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.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:


@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.

Actually, they may well be...

See, that is the problem with a blanket policy of not talking to the media at all...their silence allows us to assume pretty much anything we want to assume - and you know what? Assuming they are asserting a claim to the concept is just as valid of an assumption as assuming they are not (and based on their filings in the CHS case...it wouldn't be too much of a stretch as they are claiming things like Halberds, plasma and other common terms there).

When Marvel/DC filed to prevent the registration of a competing "super hero" mark - they had their PR person come out and talk to the media. They explained their position and why they were doing what they were doing. The told everyone the scope of their claim... With that information you could determine if you agreed or disagreed - but you were not left with much room for assuming things not in the record.

Oh, Wikipedia's list missed this use of the term...

o/~ Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
High adventure, higher pay, join the Space Marines today
And you'll get to be a hero in the sky.
— Julia Ecklar and Anne Prather, "Space Hero"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWNekdKdIUA

I can't place a date on it, but it's at least the early 90's...

]

Paitryn wrote:


GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

another generic term that's been around a long time, first time I heard of that word was in books about WW1 where the Germans called Canadians Stormtroopers, if I write a WW1 novel called, I donno The Canadian Stormtroopers, or a book about the norse Valkyrie's called, Valkyrie... there are so many generic old terms GW I guess thinks they own (wouldn't be surprised if they think they own goblin or empire)

they wouldn't go after, say Star Wars 7 for using the empire but might after me... lol

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:


@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.

Actually, they may well be...

See, that is the problem with a blanket policy of not talking to the media at all...their silence allows us to assume pretty much anything we want to assume - and you know what? Assuming they are asserting a claim to the concept is just as valid of an assumption as assuming they are not (and based on their filings in the CHS case...it wouldn't be too much of a stretch as they are claiming things like Halberds, plasma and other common terms there).

When Marvel/DC filed to prevent the registration of a competing "super hero" mark - they had their PR person come out and talk to the media. They explained their position and why they were doing what they were doing. The told everyone the scope of their claim... With that information you could determine if you agreed or disagreed - but you were not left with much room for assuming things not in the record.

Well, the Chapterhouse lawsuit covered a wholly different ground. It's not that GW sought to ban all third party use of the word "Plasma", but the word as applied to the specific design of a miniature weapon. Other than that, I agree. By keeping silent they are allowing wild speculation and prejudice to fill in the information gap.

My point is, they might be trying to extend their trademark on the "Space Marine" term to their "X of the Space Marines" series of novels, thus banning any novels using the phrase "Space Marine" in its title. Dumb, really, as the phrase has uses and meanings beyond the brand, but hardly the "banned from being used in literature forever" it's being made look like.

Really, I doubt GW would have attempted to ban a novel called "Spots the Space Warrior" that depicted a soldier of the Space Marine Corps, even if the exact words "space marine" were used. (Ironically, the phrase isn't used in the 130-something pages of "Spots" I've read!)

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
For those who would like to read a rather detailed analysis of the issue at hand, AAron Sanders Law has written up an article covering the case law and various aspects which would come into play (both to where it is now and in the future should a suit actually materialize out of it).

http://www.aaronsanderslaw.com/blog/space-amazons-space-marines-and-the-non-existant-trademark-takedown-notification

Btw, thanks for bringing up this link. Easily the best words I've read on the subject so far.

 Lanceradvanced wrote:
Oh, Wikipedia's list missed this use of the term...

o/~ Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
High adventure, higher pay, join the Space Marines today
And you'll get to be a hero in the sky.
— Julia Ecklar and Anne Prather, "Space Hero"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWNekdKdIUA

I can't place a date on it, but it's at least the early 90's...

1983 according to the magazine article I have here...distributed by Off Centaur Publications, I probably have a tape of it stuffed in a box someplace with the insert and all that too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You certainly can patent the engineering design of an innovative type of brick, and LEGO did so with their brick design.

However the patents expired, allowing the design concept to be copied by other companies. Hence Megabloks, and other similar products.

I don't now if LEGO sued Megabloks for anything.

Megabloks has been out ages so I am not sure when the patent expired. Lego did attempt to sue Megablok if I remember right, though it gone thrown out because it's just a brick and you can't copyright a brick.

Legos patent was for the method of interlocking (stud and internal cylinders), not for a generic brick design. It did expire however.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:


@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.

