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

[falcarrion]

the description has been changed to army listing app.
Why was this done? To avoid legal problems?
As this was discussed on thier website it's not hard for people to ask questions like:
Does your army builder import pics?
ETC...

 

[Iron Sky]

You get major credit for coming in to talk. Thanks for that.

This.

Especially since you are coming seeking to answer questions, are open to feedback, and aren't getting reactive - which I could imagine takes some effort considering you're trying to defend a company and product you've been investing time and energy in for over a decade.

I personally have no idea what the so called "right thing" to do was in the first place, but I, for one, am impressed with your willingness to step into the internet forum "line of fire".

The only advice I might have to offer has nothing to do with legaleese or PRambulations: don't expect to "win" a forum debate. Some people have already made up their minds, others will just drop in, skim a bit, then post their first reaction, and some people find it entertaining just to "stir things up".

Anyway, long story short, props.

 

[Ghostwind]

Lone Wolf has a right to defend their trademark as far as other army construction programs go, however, here is another case of sending a letter to censor the use of "Army Builder" in a forum. It is not just restricted to Privateer Press.

GameStLouis.com • View topic - Trademark Notification Announcement

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Actually, they've been doing that to other people, as this thread shows.

Army Builder is a trademarked phrase - Heroscapers

It looks like they got the same letter, maybe without the 72 hour notice, and the guy complied, and he actually felt the company was "very cool" about it.

That letter looks very similar to the one PP got. In fact, most of the PP letter probably is _exactly_ what is in that letter. There do seem to be some important differences that probably have been what triggered the controversy.

1. There is no mention of the DCMA in the Heroscapers letter. The DCMA is a legal hammer that shouldn't be used lightly (although it often is).

2. As you say, there is no 72 hour notice...so no time pressure.

3. There is no mention of referring the matter to lawyers, so this is doesn't come across as a threatening letter.

4. Apparently, there are specific spots on the website where the trademark infraction occured. This is a bit different than policing forums.

As an addendum to that last point, wolflairdev mentioned that they were perfectly willing to do the 'educating'. That is not clear to me in the letter that they sent PP. All it would have taken would be a sentence saying exactly that.

 

[Xyxox]

Lone Wolf has a right to defend their trademark as far as other army construction programs go, however, here is another case of sending a letter to censor the use of "Army Builder" in a forum. It is not just restricted to Privateer Press.

GameStLouis.com • View topic - Trademark Notification Announcement

Looks like they're making the rounds of game forums. And, they've made my decision for me. No Army Builder or Hero Lab software for me. This is beyond the pale. They've gone all Lorraine Williams on the internet!

 

[TheYeti1775]

Greetings,

I just noticed this thread here on ENWorld, so I figured I better make myself available to answer questions and, in a few cases, clarify matters that seem to be misunderstood.

Thanks for coming over Rob.

Well, the USPTO disagreed with you in this matter.

As for "army builder" being a common term long before the company existed, I invite you to provide any evidence of this. For example, you can check the archives on YahooGroups and look for the "direwolf_wh" forum. This forum was one of, if not "the", primary online group for discussion of the Warhammer Fantasy game from GW. The available archives only go back to 1999, but that was one year after we released the Army Builder product. Do a search for "army bulider". You will find no references to that term that are not specifically related to our product. There are many different terms used for roster construction in those archives, but the term "army builder" is not among them.

As a good bit of this board started gaming in the 70's, yeah Army Building was in full effect before the Internet. Also the armies of the world were using the term Army Builder in various reports before our Grandfathers were born.
It is also especially prevalent in many board war games.

If I remember right there were plenty of old BBS around that discussed it as well. So the term to me if very very generic.

But on the other foot, I would wager most of it was 'Army Building' vice 'Army Builder'. While you got the Trademark free and clear, defending realistically isn't a task you should take on. Unless of course you have money pouring out your buttocks more than a poo flinging monkey.


But since we are on the Trademark issues, did your company purchase the rights to Lone Wolf?

