Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExiledinElysium" data-source="post: 5077235" data-attributes="member: 74604">Yes, you're completely right, but that is not the same thing as saying they're legally required to police their trademark.&nbsp; Holding a trademark confers rights, not duties, and this is an important distinction.&nbsp; Supposed infringements can indeed be defended as implied consent if not timely enforced, and I think the point a lot of people on this thread are making is that it would behoove a company like Lone Wolf to give express consent to a large chunk of infringements that aren't actually harmful to their profits, since what they are doing risks alienating whatever fanbase they have.Being encouraged to do something because it's probably in your own better interests is not at all equivalent to having a legal duty imposed on you to perform.&nbsp; That very equivocation is what leads me to believe they haven't actually consulted lawyers.&nbsp; Either that or they need to fire their in-house counsel.&nbsp; It's sad but true that having a JD doesn't actually make one a reliable legal advisor.I'd also like to point out that I think a lot of you are misconstruing what it means to have registered the trademark &quot;Army Builder.&quot;&nbsp; Someone earlier on this thread pointed this out but it got lost in the shuffle.&nbsp; The trademark is inextricable from its context.&nbsp; The peanut butter company (the example used by the aforementioned member) owning the trademark &quot;Skippy&quot; doesn't preclude the dog food company from using the same word as their title.&nbsp; Skippy (the peanut butter) is not a trademark by virtue of the word itself, but rather the whole image and the way it's used.&nbsp; It's a tradeMARK, not tradeWORD.&nbsp; The image is very important.&nbsp; When being discussed verbally or textually, the context is just as important as the image we visually associate with the word.&nbsp; I can talk about a person who hires mercenaries and refer to them as my &quot;army builder&quot; without infringing on the trademark.&nbsp; I would be infringing (assuming Lone Wolf's trademark claim is valid), however, if I were to refer to an excel sheet I set up to tally up my Warhammer army roster as my Space Marines Army Builder.I should note that I could be wrong about my above analysis.&nbsp; It's possible that the image is far more important than I'm making it out to be.&nbsp; I might track down a trademark expert on the faculty here and ask them about this.Cheers,Kyle</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExiledinElysium, post: 5077235, member: 74604"] Yes, you're completely right, but that is not the same thing as saying they're legally required to police their trademark. Holding a trademark confers rights, not duties, and this is an important distinction. Supposed infringements can indeed be defended as implied consent if not timely enforced, and I think the point a lot of people on this thread are making is that it would behoove a company like Lone Wolf to give express consent to a large chunk of infringements that aren't actually harmful to their profits, since what they are doing risks alienating whatever fanbase they have. Being encouraged to do something because it's probably in your own better interests is not at all equivalent to having a legal duty imposed on you to perform. That very equivocation is what leads me to believe they haven't actually consulted lawyers. Either that or they need to fire their in-house counsel. It's sad but true that having a JD doesn't actually make one a reliable legal advisor. I'd also like to point out that I think a lot of you are misconstruing what it means to have registered the trademark "Army Builder." Someone earlier on this thread pointed this out but it got lost in the shuffle. The trademark is inextricable from its context. The peanut butter company (the example used by the aforementioned member) owning the trademark "Skippy" doesn't preclude the dog food company from using the same word as their title. Skippy (the peanut butter) is not a trademark by virtue of the word itself, but rather the whole image and the way it's used. It's a tradeMARK, not tradeWORD. The image is very important. When being discussed verbally or textually, the context is just as important as the image we visually associate with the word. I can talk about a person who hires mercenaries and refer to them as my "army builder" without infringing on the trademark. I would be infringing (assuming Lone Wolf's trademark claim is valid), however, if I were to refer to an excel sheet I set up to tally up my Warhammer army roster as my Space Marines Army Builder. I should note that I could be wrong about my above analysis. It's possible that the image is far more important than I'm making it out to be. I might track down a trademark expert on the faculty here and ask them about this. Cheers, Kyle [/QUOTE]

Verification