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.

 AlexHolker wrote:
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.

The term Space Marine does seem pretty generic but probably not enough to prevent trademarking.

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.

Apple isn't a description of an apple, it is the noun.
Also as noted jurisduction has a big part in it, everyone has their own laws.

They are not trademarking anything real (unless NASA has progressed a lot recently), and even marines in space is not really what they are trademarking, they are trademarkig a game/figures etc (just as apple trademark themselves rather than apples). Under UK law you can use descriptive terms if the term has gained some signifiance beyond its description due to it use in your context, and I expect GW can make a pretty good argument for that if it was even necessary. When someone mentions space marines I expect GW is the first thing most who know anything about games would think (indeed, I expect a good number who aren't into games would immediately assossiate space marines with GW).

Remember though, GW would have to show that the term somehow creates confusion with their IP/them. I know nothing of the book so can't comment, but using the term space marine in a descriptive sense is unlikely to fall foul of trademarks. There would, I suspect, be more to it than that.

The US has a common law system for trademarks so if GW can show they've used the term Space Marine to brand books, clothing, whatever they can make a legal claim to it, even if it is only registered for games.

IE DC Comics can shut down a line of Superman T shirts (even though Nietchie coined the phrase and even if the company does not use the character's picture or the S shield) since they can show they've sold Superman T shirts and customers might assume this line is licensed by them.

 AlexHolker wrote:

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.

This is a stronger argument and is probably why GW has moved away from names Jugernaught and Dreadnaught which are very hard to trademark.

BUT they've certainly made a good job of defining the term, the first page of Google web and image hits are all about GW Space Marines and not other uses of the term.

It would be an interesting case especially since there is not such thing as a Space Marine can it really be a generic descriptor. I mean isn't 'Superman' a generic term for man who is super?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addition-Wikipedia's only non-GW Space Marine entry is a movie from 1996 which even I have not heard of until now.

So they have a pretty good claim for uniqueness. Even better than Superman or Batman I would wager.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

It would be an interesting case especially since there is not such thing as a Space Marine can it really be a generic descriptor. I mean isn't 'Superman' a generic term for man who is super?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addition-Wikipedia's only non-GW Space Marine entry is a movie from 1996 which even I have not heard of until now.

So they have a pretty good claim for uniqueness. Even better than Superman or Batman I would wager.

Same could then be applied to everything including dark elves, lizardmen, traitor cultists, orc (though i suppose they dodge the bullet with the K) etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

It would be an interesting case especially since there is not such thing as a Space Marine can it really be a generic descriptor. I mean isn't 'Superman' a generic term for man who is super?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addition-Wikipedia's only non-GW Space Marine entry is a movie from 1996 which even I have not heard of until now.

So they have a pretty good claim for uniqueness. Even better than Superman or Batman I would wager.

Same could then be applied to everything including dark elves, lizardmen, traitor cultists, orc (though i suppose they dodge the bullet with the K) etc.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

*snip

That's a good post. It appears GW may well have a claim...though it does seem very petty. I'm unsure as to why they'd bother launching a legal battle against a very obscure author who's not exactly piggy backing them. Though I haven't read the book, so I couldn't really comment.

They are lawyers
They are paid to harrass everyone left and right if they come near any words that GW has used. They are not paid to provide a founded base for their claims, and the Chapterhouse case shows that they are very bad at that.

And in the end that makes it extremely entertaining.

puree wrote:
...even marines in space is not really what they are trademarking, they are trademarkig a game/figures etc.

"Spots the Space Marine" isn't a game or a figure, so you are factually incorrect. GW is laying claim to the label "space marine" for marines in space, or they would not have shut her down.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addition-Wikipedia's only non-GW Space Marine entry is a movie from 1996 which even I have not heard of until now.

So they have a pretty good claim for uniqueness. Even better than Superman or Batman I would wager.

Not really - and luckily, Wikipedia (and its ease of manipulation) isn't looked at as an expert source.

Space Marine is a pretty generic term for science fiction. It has been used in several books and magazines (as well as one or two movies). Also, in the late 1970s - a set of rules was written for science fiction miniatures called "Space Marines" - the rules were actually reviewed in one of the earliest issues of White Dwarf (either single digits or low double digits...I would need to double check the specific issue though). These rules were later rolled into Fantasy Games Unlimited game called "Space Opera".

In the early 1980s several miniature companies produced Space Marines. It is one of the reasons the first Space Marine figure from GW wasn't called a Space Marine. In fact you can still buy some of the first Space Marines from Alternative Armies - and GW can't even think about contesting them selling "Space Marine" figures since they started making them in 1982 or 1983 (granted the were originally produced under the name Asgard Miniatures).

The term continued to be used rather generically all the way into the early 1990s by several companies - including GW. It wasn't until 2nd edition of Warhammer 40K that they started to try to assert a claim on the term - though to be perfectly honest it would be like Ford trying to assert a trademark claim on "pick-up". If you go back and take a look at the various books from the Rogue Trader period - you will notice that no claims are made in them for the vast majority of trademarks GW claims now (even though they were just as much in use then by GW as they are now).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW - a claim on something, even registering it...isn't actually evidence that the claim is valid.

Amazon consenting to pull the book also isn't evidence, as the way the laws are written - it is in their interests to just pull the book down.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


though to be perfectly honest it would be like Ford trying to assert a trademark claim on "pick-up".

Like say... a Vehicle called a 'jeep' because it is a verbalization of the letters 'GP' which stands for 'General Purpose'.

And now we have a term called 'SUV' because 'Jeep' is trademarked because while it was a common term used by lots of people in a generic way once, one group stepped up, trademarked it, and used it exclusively while no one else did. Years later, a different term needed to be used for generic description because the generic description became a brand name.

If no one was making trucks except ford for a good long while, you bet your ass Ford would trademark 'Pick-up' and attempt to have it exclusive towards their brand.

nkelsch wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


though to be perfectly honest it would be like Ford trying to assert a trademark claim on "pick-up".

Like say... a Vehicle called a 'jeep' because it is a verbalization of the letters 'GP' which stands for 'General Purpose'.

And now we have a term called 'SUV' because 'Jeep' is trademarked because while it was a common term used by lots of people in a generic way once, one group stepped up, trademarked it, and used it exclusively while no one else did. Years later, a different term needed to be used for generic description because the generic description became a brand name.

If no one was making trucks except ford for a good long while, you bet your ass Ford would trademark 'Pick-up' and attempt to have it exclusive towards their brand.

The problem of course is that Jeep isn't a common word or set of words, while space marine is the natural progression of marines in space. Marines being the infantry of naval forces and space fleets generally being referred to in naval terms. The progression than, would logically be Space Marine to refer to space based infantry in science fiction settings.

