Morning Legal Briefs

[Feb 07, 2013, 09:56 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

Games Workshop trademark bullying goes thermonuclear: now they say you can't use "space marine" in science fiction. Thanks Ant via Slashdot.
North Korea propaganda taken off YouTube after Activision complaint. Thanks Hilded.

View

17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

17.

Re: RE: Follow up

Feb 8, 2013, 08:57

Ozmodan

Games research is and always has been run by a bunch of jerks. I never buy anything attached to them ever.

16.

Re: RE: Follow up

Feb 7, 2013, 22:35

UConnBBall

Heck Games Workshop pulled off full page adds telling fans that they were protecting their IP. They even took down a ton of blogs and fan websites. Why support them? Oh crap I loved Dawn of War and Dawn of War 2

15.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 20:00

jdreyer

Between this North Korean video, and that fiberglass mockup that Iran claimed was a fully functioning stealth fighter, I'd say there's a competition to see who is the biggest amateur.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

14.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 17:19

Julio

If they can grab "Space Marine", then I'm going for the word "the". Makes as much sense and worth way more money.

13.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 16:58

Yosemite Sam

GW may be dicks but it's the law that's totally fucked.




PSN id PR345, PST - GTA4, BoS, COD WaW, KZ2, Borderlands, RAGE, GT5, Dirt2, MC LA, Skate2, RDR, LBP, Uncharted2-3, Burnout Paradise, Tiger Woods 10, Dead Nation - Mention Blues News. CIV4 MOD http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=326525

12.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 15:15

Dev

From my experience GW has ALWAYS been nuclear and nutso about protecting their IP. This isn't even CLOSE to the first time they've pulled something like this.

11.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 14:31

Ashley

I always thought GW had "Imperial Space Marines" or "Chaos Space Marines" so I'm surprised that they own the generic "space marines".

10.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 13:40

dj LiTh

Oh please please let disney call troops in their new star wars movie space marines and open a can of whoop ass on GW

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 13:19

Orogogus

You can totally trademark things used in everyday speech, like Apple, as long as it's limited to a market, and not already a generic term within that field. http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html -- there are a lot of common words like apple, aqua, carbon, cocoa and time machine in there with no modifier. Dell can't jump into the market and sell an "Apple" laptop by just not calling it an "Apple computer". GW's bullying here is almost certainly because of the title of the book. They probably can't successfully argue that they own the idea of space marines or the term, but they have a fair chance at demonstrating that a book with "Space Marines" in the title confuses people, as the only other such non-GW books are from the 1930s and not available on Amazon. If they want to be aggressive jerks about they could claim that the author was intentionally trying to ride on their success. At this point it's just an Amazon takedown, though, so someone would have to take it to court before any actual claims are made.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 13:17

Creston

good move, Games Workshop. Way to be assholes. If I wrote sci fi for a living, I'd kindly tell Games Workshop to suck my space marine dick. Creston

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 12:03

TheEmissary

Armengar wrote on Feb 7, 2013, 10:50: trademark =/= copyright. GW are attempting to assert that space marines in books are pretty much their space marines. The same way apple trademark their logo etc. It makes no difference if there is prior art (starship troopers etc) as that trademark will have expired unless maintained. If maintained then it can last forever. Its a shit move by GW but it is one they will win if they can show continuation over other claimants. Whilst starship troopers is maintained as a trademark (http://www.trademarkia.com/starship-troopers-75110835.html) there is no mention of space marines in there and might well not be in any of the modern material. It would take a lawyer to comb through it all. The prior art/use and the term being generic should have been enough to block being granted a Trademark. Normally things that are used in very day speech can't be trademarked. You can make variations to trademark things like Apple Computers but not the word Apple. I think it is a case of first to file not first to create bull again.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 10:50

Armengar

trademark =/= copyright. GW are attempting to assert that space marines in books are pretty much their space marines. The same way apple trademark their logo etc. It makes no difference if there is prior art (starship troopers etc) as that trademark will have expired unless maintained. If maintained then it can last forever.

Its a shit move by GW but it is one they will win if they can show continuation over other claimants.

Whilst starship troopers is maintained as a trademark (http://www.trademarkia.com/starship-troopers-75110835.html) there is no mention of space marines in there and might well not be in any of the modern material. It would take a lawyer to comb through it all.

This comment was edited on Feb 7, 2013, 10:56.




Its not the cough that carries you off but the coffin they carry you off in.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 10:32

TheEmissary

Space Marine is such a generic term and one that would have likely been independently created many times. Militaries around the world have Marines or the equivalent thereof and extrapolating the future would suggest we would have them in space. Is their problem with calling them "Space Marines" or the description and depiction of them. If its just vaguaries what is to stop Superman owners from going after every series that implement the equivalent super hero. what about the Tolkien estate going after any one that has a high fantasy series dealing with elves or a magical ring. I can see a problem if it was using very specific elements of the lore. Interesting Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine This shows the name being used before Games Workshop used it. This comment was edited on Feb 7, 2013, 10:37.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 10:19

Cutter

Why do people keep supporting such a dick company?




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 09:29

Verno

This is idiotic, you could nuke half of the sci-fi catalog on Amazon for using some form of "space marine".




Playing: Faster Than Light, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS Watching: Ghost in the Shell, Hannibal, Oblivion

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 09:25

avianflu

giving them rights to "space marine" was the first mistake. Too generic a phrase and Heinlein's famous books about space marines pre-date GW anyway.

Re: Morning Legal Briefs

Feb 7, 2013, 09:03

InBlack

GW being assholes, nothing new here.




I have a nifty blue line!

17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >