Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5083543" data-attributes="member: 2732">The Wikipedia article is a little misleading.&nbsp; First of all, a lot of the trademarks referenced in those cases were established ages ago, and in some cases due to other factors--aspirin for instance was made generic because of War Reperations against Germany after World War I, and it's still a trademark in many European countries.The key test would probably be, in the US, <a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T1209" target="_blank">Section 1209</a> of the TMEP.&nbsp; There are several examples there, including ones of generic (as opposed to descriptive marks).&nbsp; Based on what I've read--I'm not sure Army Builder counts as generic.&nbsp; There's a small subsection on generic <a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T120901c" target="_blank">case references</a>.I'm also not sure what test they use for generic or descriptive marks.&nbsp; Does it depend on the audience?&nbsp; If so, if only hardcore gamers use the term army builder (as opposed to the general public with thermos and yo-yo), if that small audience would be enough to prove a trademark generic.I think the key thing in my mind is this--why is this suddenly being brought up now?&nbsp; The people who've built it have used this term for 1998, and got registration in 2004.&nbsp; That has given plenty of people time to challenge the trademark, and I'm pretty sure LWP did their due diligence, and it doesn't look like there's a lot of competition in the industry anyway for this tool, and I believe the representative when he said they have acted before on these violations.&nbsp; I feel if this was a serious issue the gaming community would have heard about it by now and protested earlier.&nbsp; I don't buy the argument that they &quot;snuck this under the radar&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 5083543, member: 2732"] The Wikipedia article is a little misleading. First of all, a lot of the trademarks referenced in those cases were established ages ago, and in some cases due to other factors--aspirin for instance was made generic because of War Reperations against Germany after World War I, and it's still a trademark in many European countries. The key test would probably be, in the US, [URL="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T1209"]Section 1209[/URL] of the TMEP. There are several examples there, including ones of generic (as opposed to descriptive marks). Based on what I've read--I'm not sure Army Builder counts as generic. There's a small subsection on generic [URL="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T120901c"]case references[/URL]. I'm also not sure what test they use for generic or descriptive marks. Does it depend on the audience? If so, if only hardcore gamers use the term army builder (as opposed to the general public with thermos and yo-yo), if that small audience would be enough to prove a trademark generic. I think the key thing in my mind is this--why is this suddenly being brought up now? The people who've built it have used this term for 1998, and got registration in 2004. That has given plenty of people time to challenge the trademark, and I'm pretty sure LWP did their due diligence, and it doesn't look like there's a lot of competition in the industry anyway for this tool, and I believe the representative when he said they have acted before on these violations. I feel if this was a serious issue the gaming community would have heard about it by now and protested earlier. I don't buy the argument that they "snuck this under the radar". [/QUOTE]

Verification