Lone Wolf sends Cease & Desist letters to anyone using the term 'Army Builder'

[pawsplay]

But because of that, this isn't a patent thing where you can invalidate it through proof of prior art. The only way the USPTO would reject it is if (a) they felt it was way too generic a term or (b) if somebody with an existing trademark would object if it was the same or too similar. Just because people used that term to describe software doesn't mean it is not a good trademark.

Yeah, we covered that pages ago. Do you have anything new to add, or do you want to continue insisting against sense that "army builder" is not generic?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Yeah, we covered that pages ago. Do you have anything new to add, or do you want to continue insisting against sense that "army builder" is not generic?

I and others have added several examples of other so-called "generic" trademarks--Army builder is not really a generic trademark because it does not meet the criteria.

Pawsplay, if you want to seriously debate this topic, you need to bring facts of law and examples, instead of just going with your gut that "it's generic". So far, you're not making a very good argument for your own side or interpretation. I've shown you examples, you haven't given me any good reason why Army Builder is a "bad trademark", other than appeals to emotion.

 

[Jared Rascher]

While I still don't agree with some of the logic involved in the situation, I wanted to say that I do appreciate Rob Bowes' posts in this thread, as well as the apology/clarification that he posted. I think that it takes a big person to stand up to criticism directly, and to admit that they have made mistakes.

 

[Iron Sky]

While I still don't agree with some of the logic involved in the situation, I wanted to say that I do appreciate Rob Bowes' posts in this thread, as well as the apology/clarification that he posted. I think that it takes a big person to stand up to criticism directly, and to admit that they have made mistakes.

^^^

 

[Dragonhelm]

While I still don't agree with some of the logic involved in the situation, I wanted to say that I do appreciate Rob Bowes' posts in this thread, as well as the apology/clarification that he posted. I think that it takes a big person to stand up to criticism directly, and to admit that they have made mistakes.

Agreed. I tend to respect folks who admit to their mistakes more than if they didn't.

Thanks for posting the apology, Lone Wolf.

 

[pawsplay]

I and others have added several examples of other so-called "generic" trademarks--Army builder is not really a generic trademark because it does not meet the criteria.

Pawsplay, if you want to seriously debate this topic, you need to bring facts of law and examples, instead of just going with your gut that "it's generic". So far, you're not making a very good argument for your own side or interpretation. I've shown you examples, you haven't given me any good reason why Army Builder is a "bad trademark", other than appeals to emotion.

Seriously, you're just repeating yourself. As I am not really interested in repeating myself, I guess you're just going to have to live with the fact I have no "good reasons."

 

[Dire Bare]

Seriously, you're just repeating yourself. As I am not really interested in repeating myself, I guess you're just going to have to live with the fact I have no "good reasons."

You both are repeating yourselves.

JohnRTroy is repeating that Army Builder, according to trademark law and tradition, is not generic. He backs this up with well reasoned examples and knowledge.

You keep repeating, "It's generic!" "Because it is!"

Pawsplay, we get it. You personally don't think that Army Builder was a good choice of name for this product because it's too generic. But as I said before, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it true.

 

[pawsplay]

You both are repeating yourselves.

JohnRTroy is repeating that Army Builder, according to trademark law and tradition, is not generic. He backs this up with well reasoned examples and knowledge.

You keep repeating, "It's generic!" "Because it is!"

Pawsplay, we get it. You personally don't think that Army Builder was a good choice of name for this product because it's too generic. But as I said before, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it true.

I spelled out my argument in the first page of this thread, post #13. "Army building" is something wargamers do; an "army builder" is something used in that process. It's generic by the fact anyone who didn't like Army Builder would ask what other "army builders" are out there. I even gave you a numbered list of reasons why Army Builder is not as good a TM as Player's Handbook (which is a weak TM to begin with). Of course, I doubt you noticed/cared, since if anything has become clear in this discussion, it's that you are barely reading my posts.

As to what you said before... you said it before. I have no idea what you think is gained by saying it again. It's still unhelpful and condescending.

 

[Perram]

I'm mostly satisfied with the results of this thread. While I still think Army Builder is a rather generic name, I don't think its a bad name for the product, which as I said before, I think gives it a bit of charm. Simple and to the point.

Maybe they shouldn't have gotten the TM on it, maybe they should, that's water under the bridge at this point. Them enforcing this mark against other programs specifically named 'Army Builder' is to be expected.

I am afraid there is little they will be able to do about preventing the "Improper" use, though.

But

To those who are dismissing the level of reaction that the community raised against this as simple internet flaming: This is how consumers need to react. If no one ever says anything, nothing gets changed. I doubt we would have seen an apology letter or clarification without a strong and vocal response against the letter and Lone Wolf's stance.

I thank the staff of ENWorld for making this issue public and providing a place for these voices to be raised.

If you are dissatisfied with a product or company, let people know, and why! The reverse is true, if you are satisfied with a product do the same! The consumer isn't powerless, no business can survive without customers. (Well, traditional businesses at least.) Our best tools are being informed consumers and sharing our experiences so that others can be informed as well.

And finally, to Lone Wolf:

Please consider better public relations in the future. While I am glad that you came to these forums yourself to participate in the discussion, none of this needed to occur in the first place.

This is also the third time I've seen you voice your discomfort that issues were brought out to the public. You should assume that anything you do as a business will be.

And also: Let your Lawyer handle your legal business.

 

[S'mon]

You both are repeating yourselves.

JohnRTroy is repeating that Army Builder, according to trademark law and tradition, is not generic. He backs this up with well reasoned examples and knowledge.

You keep repeating, "It's generic!" "Because it is!"

Pawsplay, we get it. You personally don't think that Army Builder was a good choice of name for this product because it's too generic. But as I said before, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it true.

Whether it's generic or not would be for a court to decide. It's a descriptive mark, it's a weak mark, but I'd think it's not necessarily generic - it is capable of distinguishing this software from others. Has it acquired distinctiveness through use? Arguably.