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.

sparkywtf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Only a little off topic, but the theme is related:

Spoiler:

So yeah. Companies get insane trademarks all the time.

That is also a very specific color brown too. Which comes from a iron oxide pigment from a specific company in the U.S.

While true, that's not what they put out as their trademark.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Only a little off topic, but the theme is related:

Spoiler:

So yeah. Companies get insane trademarks all the time.

That is also a very specific color brown too. Which comes from a iron oxide pigment from a specific company in the U.S.

While true, that's not what they put out as their trademark.

They probably have the whole color as a whole when it comes to the industry they are in.

Meaning no one else in logistics can safely use the color brown.

tiber55 wrote:
Not sure why this is getting pushback seems fine to me.

"Things" can be trademarked in a space like card games or board games pretty easily, imagine is someone tried to make a board game Absolute Monopoly, why is things any different from monopoly.

Adding an adjective doesn't really differentiate it enough in a given space.

Monopoly is a suggestive mark, like Coppertone. The intellectual effort involved in the suggestive nature of the mark leads to more unique brand recognition. And monopoly has been around for a long, long, long time. It is not at all comparable to Things... except that it is also a game.

Monopoly also does not have a monopoly on the use of the word in the product category of games and toys. When the average consumer thinks of Monopoly, they tend to think of the game, even divorced of any board came context, but even so, one could probably get away with using the word "monopoly" in a game, though admittedly the Monopoly mark is so damn strong that it would be tough.

Monopoly is a very strong mark for a variety of reasons. Things... is not to the point of a comparison being rather less than useful. It would be like comparing the Starbucks mark to a coffee shop in Kansas called Brew... .

Monopoly is to Things... is to Terrible Things as Starbucks is to Brew... is to Terrible Brew. You wouldn't think Terrible Brew was infringing the Brew... mark, even if the two were coffee shops, would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Only a little off topic, but the theme is related:

Spoiler:

So yeah. Companies get insane trademarks all the time.

That is also a very specific color brown too. Which comes from a iron oxide pigment from a specific company in the U.S.

While true, that's not what they put out as their trademark.

When UPS writes "Brown" they don't mean any brown, much like John Deere Green is not just any green, but a specific green. I doubt very much that UPS means any old brown. Also, the UPS brown is only really meaningful in the context of the logo and and the combination with the gold. Again, much like John Deere Green is paired with that shade of yellow.

That said, I am very skeptical of color marks in general. But as human beings, we don't much use color as a complex language system, so marking a specific color is rather different from marking a generic word, like "things." Things also is not like Apple, in that it is a generic word for a specific type of fruit that has absolutely nothing to do with computers.

An Apple is a Thing. This whole situation is tragically humorous because you don't get a more generic word in the English language than "thing." It is the quintessential generic word. In fact it is so generic that it is used to describe most everything. See what I did there?

Websters is instructive:

1
a : a matter of concern : affair <many things to do>
b plural : state of affairs in general or within a specified or implied sphere <things are improving>
c : a particular state of affairs : situation <look at this thing another way>
d : event, circumstance <that shooting was a terrible thing>
2
a : deed, act, accomplishment <do great things>
b : a product of work or activity <likes to build things>
c : the aim of effort or activity <the thing is to get well>
3
a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
c : a spatial entity
d : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
4
a plural : possessions, effects <pack your things>
b : whatever may be possessed or owned or be the object of a right
c : an article of clothing <not a thing to wear>
d plural : equipment or utensils especially for a particular purpose <bring the tea things>
5
: an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated <use this thing>
6
a : detail, point <checks every little thing>
b : a material or substance of a specified kind <avoid fatty things>
7
a : a spoken or written observation or point
b : idea, notion <says the first thing he thinks of>
c : a piece of news or information <couldn't get a thing out of him>
8
: individual <not a living thing in sight>
9
: the proper or fashionable way of behaving, talking, or dressing —used with the
10
a : a mild obsession or phobia <has a thing about driving>; also : the object of such an obsession or phobia
b : something (as an activity) that makes a strong appeal to the individual : forte, specialty <letting students do their own thing — Newsweek>


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd love to see this in a declaratory judgment action. Hell, some attorney would probably do it just for the fun of arguing against Q&S claiming the Thing word mark.