Further - the term hasn't been abandoned (not that that particular issue is important with terms which are generic to begin with) - the marines in Quake are SMC (Space Marine Corps). Timesplitters are Space Marines. Eat Lead uses space marines. Alien Swarm and FreeFall use Space Marines. The Star Blazers anime is filled with Space Marines. The book Into the Looking Glass Allied Space Marines. And of course iconic sci-fi books by Robert A. Heinlein use the term.

 doc1234 wrote:
(though i suppose they dodge the bullet with the K) etc.

They did. Trademarks are VERY specific. Words HAVE to be spelled the same way. Orc and Ork are two separate words for ™ purposes. The same way as "Unobtainium" (™(R) Oakley) and "Unobtanium" (Avatar, James Cameron movie. Although JC changed it so that it better fit the naming convention for metallic elements, not JUST to get around ™ issues.). Completely beside the point that Oakley's ™ only applies to the industries they use the product in, not movies.

 Testify wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

*snip

That's a good post. It appears GW may well have a claim...though it does seem very petty. I'm unsure as to why they'd bother launching a legal battle against a very obscure author who's not exactly piggy backing them. Though I haven't read the book, so I couldn't really comment.

Thanks.

Unfortunately the US system requires this sort of behavior.

If trademarks are not 'vigerously defended' the owner can lose it and then anyone can use 'space marine in a title and customers would the have to figure out if 'Space Marines and the battle of blood bay' is a GW book or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chromedog wrote:

 doc1234 wrote:
(though i suppose they dodge the bullet with the K) etc.

They did. Trademarks are VERY specific. Words HAVE to be spelled the same way. Orc and Ork are two separate words for ™ purposes. The same way as "Unobtainium" (™(R) Oakley) and "Unobtanium" (Avatar, James Cameron movie. Although JC changed it so that it better fit the naming convention for metallic elements, not JUST to get around ™ issues.). Completely beside the point that Oakley's ™ only applies to the industries they use the product in, not movies.

That may be a difference between the US and UK systems.

In the US trademarks include any marks that are confusinly similar. IE a company called Docks and Deck would be able to act against companies called Decks and Docks and maybe even Doctor Deck.

So in the US orc=ork=orq=orck

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

 doc1234 wrote:
(though i suppose they dodge the bullet with the K) etc.

They did. Trademarks are VERY specific. Words HAVE to be spelled the same way. Orc and Ork are two separate words for ™ purposes. The same way as "Unobtainium" (™(R) Oakley) and "Unobtanium" (Avatar, James Cameron movie. Although JC changed it so that it better fit the naming convention for metallic elements, not JUST to get around ™ issues.). Completely beside the point that Oakley's ™ only applies to the industries they use the product in, not movies.

That may be a difference between the US and UK systems.

In the US trademarks include any marks that are confusinly similar. IE a company called Docks and Deck would be able to act against companies called Decks and Docks and maybe even Doctor Deck.

So in the US orc=ork=orq=orck

While it is true broadly speaking, it still ignores the scope of a trademark. When you register a mark - you specify what goods or services you will use that mark for. If you look up the Space Marine trademark on the USPTO site, it specifies what that particular mark is used for. In the case of GW, they have two registered marks:

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: video computer games; computer software for playing games

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.

If it isn't one of those two broad categories of products - Gamesworkshop has no official claim to the term. Especially not in regards to a book which has the common term title.

Regarding confusion - the court will weigh the issue regarding the terms used and how unique they may or may not be with regards to the subject at hand. In the case of the Decks and Docks or Docks and Decks that you mention...the strength of the mark would be weak. The terms are common - and assuming that it is used in relation to a construction company that deals with decking...pretty much everyone will be using some manner of those words to describe their services. If you used something that was odd - for example "Adamant Deck Works" to name your company, you would have a strong claim if a competitor decided to name their company "Adamant Dock Works" you would have a stronger claim towards infringement. The word Adamant - while descriptive - isn't normally used to describe decking.

With regards to the mark in question though - space marines are two very common words...and they are the natural progression for a science fiction military. They are also used fairly often by other companies (as I mentioned above) and as a result, the strength of the mark is reduced based on the tests which the courts have put in place. You can find an example of the process in AMF, Inc v Sleekcraft Boats:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/amf.htm

So, we end up with a short list of 8 points to address:

1. strength of the mark;
2. proximity of the goods;
3. similarity of the marks;
4. evidence of actual confusion;
5. marketing channels used;
6. type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser;
7. defendant's intent in selecting the mark; and
8. likelihood of expansion of the product lines

1) How strong is the mark? As I stated already, I don't think space marine is a very strong mark. No doubt - others will feel that it is the neatest thing since sliced bread.
2) Proximity of the goods? Are they sold through the same channels...in this case, yes sort of. Independent retailers do sell through Amazon.
3) Similarity of the marks? Both would be text marks - but the book is "Spots the Space Marine" which is fairly different from just "Space Marine" which GW has registered.
4) Evidence of confusion? Considering the author describes the book as Pollyanna meets Starship Troopers - I don't think there is going to be any evidence of confusion.
5) Marketing channels used? Primarily this would apply if both products were advertised in the same newspaper, TV or radio stations or websites. I don't think Spots the Space Marine has a huge marketing arm - and GW really doesn't advertise either.
6) Type of goods? Miniatures versus Children's Books - no real overlap. Care exercised by the purchaser? Not to much. We are not talking about Rolex watches or Italian leather shoes - both products are junk purchases, things which will not become family heirlooms.
7) The intent? As the author said - he was inspired by Heinlein not GW. They didn't have any foul ideas with which to attempt to confuse or dilute GW's products.
8) Likelihood of expansion? GW would probably attempt to sell children's books if they thought there was money to be made. The author might consider a line of toys if the series is very successful. This could bring them into more direct competition - so there is an interest for the courts to address the issue now as opposed to later.

Looking at those issues - even disregarding the specific registration categories which GW chose...their doesn't look to be any infringement. Regarding the other issue with trademarks - dilution, GW is not famous. You can't have dilution without fame. Being #1 in a niche market is not sufficient to prove legal fame in order to determine trademark dilution.

Have the GW lawyers looked at Apples rounded corners litegation? I am looking forward to how this pans out

 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.

This.

It isn't a question of innocence, only degrees of guilt.

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

This toy commercial from back in the day seems to think so. I remember seeing this every day when TMNT was on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJXr2CUTmY

 Rainyday wrote:

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

This toy commercial from back in the day seems to think so. I remember seeing this every day when TMNT was on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJXr2CUTmY

Oh god yes think i had a few of these Same when they did those Predator toys haha. Good times

 Rainyday wrote:

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

This toy commercial from back in the day seems to think so. I remember seeing this every day when TMNT was on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJXr2CUTmY

Good times! Of course back then GW was playing nice with other companies. Milton Bradley was making Battle Masters and Hero Quest. GW was also in negotiations with Kenner to make 40k action figures. Sadly only prototypes were made.

