...Take Games Workshop, a company with a deserved reputation for aggressive use of trademark law. The company asserts a trademark over the term "space marine," as it extends to the figurines in its tabletop games and the products the company has made based on them. Now, "space marine" is a very old term, and has been in wide use in science fiction for most of the past century. It's also very descriptive, which is a no-no in trademark. It's much easier to demonstrate that your mark is uniquely associated with your product when there's no obvious reason it would be used in a generic sense for someone else's – "Waterstones" is a stronger trademark than "The Book Store," for example. In my view, the trademark office should never have issued a trademark in "space marine," because there's very little danger that a random punter would associate the term uniquely with Games Workshop's products, and not with, say, the novels of Robert A Heinlein.

But here's where it gets very ugly. There are two ways to make a mark so famous that it is uniquely associated with one company. The first is the honourable way, by making a product that becomes so popular, so famous, that everyone thinks of you when they think of it.

The other way is the evil way: by making public, baseless, bullying legal threats against anyone who ever uses your mark, in any context, even when there's no possibility of deception or confusion. If you make enough headlines for your sabre-rattling, then you can create a different kind of fame, the kind of fame that attains association thus: "Hmm, that writer used the term 'space marines' in her book, and I know that Games Workshop are colossal jerks who turn your life into a living hell if you even breathe the words 'space marines,' so this must be somehow associated with Games Workshop."

If a trademark holder is legitimately worried about incidental uses of their marks contributing to genericide, it can simply grant retrospective permission to anyone who's used the mark in a way that worries them. "Dear Ms So-and-So, we're delighted to grant you permission to use our mark on your website; would you please add a note to that effect?" attains exactly the same legal protection from dilution and genericisation as a legal threat.

The difference between a threat and permission is that a threat helps you corral the public's vocabulary in your own private preserve. It's time we stopped giving trademark bullies a free pass to tell us what our own words mean. It's time to take trademark back.

One small, practical way you can do this is to look for opportunities to use "space marine" in published materials that aren't referring to Games Workshops' products, and to resist all other illegitimate attempts to police our language by using generic terms generically, even when companies object.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad.

Mind explaining why?

"Hmm, that writer used the term 'space marines' in her book, and I know that Games Workshop are colossal jerks who turn your life into a living hell if you even breathe the words 'space marines,' so this must be somehow associated with Games Workshop."

 mayfist wrote:

"Hmm, that writer used the term 'space marines' in her book, and I know that Games Workshop are colossal jerks who turn your life into a living hell if you even breathe the words 'space marines,' so this must be somehow associated with Games Workshop."

As much as I agree with the article, that was a tad childish...

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad. It's editorial journalism at its finest.

Oh, and MGS? Way to not post the entire thing.

 sourclams wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad. It's editorial journalism at its finest.

Oh, and MGS? Way to not post the entire thing.

Curious minds really want to know.

I don't think calling out MGS for linking to the entire article but only posting the GW-relevant bit is poor behavior on his part, either. If anything it helps cut down on forum clutter.

 sourclams wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad. It's editorial journalism at its finest.

Oh, and MGS? Way to not post the entire thing.

Curious minds really want to know.

I don't think calling out MGS for linking to the entire article but only posting the GW-relevant bit is poor behavior on his part, either. If anything it helps cut down on forum clutter.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad. It's editorial journalism at its finest.

Oh, and MGS? Way to not post the entire thing.

Curious minds really want to know.

I don't think calling out MGS for linking to the entire article but only posting the GW-relevant bit is poor behavior on his part, either. If anything it helps cut down on forum clutter.

Yeah, I provided a link to the entire article and then quoted the GW pertinent bit, as it was about GW.

Kan, your implied accusation is falling on barren ground here, I wasn't angling or manipulating, just putting the pertinent part up for quick review/the work blocked. You may set down your sword and shield for now.

 blood reaper wrote:

 mayfist wrote:

"Hmm, that writer used the term 'space marines' in her book, and I know that Games Workshop are colossal jerks who turn your life into a living hell if you even breathe the words 'space marines,' so this must be somehow associated with Games Workshop."