I find these type of discussions very interesting. At first I raged at the Things game & their law firm.. But after googling, Things has several spin off card games. One is Ancient Terrible Things. That should have been the one Things mentioned & harped on. They have Thinking Things too. There are other games out there too, like Things that Swim, Little Things, The Thing, Things that go Together, Collect Things, (YIKES, another THINKING THINGS made by Edmark from 1995! Making the Things game makers the actual Trademark violators!)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/939831-thinkin-things-collection-2/images/box-88968


Automatically Appended Next Post:
swamp thing game, madness thing game, The Game of Things, Little Things Forever, Random Things, All Things Zombie, and many more actual games....

The trademark in Thinkin' Things is the Thinkin', however there are so many pre-existing games called *Things* that trademarked or not, it is difficult to see how people would confuse them because people obviously haven't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The trademark in Thinkin' Things is the Thinkin', however there are so many pre-existing games called *Things* that trademarked or not, it is difficult to see how people would confuse them because people obviously haven't.

If Things, who has Thinking Things too, is so petty to sue over Terrible Things because they have Ancient Terrible Things.... With their own reasoning Thinkin' Things is even closer to Thinking Things, so they should be sued themselves according to their own logic!... IMHO

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
I find these type of discussions very interesting. At first I raged at the Things game & their law firm.. But after googling, Things has several spin off card games. One is Ancient Terrible Things. That should have been the one Things mentioned & harped on. They have Thinking Things too. There are other games out there too, like Things that Swim, Little Things, The Thing, Things that go Together, Collect Things, (YIKES, another THINKING THINGS made by Edmark from 1995! Making the Things game makers the actual Trademark violators!)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/939831-thinkin-things-collection-2/images/box-88968


Automatically Appended Next Post:
swamp thing game, madness thing game, The Game of Things, Little Things Forever, Random Things, All Things Zombie, and many more actual games....

Let's clear this thing up REAL quick...

Ancient Terrible Things is a pulp horror dice game published by Pleasant Company Studios Pty (Ltd). It is not a "spin off" of Things... .

Thinkin Things is a computer game developed by Edgemark. It is not a "spin off" of Things... . The first collection was released in 1994, some 8 years before Quinn & Stacy's Things... game hit the market.

Things that Crawl is published by Green Board Game Co. It is not a "spin off" of Things... .

There are tons of games called "Things that Go Together," published in a slew of educational contexts, most of them free. None are a "spin off" of Things... .

If you just want to start picking games that have the word "thing" in the title, here you go.

Only one of them is published by Quinn and Sherry, Inc.

If anything, the proliferation of prior existing games that use the word "Thing" prominently in the name of the product should make you dislike Quinn and Stacy more, not less.

weeble1000 wrote:

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
I find these type of discussions very interesting. At first I raged at the Things game & their law firm.. But after googling, Things has several spin off card games. One is Ancient Terrible Things. That should have been the one Things mentioned & harped on. They have Thinking Things too. There are other games out there too, like Things that Swim, Little Things, The Thing, Things that go Together, Collect Things, (YIKES, another THINKING THINGS made by Edmark from 1995! Making the Things game makers the actual Trademark violators!)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/939831-thinkin-things-collection-2/images/box-88968


Automatically Appended Next Post:
swamp thing game, madness thing game, The Game of Things, Little Things Forever, Random Things, All Things Zombie, and many more actual games....

Let's clear this thing up REAL quick...

Ancient Terrible Things is a pulp horror dice game published by Pleasant Company Studios Pty (Ltd). It is not a "spin off" of Things... .

Thinkin Things is a computer game developed by Edgemark. It is not a "spin off" of Things... . The first collection was released in 1994, some 8 years before Quinn & Stacy's Things... game hit the market.

Things that Crawl is published by Green Board Game Co. It is not a "spin off" of Things... .

There are tons of games called "Things that Go Together," published in a slew of educational contexts, most of them free. None are a "spin off" of Things... .

If you just want to start picking games that have the word "thing" in the title, here you go.

Only one of them is published by Quinn and Sherry, Inc.