Today we have evil GW that has a cue of employees waiting to be fired, outrageous pricing in the pacific, and IP crap such as this.

I've heard both, and I'm not sure which is really more "official". They're called Colonial Marines in the movie, but I've heard Colonial Space Marines used elsewhere. Maybe Colonial Space Marines is the "official" name and they just call them Colonial Marines for short and/or because calling them "Space Marines" would have sounded way too lame.

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

Read the original post and you'll see GW are wrong anyway.

The amount of cognitive dissonance in your post is truly astounding.

People are doing the thing in the first sentence of your post because of the thing in the second sentence of you post, FFS.

 Ouze wrote:

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

Read the original post and you'll see GW are wrong anyway.

The amount of cognitive dissonance in your post is truly astounding.

People are doing the thing in the first sentence of your post because of the thing in the second sentence of you post, FFS.

To be fair:

 Testify wrote:

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.

As others have pointed out, this is pretty standard behavior for a company trying to establish/defend a trademark. You simply can't let it go.

In practice? This is a solo author selling an e-book on Amazon. I can't imagine the sales were much to Amazon, probably less than even a simple response to a GW lawsuit. So of course they'll boot it. What is there to be gained by Amazon for standing firm?

On a slightly different note, I'm mildly pleased by this. Sure, I feel bad for the author and any potential fans of the work, but this is long term thinking. So much of what we see from GW reeks of short term, cash grab stuff. When I see an action like this, which is only done for long term brand protection or sheer pointless bullying, I see that somebody there is looking out for more than the next few years.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


though to be perfectly honest it would be like Ford trying to assert a trademark claim on "pick-up".

Like say... a Vehicle called a 'jeep' because it is a verbalization of the letters 'GP' which stands for 'General Purpose'.

And now we have a term called 'SUV' because 'Jeep' is trademarked because while it was a common term used by lots of people in a generic way once, one group stepped up, trademarked it, and used it exclusively while no one else did. Years later, a different term needed to be used for generic description because the generic description became a brand name.

If no one was making trucks except ford for a good long while, you bet your ass Ford would trademark 'Pick-up' and attempt to have it exclusive towards their brand.

The problem of course is that Jeep isn't a common word or set of words, while space marine is the natural progression of marines in space. Marines being the infantry of naval forces and space fleets generally being referred to in naval terms. The progression than, would logically be Space Marine to refer to space based infantry in science fiction settings.

Further - the term hasn't been abandoned (not that that particular issue is important with terms which are generic to begin with) - the marines in Quake are SMC (Space Marine Corps). Timesplitters are Space Marines. Eat Lead uses space marines. Alien Swarm and FreeFall use Space Marines. The Star Blazers anime is filled with Space Marines. The book Into the Looking Glass Allied Space Marines. And of course iconic sci-fi books by Robert A. Heinlein use the term.

Not to Mention Star Wars Also uses the term "Space Marines" to describe the fleet action soliders of both the Empire and the Rebellion / New Republic. The earliest reference i can find so far is 1998's SpecForce Guide from the roleplaying game. If GW went after Disney / George Lucas for IP infrangement, It would be a battle for the ages...

 Testify wrote:
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.

Nope, people are bashing your [Mod: no need to have a go at people just because of a GW legal dispute]...

Read the definition of what they have successfully, legally copy-written. Fictional literature isn't one of those things. Amazon just pushed a button when confronted with a legaleese letter.


Really, your blind adoration and willingness to attack anyone critical of the company that makes your toy soldiers is getting very tiresome, if you somehow cannot process or accept other people taking objection with a company's decisions, leave the forum. Now.

 swampyturtle wrote:
If GW went after Disney / George Lucas for IP infrangement, It would be a battle for the ages...

Considering that they are getting spanked by a small company with pro-bono representation, if GW went after the likes of Disney in a IP battle, when the dust settled Disney would own everything ever made by GW!

Well I can hardly say I am surprised. Sadly the author got what was coming to her. If only the same would happen to Chapterhouse.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Well I can hardly say I am surprised. Sadly the author got what was coming to her. If only the same would happen to Chapterhouse.

I am not an expert in IP/copyright law , and have only the comments by others in the Chapterhouse threads and on this thread to guide my opinion , but the opinion above if not guided by the authors' own more expert knowledge appears to me to be more about personal alliegance .

I am waiting with interest on the Chapterhouse case to see if it reveals that GW has been overstating its copyright / IP , it would be good for this possibly precedence forming case to give the TT game Industry some more clearly defined boundaries .

If GW have forced an author to have her book pulled by overstating the scope of its IP then thats shameful practise , thing is I dont know for certain they have overstated , that may be for a court or lawyers, but I that may not be a viable option for this author .

Amazon doesn't know they're dealing with a bunch of idiots. As soon as they do a little research into the folks at GW I doubt they'll do this again.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Read the definition of what they have successfully, legally copy-written. Fictional literature isn't one of those things. Amazon just pushed a button when confronted with a legaleese letter.

Copy right is nothing to do with Trademarks. They automatically have copyright on anything they write (that isn't someone elses copyright, and even there they may have copyright on aspects of the derivative work) - books being rather an obvious thing to have copyright on.

puree wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Read the definition of what they have successfully, legally copy-written. Fictional literature isn't one of those things. Amazon just pushed a button when confronted with a legaleese letter.

Copy right is nothing to do with Trademarks. They automatically have copyright on anything they write (that isn't someone elses copyright, and even there they may have copyright on aspects of the derivative work) - books being rather an obvious thing to have copyright on.

True, but having Copyright on the works they've written would in no way prevent someone from using the term "Space Marine" in a work of their own. (Esp. one that so far as I can tell has nothing to do with the 40K universe).

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Well I can hardly say I am surprised. Sadly the author got what was coming to her. If only the same would happen to Chapterhouse.

And heeeeeee's back... and with what a post !!!

So if they can do this with generic terms that aren't actually listed in their 'protected' categories, does that mean folks like the Tolkien estate can go after them for using terms like elves and dwarves in their games pre-licence? Or tank manufacturers for blatantly ripping off designs?

would we be having this conversation if she had called it spots dungeons and dragons adventures...

Just as it is GW its liegitmate to bash them.

I agree alot of there practices (and prices) are terrible , but protecting , or at least be seen to be protecting IP is something they have to do.

Call Of Duty: Black Ops has a zombies map called moon and one of the characters on that is a member of the U.S.M.C and when you travel to the moon base he says now Im a space marine. Is GW going sue about that too?

I find it interesting that at E3 during the HALO ODST development, one of the devs actually stated that the HALO Spartan is actually based on the games workshop Marine.

I do recall hearing something like that from one of the devs. And it wasn't just a flying reference to it, it was pretty solid. But I don't think that GW are even going to disturb that ground, given how legal assy the HALO franchise has become (Minecraft *scrolls*

 Doctadeth wrote:
I find it interesting that at E3 during the HALO ODST development, one of the devs actually stated that the HALO Spartan is actually based on the games workshop Marine.

I do recall hearing something like that from one of the devs. And it wasn't just a flying reference to it, it was pretty solid. But I don't think that GW are even going to disturb that ground, given how legal assy the HALO franchise has become (Minecraft *scrolls*)

It's important to note that "based on" is not the same as "ripped off".

Given how much of the 40k setting is based on other things this is actually pretty amusing. The producers of Rambo should have a talk with GW about Catachans

Space marine is a generic term.

But, GW is the big sale source on Amazon (I assume), not this Hogarth bloke. Amazon's Loyalties should and do lie with the money.

On the other hand, dick move, Gw.

Im not really familiar with trademarks, but doesn't stylization, script, and use with other terms come into play? For example, Warhammer 40K and Space Marine are two seperate trademarks that identify something very specific and legally defensible while individually does not due to its genericness and non-association with Warhammer 40k? Also, I thought the way the text was stylized/logo presence also factored in. Like two similar brand names with very different scripts and logos incorporated into the text would constitute two separate and distinct trademarks.

 Harriticus wrote:
Given how much of the 40k setting is based on other things this is actually pretty amusing. The producers of Rambo should have a talk with GW about Catachans

Don't you mean the Character Marbo ( Rambo re-arranged) and he is a specialist guy like the character Rambo from the movies

It is not possible to copyright the title of a book. Apparently it might be possible to make the title a trademark if it is sufficiently distinctive rather than a phrase in common use.

Not sure where Space Marine would stand on those grounds, but I wouldn't like to challenge GW for it. Better to rename the book "A Marine in Space" or something.

Computer game titles are commonly trademarked. It's uncommon in books. I believe the 50 Shades of Grey publisher attempted to stop publication of some of the parody titles, e.g. 50 Sheds of Grey, and the court denied them.

AFAIK, the phrase Space Marine could be used in the broad text of a book or game without problems since trademarks are reserved for names of products. GW can only stop people from making games, books or models called "Space Marine" as this would imply the product is from them.

IANAL though.

If I could make a general statement about this..

Like the little garage seller making themed shoulder pads who gets shut down, does this really harm GW? Of course not. Does anyone working in GW really care about it? Of course not. But an expensive legal team needs to justify their existence, and so this happens.

No one really cares, some extremely niche writer gets her bonfire pissed on un-necessarily and livelihood damaged, a percentage of users of wargaming forums lower their viewpoint of GW a point or two further. The world moves on.

So everybody can be on the same page info wise. Here is a link to her original book as it was posted up online:

http://stardancer.org/spots/

Give it a read. It is decent.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Call Of Duty: Black Ops has a zombies map called moon and one of the characters on that is a member of the U.S.M.C and when you travel to the moon base he says now Im a space marine. Is GW going sue about that too?

No, because like most bullies, they target the weak. Its a baseless C&D, but it costs more to stand up to it than the book could make.

wouldn't be surprised if GW tried to claim owning the word orc, or the term "the empire"

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
wouldn't be surprised if GW tried to claim owning the word orc, or the term "the empire"

As got said above, a) they can do what they like with "ork" because of the letter difference, and b) they wouldnt try this sort of thing with someone who could afford to defend themselves

though they still don't own the word as other things have used it
yeah GW may think they are a big fish but they'd never tango for most things with some of the companies out there (eg Blizzard)

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
though they still don't own the word as other things have used it
yeah GW may think they are a big fish but they'd never tango for most things with some of the companies out there (eg Blizzard)

Actually they actually do own the word regardless if other people have used it because they do have a valid trademark. The question is does their trademark expand outside the areas where they undeniably own the trademark? And there is a case to be made due to the nature of trademarks that if they can show dominance, the trademark can apply. It is not a 'slam dunk' that if someone stood up to would instantly lose, if anything they have more of a case here than other cases they are involved in.

You may not like it, but they do own the trademark and they do have the right to defend it.

 Eggs wrote:
So if they can do this with generic terms that aren't actually listed in their 'protected' categories, does that mean folks like the Tolkien estate can go after them for using terms like elves and dwarves in their games pre-licence? Or tank manufacturers for blatantly ripping off designs?

Any word (almost) can be trademarked if a company is using it to identify a product.

As far as I know the Tolkien estate does not make products called 'elves or dwarves'. However the Tolkien Estate can go after a company for selling products with the names 'Middle Earth' or 'Lord of the Rings'. Even though Middle Earth could be a generic term for the center of the Earth or for the middle period of Earth's history and Lord of the Rings seems like a generic terms for a guy who is lord of two or more rings (whether boxing rings, wedding rings or circus rings).

I would say Middle Earth and Lord of the Rings are a bit weak for that reason, same with Space Marine or Batman, but the prominence of the property increases their ability to defend it.

If someone published one of these books

Lord of the Rings-Fifty Years as America's Premier Jewelry Designer
Lord of the Rings-My Career as a Boxing Ref
Lord of the Rings-Ringling Brothers Greatest Ringmaster

It would be a toss up, the author would argue that no reasonable person would be confused by the title, the Tolkiens would argue that when you say Lord of the Rings EVERYONE thinks of their books and movies first and these titles are trying to trade on their good name.

A smart publisher might avoid the fight, or might welcome it for the publicity because really how else will anyone notice a book about jewelry designer anyway?

So in conclusion, yes GW can trademark Space Marine for a line of toy marines in space, just as Lucasfilm can trademark Star Wars for a movie about a war in the stars. Whether or not they would win is a question for the courts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Call Of Duty: Black Ops has a zombies map called moon and one of the characters on that is a member of the U.S.M.C and when you travel to the moon base he says now Im a space marine. Is GW going sue about that too?

No.

Because a character saying 'I'm a Space Marine' is not a product. If someone went to on to make a game called Call of Duty: Space Marines however GW could and probably would feel they must sue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im not really familiar with trademarks, but doesn't stylization, script, and use with other terms come into play? For example, Warhammer 40K and Space Marine are two seperate trademarks that identify something very specific and legally defensible while individually does not due to its genericness and non-association with Warhammer 40k? Also, I thought the way the text was stylized/logo presence also factored in. Like two similar brand names with very different scripts and logos incorporated into the text would constitute two separate and distinct trademarks.

In U.S. law the sound of the word matters as well as the look of the logo.

That's why Apple Computers might sue Mr. Adam Pell if he starts making A. Pell Computers.

