Just thought I'd make a quick statement about what bothers some of us here, and also make some general comments on trademark law just as an FYI for those who are interested.
Trademark owners do have a duty to police their marks. That is true; if they don't police them they can lose them. That's why a big company might send a cease and desist letter to a mom and pop operation that is infringing a mark, even when the small operation doesn't really concern the big company in any competitive sense.
But you have to police the mark within the bounds of the protections afforded to you by the law. Here, Lone Wolf is couching their claims in Dilution, and in my opinion it isn't likely their marks have the requisite fame to sustain a Dilution cause of action to begin with. Even if you could make that case, you've got to meet the elements of Blurring or Tarnishment (the types of dilution), and again I think that's problematic.
Assuming you could do the above, Lone Wolf makes a claim that PP is somehow obligated under the DMCA (a copyright act) to police their forums and/or educate their forum users with respect to Lone Wolf's TRADEMARKS. If Lone Wolf has a specific provision of the DMCA in mind here, I'd be interested in seeing it.
As for the mark ARMY BUILDERS itself, I do not think it is generic. I do think it is descriptive, and descriptive marks can be registered if they've become distinct in the minds of the consumers for the specific goods or services at issue (if they become distinct, they're said to have acquired 'secondary meaning,' and even though they're descriptive the USPTO will register them).
FYI, there are different types of trademarks with different levels of protection.
Fanciful/arbitrary marks are the strongest (for example "Apple," for computers or "Kodak" for cameras). These words have nothing inherently to do with the products they are tied to. They only come to be associated with a certain product through the trademark owners use of the marks.
Suggestive marks have the next highest level of protection. They hint at the underlying goods or services but don't really describe them. They are said to suggest a "quality or characteristic" of the mark. I believe GREYHOUND is a suggestive mark for a bus line, because the word suggests speed, movement, etc. but it doesn't actually describe a bus service.
Descriptive marks are next, and are weaker than the above. If a mark is merely descriptive, and has no additional meaning in the minds of the consumers, it can't be registered on the principal trademark register (it can go on the secondary register, but I'm not going to get into all that). Trademarks like VISION CENTER have been found to be descriptive. They describe one or more characteristics of the goods or services, but they're not generic. This is where, it seems to me, ARMY BUILDER falls.
Finally, generic words cannot be registered at all. You can't start a paper company and try to register PAPER as a trademark. Marks like ASPIRIN used to be registered marks, but they became generic in the language and can't be protected any more.
A descriptive mark CAN become generic over time, and trademark owners do try to police this. For example, if you look at writer's magazines you'll sometimes see ads from Xerox and Kleenix asking writers not to use their words generically. They don't want a writer to say "Tom xeroxed a stack of papers." If xerox becomes generic for photocopying, they lose their rights in the word.
But again, policing has to be done within the bounds of the rights afforded to the trademark owner. Trademark owners can be liable themselves if they attempt to strong-arm the competition beyond the boundaries of what trademark law allows.
And none of this is legal advice to any party involved or anyone else in the forums. Just some info off the top of my head before I get in the car and go to work.
