Developer Seems To Think Trademark On 'Army Builder' Means No One Can Use It In Conversation
from the time-to-learn-some-trademark-law dept
One of the downsides of the modern movement to include trademark law under the same "intellectual property" umbrella as copyright and patent law, is that you get people who think that trademark grants the same sort of overreaching monopoly rights that copyright and patent law do. But trademark law is really quite different -- it's designed as something of a consumer protection law, meant only to prevent confusing uses of the trademark in a way that would imply a product is made or endorsed by someone else. But since people still think of trademarks like copyrights and patents, they often conclude that they can try to stop people who aren't violating the trademark at all.Reader Reverand Dak alerts us to the news that Lone Wolf Development, a video game developer (who, we're told, has no relationship with Lone Wolf Roleplaying Games nor with Lone Wolf & Club manga), received a trademark on the term Army Builder in connection with a game that they created under that name. No problems there. But apparently Lone Wolf has been sending out cease-and-desists to websites that have nothing to do with Lone Wolf's Army Builder, and demanding that the phrase be blocked in forums on totally different subjects. Yes, they're saying that no one can use the term in conversation:
There are two things that need to be done. First of all, improper references to the Army Builder trademark on the forums must be addressed. This can be achieved in either of two ways, or potentially a combination of both, at your discretion. The first option would be to remove such posts. Since this could appear harsh and potentially disrupt forum discussions, an acceptable alternative would be to revise such posts to utilize a generic term (e.g. "roster construction tool", "list createor", or "points calculator") in place of the "Army Builder" name.Or, you know, instead of educating all forum users around the world that they can no longer use the term "Army Builder" in conversation, how about we just educate the folks at Lone Wolf Development on the limits of trademark law and why it almost certainly does not apply to random forum users using the term in a way totally unrelated to Lone Wolf Development's mark.
The second thing that needs to be addressed is that your forum users must be educated about the term Army Builder being a trademark and only applicable to our brand of products. This is necessary to avoid an ongoing problem and mitigate the future need for removal of improper posts. I'm sure you would also prefer that the forums continue to run smoothly and without interruption, so your assistance in getting forum users to utilize appropriate terms will benefit us all.
Update: As pointed out in the comments -- and in a friendly email from Lone Wolf's lawyers -- Lone Wolf has backed down a bit and sorta, but not really, apologized. The guy claims that he's not a lawyer (though, whoever emailed us said they were a lawyer representing the company), and didn't quite realize what he was doing (and it showed). They still claim they want to block "potentially confusing and infringing uses" but our commenters raised some serious questions about the descriptive nature of the mark, and whether or not it should have been allowed in the first place. Still, let this be a lesson to folks, yet again, that acting as a bully tends to backfire.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: army builder, forums, trademark
Companies: lone wolfe development
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There, you should be getting around a dozen C&D emails soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
I think you're right! Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a table top gamer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a table top gamer
First of all, even a common term can become a trademark, if the entity trying to build that mark establishes sufficiently in the mind of the relevant consumer a connection between that common term and a single source of some good or service.
Second of all, and more importantly (so why did I put it second? I don't know) Xerox, Kleenex, and Google are certainly NOT "general now." (By which I think you mean generic.)
Kleenex is a hard example, because even though (last I checked) it's still a registered mark, my personal experience is that it is - despite their likely efforts - teetering on the edge.
But Xerox... Xerox puts out ads all the time working against the use of "Xerox" to mean "photocopy." And if you write a published article somewhere making the mistake, they will likely tag you on it. And they're right. Especially since the Xerox "lock" on the photocopier market isn't what it used to be, the strength of the other brands (I'm thinking of Canon, particularly) makes it much easier to understand that the term Xerox refers to a machine actually from the Xerox company.
And Google is the best example of all. Because common use is actually supporting the brand identity, in a way that isn't the case with the other two. If I say I'm going to "Google something" (use as a verb is *usually* the beginning of the end for a mark), then I don't mean I'm going to Yahoo! or Bing or whatever to do the search, and I don't mean internet search in general terms. I mean I'm going to search the internet with the Google product. And I think that's the usage as it currently stands.
Point is, Army Builder might be descriptive, but can still be a trademark. And the others mentioned are clearly trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Army Builder
one more thing...
Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder Army Builder
Thank You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about Copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What??
If trademark law is not included in trademark law then where should it be included?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Army 489th Engineer Battalion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A explination?
http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=9735
udecide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A explination?
"a significant number of users on the forums also began using the term "army builder" in a generic fashion to describe all roster construction tools. This was a major problem brewing for us with regards to our trademark.
Two things were needed to rectify this situation. First, removal of all references to the other tools that were improperly using the name "army builder" was required, since those were instances of direct and actionable infringement of our trademark. Second, we asked for the assistance of Privateer Press in educating the user community that the Army Builder brand name can only be used in conjunction with the Army Builder brand of products from Lone Wolf Development..."
