ABOUT Sentinels of the Store

It's Time for Real Change

The Sentinels of the Store is a group founded on the core values of transparency, fairness, and consumer protection. Our journey began when we saw the urgent need to address the growing concerns within the Steam ecosystem. Together, we formed the Sentinels of the Store to champion the rights of both consumers and developers, ensuring that everyone in our community is treated with the respect and fairness they deserve.

What We Stand For

We are unwavering in our mission to protect consumers from malpractice and deceit. Our commitment to transparency ensures that you can trust the games you purchase and the developers you support.

We believe in fostering a healthy environment where developers can thrive without fear of exploitation or unfair treatment. By advocating for fair enforcement of policies, we ensure that all developers, big or small, have an equal opportunity to succeed.

We take a firm stance against those who seek to undermine the integrity of the Steam platform. We actively work to identify and expose bad actors, ensuring that they face the consequences of their actions.

Consistency and fairness are at the heart of our approach. We strive to assist Valve in the enforcement of Steam's policies, making sure that rules are applied equally to all, without favoritism or bias.

Our Vision

We envision a Steam community where:

Consumers are protected and informed.
Developers are respected and supported.
Policies are clear, fair, and consistently enforced.
Transparency and accountability are the norms, not the exceptions.

We believe that real change is possible, but it requires the collective effort and support of each member of our community.

Together, we can build a better Steam community for all. Stand with us, and let’s make real change happen.

Disclaimer: Sentinels of the Store is represented solely by its listed administrators and moderators. The views and actions of individual members do not reflect the group unless explicitly stated.

Part of the Sentinel Network

The Sentinel Network is a collective of Steam curators and advocacy groups dedicated to consumer transparency, ethical reviews & fair gaming practices.

If you value honest curation, ethical gaming, and protecting players from misinformation, please do join the groups that are part of the Sentinel Network.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out our Linktree[linktr.ee]

Join our Discord server[discord.gg]

The Steam Sentinels Podcast

E-mail: mellowonline1@gmail.com

Group icon done by 2dengine

VIEW ALL

POPULAR DISCUSSIONS

VIEW ALL (243)

RECENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

SteamWatch - “Hidden Cats” Trademark Application Faces Formal EUIPO Challenge

April 23 - Mellow_Online1 | 12 Comments

Today, I can confirm that a third-party observation[x.com] has been received and logged by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)[euipo.europa.eu] in relation to the “Hidden Cats” trademark application by NukeArts. The observation was drafted and submitted by a member of our community who wishes to remain anonymous.

This marks the first formal challenge to the EU trademark application.

Over the last couple of months, we’ve covered how NukeArts filed for the “Hidden Cats” trademark, which led to multiple developers being pressured, within a short timeframe, to change their game titles or risk removal from Steam.

This occurred even though, based on documented prior use, NukeArts were not the first to use the term and, in my view, this filing appears to seek effective control over a pre-existing micro-genre - one that both developers and consumers have long used to identify this category of games.

Submission Timeline, Access to the Documents, and What is a Third-Party Observation?

A third-party observation is a submission made by someone who is not the applicant and not formally a party to the proceedings, intended to provide the EUIPO with relevant information about a trademark application and its potential impact. This is distinct from an opposition proceeding, which is a separate and fee-based process.

In this case, the observation sets out arguments as to why the “Hidden Cats” trademark should not be granted.

The observation was completed in late March. Following delays caused by issues with the EUIPO online submission system, the documents were ultimately sent by registered post, received, and formally logged on 15 April. We have since received written confirmation from the EUIPO that the submission was properly recorded and forwarded to the team handling the file.

The original observation is not currently publicly downloadable through the EUIPO file interface. However, the individual who filed it has given permission for a redacted public version to be shared. You can view the redacted 48-page submission package here (pages 1-16: observation, pages 17-18: table of authorities, pages 19-48: annex):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11gFjQObnxrdwRr_duj7j7c1uZuLp3Ro8?usp=drive_link

Observation - Key Points

The observation focuses on the legal basis for refusal under three provisions of EU trademark law:

Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR – the sign lacks distinctive character
Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR – the sign is purely descriptive
Article 7(1)(d) EUTMR – the sign is customary within the trade

In simple terms, the argument is that “Hidden Cats” does not uniquely identify a single commercial source, directly describes the nature of the product, and is already widely used in the market. These are established grounds on which the EUIPO may refuse registration. The observation goes into significantly greater depth, and I would strongly encourage reading the full document for the complete legal reasoning.

On pages 14-15, the observation addresses the broader public-interest implications. It outlines how “Hidden Cats” functions as a recognised micro-genre within the hidden object game (HOG) space, and how the term has been used by developers in good faith, by consumers as a primary search term, and across multiple platforms and storefronts. The argument is clear: restricting the use of this phrase would impact discoverability, limit how developers can describe their own work, and reduce clarity for consumers navigating the genre.

