Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 1027427" data-attributes="member: 5">Lashing out doesn't change things, Ben.I refer you to this page -<a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm" target="_blank">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm</a>Specifically the section on descriptive marks -"A descriptive mark is a mark that directly describes, rather than suggests, a characteristic or quality of the underlying product (e.g. its color, odor, function, dimensions, or ingredients). For example, "Holiday Inn," "All Bran," and "Vision Center" all describe some aspect of the underlying product or service (respectively, hotel rooms, breakfast cereal, optical services). They tell us something about the product. Unlike arbitrary or suggestive marks, descriptive marks are not inherently distinctive and are protected only if they have acquired "secondary meaning." Descriptive marks must clear this additional hurdle because they are terms that are useful for describing the underlying product, and giving a particular manufacturer the exclusive right to use the term could confer an unfair advantage.A descriptive mark acquires secondary meaning when the consuming public primarily associates that mark with a particular producer, rather than the underlying product. Thus, for example, the term "Holiday Inn" has acquired secondary meaning because the consuming public associates that term with a particular provider of hotel services, and not with hotel services in general. The public need not be able to identify the specific producer; only that the product or service comes from a single producer. When trying to determine whether a given term has acquired secondary meaning, courts will often look to the following factors: (1) the amount and manner of advertising; (2) the volume of sales; (3) the length and manner of the term's use; (4) results of consumer surveys. Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983)."It's my contention (and possibly WotC's) that over time the simple articulation of "d20" as it pertains to game systems, not as it pertains to a platonic solid, has potentially become synonymous with the trademark "d20 System" and may well be possible to successfully register for trademark status.I think that WotC is proceeding under the premise that it is possible for something to become a trademark and be prevented from being used as OGC in future works on that basis.  While in most cases it would seem impossible to remove OGC from the pool, I believe they are working under the idea that the sections in the OGL as pertains to trademarks make it possible to pull "d20" back from the pool as it pertains to a system.That's what makes your premise flawed.  As to whether or not WotC's premise (if indeed it is their premise) is flawed, that's a question to be answered retroactively.  It's only flawed if it doesn't work.</blockquote>

Verification