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.

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...