The could also sue if a hypothetical 'Orange Computers' or 'Red Delicious' had a logo that looked a lot like Apple's.

So even if my new book Space Marines - How Two USMC Vets Became Interior Designers would be problematic even if the font is totally different. GW would argue that since my book comes up in key word searches or if a customer asks for 'the Space Marine' book their mark should be protected.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
...or the term "the empire"

And get in a fight with Disney over their use of "the empire" in star wars after disney paid 4 billion for it?

Not a chance.

No one feths with the mouse.

Wow, oh Wow. People are dumb enough to think GW has the rights to the term Space Marine. It not like it been used for 50+ years or anything, oh wait it has. It funny becouse I read a book that used the term Space Marine a few years ago. Why didn't GW do some about that, Ohh.... thats right it was a big publisher that put it out, and knows the laws and has the money to laugh at GW if they tried.

Noir wrote:
Wow, oh Wow. People are dumb enough to think GW has the rights to the term Space Marine. It not like it been used for 50+ years or anything, oh wait it has. It funny because I read a book that used the term Space Marine a few years ago. Why didn't GW do some about that, Ohh.... thats right it was a big publisher that put it out, and knows the laws and has the money to laugh at GW if they tried.

People are intelligent enough to realize there is a difference between "Space Marines" and "space marines".

The term "space marines" is generic while "Space Marines" is not.

In the early 90's, GW went around with the legal beatstick and went after anyone who used the term Space Marine. My dad had a board game with Space Marine in the title that was released through Avalon Hill, and after a bit of a legal settlement, the term is now replaced with "Star Marines" in the title. The book he released this year had the same deal, and is still "Star Marines" for legal purposes.

Anyway, this has been going on for longer than many posters here have been alive.

 Brother SRM wrote:
In the early 90's, GW went around with the legal beatstick and went after anyone who used the term Space Marine. My dad had a board game with Space Marine in the title that was released through Avalon Hill, and after a bit of a legal settlement, the term is now replaced with "Star Marines" in the title. The book he released this year had the same deal, and is still "Star Marines" for legal purposes.

Anyway, this has been going on for longer than many posters here have been alive.

Your dad William Keith?

Just going to put this link up....for the lulz.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/25/how-many-ways-can-thqs-space-marine-game-rip-off-gears-of-war/

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
So if they can do this with generic terms that aren't actually listed in their 'protected' categories, does that mean folks like the Tolkien estate can go after them for using terms like elves and dwarves in their games pre-licence? Or tank manufacturers for blatantly ripping off designs?

Any word (almost) can be trademarked if a company is using it to identify a product.

As far as I know the Tolkien estate does not make products called 'elves or dwarves'. However the Tolkien Estate can go after a company for selling products with the names 'Middle Earth' or 'Lord of the Rings'. Even though Middle Earth could be a generic term for the center of the Earth or for the middle period of Earth's history and Lord of the Rings seems like a generic terms for a guy who is lord of two or more rings (whether boxing rings, wedding rings or circus rings).

I would say Middle Earth and Lord of the Rings are a bit weak for that reason, same with Space Marine or Batman, but the prominence of the property increases their ability to defend it.

If someone published one of these books

Lord of the Rings-Fifty Years as America's Premier Jewelry Designer
Lord of the Rings-My Career as a Boxing Ref
Lord of the Rings-Ringling Brothers Greatest Ringmaster

It would be a toss up, the author would argue that no reasonable person would be confused by the title, the Tolkiens would argue that when you say Lord of the Rings EVERYONE thinks of their books and movies first and these titles are trying to trade on their good name.

A smart publisher might avoid the fight, or might welcome it for the publicity because really how else will anyone notice a book about jewelry designer anyway?

So in conclusion, yes GW can trademark Space Marine for a line of toy marines in space, just as Lucasfilm can trademark Star Wars for a movie about a war in the stars. Whether or not they would win is a question for the courts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Call Of Duty: Black Ops has a zombies map called moon and one of the characters on that is a member of the U.S.M.C and when you travel to the moon base he says now Im a space marine. Is GW going sue about that too?

No.

Because a character saying 'I'm a Space Marine' is not a product. If someone went to on to make a game called Call of Duty: Space Marines however GW could and probably would feel they must sue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im not really familiar with trademarks, but doesn't stylization, script, and use with other terms come into play? For example, Warhammer 40K and Space Marine are two seperate trademarks that identify something very specific and legally defensible while individually does not due to its genericness and non-association with Warhammer 40k? Also, I thought the way the text was stylized/logo presence also factored in. Like two similar brand names with very different scripts and logos incorporated into the text would constitute two separate and distinct trademarks.

In U.S. law the sound of the word matters as well as the look of the logo.

That's why Apple Computers might sue Mr. Adam Pell if he starts making A. Pell Computers.

The could also sue if a hypothetical 'Orange Computers' or 'Red Delicious' had a logo that looked a lot like Apple's.

So even if my new book Space Marines - How Two USMC Vets Became Interior Designers would be problematic even if the font is totally different. GW would argue that since my book comes up in key word searches or if a customer asks for 'the Space Marine' book their mark should be protected.

Actually that has got me wondering, i remember a bit of a commotion a year or two back maybe over the Tolkein estate attacking a little cafe or some such over the use of the name "hobbit hole" (or something, i remember it was due to the term hobbit though). Don't GW make hobbits for fantasy? Or do they escape with the term "halfling"?

puree wrote:
When someone mentions space marines I expect GW is the first thing most who know anything about games would think (indeed, I expect a good number who aren't into games would immediately assossiate space marines with GW).

Or perhaps, Doom and Quake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

The term continued to be used rather generically all the way into the early 1990s by several companies - including GW. It wasn't until 2nd edition of Warhammer 40K that they started to try to assert a claim on the term - though to be perfectly honest it would be like Ford trying to assert a trademark claim on "pick-up". If you go back and take a look at the various books from the Rogue Trader period - you will notice that no claims are made in them for the vast majority of trademarks GW claims now (even though they were just as much in use then by GW as they are now).

It's also worth remembering that GW back in the early days of 40k et al was an entirely different beast to what it is now. Back then it was a company run by gamers for gamers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:
I've heard both, and I'm not sure which is really more "official". They're called Colonial Marines in the movie, but I've heard Colonial Space Marines used elsewhere. Maybe Colonial Space Marines is the "official" name and they just call them Colonial Marines for short and/or because calling them "Space Marines" would have sounded way too lame.

