Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5077770" data-attributes="member: 2732">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.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.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 includeTHE FIT YOU WON'T FORGETHOW 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 BUILDERPROFIT BUILDERPIPE BUILDERTURF BUILDERBLOSSOM BUILDERIf 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.</blockquote>

Verification