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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think in Aliens the weapon was called an incinerator. GW's contention is that they own the trademark "flamer" for description of handheld flamethrower weapons in games, not the fundamental concept of the weapon.

I'm pretty sure flame throwers are called flamers (possibly even hand flamers) in Starship Troopers. Anyone got a copy of the book to hand? It's in the first chapter IIRC.

Yes, they are called flamers or hand flamers. Rico uses one in the raid on the Skinnies to cut his way into a building in the first scene. It operates more like a thermic lance than a flamethrower.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, they are called flamers or hand flamers. Rico uses one in the raid on the Skinnies to cut his way into a building in the first scene. It operates more like a thermic lance than a flamethrower.

My question is can someone actually trademark such a vague word like "flamer"? Next GW will trademark "skull" and "gun".

They will, but it will be a skull shaped gun that shoots skulls, so it will be ok.

A hat made of a throne of skull shaped guns that shoot flaming skulls with skulls coming out of their eyes on fire.

And that is just the cap badge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Getting a bit OT there I'm afraid.

Friday night and everything.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, they are called flamers or hand flamers. Rico uses one in the raid on the Skinnies to cut his way into a building in the first scene. It operates more like a thermic lance than a flamethrower.

My question is can someone actually trademark such a vague word like "flamer"? Next GW will trademark "skull" and "gun".

You can trademark extremely vague terms, but the less unique the name...the less strength the mark has. The lowest levels of protection reaaly dont do much at all. In the case of flamer, it was already in use prior to GW and has been used since by other companies, so it is well on its way to being generic.

Honestly though, flamer isnt the weakest of their claims. I think there are somewhere around 150 marks claimed, most of which are generic or common place. From common terms in scifi (plasma) to common historical terms (imperial guard) to just common terms...most are able to be found in dozens of sources beforehand and just as many since.

Ok, I took a class in Public Relations that spent one period talking about how to keep your trademarked logos.

One of the prime points the professor made was that your logo needs to be presented unaltered in exactly the same way every time in order for it to be protected.

For example, you don't change the font, color or other design elements.

So, with GW trying to claim copyright on their army badges and such, would that rule apply? Is there a problem due to the fact that they don't present the Ultramarine's inverted omega the same way every time?

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Ok, I took a class in Public Relations that spent one period talking about how to keep your trademarked logos.

One of the prime points the professor made was that your logo needs to be presented unaltered in exactly the same way every time in order for it to be protected.

For example, you don't change the font, color or other design elements.

So, with GW trying to claim copyright on their army badges and such, would that rule apply? Is there a problem due to the fact that they don't present the Ultramarine's inverted omega the same way every time?

That makes sense. So the symbols would all need to be 100% the same in every instance of them being shown in order to maintain trademark protection? Or could every single variant be registered as well?

Virtually none of those symbols other than the eagle are ever presented the exact same way twice.

That is the common rule, the notion being a company can effectively dilute its recognizability on its own trademark by varying it too much in a short period of time.

GW though is going for more than just the variety of symbols they're also pointing at the use of their fictional names which simply doesn't vary in use as much. That is only to say issues aren't settled just on the generic nature of their iconography.

Well, the new Pepsi symbol varies on each kind of Pepsi. Did they register each version or just the "round ball Pepsi logo"?

 d-usa wrote:
Well, the new Pepsi symbol varies on each kind of Pepsi. Did they register each version or just the "round ball Pepsi logo"?

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. If anyone has their ducks in a row, it's Pepsi.

What is a trademark on the imperial eagle meant to protect?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is a trademark on the imperial eagle meant to protect?

GW have quite a lot of things sold with the Aquila logo... not just various miniatures; there are a lot of books, their carry cases, hobby products. It is definitely the most uniquely GW and widely used design in this lawsuit.

Aside from the fact that the two-headed eagle is a long-used symbol of Imperial might.

Trasvi wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is a trademark on the imperial eagle meant to protect?

GW have quite a lot of things sold with the Aquila logo... not just various miniatures; there are a lot of books, their carry cases, hobby products. It is definitely the most uniquely GW and widely used design in this lawsuit.

I know this is off-topic and I apologize but I felt compelled to note that I always found it hilarious that they've gotten away with copyrighting something that's been in use since ancient Sumeria (i.e. the Double-headed Eagle) on military icons and heraldry... Not to mention the Russian Imperial emblem... Actually, it makes more sense to blame some illuminati plot since the GW version looks exactly like the Masonic version... Or the Byzantine Orthodox Church....or since people at GW love WWII so much it could be derived from the 21st Waffen Mountain Division.. Point being that I think they'd have a hard time holding the double-headed eagle up in court if the defense trots out countless military examples over the last 3000+ years of common use.

Edit: Anvildude beat me to it... Curses!

I think you can rightfully own a specific version of a generic shape. McDonalds don't own the letter 'M' but they do own their M-logo. While eagles are common place in history, the GW one is angular in a way most others aren't so they could own the rights to a variation using very specific dimensions and style. The way they depict their eagle is very consistent from miniatures to art, transfers, on books, all their packaging and on the front of their corporate building in Nottingham (yes, it's about 30 feet across IIRC).

