Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastrd
However, to expect that should preclude anyone from using the term "army builder" in a generic sense referring to products of its type is absolutely ludicrous. The term is so generic that not using it in reference to such products would actually be a pain in the neck. It would be akin to banning the term "wheelchair" when referring to wheelchairs simply because someone trademarked the name for their product. What else would you call them in everyday conversation?
|
The widespread use of the term "army builder" is substantively due to the popularity of the Army Builder product. Prior to the product's release 12 years ago, the predominant terms used for roster construction included "making a list", "writing a list", "creating a roster", etc. The term "building an army" was used extensively to refer to the process of collecting the models, assembling them, and painting them. In other words, physically building the troops for the army. The Army Builder product changed all that. After 12 years, the term is now synonymous with creating an army roster for play.
We prefer using the generic term "roster construction tool", since it quite clearly embodies the nature of the product category. But anyone is welcome to use their own generic description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastrd
I don't assume that Lone Wolf is attempting to quash all "improper" casual use of the term "army builder". I would hope you are reasonable enough to understand how foolish that would be.
|
Absolutely! We need to make people *aware* of the trademark - not impose it's use. If someone knows that the term is trademark and uses it anyways, there's nothing wrong with it. For example, in the South, most folks refer to any soft drink as "a coke" (e.g. "What kinda coke ya'll want?"), but they know it's also a specific brand as well. We need to ensure the same is true for Army Builder.