USCM


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Doctadeth wrote:
Just going to put this link up....for the lulz.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/25/how-many-ways-can-thqs-space-marine-game-rip-off-gears-of-war/

Wow. That guy is a fething idiot.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Noir wrote:
Wow, oh Wow. People are dumb enough to think GW has the rights to the term Space Marine. It not like it been used for 50+ years or anything, oh wait it has. It funny because I read a book that used the term Space Marine a few years ago. Why didn't GW do some about that, Ohh.... thats right it was a big publisher that put it out, and knows the laws and has the money to laugh at GW if they tried.

People are intelligent enough to realize there is a difference between "Space Marines" and "space marines".

The term "space marines" is generic while "Space Marines" is not.

Actually Space Marines, space marines, space Marines or Space marines are all generic terms. What is not a generic term would be Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines or perhaps Games Workshop Space Marines.

nkelsch wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
though they still don't own the word as other things have used it
yeah GW may think they are a big fish but they'd never tango for most things with some of the companies out there (eg Blizzard)

Actually they actually do own the word regardless if other people have used it because they do have a valid trademark. The question is does their trademark expand outside the areas where they undeniably own the trademark? And there is a case to be made due to the nature of trademarks that if they can show dominance, the trademark can apply. It is not a 'slam dunk' that if someone stood up to would instantly lose, if anything they have more of a case here than other cases they are involved in.

You may not like it, but they do own the trademark and they do have the right to defend it.

The question really is whether or not they "do have a valid trademark" and whether or not they "undeniably own the trademark" even before you address the issue of whether or not they can extend their niche mark outside of their niche market. I have already mentioned a half dozen products which already exist (and many which continue to exist) which were selling "Space Marines" in the form of games and miniatures before GW got into that game. Not to mention the fictional environments and the simple process of creating a name for a space based military force (which would lend to the inherent generic nature of the term).

The chances of invalidating the mark are actually pretty good - though that has to actually be the goal of the case. For example - CHS doesn't want to invalidate GW's claims on the trademarks - they want to be able to fairly trade on GW's marks in order to sell compatible products. However, a company like Alternative Armies who sells Space Marine miniatures which were first cast back in 1982 when the molds were owned by Asgard Miniatures. The line of miniatures has changed hands a few times in the past 30 years - but they have remained in production the entire time (at least no gaps in production of greater than a year or two which would cause a default abandonment of their claim to the mark):

http://www.alternative-armies.com/Asgard_Science_Fiction_Range.htm

 scipio.au wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

The term continued to be used rather generically all the way into the early 1990s by several companies - including GW. It wasn't until 2nd edition of Warhammer 40K that they started to try to assert a claim on the term - though to be perfectly honest it would be like Ford trying to assert a trademark claim on "pick-up". If you go back and take a look at the various books from the Rogue Trader period - you will notice that no claims are made in them for the vast majority of trademarks GW claims now (even though they were just as much in use then by GW as they are now).

It's also worth remembering that GW back in the early days of 40k et al was an entirely different beast to what it is now. Back then it was a company run by gamers for gamers.

True enough - though it is really disappointing to see just how many of the names from that old company remain in the new one. If you read the "credits" pages from the early White Dwarf or other rulebooks - the vast majority of the senior management now existed back then. Now though, they tend to be a bunch of dorks who attempt to pretend like they never were what they are (and continue to use things like "Sly Marbo" while suing other companies for much less).

Yeah, I agree. I think a lot of the newer things of the "Sly Marbo" ilk are actually following a design studio culture that has done that sort of thing since the start - while becoming fiercely protective (and litigious!) of others doing the same to them...

To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

Yes, because GW invented the idea of orcs and humans in a fantasy setting You seem to be forgetting GW are the worst for IP "borrowing".

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

So why is Spots the Space Marine still/back on Amazon? If only as paperback-preorder, not as Kindle?

 Zweischneid wrote:
So why is Spots the Space Marine still/back on Amazon? If only as paperback-preorder, not as Kindle?

Probably because Amazon preorders are loopy. I've seen books on there for preorder after the writers/publishers had stated they wouldn't be distrubuting through Amazon. Apparently they will list things for preorders without even having contacted the people involved in making it.

 Glorioski wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

There is a significant difference between "pulling out" and "turning down" a deal.
The idea that GW were the ones who "pulled out" does not gel with the situation at the time. GW already had a licensing deal in place for both 40k and Fantasy and Blizzard was a relatively unknown factor at the time...so why jeopardize what they already had for a wild card?

In any case, if there was any kind of legal dispute there would have likely been some kind of confidential agreement.

Looks like Amazon will sell a used copy through a third party seller

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
In U.S. law the sound of the word matters as well as the look of the logo.
That's why Apple Computers might sue Mr. Adam Pell if he starts making A. Pell Computers.

US law doesn't have much faith in the spelling capabilities of US citizens then

nkelsch wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
though they still don't own the word as other things have used it
yeah GW may think they are a big fish but they'd never tango for most things with some of the companies out there (eg Blizzard)

Actually they actually do own the word regardless if other people have used it because they do have a valid trademark. The question is does their trademark expand outside the areas where they undeniably own the trademark? And there is a case to be made due to the nature of trademarks that if they can show dominance, the trademark can apply. It is not a 'slam dunk' that if someone stood up to would instantly lose, if anything they have more of a case here than other cases they are involved in.

You may not like it, but they do own the trademark and they do have the right to defend it.

Just because you have filed a trademark does not make that trademark defensible. The mere act of filing that mark in no way provides iron clad protections.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

There is a significant difference between "pulling out" and "turning down" a deal.
The idea that GW were the ones who "pulled out" does not gel with the situation at the time. GW already had a licensing deal in place for both 40k and Fantasy and Blizzard was a relatively unknown factor at the time...so why jeopardize what they already had for a wild card?

The point is Blizzard didn't say there was no game to be made as Orktavius said, they were either involved in negotiations with GW or had already agreed a deal. They wanted the Warhammer IP.

 Glorioski wrote:
This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

You make it sound like GW was the ones giving Blizzard the shaft and leaving them holding the baby, from what I understand it's a bit more complicated than that...

Allen Adham hoped to obtain a license to the Warhammer universe to try to increase sales by brand recognition. Warhammer was a huge inspiration for the art-style of Warcraft, but a combination of factors, including a lack of traction on business terms and a fervent desire on the part of virtually everyone else on the development team (myself included) to control our own universe nixed any potential for a deal. We had already had terrible experiences working with DC Comics on "Death and Return of Superman" and "Justice League Task Force", and wanted no similar issues for our new game.

http://kotaku.com/5929157/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1

No I'm simply responding to someone who made it out to be the opposite.

its works like this

GW have a product that loosely has the term "space marine"

Someone makes a product that uses the same term

GW legal team sends them a "you can't do that letter"

However you have a right to object to this if you take us to court

court is expensive so most cave in

This is done all the time by other companies to kick potential rivals before they make money

the reality is GW don't own the term space marine what they own is the look their artists/modlers have made and if it went to court they most likely be told to go suck a lemon for wasting the courts time

ThatMG wrote:

the reality is GW don't own the term space marine what they own is the look their artists/modlers have made and if it went to court they most likely be told to go suck a lemon for wasting the courts time

I seriously doubt that. People do have trademarks which are valid, and Gw has some very strong trademarks. They would not easily have Space Marines overturned if someone simply stood up.

