Lone Wolf Development Forums  

Go Back   Lone Wolf Development Forums > Army Builder Forums > Army Builder

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old February 11th, 2010, 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankenskid View Post
Personally I respect a company that has enough balls to stand up to a recent upstart in a field they have 12 years invested in through providing a better product, more than one that uses flimsy applications of trademark law to try and keep a name out of discussions. If you are so good, and did so much, then someone else calling a recent program they made a builder of armies or whatever should not phase you in the least as you have the market share, the presence in the industry, and the experience to do better.
The issue that many gamers aren't aware of is that we are legally obligated to ensure our trademarks are not being misused. We don't get to choose in the matter, even if it's a fan-created tool that we would prefer not worrying about. If we discover one of our trademarks being misused, we have to act. If we don't, then we could potentially lose the trademark. That's the way the laws are written, and we have to follow them.

The goal here is to ensure our trademark is used in reference to our brand of products and not other products. In essence, the situation is analogous to someone using your name for something you had no involvement in. It causes confusion, or much worse, and I'm sure you can envision the various implications that could arise if someone else used your name. The same basic implications hold true for trademarks and the products they reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankenskid View Post
Also Warmachine and Warhammer are a bit more specific than a general name of an "Army Builder"......
Those names have their roots in simple words from the English language. They have only become "specific" through the acquisition of secondary meaning by the success of the products for which they apply. The exact same is true for Army Builder, since the term was not in general use when the product was first released in 1998 and it has gained secondary meaning over the course of 12 years. The USPTO concurred with this position many years ago.
rob is offline   #11
n0valoco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1

Old February 13th, 2010, 11:19 AM
I just hope that the USPTO buys enough copies of your unnamed product to keep your lights on and your employees in house.

So referring to myself as an army builder due to the fact that I have been wargamming for the last 20+ years somehow is detrimental to the software that I have used on occasion at a friend's house that I bought for him? Nice...

I guess I'll get a C&D if I put down "army builder" as a hobby of mine on Facebook? LOL

Yeah, great effort to NOT make yourself look like a Douche. God luck with any furher ventures and thanks for replying to none of my emails that I sent since I set up this account here.

In an era when game shops and companies are closing at an alarming rate due to a massive downturn in the economy, I simply have to shake my head at a company that decides to burn bridges that really are not very strong to start with. I can only wish you well with trying to get additional volunteers to write the code that keeps your unnecesary software current with game releases. It really won't matter to me at all.
n0valoco is offline   #12
Duggan
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,502

Old February 13th, 2010, 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by n0valoco View Post
So referring to myself as an army builder due to the fact that I have been wargamming for the last 20+ years somehow is detrimental to the software that I have used on occasion at a friend's house that I bought for him? Nice...
Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n0valoco View Post
I guess I'll get a C&D if I put down "army builder" as a hobby of mine on Facebook? LOL
Nope.

In neither case are you releasing a product including the trademarked name. *facepalm* Why is it that whenever a topic like this comes up, you get people who can't seem to get the distinction between using a name where it can be mistaken as a trademark and just using it? If you said something was a "mickey mouse operation," people would understand that it was shoddily built. If you claimed that a building was "a marvel of archetecture", they'd know that you were impressed by it. If you try to market "Mickey Mouse Peanut Cookies" or "Marvel Bedspreads", you're going to get people from Disney and... well, Disney on your back for infringing their trademark. Similarly, here, it's not people calling themselves "army builders" or saying that they enjoy "army building" or even saying that they're using an "army builder program." It's the people who are releasing "Bob's Army Builder" and "Army Builder 2010."

{shakes head} I know that kids aren't being taught the same things in school as they were when I was growing up, but when did they lose the ability to parse the English language?

Just because it always seems obligatory, not an employee of Wolf Lair, just a fan with enough knowledge of the legal system to know that they're doing the reasonable thing they need to to keep themselves from being crowded out of the market by knockoffs trying to ride their coattails by appropriating their trademark.
Duggan is offline   #13
Mr_Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 278

Old February 13th, 2010, 03:24 PM
Quote:
Why is it that whenever a topic like this comes up, you get people who can't seem to get the distinction between using a name where it can be mistaken as a trademark and just using it?
The answer is that, unfortunately, people generally are entirely incapable of critical thought. There is no process that starts from "I've just read some information explaining how trade mark law works two posts above mine" and goes to "I should integrate that information into my reasoning about this issue" in the mind of the prototypical modern consumer drone.

