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

[CapnZapp]

Just read the front page, and don't want to read the huge thread, so let me just say:

Referring to roster construction tools generally as "army builders" is improper

You, Sir, are a jackass who have lost all perspective. Do not expect anyone to take you seriously. Jeez.

 

[Umbran]

You, Sir, are a jackass who have lost all perspective.

And you, Sir, are a poster who has either forgotten that the place he's posting has rules, or has decided that he doesn't care.

Either way - this is unacceptable.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Well, that was kind of like a scene in a comedy where after all the tension has passed and everyone has hugged then some . . . you know. . . barges in with guns aimed at everyone like nothing had changed.

 

[Mark]

I am making an R-Mee Build-R.

 

[William Ronald]

I am making an R-Mee Build-R.

That is a bit easier to remember than Militant Forces Construction Software or some of the other possible names: Military Organization List Establisher (MOLE).

One thing that I have learned is that words have the power to hurt or to heal. So, perhaps in the future, a lot of these problems can be avoided. In legal matters, it probably makes sense to consult a lawyer before releasing anything much like I would run a press release about new software past someone who developed it to ensure that all terms were accurate.

 

[lonewolfdevel]

And you, Sir, are a poster who has either forgotten that the place he's posting has rules, or has decided that he doesn't care.

Either way - this is unacceptable.

To the moderators:
It appears the front page news item is inciting posters who aren't bothering to read the thread, and the thread title could be contributing as well. Is it unreasonable to ask that some additional clarifications be added to the front page item to address what has transpired here? And to tweak the thread title a little bit?

Thanks for considering this request....

 

[Perram]

To the moderators:
It appears the front page news item is inciting posters who aren't bothering to read the thread, and the thread title could be contributing as well. Is it unreasonable to ask that some additional clarifications be added to the front page item to address what has transpired here? And to tweak the thread title a little bit?

Thanks for considering this request....

They have already posted a follow-up on the front page... while the brash outburst by CapnZapp was certainly uncalled for, I don't think another followup front page news story should be needed as no major shifts have happened since the last one.

 

[lonewolfdevel]

I don't think you can stop them using it descriptively - "Our program XX is army builder software" - that's the problem with having a descriptive mark. Your mark would actually be entirely unregistrable as an EU-wide mark simply due to its being capable of being used descriptively (per ECJ in Doublemint/Wrigleys vs OHIM).

Our IP attorney maintains that, according to the rules here in the US, we are able to stop a competing product from using our trademark to identify itself in the manner you describe. And based on posts from a few others here that appear well-versed in US trademarks, it seems that US laws have some distinct differences from other regions. So I am inclined to believe our attorney on this.

I'll be providing you with his contact info shortly, and you can consult with him independently if you wish.

 

[lonewolfdevel]

They have already posted a follow-up on the front page...

If someone simply reads the original post from the 3rd, it includes various follow-up bits, but nothing about the explanation and apology. And that post is linked to from numerous other sites. Consequently, someone arriving from another site can readily miss the new announcement, which is a wholly independent post.

So, I guess what I'm requesting is that a brief reference and link to the follow-up announcement be added to the original front page post. That will hopefully avoid the potential for someone overlooking the new developments.

 

[thzero]

Not an unreasonable request. Perhaps its best to contact Morris directly?

If someone simply reads the original post from the 3rd, it includes various follow-up bits, but nothing about the explanation and apology. And that post is linked to from numerous other sites. Consequently, someone arriving from another site can readily miss the new announcement, which is a wholly independent post.

So, I guess what I'm requesting is that a brief reference and link to the follow-up announcement be added to the original front page post. That will hopefully avoid the potential for someone overlooking the new developments.