Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Terramotus" data-source="post: 5080292" data-attributes="member: 7220">Actually, the free speech issue was exactly the subject that was at issue for most of the thread.&nbsp; The initial impression was that they were.&nbsp; Now that it's been clarified, most of the arguing has tapered off.Also, come on.&nbsp; Worst case scenario is that they lose &quot;Army Builder&quot; as a trademark because it's become generic.&nbsp; That's not having their product ripped off, that's losing some time spent on marketing.&nbsp; So they might have to rename to &quot;The Original Army Builder&quot; and trademark that.And the term IS generic, though whether it would be considered as such as a point of law I couldn't say.&nbsp; People tend to abbreviate names but truncate descriptive terms.&nbsp; I can't imagine a better, more easy to understand descriptor of what those programs do than the phrase &quot;Army Builder&quot;.&nbsp; Restricting the term partially restricts competitors from being able to effectively describe to their audience what their product does in a concise fashion.Part of the problem is that they apparently hid under the radar until the trademark was uncontestable, and only now are attempting to educate people about it now that the mark can't be invalidated for being generic.So while I'm no longer enraged by their actions, I won't cry any tears for them if they ultimately lose the trademark.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Terramotus, post: 5080292, member: 7220"] Actually, the free speech issue was exactly the subject that was at issue for most of the thread. The initial impression was that they were. Now that it's been clarified, most of the arguing has tapered off. Also, come on. Worst case scenario is that they lose "Army Builder" as a trademark because it's become generic. That's not having their product ripped off, that's losing some time spent on marketing. So they might have to rename to "The Original Army Builder" and trademark that. And the term IS generic, though whether it would be considered as such as a point of law I couldn't say. People tend to abbreviate names but truncate descriptive terms. I can't imagine a better, more easy to understand descriptor of what those programs do than the phrase "Army Builder". Restricting the term partially restricts competitors from being able to effectively describe to their audience what their product does in a concise fashion. Part of the problem is that they apparently hid under the radar until the trademark was uncontestable, and only now are attempting to educate people about it now that the mark can't be invalidated for being generic. So while I'm no longer enraged by their actions, I won't cry any tears for them if they ultimately lose the trademark. [/QUOTE]

Verification