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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lonewolfdevel" data-source="post: 5083017" data-attributes="member: 87800">Your argument hinges on the position that the trademark is either generic or descriptive. From a legal standpoint, though, all presumptions are just the opposite regarding the Army Builder trademark. There are four reasons why:1. The term was not in general use before we began using it. This fact has been confirmed by other posters here already.2. The term is suggestive at best - not descriptive. We acknowledge that it isn't fanciful, but the program isn't "building" anything, per se, as it operates virtually, and the end result is not an "army" but a roster sheet.3. The trademark has acquired secondary meaning after all these years. When someone posts to a miniatures forum that they need an "army builder data file", virtually everyone on that forum knows that what is being sought is a data file for Lone Wolf Development's product.4. Under US trademark law, our mark is presumptively incontestable on grounds of descriptiveness (and certain other grounds) by virtue of 5 years of continuous use without having been canceled and us having filed the necessary affidavits.Ultimately, this should all be taken into account through the lens of case law, which is VERY reluctant to strip a trademark owner of rights merely because there has been some generic usage of a mark.This is a paraphrased version of the response I received from our IP attorney about this. He also said that he didn't hear from you today, so I have to ask whether you received his contact info successfully.</blockquote>

Verification