Actually, they may well be...

See, that is the problem with a blanket policy of not talking to the media at all...their silence allows us to assume pretty much anything we want to assume - and you know what? Assuming they are asserting a claim to the concept is just as valid of an assumption as assuming they are not (and based on their filings in the CHS case...it wouldn't be too much of a stretch as they are claiming things like Halberds, plasma and other common terms there).

When Marvel/DC filed to prevent the registration of a competing "super hero" mark - they had their PR person come out and talk to the media. They explained their position and why they were doing what they were doing. The told everyone the scope of their claim... With that information you could determine if you agreed or disagreed - but you were not left with much room for assuming things not in the record.

Well, the Chapterhouse lawsuit covered a wholly different ground. It's not that GW sought to ban all third party use of the word "Plasma", but the word as applied to the specific design of a miniature weapon. Other than that, I agree. By keeping silent they are allowing wild speculation and prejudice to fill in the information gap.

My point is, they might be trying to extend their trademark on the "Space Marine" term to their "X of the Space Marines" series of novels, thus banning any novels using the phrase "Space Marine" in its title. Dumb, really, as the phrase has uses and meanings beyond the brand, but hardly the "banned from being used in literature forever" it's being made look like.

Really, I doubt GW would have attempted to ban a novel called "Spots the Space Warrior" that depicted a soldier of the Space Marine Corps, even if the exact words "space marine" were used. (Ironically, the phrase isn't used in the 130-something pages of "Spots" I've read!)

The implications of asserting an unfairly broad trademark against a very particular product (as is happening in the Spots case) is rather the same regardless of the specific facts of the case. The only difference would be the product category in which the mark were used, unless of course it was also paired with a claim of trademark dilution...

Copyright relates to a particular work of art, whereas a trademark relates to an entire class of goods and potentially far beyond that. And even in the case of a copyright claim, overly broad enforcement can have a seriously deleterious impact on free expression.

How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms

 swampyturtle wrote:
How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms

or stormtroopers, heard GW owns that one too

To me the term Space Marine is too generic, it's an obvious way to describe Marines of the future. It's an easy layman's term for it. I did wonder about Colonial Marines and wondered how safe that was, but I would say that will be ok as Colonial isn't a word that would come straight to mind when referring to Marines of the future. Well in my mind it doesn't.

You know what would make an interesting campaign would be to buy paperback copies and have them all shipping to GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From Facebook:

Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.



To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.



Trademarks as opposed to use of a word in prose or everyday language are two very different things. Games Workshop is always vigilant in protecting the former, but never makes any claim to owning the latter.



http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/games-workshop/games-workshop-and-the-protection-of-our-trademarks/595792240435610

GW sure do enjoy sticking their neck onto the chopping block. The axe will fall on that neck one day...

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 swampyturtle wrote:
How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms

or stormtroopers, heard GW owns that one too

Yeah, they beat the Nazi's in the original copyright case.

yeah what do they expect from posting that? nothing good...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 swampyturtle wrote:
How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms

or stormtroopers, heard GW owns that one too

Yeah, they beat the Nazi's in the original copyright case.

~

Actually Stormtroopers is derived from the German WW1 trench raider specialists called Sturmtruppen. The Nazis had nothing to do with it.

didn't they also call Canadian Soldiers that too?

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

 Compel wrote:
Now, if it ends up on the BBC, GW are going to have quite a problem now.

Bad form to quote myself, but. Silly, silly Games Workshop...

GW Exec: Okay, next time we throw it into the fan, let's make sure that the fan is blowing away from us....

But, yeah, the summary of 'stupid knee jerk response by GW was followed by stupid knee jerk reaction by Amazon' pretty much works for me.

It likely did not cross GW or Amazon's collective minds that there could be a negative reaction.

Reminds me a bit of Cook's Source.

The Auld Grump

 mercer wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You certainly can patent the engineering design of an innovative type of brick, and LEGO did so with their brick design.

However the patents expired, allowing the design concept to be copied by other companies. Hence Megabloks, and other similar products.

I don't now if LEGO sued Megabloks for anything.

Megabloks has been out ages so I am not sure when the patent expired. Lego did attempt to sue Megablok if I remember right, though it gone thrown out because it's just a brick and you can't copyright a brick.