I have read this entire thread, and I find that I am on CHS's side for most things, but if you type 2-headed eagle into Google Images, the results are very much in favour of supporting the idea that GW's angular eagle should be protectable. It is very clearly something different to the norm.

 Fifty wrote:
I have read this entire thread, and I find that I am on CHS's side for most things, but if you type 2-headed eagle into Google Images, the results are very much in favour of supporting the idea that GW's angular eagle should be protectable. It is very clearly something different to the norm.

Challenge Accepted:


191 results from page 1 of Google Images. 2 of them are from GW

yup, sure looks protectable to me

Trasvi wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is a trademark on the imperial eagle meant to protect?

GW have quite a lot of things sold with the Aquila logo... not just various miniatures; there are a lot of books, their carry cases, hobby products. It is definitely the most uniquely GW and widely used design in this lawsuit.

Yes but does that mean?

If you see the Sony or PS trademarks you know you are looking at a Sony or PlayStation product.

You don't see the aquila on all GW or 40K products, so it isn't a company or brand logo. What does it represent? As far as I can see it merely represents a GW product with the aquila on it.

Isn't it on all the blister packets somewhere?

I don't know, however the blister packs aren't the products.

Isn't that like saying a hamburger that has the 'M' logo on the disposable box rather than branded on the top of the bap makes it not "part of the product"? I don't think that works, the model and packaging at a complete product when sold to you.

Charax wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
I have read this entire thread, and I find that I am on CHS's side for most things, but if you type 2-headed eagle into Google Images, the results are very much in favour of supporting the idea that GW's angular eagle should be protectable. It is very clearly something different to the norm.

Challenge Accepted:


191 results from page 1 of Google Images. 2 of them are from GW

yup, sure looks protectable to me

Not a lawyer, but I'm not at all sure that picture proves the point. In fact, since I could scan that image and readily spot the *specific" double-headed eagle which GW claims is their's out of all the others suggests that they actually do have a case. Just, as others have noted, like McDonalds does not "own" the letter "M", but they sure as heck do own trademark on a very specific, distinctive, and identifiable depiction of that letter.

Valete,

JohnS

Exactly, GW couldn't claim Copyright on "a 2 headed eagle design" but I do think they could claim Copyright on the specific design of the Imperial Aquilla.

Charax wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
I have read this entire thread, and I find that I am on CHS's side for most things, but if you type 2-headed eagle into Google Images, the results are very much in favour of supporting the idea that GW's angular eagle should be protectable. It is very clearly something different to the norm.

Challenge Accepted:


191 results from page 1 of Google Images. 2 of them are from GW

yup, sure looks protectable to me

Sorry, I should have highlighted the word "angular" more. Your image is actually very supportive of my case...

But would the average person, that being someone who is not into warhammer 40k or other table top battle games, be able to distinguish them? We can tell them apart because we are into the game and its back story, but would Joe Smchoe down the block know the difference?

Does GW do enough advertising for average people to know about their product? I think that a jury wouldn't be able to distinguish them apart.

 Debbin wrote:
But would the average person, that being someone who is not into warhammer 40k or other table top battle games, be able to distinguish them? We can tell them apart because we are into the game and its back story, but would Joe Smchoe down the block know the difference?

An interesting follow up to that would be does GW's targeted customer demographic (the parents of the kids playing 40K) recognize it? Isn't that part of the case GW is trying to prove: that someone who isn't fully versed in GW products and lore may "accidentally" buy CHS product thinking it is official GW product?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Isn't that like saying a hamburger that has the 'M' logo on the disposable box rather than branded on the top of the bap makes it not "part of the product"? I don't think that works, the model and packaging at a complete product when sold to you.

An important distinction however is that only McDonalds stores sells McDonalds products. You can't go to a mom and pop fast food joint and order a McRib.


GW sells through independent retailers, thus they are not the ONLY people selling Warhammer. So more important is the fact that the relevant trademarks are NOT identifiers of the company as a whole. The Citadel mark is used on every single model package, so that mark should be 100% protected. But the aquila, chaos star, UM symbol, none of those are used to denote "GW MADE THIS". They are decorative elements at best on their respective products.

Enough with the digression, folks. General rules of trademark (which is what the aquila would be) and copyright belong elsewhere.

One thing to keep in mind is that the issues of trademarks are dealt with, not by the average expert or enthusiast (which arguably anyone on an internet forum for a product would qualify as) or even the average customer, but the average person.

When the average person sees the GW aquila, they dont think GW...they think Nazi. You see this represented in common media articles about the game (few that therer are) which often make mention of toys with Nazi iconography.

This is furthern complicated by the Nazi party actually using a a double headed eagle to represent part of their propaganda apparatus. The left head represented the party, while the right head represented the country. Badges are rare, as it was primarily a secret civilian arm of the Nazi regime, but I have a book that has a picture of one of their pins in it that looks very close to an IG eagle.

Following the war, an art deco style double headed eagle was used in promotional media for a french play "The Eagle Has Two Heads". That modern design was later dropped in favor of a more traditional gothic styled eagle when the play was made into a film as the studio felt the modern one looked too much like the Nazi symbol.

In the 1970s, a documentary was made that outlined the workings of the Nazi party prior to WWII and used an icon from papers used by the above mentioned group in the media for the film.

http://static4.thcdn.com/productimg/0/600/600/34/9984234-1345638155-215233.png