It may be a major problem for them, but it's exactly that: a problem for them. They should not be trying to regulated others' speech. His claim that "the Army Builder® brand name can only be used in conjunction with the Army Builder® brand of products" is just not true. Trademark violation can only occur in a narrow context. Hey, look at that army builder over there! I didn't just violate their trademark. Mike is right, they do need some education.
Interestingly, someone on that thread mentioned and linked to Techdirt. It was in the context of the Streisand Effect, which I think doesn't apply here, but I liked it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I, for one, am glad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like when a mob guy comes into the store and says nice store you have here it would be a shame to have anything happen to it... All that was needed was request for money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only an infringement to pass off my product as someone else's by uses their trademark. It's never an infringement to just "misuse" a trademark in writing or conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get A Lawyer
He needs to get a Lawyer to explain what he can do with his trademark. He also needs some help writing a letter that does not read "Like when a mob guy comes into the store..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apology
http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=9753
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apology
IOW, he's still a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
army building strategy games
sue me please i want to countersue you for being a fucktard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generic term is generic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Descriptive and wouldn't harm anyway.
I can call my unreliable PC that won't shutdown a toyota and Toyota can't come after me.
Seems to me that either some {lack of billable hours} lawyer got a hold of this guy or he has sudden epiphany that he is the Caesar, the one true Army Builder can tell people what they can talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful what you ask for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I talk about "tech dirt"?
But here's where things get dicey.
If I have a blog and label some of my posts as "Cohen's Tech Dirt" what would your lawyers say?
If I start posting on other's sites and say "Here's my take on the tech dirt" what about that?
If I write a book and call it "Thirty years of publishing tech dirt" would you be upset?
Most likely you would send me a letter telling me that I was close to violating your trademark on techdirt.
Several things could happen.
I might be intimidated by your lawyers and stop using the term.
Or
My lawyers would tell me to ignore you.
Or
But if my lawyers tell me that I would win, but would wind up spending more money than I care to spend.
In that case I would probably stop using the term. Even though I have the right to use it.
Sometimes the threat of legal avenues is stronger than the actual law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I talk about "tech dirt"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I talk about "tech dirt"?
First off you agree that Lone Wolf are overstating their trade mark protection, then go on to make a completely unrelated post to back up your crap analogy.
Here's the correct analogy you were seeking:
"How would techdirt feel if I used the term techdirt on my own blog/forum/website/etc."
They wouldn't give a shit.
Tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete tool?
I was disturbed to read you call me a "complete tool". (Although I suppose it is better to be a complete tool than an incomplete one.)
I sincerely did not try to create a crap analogy. And I totally didn't mean to imply that techdirt would "give a shit" about anything I would do or anyone else would do to with the techdirt name.
What I was trying to do was show how bullies go around intimidating people for doing nothing more than using the English language.
I am thrilled to read several posts telling me that techdirt has no designs to apply trademark protection to their brand.
Good for them.
But to call me a tool based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote shows that you aren't smart enough to see what I was saying.
Or, you are such an fan-bot of all things techdirt that you go around yelling tool without thinking.
I hope it is the former as knowledge can be gained. If the latter, it will be harder to lose your bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete tool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nor will I buy the products as a conversation could potentially arise from this and would potentially put me in a position to have to say the name of one of these products!
Who were they again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can haz copyrite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's infringing upon who??
"An example of a condition assessment tool is U.S.
Army Builder, developed by USACERL. It is a database to prioritize facility projects
based on the facility’s current condition, available funding, and the remaining life of that
facility/system (Hassanain et al., 2003:52). U.S. Army Builder provides a consistent and
quick method to evaluate a facility’s condition."
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA43518 8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prior art
in print.
this is whats wrong with the system
im a trademark
"YOU THINK"
now you all owe me money?
that took no brain power no innovation no creativity its a simple out and out way to PRICE GOUGE, which is not the original intent and i read the 1st lil bit and it just rambles on and on and on of the link above.
yes its stupid. and its so much of anyones vocabulary for building programs to simulate warfare that i argue such a thing also isnt patentable or trademarkable
MUCH LIKE that guy that got
YOUR FIRED done. it mocks the system when shit like that is done.
ALSO two things...
1st
anyone who tries to justify being a complete tool versus a incomplete one is NOT EVEN a tool as your not being useful at all try to debunk like the below
2nd
and example of using techdirt as a single word or tech dirt as two words are you speaking one is correct and no one would bother you
just like i own the trade marks to UHA and united hackers association and Disney used them without written permission in hackers two movie without compensating me ...did i sue HELL NO was nice shove to traffic at the website.
I could in fact sue to get ownership of the domains uha.com uha.org etc and do not instead i use a domain that is given and allowed freely by its owner as long as no pron is placed as advertising on said site. ( already thinking of the children there govt whiners )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Army Builder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose I'm alone in this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I suppose I'm alone in this...
However, I find the following statement by Lone Wolf to be telling:
"The problem stems from an issue called 'trademark genericization'. If a trademark is allowed by its owner to become a household word that is used to generically refer to the domain of the trademark, then the trademark can be declared to have become 'generic'."