While the ability to extend the trademark to books may or may not be valid depending how GW could prove market dominance, to think that they are within one short court appearance of having all of their trademarks overturned in all arenas and everyone will be making "Space Marines", that is not based in reality.

Claiming Space Marine as a trademark is akin to claiming Dark Elf as a trademark. Its utter bunk. The name is vague and applicable to every western futuristic soldier since Starship Troopers came out.

Now if someone has Space Marines that are super human with a slew of implants, organized into chapters, refer to each other as Battle Brothers, use identical tech, etc, then you have some form of infringement.

GW is really making it hard to support them in any way. They continue to try and bully ANYONE they can with their lawyers even when they have absolutely no grounds to do so.

At this point, I hope CH wins and GW stocks plummet and new management is put in place.

 Pacific wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Well I can hardly say I am surprised. Sadly the author got what was coming to her. If only the same would happen to Chapterhouse.

And heeeeeee's back... and with what a post !!!

Well, I try my best.

 Amaya wrote:
Claiming Space Marine as a trademark is akin to claiming Dark Elf as a trademark. Its utter bunk. The name is vague and applicable to every western futuristic soldier since Starship Troopers came out.

Now if someone has Space Marines that are super human with a slew of implants, organized into chapters, refer to each other as Battle Brothers, use identical tech, etc, then you have some form of infringement.

Well, it depends on the context too, etc.. .

Apple does have a trademark to "Apple" if you use it in conjunction with things like 'computer', etc.. . but they obviously don't have a trademark to you using 'Apple' in combination with things like 'juice', 'fruits', 'sirup', etc.. .

The trademark register the author of 'Spots the Space Marine' cites states rather clearly, that GW has 'Space Marine' trademarked in several categories, including "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, "

Thus, if you are selling 'Space Marine paint' or a 'Space Marine card game', GW will own you.

The thing is, GW doesn't seem to have the term 'Space Marine' trademarked for books, fiction or literature, most likely because its been used in this field long before GW came along.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Apple does have a trademark to "Apple" if you use it in conjunction with things like 'computer', etc.. . but they obviously don't have a trademark to you using 'Apple' in combination with things like 'juice', 'fruits', 'sirup', etc..

Apple is not a good example, as they stole the name and symbol of the old Beatles record label. They finally settled this out of court after 28 years of lawsuits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records

 Zweischneid wrote:
Thus, if you are selling 'Space Marine paint' or a 'Space Marine card game', GW will own you.

The thing is, GW doesn't seem to have the term 'Space Marine' trademarked for books, fiction or literature, most likely because its been used in this field long before GW came along.

And again - they weren't even the first to field with 'Space Marine' with games (1977 game called "Space Marines" published by Fantac and a second edition by Fantasy Games Unlimited in 1980 still in print in 2001) or miniatures (1982 miniatures line by Asgard Miniatures and still in production by Alternative Armies). Since the right of a trademark (assuming it isn't deemed a generic term) would lie with the company which first used it in commerce - that company isn't GW. You also have the miniatures produced by Stan Johansen Miniatures for the FGU version of the 'Space Marines' game which are also still in production.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Since the right of a trademark (assuming it isn't deemed a generic term) would lie with the company which first used it in commerce - that company isn't GW.

Almost. The right of a trademark would lie with the company that registered it first as a trademark. And similar to cyber-squatting, you can also get pwned for trademark squatting, i.e. registering trademarks to certain names, domains, brands, etc.. pre-emptively to extort royalties from a company actually making product with those brands/names/etc.. .

It's certainly not as simple as being "first".

No - first use in commerce is the requirement...specifically called out in US statutes, and generally also called out in other jurisdictions.

Registering a trademark is not essential to protections for trademarks, it gives them some added recourse in terms of seeking damages...however it isn't necessary to protect the mark. That is why you see both ™ and ®. The former being used to denote trademarks and the later registered trademarks. It becomes a trademark the first time that you use it in commerce. You can register it as well with one of the various registration authorities like the USPTO - and even then, you must use it in commerce for the claim to be valid.

So - yes, it is as simple as being first.

You can read the case law in the following Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. Upmann International, Inc. and Baron Philippe de Rothschild v. Paramount Distillers, Inc. In each case, an unregistered prior user was granted the right to the registered trademark of a later user.

Generally speaking, the unregistered prior user can be limited by the region in which their products are sold before the applicant for registration registers the mark - but in this particular case, the examples I cited were sold globally (the 'Space Marines' game was actually reviewed in White Dwarf magazine).

The specific US Statute is in the Lanham Act Section 7(c)(1):

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1057.html

 Zweischneid wrote:
So why is Spots the Space Marine still/back on Amazon? If only as paperback-preorder, not as Kindle?

I just downloaded it onto my Nook, FWIW. Wouldn't have ever considered getting it / known about it but for this thread, so thanks for that . I wonder if the book will actually see a sales bump through other channels due to this.

So is it, or is it not available through Amazon? It certainly looks to be available from Z's link.

Edit: At the Amazon link, it looks like you can buy the paperback version, but not the kindle edition. Just another reason to get a Nook instead, guys

I stopped reading at, "Marine private called out of retirement..."

Really? Retired? As a private? Talk about your glass ceilings.

I'm not military... but can you not retire as a private? And is it not possible to be called back up later? I had the impression that many militaries reserve the right to pull service members back in for a certain number of years (it happened to my friend as well).

Seems a rather odd thing to cause you to stop reading! I'll let people know what I think of it when I've read it (it has very good reviews on Amazon, although not many total) but I'm in the middle of another series right now so won't get to it for a bit.

 doc1234 wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

Yes, because GW invented the idea of orcs and humans in a fantasy setting You seem to be forgetting GW are the worst for IP "borrowing".

GW is hypocritical and deluded though, so it is indeed a surprise they didn't go after Blizzard. My guess is they really think they invented and own the concepts of Space Marines, Orcs in Space, and a devouring insectoid race.

 RiTides wrote:
I'm not military... but can you not retire as a private? And is it not possible to be called back up later? I had the impression that many militaries reserve the right to pull service members back in for a certain number of years (it happened to my friend as well).

Seems a rather odd thing to cause you to stop reading! I'll let people know what I think of it when I've read it (it has very good reviews on Amazon, although not many total) but I'm in the middle of another series right now so won't get to it for a bit.

