Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm sorry if this has already been brought up but Geedub just sent their attack lawyers to take down someone's book since it had "Space Marine" in the title and already Amazon took it down

http://io9.com/5969092/games-workshop-gets-someones-book-yanked-from-amazon-for-using-the-term-space-marine

Games Workshop gets someone’s book yanked from Amazon for using the term “Space Marine”
Charlie Jane Anders

Who owns the term "space marine"? According to Wikipedia, the term was first used in 1932 in a story called "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" by Bob Olsen — but now, Warhammer 40K owner Games Workshop is claiming to have a trademark on the longstanding term.

M.C.A. Hogarth has been selling a serial called Spots the Space Marine, which is described as "Pollyanna meets Starship Troopers." But now, Amazon.com has decided to stop selling Hogarth's e-books because of a claim from Games Workshop that Hogarth was infringing on their trademark.

As Hogarth notes:

If you go to the Trademarks Database and look up the word "space marine" you'll find the Games Workshop owns a trademark on the term "space marine," but it only covers the follow goods and services: IC 028. US 022. G & S: board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith.

Fiction isn't included in that list, which means Games Workshop has no grounds on which to accuse me of trademark infringement.

I didn't get my use of that term from Games Workshop. I got it from Robert Heinlein. Apparently the first use of the term was in 1932. E.E. Smith used it, among others. Also there are other novels on Amazon being sold that have "space marine" in the title. I don't know why Games Workshop decided to complain about Spots in particular, but my guess is because the Kickstarter made it a little higher-profile than the average indie offering.

Hogarth closed comments on the above blog post, in order to "have a discussion with the people involved" — so let's hope this nonsense is getting sorted out. Forthwith. [M.C.A. Hogarth via Pope Hat]

This will rustle the hornets nest eh? Lets see what people here think

Arn't the dudes in Alien called space marines?

CurryMaster wrote:
Arn't the dudes in Alien called space marines?

No, Colonial Marines.

CurryMaster wrote:
Arn't the dudes in Alien called space marines?

I think they're called Colonial Marines. Though my knowledge on the alien series is pretty slim

But technically any "marine" in space is a space marine I guess

CurryMaster wrote:
Arn't the dudes in Alien called space marines?

"Colonial Marines"

But yeah, the term Space Marine has been used EVERYWHERE. Starship Troopers used it, countless Sci-Fi books of old used it....now, if they used more than just the term and actually were using Adeptus Astartes Space Marines that would be a bit different...but they aren't....oh GW when will you learn

CurryMaster wrote:
Arn't the dudes in Alien called space marines?

Pretty much every future soldier in science fiction is called a space marine

People are bashing GW for owning Intellectual Property now?

Read the original post and you'll see GW are wrong anyway. The fact that Amazon have removed the book doesn't mean they're validating it, it means they're playing it safe.

 Testify wrote:
People are bashing GW for owning Intellectual Property now?

No, I think it's for issuing takedown notices over IP they don't own.

Out of curiousity do you work for GW?

Trademarks are VERY specific and on a case by case basis.

The usage of the term in literature pre-dates the GW "TM" by several decades. Prior usage is one thing that makes it harder to TM something. It's also industry by industry (so if you trademark it for a gaming piece or gaming rules, that's one - neither stops a writer doing a fiction book using the phrase.). It's also country by country (or region). If you want TM protection in the US, UK, Australia and Europe - you need to take out that protection by registering it in all of those places.

By way of example. Oakley (the sunglass company).
They have a registered trademark on "unobtainium".
It's a specific silicon rubber mix that gets more "grippy" the wetter it gets (so it's perfect for nosepieces and grips on bicycles and motorcycles - what it is used on.).

The TM does not stop people like James Cameron using the term in his movie Avatar (even then, HE spelled it "unobtanium" (no 'i' after the 'a') which does cover him (TMs have specific wordings) but in any case, movie making is not sunglass manufacture nor bike parts.

Another classic example of GW lawyers trying to silence competitors until someone finds out they have no right to do this and takes them to court. See Chapterhouse case.
Amazon is playing safe to the disadvantage of the less known party.

People still support GW why exactly?

 BuFFo wrote:
People still support GW why exactly?

Off-topic response redacted.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Another classic example of GW lawyers trying to silence competitors until someone finds out they have no right to do this and takes them to court. See Chapterhouse case.
Amazon is playing safe to the disadvantage of the less known party.

What "competitor"?

You really need to learn what competition is before commenting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Another classic example of GW lawyers trying to silence competitors until someone finds out they have no right to do this and takes them to court. See Chapterhouse case.
Amazon is playing safe to the disadvantage of the less known party.

What "competitor"?

You really need to learn what competition is before commenting.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/competitor

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/competition

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competitor.html

I quote:

You really need to learn what competition is before commenting.

Thanks.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Another classic example of GW lawyers trying to silence competitors until someone finds out they have no right to do this and takes them to court. See Chapterhouse case.
Amazon is playing safe to the disadvantage of the less known party.

What "competitor"?

You really need to learn what competition is before commenting.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/competitor

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/competition

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competitor.html

I quote:

You really need to learn what competition is before commenting.

Thanks.

I think you need to go back and read those definitions.