That's pretty much what happened. LEGO has failed quite a few times to enforce their ownership of the brick, specifically the studs and tube interior construction.

The plot thickens when one realizes that the original LEGO brick (before stud and tube construction) is an unlicensed copy of the construction bricks made by Englishman Hillary Page of KiddiKraft. LEGO ordered a batch of samples, rounded the dimensions down to metrics and sold them with no license!
http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/
LEGO finally bought the patents to kiddiecraft bricks for a rediculusly low sum nearly 40 years later a few years before failing against TYCO and their "Superbricks". (LEGO won initially, but it was overturned.

Sorry to get all off topic, but I'm a nut for anything LEGO related, even the darker side of the story.

I never realised the original "Lego" design was an British invention.

Back on topic, Spots The Space Marine is currently available for download from Amazon UK.

Well - maybe this post by GW on thier facebook page will help clear things up - maybe.

Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.

To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.

Trademarks as opposed to use of a word in prose or everyday language are two very different things. Games Workshop is always vigilant in protecting the former, but never makes any claim to owning the latter.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/games-workshop/games-workshop-and-the-protection-of-our-trademarks/595792240435610

The thing is the title of a book is prose.

That is a very comment-ey 'no comment.'

Another example of left hand vs right hand?

Paitryn wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

There is a big difference between having a legitimate claim and staking a claim to something. For example, in the front of the last IG Codex - they have listed for their trademarks "Rough Rider", "Devil Dog" and "Sentinel". Haven't bothered to look them up to see if they are registered or just claimed though... In either case, Sentinel has been used for decades for a variety of different items, many of which have been produced in miniature. One of the biggest names which they would be up against would be Marvel Comics and their parent company Disney (no one messes with the Mouse and lives to tell about it). Rough Riders of course have an even older history - and if you ask anyone in the US what first comes to mind, they wouldn't say Warhammer...rather something about a cavalry group that one of our Presidents was connected with (depending on their level of knowledge it may or may not get much more specific than that). And of course, Devil Dogs goes back to WWI again and has been used since as a nickname for the USMC. In the Space Marine Codex they lay claim to "Land Speeder" (LucasArts - now owned by the Mouse), "Predator" (various scout vehicles in the last 90 or so years), "Whirlwind" (common name for a BM-30) and "Chaos" (really?)

While they claim a term - it doesn't actually give them the term legally. I could claim I am 8 feet tall and can bench press a VW with my pinky finger...that doesn't make it a fact. However, until it is legally proven - current IP laws hold the specter over the artists of dealing with C&D letters, take-down orders or lawsuits.

or even the 2 Canadian football teams called Roughriders lol

Canada has football teams? I thought everyone up there was figure skaters...errr...hocky players.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
There is a big difference between having a legitimate claim and staking a claim to something. For example, in the front of the last IG Codex - they have listed for their trademarks "Rough Rider", "Devil Dog" and "Sentinel". Haven't bothered to look them up to see if they are registered or just claimed though... In either case, Sentinel has been used for decades for a variety of different items, many of which have been produced in miniature. One of the biggest names which they would be up against would be Marvel Comics and their parent company Disney (no one messes with the Mouse and lives to tell about it). Rough Riders of course have an even older history - and if you ask anyone in the US what first comes to mind, they wouldn't say Warhammer...rather something about a cavalry group that one of our Presidents was connected with (depending on their level of knowledge it may or may not get much more specific than that). And of course, Devil Dogs goes back to WWI again and has been used since as a nickname for the USMC. In the Space Marine Codex they lay claim to "Land Speeder" (LucasArts - now owned by the Mouse), "Predator" (various scout vehicles in the last 90 or so years), "Whirlwind" (common name for a BM-30) and "Chaos" (really?)

While they claim a term - it doesn't actually give them the term legally. I could claim I am 8 feet tall and can bench press a VW with my pinky finger...that doesn't make it a fact. However, until it is legally proven - current IP laws hold the specter over the artists of dealing with C&D letters, take-down orders or lawsuits.

Unfortunately that's not uncommon. Most big companies throw out everything they can (il)legally and then hope some of it sticks if they're ever challenged to it in court.

I'd also think Games Workshop would know better than to pick on someone their own size (or larger).

yeah I donno, something tells me GW thinks they could tango with the "big dogs"