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

[Xyxox]

You might have a point about apologizing to Privateer, but they don't need to apologize for getting the Trademark itself.

Plus, they've likely invested time and money get this trademark. They should give it up for the sake of a few people going off the wall, whose potential "boycott" might only end up being a couple dozen people?

Yep, the trademark is legit. Enforcing it when it comes to other products that create rosters is legit, too.

They went overboard on demanding forums be policed for any use of the phrase, though.

 

[Mournblade94]

I use Lone Wolf and I like Lone Wolf.. I ahve heard of all of their products.

I like them as a company but this is annoying. If I was a wargamer on a forum, I would much rather ask if there is an Army Builder out there than a Roster Something something.

Army builder comes to mind when you want to ...Build an army. I don't necessarily want to build a roster. I put things ftrom my army on a roster.

How even can army builder be used negatively. I used to wargame but some army builder caused me to lose my job?

 

[jaerdaph]

okays now that lone wolf has imploded and their company is no longer around (sorry to see go after all these year) where else can I find some good army-building software? I have som e armies that needs building and I need army-building software pls ppl who are the big players now in army-building software?

 

[Dire Bare]

Would you all people please just leave me alone, thanks?

Well, I'm glad we're not resorting to childish behavior in this discussion.

 

[Tewligan]

As for all of the posts that misused our trademark, well, we can't change history. It occurred. So no changes to the individual posts were required.

That doesn't seem to be what you were saying here:

There are two things that need to be done. First of all, improper references to the Army Builder trademark on the forums must be addressed. This can be achieved in either of two ways, or potentially a combination of both, at your discretion. The first option would be to remove such posts. Since this could appear harsh and potentially disrupt forum discussions, an acceptable alternative would be to revise such posts to utilize a generic term (e.g. “roster construction tool”, “list createor”, or “points calculator”) in place of the “Army Builder” name.

 

[pedr]

I think this is fascinating, though that's probably because I'm a law lecturer. I don't do IP at all, though, so have no particular insight.

What strikes me as the most likely legal position, though, is this:

Lone Wolf (probably) have a clear case against various people who have created "My New Army Builder" tools. If they want to send letters, or set lawyers on, people who have infringed their trademark in this way, that's entirely proper.

What I don't quite understand is where Privateer Press has done anything wrong at all, or why Lone Wolf thought they could require PP to do anything in response. Even if the creator of "My New Army Builder" wrote a post saying "Buy my new Army Builder here:" the infringer is the creator of the program, not the operator of the forum. Surely it is the responsibility of the infringer to come into compliance. Perhaps the forum has a duty to co-operate with Lone Wolf's attempts to enforce its mark, by deleting specified posts which advertise infringing products. Perhaps the owner of an advertising board would have a duty, if informed by a trade-mark owner, to remove a poster advertising an infringing work. But while Lone Wolf are arguing that people have conflated their first, strong demand and their second request for assistance in educating people that 'army builder' is not a generic term, I think they overlook the strong possibility that the first claim is just as (if not more) flawed, as it seems to indicate that PP themselves are infringing on Lone Wolf's trademark by 'permitting' the advertising of an infringing product, and I find that unlikely.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[S'mon]

Good faith descriptive use of TM'd words is non-infringing, ie using "army builder" to describe a characteristic of software is non-infringing, at least in UK/EU law, and AFAIK US is the same.

 

[Dragonhelm]

You might have a point about apologizing to Privateer, but they don't need to apologize for getting the Trademark itself.

Right, an apology to Privateer would be good, and maybe one to the fan community for inadvertently causing a ruckus. I don't think Lone Wolf should apologize for gaining the trademark or for defending it.

Plus, they've likely invested time and money get this trademark. They should give it up for the sake of a few people going off the wall, whose potential "boycott" might only end up being a couple dozen people?

I'm not saying they should give it up. Make it a part of a new trademark, ergo the tagline I suggest. Yes, it would require more time and money, but it may be more beneficial in the long run.

*shrugs*

 

[Steerpike7]

One important thing Lone Wolf could do with respect to their ARMY BUILDER mark is to actually use the circle-R trademark registration symbol in conjunction with it. If you look at the front page of the site, the circle-R does not appear next to the Army Builder logo, or after the name Army Builder in the menu near the top of the screen, or in the references to Army Builder in the text of their web site. They do have a statement at the bottom of the web page.

Marking isn't mandatory, but it does let people know you are serious about your trademarks and can provide some additional protections.