I was not aware of Space Marines "retiring", nor being female, nor fighting an enemy called "Fiddlers".

Unless your argument is of course that "Spots the Space Marine" is competing with the "Battles of the Space Marines" series for the pulpiest ideas ever?

Place your bets now as to when Testify's head will explode after fighting the good fight for so long

So I'm guessing this movie will be removed from shop shelves soon?



*cough*

That is BS.

I actually read Spots. it was a great read. I will happily buy her book to counteract this lameness when it becomes available again.

I will unite the warring tribes and sum this thread up with one word:



Dumb.



Thank me later.

Is it not traditional that in fiction the organisation that utilises space vehicles is considered a continuation of the navy , making the existence of space marines almost a given?

Is it not bad enough that GW thinks it is ok to pump out reams of bad "literature" , they now have to stymie other peoples' works?

I will now be buying the aforementioned book.

I'm so glad that i have nothing to do with GW nowdays. I still remember when they used to put supliments for other games in WD , as a result i find this kind of activity particularly grating.

 Testify wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:
People still support GW why exactly?

Would you like a list of things that your sovereign state has done? GW might be spankers but they've never tortured anyone or blown up a wedding.

We really shouldn't get into the your "sovereign state" has done X, Y and Z argument. It just ends poorly.

Besides, it has nothing to do with supporting GW.

4TheG8erGood wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:
People still support GW why exactly?

Would you like a list of things that your sovereign state has done? GW might be spankers but they've never tortured anyone or blown up a wedding.

We really shouldn't get into the your "sovereign state" has done X, Y and Z argument. It just ends poorly.

Besides, it has nothing to do with supporting GW.

It does. I wasn't knocking the USA but as dickish as this move by GW is, it doesn't mean you should stop engaging in a hobby that you enjoy.

Precisely. It's a Red Herring.

 Testify wrote:
as dickish as this move by GW is, it doesn't mean you should stop engaging in a hobby that you enjoy.

Agreed.

 Testify wrote:
It does. I wasn't knocking the USA but as dickish as this move by GW is, it doesn't mean you should stop engaging in a hobby that you enjoy.

Comparing a game company to a nation is really stupid.

But that aside, why couldn't you say this the first time instead of throwing out a stupid strawman about people begrudging GW for having copyrights?

Brother Gyoken wrote:

But that aside, why couldn't you say this the first time instead of throwing out a stupid strawman about people begrudging GW for having copyrights?

I miss-read the OP, didn't realise GW didn't own the copyright to Space Marines in fiction.

 Testify wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:
People still support GW why exactly?

Would you like a list of things that your sovereign state has done? GW might be spankers but they've never tortured anyone or blown up a wedding.

So the best you can do to counter my point is to insult, name call and throw a tantrum?

When you learn how to have an adult conversation with a bit of respect, you can come back and sit at the adult table, and I'll acknowledge you.

The fact that someone else used the term earlier does not mean the trademark is invalid. Trademarks are very different to copyright or patents. The US/UK for example allows for trademarks to lapse, at which point someone else may trademark the same term or thing. There have been cases of small but long running businesses being forced to change name or use of descriptions etc due to clashes with registered trademarks of bigger but newer businesses. Neither does the previous use of a term mean the previous use was a trademark, it probably wasn't. As a side note, the 'use it or lose it' approach of the US has been blamed (rightly or wrongly) for a number of trademark infringement actions, where the owner of the trademark feels he has to bring a case to show he is 'using it' rather than risk his non action being seen as 'lose it', even though he may be aware of the dubiousness of the case.

GW can claim that 'space marine' is a trademark, just as many older Avalon hill games trademarked their title etc. The fact that the term may be seen as descriptive (A marine in space) may have made it harder to successfully register, but not impossible, and of course different jurisdictions have different rules. The reason GW changed their paint names was to make it easy to trademark them everywhere, as they were too descriptive before.Shining Gold sounds like an obvious description of the gold, whereas fenris grey isn't (what does fenris mean to most people?).

Trademarks are context specific though. IC28 noted in the OP is the games category.

Books may fall foul of trademark if they use the trademarked term in certain ways - e.g. in a way that may confuse readers as to whether the author is the trademark owner etc, or sponsored/affiliated by them etc. The fact that the trademark catgeory isn't book/fiction (there is no category for them) doesn't mean it is safe from trademark infringement.

So it may (or may not) be that the book falls foul of GWs trademark.

See thats the thing that bugs me about this, not the part where they jump on other people over their IP (or not as this can show the case to be), but the part where they've pretty much done same and worse in the IP area themselves. Whats that a skeleton futuristic robot? Oh not a T-1000, its a necron. Lionel Johnson's Dark Angel? Oh, you must mean Lion El'Johnson's Dark Angels. Hell even the Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau (old one i know but eh). Not that i have a problem with all this, its fun to play spot the references. What annoys me when you get to number 30 or so, you start to realize original ideas are few and far between in the lands of GW, and its only all fun and games when they steal crap.

Edit :

puree wrote:
So it may (or may not) be that the book falls foul of GWs trademark.

It does not. It should be legally impossible for GW to trademark "Space Marine" as a descriptor for a marine in space, for the same reason you can't trademark "apple" as the name of an actual apple and not a technology company.