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

[Oldtimer]

the common folks' freedom of speech and expression trumps their trademark law.

Only a matter of time. They're getting there eventually.

Oh, and... ARMY BUILDER

 

[scranford]

While this is unfortunate it doesn't surprise me in the least. I had some major issues with Hero lab (Major to me anyway) which took me going to a public forum with the issues to be resolved. In the process I felt personally insulted by the owners treatment of me as a customer, and personal attacks which were veiled by comments leading to their belief that the majority of the people in the world are crooks.

I feel they really believe the world is out to get them, when if fact the number of people who even know who Lone Wolf Development are, or their products is miniscule. It's a shame really because their software is top notch, but their customer service, and paranoia, makes me wish there was a competitive product out there I could give my money to.

They need to understand that if they treat people with respect they will find goodwill gains them many more customers than lawsuits, and cost them many less.

 

[Turtlejay]

A far more productive move, if indeed they felt their brand was in danger of being diluted, would be a *rebranding* of their software.

Avatar: An Army Builder

That way you retain your base built using the 'Army Builder' name, and piggyback on the Avatar popularity.

It's a win win!

Jay

PS - Army Builder

 

[Morrus]

Actually, I hate to say it, but I think Privateer did the wrong thing. They basically responded to what was likely to be a private inquiry with a public snarky and sarcastic response. This only turned into a tempest because of what Privateer did, not anything Lone Wolf did. It looks like what they did was the unprofessional thing and based on the fact that PP shut down discussion of this tells me that maybe somebody at PP responded without having their morning coffee.

If you read the linked documents, it was a demand that they censor the conversation on their forums - accompanied by a 72 hour deadline pending legal action. There's no "what was likely" about it - the documents are plainly readable.

It is wrong in two ways:

1) Including a legal threat and deadline at the outset, without engaging Privateer in conversation.

2) Attempting to regulate conversation about such products by the general public, as opposed to PP's own use of trademarked terms; and putting the onus on PP to defend LW's trademark to the general public.

There are some fairly weak claims (but stated in definitive terms) that "conversation on the internet" equates to "PP publishing materials in print". It's a very weak stance, and certainly not one to base definitive threats of legal action on.

I've received similar legal threats in the past. Folks claiming that *I* am libelling them because someone used a comminication medium I provided to say something. This is akin to claiming a telephone company is liable for what is said on the communication medium they provide.

Needless to say, 100% of these threats have amounted to nothing.

 

[Morrus]

The subject line of this thread is totally (apparently) misleading. I'm sure we can't read the original threads, so there is no way of actually checking. But it sounds like Lone Wolf Development(R) is in the right here. They're not stopping people from using the words, army builder. It sounds like they want people to acknowledge that Army Builder (R) is a registered trademark, and that they shouldn't use call their army builders an Army Builder but something else. They do have the legal right to "defend" their property, and it is their obligation to educate in proper use, and it is also their responsibility to make sure it's usage, if being used, is used properly, i.e. only in reference to their Army Builder (R) product, and nothing else.

Nope - they demanded that Privateer edit conversations on their forums between members of the public to change any reference to the concept of an "army builder" to something else.

The "don't call your product an army builder" part I can get on board with. That's a little heavy handed, but understandable.

The "edit the public's conversations to change any reference to army-builder-type-products" to a generic term? Nope. Can't support that.

 

[pawsplay]

I found a generic use of the term "army builder" dated 2003:

Review of Savage Worlds - RPGnet

EDIT: Oh, nm, it refers to the Army Builder after all. But without caps.

 

[DaveMage]

I would have responded the same way PP did.

Heh.

+1 xp for them....

 

[Nikosandros]

I would have responded the same way PP did.

Heh.

+1 xp for them....

I think I'm missing something here. From the linked PDF it seems that PP simply complied with the request.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I didn't see it posted earlier in the thread, and you need to be a member of the PP forums to download the .pdf, so I figured I'd repost the notice sent to PP and the response they gave their fans.

Thanks for that! I find Privateer's response a lot less snarky now that I have context. It only seemed snarky because it seemed like they were inserting their own trademark and/or trying for publicity.

Now, I like Army Builder: I frequently use it to look up particular rules/stats when I don't want to dig out the relevant rulebook or buy the relevant rulebook, particularly in regards to Privateer Presses games as they are by far the most complete files linked to (in contrast Warhammer ones are full of instances of "see army book"). However I really do think a company which makes a fair bit of its money by stepping on other peoples IP shouldn't go round whining about its own ~ and that Lone Wolf rightly deserve a kick in the teeth for this bit of double standards.

Well, I hate to say it, but like the OGL fans and the retro-clone makers like to say..."you can't copyright game rules", so if that's the case they are in the right.

Makes me wonder if someone should make a list of other common gaming terms that have been submitted to the trademark office in the last 5 years. Just in case we want to contest the trademarkability of them.

