pawsplay
Hero
Sigh. How is "Army Builder" any more or less valid than "Player's Handbook" as a trademark?
Ways too numerous to list. But a few, off the cuff:
1. It is not merely descriptive. It's not sufficient descriptive, even. It's a handbook... for players. Most games refers to these things as rulebooks, player's guides, player books, character rules, etc. The only reason it would likely be used for a book for another game is because it had been genericized. Apart from Boy Scouts and HR departments, who even says "handbook" in conversation on a daily basis?
2. At the time it came out, it was a specific kind of book for a game which represented essentially the entirely of the industry. "Player's Handbook for D&D" is sufficiently distinct from "The Rules for Advanced Squad Leader."
3. It's not a phrase likely to arise from everyday conversion, as I said above. Asking someone not to use "handbook" in connection with player doesn't really stop anyone from saying something they wanted to say using ordinary terms.
4. Player's Handbook, from the Trademark Office's standpoint, may not be sufficiently intelligable as describing a kind of book common to all RPGs. In fact, many RPGs are one book games anyway, or folios.
etc.
And all that said... Player's Handbook is not that great a trademark. I would have gone with "Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook," and if someone tried to tm "Dragons & Dungeons Player's Handook," I would sue them, and block any registrations of just "Player's Handbook" as being generic.
Fact is, as JohnRTroy pointed out, "Army Builder" isn't all that different from tons of other legit, registered trademarks.
So? It is alike them in being a legit, registered trademark, and like many of them in that it shouldn't be.
I'm not happy with how Lone Wolf has handled the situation here, but there is a lot of ignorance in this thread . . . .
Well, that was rude.