As much as I agree with the article, that was a tad childish...

I think the point is that GW has gained a large amount of negative opinion in recent months since the fiasco, so much so that they pulled their Facebook page due to the negative feedback that was pilling up on the comment section. Allot of people seem to think such things about GW, and it's not without reason.

 mayfist wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 mayfist wrote:

"Hmm, that writer used the term 'space marines' in her book, and I know that Games Workshop are colossal jerks who turn your life into a living hell if you even breathe the words 'space marines,' so this must be somehow associated with Games Workshop."

As much as I agree with the article, that was a tad childish...

I think the point is that GW has gained a large amount of negative opinion in recent months since the fiasco, so much so that they pulled their Facebook page due to the negative feedback that was pilling up on the comment section. Allot of people seem to think such things about GW, and it's not without reason.

Oh but I agree, I was just saying that I found that this particular quote was childish. As a journalist writing for the guardian he should be above calling someone "colossal jerks" in the midst of his article.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the same level of emotive crap that Fox News and most media outlets vomit up. Hell, he even starts with something I fully expect to see from them with an "ominous picture of something completely unrelated to the article".

The author starts in with a whole bunch of information that would have been interesting to read about in and of itself--but then oh look. He was just using that to set up an emotive rant and then plugging "Chillingeffects.org" and to "gratefully acknowledge" their assistance in drafting this article.
If he toned down the more colorful descriptors he used? I would have appreciated the read...but as it stands, it's bad and he should most definitely feel bad.

 mayfist wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 mayfist wrote:

"Hmm, that writer used the term 'space marines' in her book, and I know that Games Workshop are colossal jerks who turn your life into a living hell if you even breathe the words 'space marines,' so this must be somehow associated with Games Workshop."

As much as I agree with the article, that was a tad childish...

I think the point is that GW has gained a large amount of negative opinion in recent months since the fiasco, so much so that they pulled their Facebook page due to the negative feedback that was pilling up on the comment section. Allot of people seem to think such things about GW, and it's not without reason.

Oh but I agree, I was just saying that I found that this particular quote was childish. As a journalist writing for the guardian he should be above calling someone "colossal jerks" in the midst of his article.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the same level of emotive crap that Fox News and most media outlets vomit up. Hell, he even starts with something I fully expect to see from them with an "ominous picture of something completely unrelated to the article".

The author starts in with a whole bunch of information that would have been interesting to read about in and of itself--but then oh look. He was just using that to set up an emotive rant and then plugging "Chillingeffects.org" and to "gratefully acknowledge" their assistance in drafting this article.
If he toned down the more colorful descriptors he used? I would have appreciated the read...but as it stands, it's bad and he should most definitely feel bad.

And for future reference? I'd take you more seriously if you didn't include the childish little "white knight" snipe. You're better than that, MGS.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the same level of emotive crap that Fox News and most media outlets vomit up. Hell, he even starts with something I fully expect to see from them with an "ominous picture of something completely unrelated to the article".

The author starts in with a whole bunch of information that would have been interesting to read about in and of itself--but then oh look. He was just using that to set up an emotive rant and then plugging "Chillingeffects.org" and to "gratefully acknowledge" their assistance in drafting this article.
If he toned down the more colorful descriptors he used? I would have appreciated the read...but as it stands, it's bad and he should most definitely feel bad.

Your comparison to Fox News is amusing. It's an instant way to lower the quality of something without doing anything. I'm glad you had something else to post afterwards. I agree with you on the picture though.

I wouldn't really call it a rant, he makes a good point on the fact GW received allot of negative reception because of their actions. I don't see any form of "Chillingeeffects.org", thought I'm still at odds what that means, care to elaborate further?

And please do report any trademark threats you receive to ChillingEffects.org, a clearinghouse that amasses evidence about trends in online enforcement that brings a factual underpinning to reform efforts.

