In the Future, All Space Marines Will Be Warhammer 40K Space Marines

[Striogi]

According to this article, Games Workshop has made a rather significant move in the realms of legal trademarking...
http://mcahogarth.org/?p=10593

TL;DR
basically, This guy wrote a book called, "Spots the Space Marine". - Not a WH40k product.
In mid-December, Games Workshop told Amazon that he’d infringed on the trademark they’ve claimed for the term “space marine”. Amazon blocked the e-book from sale.

He's a small indie author, not part of a publishing house, and hasn't the resources to fight it, but would like to start some kind of battle to save the term "space marine" from GW's exclusive usage.

Considering that the idea of the space marine goes back at least to the Lensman series in 1934, and includes such notable sci fi alumni as Heinlein, Cameron, and much more, I think it's unreasonable for GW to try to snatch that term for their exclusive use.

[Gotthammer]

*She* - author is female.


I've got to say this is pretty low. Popehat is encouraging people (http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/06/the-popehat-signal-help-an-author-against-a-bogus-trademark-claim/) to write to GW and point out how stupid they are.



Edit: via BoingBoing (http://boingboing.net/2013/02/06/games-workshop-trademark-bully.html)


* Amazon didn't have to honor the takedown notice. Takedown notices are a copyright thing, a creature of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They don't apply to trademark claims. This is Amazon taking voluntary steps that are in no way required in law.

[Wolfshade]

I am no lawyer, but I think the issue is using it as Space Marine and in the title.
When I read the title I thought sounds like a strange 40k novel. A marine in space could be called a space marine as that is its description. I believe the Heinlein books didn't name them as space marine as a proper noun, but more of a common noun, with the space being an adjective and marine being the noun.

[dirkspair]

well, it is only natural, GW is a company is way too big for their product and have to do all kinds of things to keep the cash rolling in. from turning out new editions that have nothing to do with ironing out little mistakes but are deliberately kept faulty so that they have a reason to bring out another one in a few years to to strong arming other companies that are trying to make a buck by threatening them with costly lawsuits.

[Dalleron]

GW as a company may be big, but there is no reason for them to be throwing their weight around. They make think that they invented the term space marine, and the double eagle too now that I mention it, but they are wrong. They have created the likeness of their models I won't question. I really wish someone would come along and prove to the people that matter, ie the courts and GW themselves, that not everything revolves around them. This book would in all likelihood have zero impact on GW financial bottom.

[DarkLink]

I am no lawyer, but I think the issue is using it as Space Marine and in the title.
When I read the title I thought sounds like a strange 40k novel. A marine in space could be called a space marine as that is its description. I believe the Heinlein books didn't name them as space marine as a proper noun, but more of a common noun, with the space being an adjective and marine being the noun.

If the first thing you think of when you hear "Space Marine" is "40k", you kinda need to get out from under a rock. Space Marines are near-ubiquitous in sci-fi. Halo is about space marines in power armor struggling against overwhelming odds fighting xenos warriors. Sound 40k-like to you? Not even close.

Heinlein might not have called his MI space Marines, but that doesn't mean there are countless other uses of the term both long before and after GW started up.

Point is, space marine is a term anyone can use, and anyone who tries to claim rights to that term is an idiot.

For reference: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceMarine

[dirkspair]

It is also very hippocritical of them to claim people are "stealing" their IP when in reality everything about 40k is "inspired" by books like Dune, Star ship troopers etc.
I think it is because they are worried about their existence with the flood gates opening for models from different companies, books, games and so on.

[Warptiger]

Yeah, I agree that they're going overboard here a little... but this is part of a bigger movement going on with games workshop.

If you've been following some of their attempts to sue indie companies for copyright infringement (companies making chapter specific shoulder pads, etc), you may have noticed that games workshop appears to have completely screwed up royally on laying a foundation for some of their copyrights. Like as in, they never actually copyrighted some of this stuff. Woops. They're attempting to fix some of this now...

and one key part of copyright law, is that you have to protect it. If you let 100 people infringe your copyright, you pretty much can't throw the book at the 101th person to infringe it. You have to treat each case seriously, and drop a nuke on their head if they so much as look at your copyrighted content. I might be wrong on this, but I believe I heard somewhere that if you don't protect your copyrighted content, someone can actually take control of the copyright away from your company. Serious stuff.

Yeah, it's sad they're trying to copyright "space marine"... but anyone remember when microsoft tried to copyright the word "windows".

[White Tiger88]

Yeah, I agree that they're going overboard here a little... but this is part of a bigger movement going on with games workshop.

If you've been following some of their attempts to sue indie companies for copyright infringement (companies making chapter specific shoulder pads, etc), you may have noticed that games workshop appears to have completely screwed up royally on laying a foundation for some of their copyrights. Like as in, they never actually copyrighted some of this stuff. Woops. They're attempting to fix some of this now...

and one key part of copyright law, is that you have to protect it. If you let 100 people infringe your copyright, you pretty much can't throw the book at the 101th person to infringe it. You have to treat each case seriously, and drop a nuke on their head if they so much as look at your copyrighted content. I might be wrong on this, but I believe I heard somewhere that if you don't protect your copyrighted content, someone can actually take control of the copyright away from your company. Serious stuff.

Yeah, it's sad they're trying to copyright "space marine"... but anyone remember when microsoft tried to copyright the word "windows".

GW Overboard? Ya i think they reached that point a fair while back banning web comics from using anything that looked like an aquilla...

On a side note This IS SO DAMN STUPID it hurts.

Oh and nice to see another Tiger!