Annex - Supporting Evidence

The annex provides the evidential backbone to the observation. It includes:

Documented prior use of "Hidden Cats" before NukeArts' involvement
Examples of developers being required to rename their games
Extracts of Steam communications relating to enforcement
Search history and usage data
Examples of the term outside of Steam, including media coverage
A compiled record table mapping usage of the term across Steam

Together, this builds a picture of “Hidden Cats” as an established, widely used descriptive term rather than a distinctive brand.

Conclusion

I’m very pleased that this observation has now been formally received and logged by the EUIPO, and I hope it marks the beginning of meaningful pushback and scrutiny of this broader trademark enforcement strategy. It has long been my view that this approach appears to seek control over a pre-existing micro-genre - something that raises serious concerns for developers, the platform, and consumers alike.

I encourage you all to share this article and the documentation where possible, and to keep the conversation going. And finally, a huge thank you to the community member who compiled and submitted this - it was a significant undertaking, and an important step in pushing back on this issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article edited by Shnoofn

Special thanks to our Patrons Stefan, Caff, old_Navy_twidget, Luke, Nin-Nin, emigrant, and Pocket

Check out our Linktree for our various pages![linktr.ee]

Join our Discord server.[discord.gg]

E-mail me: mellowonline1@gmail.com

Be sure to check out the other groups in the Sentinel Network:
Summit Reviews
Charity Games
Review Bomb Tracking
Games With Paid Reviews
Dr Chopper's Neuro Clinic

SteamWatch - Let's Be Clear (Again)

April 17 - Mellow_Online1 | 2 Comments

This article serves two purposes. Firstly, it follows up on a piece I wrote a couple of months ago titled Let’s Be Clear, where I opened up discussion around governance, membership, and how representation within Sentinels of the Store should be understood as we continue to grow. Secondly, it responds to a recent article from 3DJuegos titled: “There’s a user who’s posted over 20,000 negative reviews on Steam. Part of me agrees with him, but the other part realises he’s a liar.”[www.3djuegos.com]

Staying the Course

I want to begin by revisiting the key takeaway from Let’s Be Clear. Sentinels of the Store will continue to operate as it always has:

Grounded in facts, evidence, and platform accountability
Not focused on subjective judgments of games or developers
Not a space for personality-driven or ideological discourse

We're not a “bad games” club. We're not here to decide what should or shouldn’t exist on the platform from a qualitative perspective. Our role is to highlight documented practices - transparency, review manipulation, monetisation clarity, and policy consistency - and allow people to draw their own conclusions. That focus is what's made Sentinels a reliable signal in an often noisy space, and it’s something I intend to preserve.

On Membership and Representation

Sentinels is an open and public community with thousands of members. That means one simple reality: we don't and can't represent every individual within the group.

Only listed admins and moderators speak on behalf of Sentinels of the Store. Members are free to hold and express their own views independently.

We won't police the behaviour of individuals outside of our official spaces. As many of you pointed out in the original discussion, doing so would be both impractical and disproportionate. More importantly, it would shift Sentinels away from its core purpose. To that end, I'll be adding a simple disclaimer to our group description to reinforce this distinction.

On the 3DJuegos Article

The 3DJuegos piece highlights a real issue within Steam: the volume of low-effort, misleading, or exploitative titles entering the platform. It also presents a case study of an individual attempting to challenge that system through volume-based reviewing. The article ultimately lands on an important conclusion: credibility matters more than volume. Even where criticisms of the platform are valid, methods that undermine trust also undermine the argument itself.

What’s notable - and appreciated - is that the article distinguishes between individual action and organised advocacy. It positions Sentinels of the Store as an example of the latter: a group focused on structured, evidence-based work rather than individual protest.

As communities grow, association becomes more complex. It’s natural that a group of this size will include a wide range of perspectives and behaviours. It’s also natural that external observers may sometimes draw connections between individuals and the wider community. That’s precisely why clarity of structure matters. Sentinels isn't defined by any single member. It's defined by its approach, its standards and the consistency of its work.

The takeaway here isn’t about any one individual. It’s about reinforcing what Sentinels is - and what it isn’t. We'll continue to advocate for consumers, support developers, call out bad practices and push for a fairer, more transparent platform through consistent, evidence-based work. Because that’s what builds credibility - and that’s what drives change.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by HIGH CAFFEINE

Special thanks to our Patrons Stefan, Caff, old_Navy_twidget, Luke, Nin-Nin, emigrant, Pocket and Ismael Luque.

Check out our Linktree for our various pages![linktr.ee]

Join our Discord server.[discord.gg]

E-mail Mellow: mellowonline1@gmail.com

Be sure to check out the other groups in the Sentinel Network:
Summit Reviews
Charity Games
Review Bomb Tracking
Games With Paid Reviews
Dr Chopper's Neuro Clinic