• The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Wendy Seltzer of the ChillingEffects project in the drafting of this article

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the same level of emotive crap that Fox News and most media outlets vomit up. Hell, he even starts with something I fully expect to see from them with an "ominous picture of something completely unrelated to the article".

The author starts in with a whole bunch of information that would have been interesting to read about in and of itself--but then oh look. He was just using that to set up an emotive rant and then plugging "Chillingeffects.org" and to "gratefully acknowledge" their assistance in drafting this article.
If he toned down the more colorful descriptors he used? I would have appreciated the read...but as it stands, it's bad and he should most definitely feel bad.

And for future reference? I'd take you more seriously if you didn't include the childish little "white knight" snipe. You're better than that, MGS.

Kanluwen.

If Fox News had put this up and claimed that GW had funded The Great Satan Obama into office, I'd still put it up on the forum, not because I support it but because its a major news source talking about Games Workshop. It also remains an opinion piece, one which is interesting because:
a) This isn't a jaded 'hater' commenting, as far as we know, this guy has no horse in the race and is commenting as an external spectator on the company's trending behaviour.
b) Whether or not it's plugging Chillingeffects has no bearing to the portrayal of GW.
c) It might be possible he's right, you simply disagree with him.

Whether you agree or disagree with the article, I simply made the forum aware of it, yet you come blundering in to take a swipe at me over it, because it says things you don't like.

The sword and shield reference in my response was because you came charging in here to accuse me of somehow being responsible for the content of the article or that I was being partisan in posting the bit I did, when it's the only bit about GW in the article... So yeah, put your holy avenger down and chill your arse out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the same level of emotive crap that Fox News and most media outlets vomit up. Hell, he even starts with something I fully expect to see from them with an "ominous picture of something completely unrelated to the article".

The author starts in with a whole bunch of information that would have been interesting to read about in and of itself--but then oh look. He was just using that to set up an emotive rant and then plugging "Chillingeffects.org" and to "gratefully acknowledge" their assistance in drafting this article.
If he toned down the more colorful descriptors he used? I would have appreciated the read...but as it stands, it's bad and he should most definitely feel bad.

Your comparison to Fox News is amusing. It's an instant way to lower the quality of something without doing anything. I'm glad you had something else to post afterwards. I agree with you on the picture though.

I actually added that as something I could harken back to as an example of charged language, which this particular article was filled with towards the end.

If I had said:
"And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the author frontloading his point with informative material, before moving from the informative style into what should have been posted as a separate opinion/editorial piece or at least clearly noted to be opinion/editorial material."

I have no issue with him calling GW on their legal shenanigans. I do have an issue when he uses the terminology he did after having presented an informative article at the start.

I wouldn't really call it a rant, he makes a good point on the fact GW received allot of negative reception because of their actions. I don't see any form of "Chillingeeffects.org", thought I'm still at odds what that means, care to elaborate further?

At the very bottom of the article:

And please do report any trademark threats you receive to ChillingEffects.org, a clearinghouse that amasses evidence about trends in online enforcement that brings a factual underpinning to reform efforts.

• The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Wendy Seltzer of the ChillingEffects project in the drafting of this article

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I will say one thing, had it not been harped on, I might not have taken a closer look at ChillingEffects.org. I am glad I did, as it seems a most worthy organization!

"A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics."

If anything, such an association seems to give greater heft to the opinions, and it's rather nice to see that the movers and shakers of protecting the public are taking notice of GW's repeated and shameless misdeeds. It seems... odd, to imagine such a worthy association is detrimental to the article's message...

"The other way is the evil way: by making public, baseless, bullying legal threats against anyone who ever uses your mark, in any context, even when there's no possibility of deception or confusion"

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I will say one thing, had it not been harped on, I might not have taken a closer look at ChillingEffects.org. I am glad I did, as it seems a most worthy organization!

"A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics."

If anything, such an association seems to give greater heft to the opinions, and it's rather nice to see that the movers and shakers of protecting the public are taking notice of GW's repeated and shameless misdeeds. It seems... odd, to imagine such a worthy association is detrimental to the article's message...

Again, it comes down to the language chosen.