Problem is, it's their own fault for using a term that begs to be used in a descriptive way. If I decided to create a new catapult, and trademarked the term "rock hurler", I shouldn't be very surprised if rock hurling became a popular pastime with kids, that those same kids, who might want to make their own catapults, called them rock hurlers. For crying out loud, I named my device for *what it does* instead of coming up with something original. I practically asked for trouble.
The trademark should have been refused as being too obvious, and I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
They should take a bullet shooter and hold it up to their eyeball container and pull the bullet shooter activator so that we can get back to the important work that we all do, like using our internet displayers to comment on the stupid activities of companies who make army builders.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They got their own mentioned removed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Response to Lone Wolf's Interview on the D6 Generation Podcast
Honestly, was the "Trademark Law" segment even necessary? Although it was delivered as an opportunity to "educate" gamers about the finer nuances of trademark law, it appeared, to me at least, as an underhanded attempt to allow Lone Wolf, unabashedly a paid sponsor of the D6G, a venue for backpedaling in order to justify their comments and actions.
One crucial part of this debacle that was conveniently downplayed was the actual tone of the letter sent to Privateer Press. In it one can reasonably infer that Lone Wolf was seemingly dictating that Privateer Press' "forum users must be educated about the term Army Builder" and that failure to cooperate could potentially result in "interruption" to the detriment of Privateer Press' forums. This lack of tact was dismissed by Lone Wolf as simply legal ignorance, but the actual intention is clear.
Moreover, Lone Wolf ends on this delightfully diplomatic note: "so your assistance in getting forum users to utilize appropriate terms will benefit us all." How, prithee, does this benefit Privateer Press, let alone the nebulous community of "us all"? If anything, it imposes the tedious task of requiring the forum moderators to filter the words "Army Builder" from countless posts and monitor future uses of the term. This is imposing a very inconvenient detriment on Privateer Press completely devoid of any perceived "benefit."
But the crux of this argument revolves around Trademark Law. As a 3rd year law student (3L) with a number of courses in Trademark law under my belt, I will direct you to the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, H.R. 683. H.R. 683 was (obviously) enacted to assist in the prevention of trademark dilution. However, congress tailored the act to be applicable to a select class of truly prominent, distinctive and renowned marks. The act defines a famous mark as one that is "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States." Congress, in part, expanded the law in order to prevent so-called "niche fame", where a mark is famous within only a narrow sub-community. Arguably, the term “Army Builder”, a trademark which is comprised of two generic terms common to the war gaming genre (unlike "Xerox," "Coca-Cola,” or "Rollerblade," which are universally recognized marks ), would likely not fall under the umbrella of dilution protection, unless Lone Wolf’s legal counsel could articulate a valid argument that the term "Army Builder" could be recognized by the general consuming public of the U.S., and not just the (niche) gaming community. This is highly unlikely. Also, the 9th Circuit held that “niche fame” is longer valid under the Lanham Act and CA State law; this is very telling as the 9th Circuit was one of the strongest supporters in favor of “niche fame” marks.
In summary, this was bad PR on the part of Lone Wolf, both in regard to reputation and (arguably) legality. Please don't let the D6G, the BEST gaming podcast out there, be residually affected by Lone Wolf's actions.
Original Post from Lonewolf in a letter to Privateer Press:
"There are two things that need to be done. First of all, improper references to the Army Builder trademark on the forums must be addressed. This can be achieved in either of two ways, or potentially a combination of both, at your discretion. The first option would be to remove such posts. Since this could appear harsh and potentially disrupt forum discussions, an acceptable alternative would be to revise such posts to utilize a generic term (e.g. “roster construction tool”, “list createor [sic]”, or “points calculator”) in place of the “Army Builder” name.
The second thing that needs to be addressed is that your forum users must be educated about the term Army Builder being a trademark and only applicable to our brand of products. This is necessary to avoid an ongoing problem and mitigate the future need for removal of improper posts. I’m sure you would also prefer that the forums continue to run smoothly and without interruption, so your assistance in getting forum users to utilize appropriate terms will benefit us all."
Source: http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2010/02/01/33231
H.R. 683 Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, http://www.inta.org/images/stories/downloads/trademarkdilutionrevisionact2006.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just want to clarify, this is not avideo game, it is an apoplications to make "army lists" for the playing of various specialist table top games typically involving small, lovingly painted tin (pewter and plastic) men. Such as Games workshop games Warhammer, 40k, and privateer's presses WarMachine.
Yes, I play all these games. Army builder is a commonly used phrase. There are many army builder's out there, one of which is called Army Builder, though it is by far the most popular. The term is descriptive, uses normal language, and probably predates the company. I think this makes it a lot different than Kleenex or Xerox.
Also, the company is like two guys, I even spoke to one of them once on the phone, discussing a purchase. (of an army builder called Army Builder).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Army Builder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They aren't very polite about it, but if a trademark is used generically it loses its protection.
Cheers,
Doug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]