties. Patenting the concept of a deity made according to Muslim concept and its actual implementation should be strong enough, instead. And USPTO sloppiness is particularly legendary about checking prior art only amongst existing patents, countless people nowadays managed to patent objects and ideas already existing or known for centuries or patently obvious or undoubtedly generic just because they weren't patented yet. And in case of a lawsuit, legally demonstrating the Allah prior art or having it denied and the patent confirmed could just be matter of who hires the best lawyer (and the best theologist too  ). I could even licence Allah exclusively to Shia or Sunni Muslims, it would be quite funny!  O-) 

^^ Yeah, it sounds too weird for it to be a codename for a new console

**then again, look at the Wii lol - - - When I first saw the name online i thought it was the Nintendo W-i-i as in "double-yoo eye eye" lol, then i heard that it was pronounced Wii, fun fun times XD

Again, you missing the idea. You can only copyright something that is distinctive. This is why "You're Fired," was not granted. The "sploppiness" doesn't matter because it wouldn't be granted anyway, and even with the best lawyers, there are some stuff they can't argue (especially when it's clearly written in the law).

But here, I'll make it easy for you

• Copyright a commonly used name? No
• Copyright a commonly used name for a medium? Yes, but only for that medium

But of course, why don't you go out and do it. If it's so easy, you should be able to go and get it copyrighted.

@soriku,

Well somebody code named their console Katana a while back didn't they?  I actually think it's a cool name for a console and with it I expect godly things to come a long. (like a multi-core CPU etc)  I expect the Wii replacement to be announced sometime on E3 2012 and be release sometime early 2013.  I suspect Nintendo will be investing quite heavily on anti-piracy measures so I expect a format using Blu-ray or even the defunct HD-DVD along with a proprietary storage device ala X360, along with mandatory updates when connecting online.

Not copyright, PATENT! And if you are sceptical, don't you remember that some lawyers managed to fool US and Australian patent offices and patent the wheel?  http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=lawyer patents the wheel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8  Just imagine what a good lawyer helped by a good theologist could do...

First, why are we talking about Patents. That's not even part of this topic? Also, you didn't provide a case. You just linked the word "lawyer."

Some stuff on IP law (this is mostly for the US)

• US has a rule of "first to invent." Other nations use "first to file." Of course, the patent may have been sent but never approved
• You are confusing copyright with trademark. A copyright protects the work. So when Nintendo copyrights "Amaterasu," they are protecting the content (likely a game). A trademark protects the word. From what I've learn from a lawyer, the trademark must be unique.
• Patents only last 20 years
• "opyright law does not protect a bare phrase, slogan, or trade name."
• "Copyright law provides for compulsory licensing and royalty payments - there is no analogous concept in trademark law. Plus, the tests and definition of infringement are considerably different under copyright law and trademark law."

(1) I was answering a guy that explained that trademark gives only a minimum protection on the brand, but not enough to gather royalties.

(2) Sorry, I forgot that the stupid new post editor "eats" the PLUS signs, maiming Google links, here's a working link http://tinyurl.com/lawyers-patent-the-wheel without having to fill the spaces with the missing pluses

(3) About the rest, I never suggested copyright, that BTW isn't handled by USPTO. That joke of mine about patenting a deity, not just trademarking it, is obviously a joke and a provocation (wasn't it quite obvious?), but alas it's a joke based on a shameful reality, US patent system allowing software and other abstract patents is known to be widely abused and plenty of patents about existing, generic or obvious ideas have been not only allowed to be filed, but approved too, despite the laws and rules you correctly cite and that should prevent it, and remain valid until patent trolls try to extort money from enterprises or people willing and with enough money to fight back with a lawsuit to have these patents declared void.