You decide to name your activist organization "ChillingEffects" when it has to do with the "unregulated private practice of sending cease and desist letters" and the "unstudied, but potentially significant 'chilling effect' on speech".

Yeah I get the joke...but really? You couldn't come up with something less emotive?

I would have loved to have heard about the organization and to read about what they (or their members) think about the whole case with GW. But what I do not want is for their members to use the case as a platform to espouse their organization, while hiding it in the midst of an actual informative article and the hypocritical use of charged sweeping statements such as:

"The other way is the evil way: by making public, baseless, bullying legal threats against anyone who ever uses your mark, in any context, even when there's no possibility of deception or confusion"

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I will say one thing, had it not been harped on, I might not have taken a closer look at ChillingEffects.org. I am glad I did, as it seems a most worthy organization!

"A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics."

If anything, such an association seems to give greater heft to the opinions, and it's rather nice to see that the movers and shakers of protecting the public are taking notice of GW's repeated and shameless misdeeds. It seems... odd, to imagine such a worthy association is detrimental to the article's message...

Again, it comes down to the language chosen.

You decide to name your activist organization "ChillingEffects" when it has to do with the "unregulated private practice of sending cease and desist letters" and the "unstudied, but potentially significant 'chilling effect' on speech".

Yeah I get the joke...but really? You couldn't come up with something less emotive?

I would have loved to have heard about the organization and to read about what they (or their members) think about the whole case with GW. But what I do not want is for their members to use the case as a platform to espouse their organization, while hiding it in the midst of an actual informative article and the hypocritical use of charged sweeping statements such as:

"The other way is the evil way: by making public, baseless, bullying legal threats against anyone who ever uses your mark, in any context, even when there's no possibility of deception or confusion"

At the risk of pointing out completely obvious things, "Chilling Effect" is a well known formal term in the law, one which is wholly applicable to the situation.

Further, given that at least one part of the joint initiative (the EFF) has tangled with GW over their last major attempt to use unethical and improper means to bully an individual out of exercising their free speech rights (almost as if they were chilling her speech, as it were) was the "Spots the Space Marine", it is passing possible that they regard GW's pattern of behavior as "making public, baseless, bullying legal threats against anyone who ever uses your mark, in any context, even when there's no possibility of deception or confusion".

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet they make no mention of Amazon, who seemingly did not really investigate GW's claim and instead just pulled "Spots the Space Marine".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I will say one thing, had it not been harped on, I might not have taken a closer look at ChillingEffects.org. I am glad I did, as it seems a most worthy organization!

"A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics."

If anything, such an association seems to give greater heft to the opinions, and it's rather nice to see that the movers and shakers of protecting the public are taking notice of GW's repeated and shameless misdeeds. It seems... odd, to imagine such a worthy association is detrimental to the article's message...

Again, it comes down to the language chosen.

You decide to name your activist organization "ChillingEffects" when it has to do with the "unregulated private practice of sending cease and desist letters" and the "unstudied, but potentially significant 'chilling effect' on speech".

Yeah I get the joke...but really? You couldn't come up with something less emotive?

At the risk of pointing out completely obvious things, "Chilling Effect" is a well known formal term in the law, one which is wholly applicable to the situation.

Sure, but again...couldn't they have come up with something less emotive?

 Kanluwen wrote:
...
Sure, but again...couldn't they have come up with something less emotive?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Further, given that at least one part of the joint initiative (the EFF) has tangled with GW over their last major attempt to use unethical and improper means to bully an individual out of exercising their free speech rights (almost as if they were chilling her speech, as it were) was the "Spots the Space Marine", it is passing possible that they regard GW's pattern of behavior as "making public, baseless, bullying legal threats against anyone who ever uses your mark, in any context, even when there's no possibility of deception or confusion".

And yet they make no mention of Amazon, who seemingly did not really investigate GW's claim and instead just pulled "Spots the Space Marine".

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
...
Sure, but again...couldn't they have come up with something less emotive?

Why would they? Do you find, to use an example from my alma mater, the Innocence Project to be too "emotive"?