Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="denzoner" data-source="post: 5077543" data-attributes="member: 2163">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 &quot;defend&quot; 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.BUT, I think it's a BAD choice for a trademark, and waaaaaaaaay to generic of a name to have been trademark, but that's not our problem. You know what's not trademarked (afaik), Army Lab. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="denzoner, post: 5077543, member: 2163"] 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. BUT, I think it's a BAD choice for a trademark, and waaaaaaaaay to generic of a name to have been trademark, but that's not our problem. You know what's not trademarked (afaik), Army Lab. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification