01-22-2013, 05:51 AM | #11 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Salem, OR.
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
IF you made a living off your works, it would / should be your "knee jerk reaction", or else why do it?
Pat
__________________
Salem Midnight Crew / MIB 1987 Or the Wrong MIB. Salem Cell leader, for the clueless in Oregon. Ahhhh... I see the Screw-Up Fairy has visited us again. Closed Captioned for the Humor Impaired |
02-05-2013, 07:35 PM | #12 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Spots the Space Marine vs. Games Workshop, Part Three
Unsurprisingly, Ms. Hogarth has determined that she doesn't have the resources to engage in a legal battle with GW over their claim to an all encompassing trademark for the use of the word "Space Marine", noting that the cost to engage a lawyer at anything besides pro bono rates would cost more than she's ever made off her book.
At this point, her only means to move forward would be though donations from her readers or other concerned parties. Please note that if anyone here would be willing to contribute, keep in mind that a percentage of her profits from "Spots" goes towards the Wounded Warrior Project. Update!: In the past day or two since Hogarth posted her latest update, there's been a nice explosion of favorable publicity for her on the net, mostly following the narrative of "Housewife vs. Big Mean Corporation". And now the story has hit the mainstream media via The Guardian.
__________________
"All true wealth is biological." -Aral Vorkosigan Last edited by sir-talen; 02-07-2013 at 04:19 PM. |
02-06-2013, 08:12 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
I fail to see how a trademark for game supplies gives them any rights to a literary trope that predates the founding of the company by a number of decades.
I wonder why the copyright owners of various literary works featuring the term aren't clamoring for the chance to challenge GW's outrageous claim. (The above is, of course, just my opinion.) Hans |
02-06-2013, 09:03 PM | #14 | |
Munchkin Line Editor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
Quote:
Trademark law requires companies to defend their trademarks if they wish to retain them. Whether those trademarks should be retained is an issue for the relevant trademark offices and, ultimately, the courts -- but they've been granted the trademark and, for now, are acting within not only their rights but their obligations as well.
__________________
Andrew Hackard, Munchkin Line Editor If you have a question that isn't getting answered, we have a thread for that. Let people like what they like. Don't be a gamer hater. #PlayMunchkin on social media: Twitter || Facebook || Instagram || YouTube Follow us on Kickstarter: Steve Jackson Games and Warehouse 23 |
|
02-06-2013, 10:49 PM | #15 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
It seems like a company with so much obviously derivative IP would be treading on very thin ice here. In a fair world H.R. Giger and Ridley Scott should be suing them.
|
02-07-2013, 09:07 AM | #16 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
Quote:
Quote:
Hans |
||
02-07-2013, 12:21 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: traveller
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
I suppose it doesn't matter that there was even a miniatures wargame named "Space Marines" published by FanTac Games in 1977?
|
02-07-2013, 01:00 PM | #18 |
Munchkin Line Editor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
Not if it was out of print for a while before GW submitted their trademark claim. An abandoned trademark may be claimed by a new party -- witness the new TSR, publishers of Gygax Magazine.
__________________
Andrew Hackard, Munchkin Line Editor If you have a question that isn't getting answered, we have a thread for that. Let people like what they like. Don't be a gamer hater. #PlayMunchkin on social media: Twitter || Facebook || Instagram || YouTube Follow us on Kickstarter: Steve Jackson Games and Warehouse 23 |
02-07-2013, 01:23 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
Quote:
So, no, it doesn't actually seem like they are within their rights, nor are they required by law to defend a Trademark that they don't actually HAVE. But that does not, apparently stop them from trying. So yes, the courts are the ones to decide if they should have been granted the trademark in the first place (which seems absurd on the face of it, but I'm no lawyer), but the situation SEEMS to be one where they are trying to enforce Trademark rights that they don't actually possess... |
|
02-07-2013, 05:55 PM | #20 | ||
In Nomine Line Editor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Frozen Wastelands of NH
|
Re: Update on GW vs. Spots the Space Marine
*nod* The quote is
Quote:
Quote:
(I.e., no one disputes that "Warhammer 40K Space Marines" would be a valid trademark, just as Xerox photocopiers, Rollerblade in-line skates, and Frisbee flying discs are all valid.) Ze spouse considers that, since Games Workshop seems to have functioning lawyers, if they thought they could get "space marine" trademarked in fiction, they would have registered it already. However, since the Heinlein estate has kept his books -- which contain references to "space-marines" -- in print, the term has not actually fallen out of "generic" usage. The TV Tropes and Wikipedia entries for "Space Marine" certainly suggest that the phrase does not automatically bring only the Warhammer Space Marines to mind. (Further, even in the UK, common law trademark infringement requires that there be the potential for confusion (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-infringe.htm) -- something that is fairly unlikely in this case, as Games Workshop only has genetically modified all-male Space Marines, whereas the book in question is named after the female protagonist.) I suppose there's some chance that GW's claim of Common Law Trademark might hold water, but that they've gone after a small self-publisher, and not John Ringo (who, according to Wikipedia, has Allied Space Marines in his books)? This suggests (though of course we don't know if they sent a letter to Baen, who sent back raspberries*) they are not actually pursuing all "infringement," but only those "infringers" who are unlikely to be able to retain a lawyer to fight back -- which would mean they aren't adequately protecting their trademark in the first place? *If you send a letter to an "infringer" who says, "Dude, pull the other one, it's got bells on," and then you take no further action, and their books remain available... Is that sufficient "defense" of the trademark to still validly go after other targets?
__________________
--Beth Shamelessly adding Superiors: Lilith, GURPS Sparrials, and her fiction page to her .sig (the latter is not precisely gaming related) |
||
Tags |
space marines, trademark |
|
|