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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenmarable" data-source="post: 3850143" data-attributes="member: 40359">Leaving aside the legal argument, which I think is fruitless since it's up to lawyers and the trademark office...There's nothing stopping you from telling people you are running an adventure path (or campaign saga, or adventure series, or published campaign, or...). It is a restriction on publishers, not consumers.I still don't see why it should be that way. Arguing that it already is, that's one thing. Using the word "should" implies an imperative here, to which I reply, why? Why should it when there are many, many other ways of doing the exact same thing?I disagree. A term used to describe a product type be used as a brand. And I bet that Paizo could easily build it into a very successful brand. There's no hard and fast rule for what can and cannot be a brand. It's all in how much and effectively a company markets that brand.I just don't buy this. I really, really don't think people are unaware of what EN Publishing's "War of the Burning Sky" adventures are (go buy them, plug plug) because they are called a "campaign saga" rather than an "adventure path". Using a different term isn't hampering people's ability to find those products at all.Hmm... I don't see RPGNow/DriveThruRpg using the term "adventure path". YourGamesNow doesn't use it. Amazon doesn't use it. Neither of my FLGS use that term. For reviews, I don't see any major review sites using the term to flag certain products.I can see it being useful to flag those products, BUT first off, again there are plenty of other terms, and secondly, I don't see anyone doing it anyway.Again, I'll grant that the term may be too generic and public so that Paizo's trademark isn't legally legitimate (and/or WotC saying "No it's ours.").But I certainly don't see the harm that you apparently do if the trademark is granted. It doesn't prevent consumers from using the term. It doesn't prevent reviewers from using the term. It doesn't prevent publishers from producing linked adventures, nor any of us talking about them using whatever terms we want. The products are still pretty darn obvious whatever they are called. Publishers just can't explicitly use the term "adventure path" in their advertisements or on the products themselves. That's it. I just don't see the problem here.</blockquote>

Verification