Your venture started in 1993 to quote your website.
Background - More - Lone Wolf Development
But the Lone Wolf game books, novels (choose your own adventures) and various computer software were since the 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_(gamebooks)
All of which I believe is owned by Mongoose Publishing currently.
Sounds like they could send you a C&D just on your company name.
As your a gaming company, profiting on another gaming company's stuff.

Now don't that throw a wrench into the monkey works.

Course it's generic use is already out there.
Army-building - Transformers Wiki

Army-building is a nickname for a toy-collecting habit that involves buying multiple identical toys which represent generic or mass-produced characters (for example, Cobra soldiers or Star Wars Stormtroopers), with the intent of displaying them as an imposingly large cohesive unit. Some army-builders have hundreds of figures, arranged in elaborate dioramas or military-style formations.

But of course that has a '-' in it.
So Jim will just have to rename to Jim's Army-Builder, and there would be poo to be done.

 

[Steerpike7]

The fact that ARMY BUILDING or ARMY BUILDER or something similar might already have been out there for collecting toy figures doesn't necessarily mean anything here. Trademarks are tied to specific goods and/or services. Someone can have a mark with respect to one set of goods and services, and a completely different company can have the identical mark for different goods and services. If Lone Wolf's mark is registered for computer software that provides X and Y functionality, the fact that the term was already out there with respect to toy figure collecting doesn't necessarily matter.

 

[hewligan]

My opinion -

People seem generally angry over trademark law, and are perhaps projecting that anger onto the specifics of this particular case,.

It has taken incredible guts (and clearly a rather large reserve of personal calm) for LoneWolfDevel to come over here to ENWorld and try to constructively and openly respond to some of the points raised. His responses have always been polite, even though some of the posts against him appear, to me, rather vitriolic.

Is he right? Possibly not, if you get into the minutiae of the legal aspects.
Is it a HUGE deal? No.
Has he been as open as he can be in trying to explain his position? Yes.
Will the Interweb ever forgive this heinous crime against freedom? Give it a week - all will be forgotten when WoTC decide to kill some IP or shut down some fan-site, or perhaps fire a beloved member of staff.

So, for me, I may not agree with you, LoneWolfDevel, but I do salute your guts for coming here and being so open in the face of "Geek Anger".

 

[Xyxox]

My opinion -

People seem generally angry over trademark law, and are perhaps projecting that anger onto the specifics of this particular case,.

It has taken incredible guts (and clearly a rather large reserve of personal calm) for LoneWolfDevel to come over here to ENWorld and try to constructively and openly respond to some of the points raised. His responses have always been polite, even though some of the posts against him appear, to me, rather vitriolic.

Is he right? Possibly not, if you get into the minutiae of the legal aspects.
Is it a HUGE deal? No.
Has he been as open as he can be in trying to explain his position? Yes.
Will the Interweb ever forgive this heinous crime against freedom? Give it a week - all will be forgotten when WoTC decide to kill some IP or shut down some fan-site, or perhaps fire a beloved member of staff.

So, for me, I may not agree with you, LoneWolfDevel, but I do salute your guts for coming here and being so open in the face of "Geek Anger".

I don't think trademark law means what you and LoneWolfDevel think it means. LoneWolfDevel's attempt to shut down the use of the term on message boards is an innacurate application of trademark law.

 

[denzoner]

Sigh. How is "Army Builder" any more or less valid than "Player's Handbook" as a trademark?

Fact is, as JohnRTroy pointed out, "Army Builder" isn't all that different from tons of other legit, registered trademarks.

I'm not happy with how Lone Wolf has handled the situation here, but there is a lot of ignorance in this thread . . . .

WotC/TSR got away with it, they got lucky. Lone Wolf Development isn't, as you all can see... or they're trying.

My question is HOW IN THE HELL did Lone Wolf get away with such a un-original and confusing name. Isn't ironic how many times Lone Wolf has gotten confused with White Wolf? I'm still blown away with the fact that Lone Wolf isn't the same as the Lone Wolf Gamebooks and Roleplaying Game!

Bad company name, bad product name, bad "guy trying to defend Lone Wolf Dev." - they should have kept their mouths shut.