If anything, the proliferation of prior existing games that use the word "Thing" prominently in the name of the product should make you dislike Quinn and Stacy more, not less.

That is what I am saying.

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:

That is what I am saying.

Fair enough. But I think it was rather reasonable to interpret what you wrote otherwise:

"At first I raged... But" seemed to suggest that you were no longer raging. And Ancient Terrible Things is neither a card game nor a spin off of Things... which alone merited clarification.

It seemed like you were saying that because Quinn and Sherry Inc. had produced lots of different games with Tings in the product name, all related to Things..., it was therefore reasonable for the company to be asserting "Things..." as a mark against Terrible People LLC.

I mean, you pretty explicitly stated that Ancient Terrible Things "should have been the one Things mentioned & harped on." That seemed to mean that you felt Quinn and Sherry Inc. should have asserted its Ancient Terrible Things product against Terrible People LLC., as opposed to the Things... game. That would have been frighteningly incorrect.

In any case, whether or not this was what you meant, at least now the facts are clear.

The Awful Green Things From Outer Space has legal precedence on both, since it was released in the 1970s...

 JudgeShamgar wrote:
Oddly enough Lucasfilm owns the word "Droid". If you look quickly at the bottom of a Motorola commercial, they pay to use that word on their phones.

Now I've never heard of Lucasfilm sending a C+D letter, and they are big enough to do it too. It just shows how a company with a little PR sense can work with other companies, and no one is the wiser. Perhaps the "Thing" folks and GW could take a page from Lucasfilm.

Oh, they did.

The original name for Battletech was Battledroids.
LFL sent them letters and words and stuff about the name, so it got changed.

Note: ANdroid is not the same as "Droid", either.

Just remember:

Things go better with Coca Cola!

The Auld Grump

Wow.

I have no words.

Well, obviously I have some words as I'm posting on this forum, but still....

There have been any number of really stupid claims on IP, up to and including the use of mock-Swedish in advertising.

Me, I'd never paid any attention to either game, and this... nonsense... makes it less likely that I will pay any attention to 'Things...' and a trifle more likely that I will pay attention to 'Terrible Things' by whatever name they decide upon.

IP can be handled cordially - Jack Daniels did so in such a way that it was held up on the internet as being a 'friendly' way to handle the conflict. (Jack Daniels going so far as to offer to buy new cover art for a book that used JD's trade dress - not suppress the book, but just new cover art. Compare to Spots the Space Marine....)

In this case the truism "Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small" can easily be repurposed.

Heck, many gaming IP conflicts can be summed up in much the same way....

The Auld Grump

That is nothing compared to what happend in Germany last year. A Barowner send several C&D letters to eventmanagers, claiming that he owns the rights for... Wait for it.
THE END OF THE WORLD

The IP law fraud keeps rolling on. I think this proves how much we need to start shooting layers and purge the lawyer gene from our dna...

I wonder how many pages this thread would be if the title was "GW claims trademark on 'Things'".

Thing is, I think there's a good chance consumers might get confused between these two products, and that's what IP law/trademarking etc is there to protect - the issue is with whatever fethwit thought letting them trademark "things" at all was a good idea. When you're going for an intentionally generic name for your game (The "game of things"? feth off. Every game has things. Stop being an idiot) the drawback should be that trademarking it is a bitch. It's unbelievable that they managed to swing a trademark on "things".

 Bull0 wrote:
Thing is, I think there's a good chance consumers might get confused between these two products, and that's what IP law/trademarking etc is there to protect - the issue is with whatever fethwit thought letting them trademark "things" at all was a good idea. When you're going for an intentionally generic name for your game (The "game of things"? feth off. Every game has things. Stop being an idiot) the drawback should be that trademarking it is a bitch. It's unbelievable that they managed to swing a trademark on "things".

The drawback is that enforcing said mark is a . The USPTO pretty much just accepts trademark applications. Registering a mark does not do much other than put the public on notice that you claim a certain mark, which opens up the possibility of statutory damages.

There are two safety valves in this kind of situation. The first, as pointed out above, is that the authority could refuse to allow registration of "Things...".

That having failed, it is open to the court to laugh out loud at the "Things..." guys and tell them to get the feth off the bus.

I am rushing off to register "Game".