That won't work. Opposition can only be filed if you would be directly harmed by the truth. In other words, to oppose a trademark you'd have to be directly involved. Unless you actually had software that "built armies" and felt the term was generic enough and part of your advertising, you wouldn't have a case. You can't object just because in your opinion the term is generic.

As far as generic goes, that's up to judgement.

Somebody mentioned Coca Cola. Well, those were two works, Coca for the Coca Leaf (the original Coke had some cocaine), and Cola, a variant (but legit) spelling of the Kola nut. So, two real words. Combined they were enough of a Trademark. Maybe its hard to see it now with the power the Coke brand has done over the years.

Heck, I'll bet somebody with an APAzine complained about the generic trademark of Dungeons and Dragons.

You can trademark phrases even if they "seem" generic. Remember, Trademarks usually are of a very narrow scope, and are only used for product labels. DC can still call Billy Batson Captain Marvel--they just can't use it on the cover. Marvel can still use Radioactive Man (Chen Lu, from china, a green fat guy who appeared in the 60s), but they can't use him on the cover because Fox has a Registered Trademark for the Simpson's character.

Here are some that might seem generic, but are legitimate.

PRODUCTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION: Used to be owned by TSR, owned by Zazzle until abandoned.

YOU WILL. AT&T. Used in advertising during the 90s.

STEAK SANDWICH SUPREME--DEI RANCHO USA, INC, used in restaraunt services.

Other Phrases that might seem like normal conversation but are Trademarks in limited use include

THE FIT YOU WON'T FORGET
HOW FAR WILL YOU GO?
YOU WON'T BELIEVE YOUR EYES!
WHERE WILL YOU PLAY?

The USPTO has the following Trademarks with a variation of Builder.

CLOSET BUILDER
PROFIT BUILDER
PIPE BUILDER
TURF BUILDER
BLOSSOM BUILDER

If those are valid, so too I can see Army Builder.

Some you might not expect. Layer Cake is a generic term, but when used for Wine (!?!) it's a Trademark.

The point I want to make is double-pronged.

1) The Trademark is not meant to prevent the use in general discussion, so all of you posting "Army Builder" in big bold letters aren't upsetting them at all. The point is to make sure in narrow specific uses that nobody can label their competing products with that term. From what I understand, the only objection to Army Builder they had was links to products labelled or describing themselves with that phrase.

They aren't trying to censor, but Trademarks are very important. I can understand criticism of Patents and Copyright (even if I don't agree), but Trademarks are to protect US, to prevent people from making knock-offs with the exact same labels.

2) Did Lone Wolf go too far? It's possible, but at the very least they needed to at least make people aware of this and I don't think they were in the wrong. At the very least, even if Privateer didn't comply, the legal notice can be enough to prevent it from becoming generic. That's what Xerox and Lego did by informing people via product literature and making sure competitors didn't call their work Xerox or Legos. In this case, even if the act brings a little bad will by overzealous crusading people--it might be worth it to keep the Trademark.

 

[Morrus]

I think I'm missing something here. From the linked PDF it seems that PP simply complied with the request.

They did - and then went further,

Lone Wolf wanted them to edit people's post so that any conversational reference by the public to an army builder not produced by Lone Wolf would be referred to as a generic term (such as "unit roster application" or something). However, references to Lone Wolf's product "Army Builder" would be left alone.

PP decided that any mention of the worlds "army builder" would now be automatically edited to read "iBodger" (their own application which does the same thing). They declared that this was because they could not police every post to contextually edit each appropriately (which would require a human to physically read every post), so they imposed a blanket ban on the term "army builder".

LW's proposal that PP read every post and contextually edit them if they referred to an army builder other than LW's Army Builder clearly isn't possible (imagine if someone asked me to read every one of several million posts on EN World). So they adopted a blnaket overkill approach, and at the same time prevented anyone from ever mentioning LW's product at all. Obviously this is partly practicality- demanding that they monitor every post is impossible - and partly an emotional reaction.

The problem here is that LW chose not to say "Hey, PP guys, we have a problem - would you be so kind as to work with us to resolve it?" They said "We demand you do this within 72 hours or we'll take legal action". That's gonna get your back up when you're on the receiving end. Then claiming that everyone read the initial email out of context is just a little insulting, and that it was meant as a friendly request, rubs salt in the wound. You don't incude legal threats in friendly requests.

It was a bad judgement call. They could have achieved their goal by being friendly. They chose to be antagonistic - and then compound it by claiming they weren't being antagonistic after everyone read the email.

They threatened PP, pure and simple. Take the legality out of it - it's bad PR, and it's an amateur choice of professional interaction. Don't be a bully when you can smile - it may have worked in high school, but in the grown-up world it makes you look like a douchebag.