Sort of a semantic difference between retirement and just separating. Retirement generally infers that they have "done their 20 years" and retired to collect a pension and tell stories at the VFW.

The ready reserve as we call them in the US is a pretty common concept. Most other countries have some form of it. Basically, it times of need (read whenever the Jstars feel like it) the DoD can recall people who have separated from the military who have training which is in need. Normally it is for fields which have a significant training period, though sometimes it is just to fill high turnover/low fulfillment positions.

In general though, I don't think that would be a deal breaker for me on the story itself. It may just be a flubbing of the "proper" terms and even if it isn't - it isn't that significant of an issue for the younger audience.

It isn't that significant, I guess, but it does stand out to anyone who has any experience with the US military where enlisted personnel can only retire after twenty years and I assure you that if you are a private at the end of that time, you are not retiring so much as being discharged for misconduct.

There's a show called Revolution that a lot of people seem to like. I tried watching it but stopped after a while because it was like being hit with the stupid stick every single episode.

Sean_OBrien wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I'm not military... but can you not retire as a private? And is it not possible to be called back up later? I had the impression that many militaries reserve the right to pull service members back in for a certain number of years (it happened to my friend as well).

Seems a rather odd thing to cause you to stop reading! I'll let people know what I think of it when I've read it (it has very good reviews on Amazon, although not many total) but I'm in the middle of another series right now so won't get to it for a bit.

Sort of a semantic difference between retirement and just separating. Retirement generally infers that they have "done their 20 years" and retired to collect a pension and tell stories at the VFW.

The ready reserve as we call them in the US is a pretty common concept. Most other countries have some form of it. Basically, it times of need (read whenever the Jstars feel like it) the DoD can recall people who have separated from the military who have training which is in need. Normally it is for fields which have a significant training period, though sometimes it is just to fill high turnover/low fulfillment positions.

In general though, I don't think that would be a deal breaker for me on the story itself. It may just be a flubbing of the "proper" terms and even if it isn't - it isn't that significant of an issue for the younger audience.

Breotan wrote:I stopped reading at, "Marine private called out of retirement..."

Really? Retired? As a private? Talk about your glass ceilings.

Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but I interpreted Breotan's point to be astonishment at the low rank (hence the reference to "glass ceiling"). A marine Corp Private is the lowest and least experienced rank of Marine, and in modern service one would expect to be promoted out of that grade within 6 months or so. Any individual with a length of service I would personally expect to be some form of Non-Commissioned Officer (at least some rank of Corporal or Sergeant).

By way of example, I have a friend who has been in the Army for less then 2 years (one deployment to Afghanistan) and is an E4 (equivalent to a Corporal in the USMC).

Got it... sound like a typo / misnomer by the author, nothing to see here, move along?

GW do have a novel called Space Marine that has been in (and out of) publication for quite some time (20 years).

http://www.blacklibrary.com/all-products/Space-Marine.html

 George Spiggott wrote:
GW do have a novel called Space Marine that has been in (and out of) publication for quite some time (20 years).

http://www.blacklibrary.com/all-products/Space-Marine.html

Which as had been discussed (here, there or otherwise), doesn't provide a trademark.

Book titles are a funny thing because they are generally by their nature descriptive. Descriptive terms are not generally allowed to be trademarked. That aspect should probably be extended to include video games and movies - the same logic applies...but Disney lobbies hard and video games ended up getting stuffed into software (which is rarely descriptive) as opposed to a storytelling device.

If they would have had several novels in a series called Space Marine...say something like: Space Marine, Space Marine - The Tartos Campaign, Space Marine - The Final Chapter...that series of novels could be granted a trademark. A single novel though, generally does not allow for a trademark to be granted.

Now above all I would argue that "space marine" as such is too generic, too well-established as being generic and so forth to be a trademark for GW in anything but a very, very narrow market (and even that could be up for debate, depending on jurisdiction) but Spots only started in 2009 - wasn't the 'battles of the space marines" series well under way by then? That would come a lot closer than that single title does in a lot of ways.

Sure - but remember...trademarks are specific.

The trademark for that series would be "Battles of the Space Marines" not "Space Marines" or "Battles". You see that take place with a variety of generally generic terms like that. Each word isn't very specific - but the combination of generic words makes it something less generic (though to be honest - "Battles of the Space Marines" still isn't very specific).

Right.
...Gah, I seem to remember we do afford a term used like that quite a generous measure of protection too. Not my field by a long shot though and that class was over two years ago

 Bolognesus wrote:
Right.
...Gah, I seem to remember we do afford a term used like that quite a generous measure of protection too. Not my field by a long shot though and that class was over two years ago

To some extent, yes - though the level of confusion aspect generally comes into play. If both series of books were more closely related (say something like a 40K setting and then something more like the Starship Troopers hard sci-fi setting of books) marketed to the same demographic...then the closeness in generic terms would be considered more broadly. Since the market for both books are not the same though, a larger deference would be given to the second set of books (or other products) because the likelihood of confusion would be reduced.

You also have to consider the fame aspect. Various companies from auto manufacturers to toy companies have many generic terms trademarked (or names which are surnames). Another company which attempted to say sell "Ford Performance Parts" when the guy who owns the company is named "Ford" will have a steeper hill to climb because there is a significant level of fame behind the Ford brand. In the US at least, the concept of niche fame doesn't provide protection. If you are the #1 seller of left handed spatulas - it really means little against someone who wants to sell right handed spatulas with a similar brand name. The market is too small in order to create real fame as the courts recognize it (which would be average people off the streets as opposed to average gamers from a game store).

Yup, likelyhood of confusion sounds familiar
Quite sure that niche fame would fly here to a significant degree, though (then again we're fethed up in IP law - the concept of fair use is much, much more limited down here for example).

Oh well. bu basically you're saying that even if "space marine" was a novel term coined by GW and they were first with both that single book and that series, all Spots' author would have to do is avoid too much of a likelyhood of confusion and GW still couldn't act? When both are books in Sci-fi? Hmm, it sounds kind of off to me, but good to know

There are broad categories of "stuff" when it comes to the markets. Considering the "Spots" book is described as "Pollyanna meets Starship Troopers" I would guess that it would not have much overlap with a GW book, in terms of readership.

For example, both Snow White and LotR both have dragons, dwarves and the like...which would put them both in the broad fantasy literature genre - but the people who read Snow White and the people who read LotR are not the same people.

If you were to go ahead and punch in pretty much anything into the USPTO trademark search, you will generally find several different registers for the same text mark. However, each of them are selling either different products or to different consumers. Because there isn't a likelihood of confusion - it is all good.

Yes, I know that (sort of) but would Sci-Fi warfare be broad enough to subdivide? Hmm, okay. If that's the case, I understand now

 washout77 wrote:

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

GW learn something?...now thats heresy