Speaking of...
How is your facebook page these days? Has everybody managed to find it again after what happened the other day?

Last edited by Mr_Rose; February 13th, 2010 at 03:58 PM.
Mr_Rose is offline   #14
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old February 13th, 2010, 03:46 PM
Hold on there, Mr. Rose. Please keep any frustrations under control here. I truly appreciate the fact that you, Duggan, and other posters have leapt to our defense on this issue. However, this is already a very emotionally charged topic for some, and responding in kind could simply degenerate the thread into a flame war that defeats its entire purpose. While I can empathize to some degree, level heads need to prevail here. Please keep the discussion civil and constructive.
rob is offline   #15
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old February 13th, 2010, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by n0valoco View Post
God luck with any furher ventures and thanks for replying to none of my emails that I sent since I set up this account here.
What emails are you referring to here? We received a small number of emails from people about this issue. Some expressed concrete concerns, while a few were simply venting and provided nothing to substantively respond to. The former group received replies, and the latter did not. I'll go back through and see if we missed something that should have received a reply.
rob is offline   #16
Mr_Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 278

Old February 13th, 2010, 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob View Post
Hold on there, Mr. Rose. Please keep any frustrations under control here. I truly appreciate the fact that you, Duggan, and other posters have leapt to our defense on this issue. However, this is already a very emotionally charged topic for some, and responding in kind could simply degenerate the thread into a flame war that defeats its entire purpose. While I can empathize to some degree, level heads need to prevail here. Please keep the discussion civil and constructive.
Yes, sorry. Target of opportunity. I have altered the final statement to be more generic; I merely wished to provide supporting evidence for my hypothesis rather than make specific claims about individuals.
Mr_Rose is offline   #17
P3wnd_666
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1

Old February 15th, 2010, 05:46 AM
Have you ever heard of a game called age of empires????
if not then let me explain
it is a strategy game that came out in1997 in it you control units and trade with other factions
there is a campaign editor in it which many of my friends and people who played it in my local community referred to as an army builder before the release of your software
this shows that your reasoning of 'it is has become a popular term because of our tool' is a cocky (over-confident) exaggeration
pretty much any strategy game with a campaign editor tool lets you build armies. are you going to complain to almost the whole strategy gaming community about using 'your term' before you trademarked it???
P3wnd_666 is offline   #18
rob
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old February 15th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P3wnd_666 View Post
there is a campaign editor in it which many of my friends and people who played it in my local community referred to as an army builder before the release of your software
If I understand this correctly, your local gaming community used the term "army builder" for an editor within a computer game. And you're using that as the basis for claiming the term "army builder" was not popularized within the miniatures gaming community by our Army Builder product brand over the past 12 years.

Here's some information to consider. If you do a search through the Usenet archives on Google dating back to 1997, you won't find references to the term "army builder". Starting in 1998, references abound, and they all refer to our Army Builder product. If you search through the old eGroups (now YahooGroups) archives, you'll get similar results. Back in 2003, the US Patent & Trademark Office did an exhaustive search of their own to vet our trademark application. If the term had been in use as a general term, the application would have been denied. However, the USPTO drew the conclusion that the term was suitable to grant the trademark.

So it's quite possible that your local gaming group used the term "army builder" back in 1997. However, an isolated group does not make for widespread use. The widespread popularity of the term "army builder" within the miniatures community is attributable to the global adoption of the Army Builder brand as a de facto standard over the past 12 years, and the term has acquired significant secondary meaning as a result.
rob is offline   #19
Duggan
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,502

Old February 15th, 2010, 09:23 PM
My apologies for venting my spleen overmuch. I let myself get worked up too readily. Mr. Rose, I'm not entirely certain I follow the intent of the article you posted. Although I certainly hope that the people posting comments about thinking the page was the actual Facebook page were being facetious...
Duggan is offline   #20
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright ©1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.