Posted from the comments portion of the episode.
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/d...ionact2006.pdf