[pauljc]

Some of you talk like GW do this for fun. I really wish the attitude of GW being some big, evil mega-corp could be dropped, but hey ho.

Look, it's simple. Providing that they have a copyright/trademark on 'Space Marine', it is in place, in the first instance, to protect their IP. As ugly as it might seem, they are obliged to protect it, no matter how large or small the infringement.

GW's legal department doesn't sit there with their fingers and thumbs an inch a part, aimed at people in the distance, going, "Hah, I squash your head!"

Seriously, though, this whole 'GW is the devil!!' shtick has to stop. 'Cus if GW is the devil, well then most of youse are a bunch of heathen satanists. :P

[OrksOrksOrks]

GW Overboard? Ya i think they reached that point a fair while back banning web comics from using anything that looked like an aquilla...

On a side note This IS SO DAMN STUPID it hurts.

Oh and nice to see another Tiger!


You know, your user name, what with saying White Tiger and the number 88 (used as a code by neo-****s to represent "Heil Hitler"), combined with your Iron Cross icon, makes you seem a tad racist, maybe you should change that?

[gendoikari87]

If the first thing you think of when you hear "Space Marine" is "40k", you kinda need to get out from under a rock. Space Marines are near-ubiquitous in sci-fi. Halo is about space marines in power armor struggling against overwhelming odds fighting xenos warriors. Sound 40k-like to you? Not even close.

Heinlein might not have called his MI space Marines, but that doesn't mean there are countless other uses of the term both long before and after GW started up.

Point is, space marine is a term anyone can use, and anyone who tries to claim rights to that term is an idiot.

For reference: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceMarine
An idiot or a sly conniving businessman/lawyer trying to squeeze every penny they can for the company. Which by law they are sort of obligated too, though through legal means and this is highly questionable and morally contemptible.

[Caitsidhe]

You know, your user name, what with saying White Tiger and the number 88 (used as a code by neo-****s to represent "Heil Hitler"), combined with your Iron Cross icon, makes you seem a tad racist, maybe you should change that?

Why would he want to change it? There are only two possibilities:

1. He/she is the 88th person to try and use the name White Tiger creating a total coincidence. Why should he/she care if some lame Neo-****s use code? Deferring any symbols, slang, etc. to them simply cedes them power.

2. He/she is a Neo-**** and has selected the name/symbol on purpose. In this case he/she would most certainly not want to change it as it was selected for this reason in the first place.

I gave up trying to police how people represent themselves on the internet a long time ago. It seems, in retrospect, a rather pointless endeavor doesn't it? It begs the question of why you bothered? Do you truly think the person has no clue and you were trying to be helpful? Or were you merely seeking to launch some sort of passive aggressive attack on said person or their credibility? Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "hey are you a freaking ****? Why should we care what you think?"

[OrksOrksOrks]

Why would he want to change it? There are only two possibilities:

1. He/she is the 88th person to try and use the name White Tiger creating a total coincidence. Why should he/she care if some lame Neo-****s use code? Deferring any symbols, slang, etc. to them simply cedes them power.

2. He/she is a Neo-**** and has selected the name/symbol on purpose. In this case he/she would most certainly not want to change it as it was selected for this reason in the first place.

I gave up trying to police how people represent themselves on the internet a long time ago. It seems, in retrospect, a rather pointless endeavor doesn't it? It begs the question of why you bothered? Do you truly think the person has no clue and you were trying to be helpful? Or were you merely seeking to launch some sort of passive aggressive attack on said person or their credibility? Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "hey are you a freaking ****? Why should we care what you think?"


Maybe I was trying to gently let him know that his "subtle" way of hiding his racism hasn't worked, and I personally have reasons to want to call out any hidden neo ****sim I see?

[Caitsidhe]

Maybe I was trying to gently let him know that his "subtle" way of hiding his racism hasn't worked, and I personally have reasons to want to call out any hidden neo ****sim I see?

We should reign this back before the Moderators remind us, but my point is simple. The person may or may not be what you are saying. It isn't our job (at least not in this Forum) to "gently" do anything. This guy was talking about the thread in question. If you really don't like him using the Iron Cross, put up your own picture which you think will annoy him back. I'm sure you can locate some cool lingo you could put in your name to do the same. :)

I'm not picking a fight with you. I'm just doing my own "gentle" reminder that some things make certain people see "red" and react in ways that probably aren't the best. Why don't you and I call it a day on this one and get back to talking about the topic. I think there are other places on this site you can go off on this kind thing. Cool beans?

[gendoikari87]

Maybe I was trying to gently let him know that his "subtle" way of hiding his racism hasn't worked, and I personally have reasons to want to call out any hidden neo ****sim I see?

Subtlety is overrated, just call him a goose stepping *** and move on.

[Psychosplodge]

You know, your user name, what with saying White Tiger and the number 88 (used as a code by neo-****s to represent "Heil Hitler"), combined with your Iron Cross icon, makes you seem a tad racist, maybe you should change that?

He's clearly born in 1988, his old avatar was surprisingly a white tiger...and he was right it took what a day before the suggestion of racism when he was worrying about using an iron cross*...

*Available long before national socialists ran germany

[Pendragon38]

Maybe I was trying to gently let him know that his "subtle" way of hiding his racism hasn't worked, and I personally have reasons to want to call out any hidden neo ****sim I see?
WOW thats sad, your worst than them for the same reason then. I figured she/he was a history buff and threw in for the hell of it. Even my name means something if you know your history.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I will deal with this later.

Hint, someone is in a lot of trouble for making accusations based purely on speculation.

Hey Orks, do you remember that whole thing where you insulted me too? Ooooh boy, are you in for the high jump.

[Caitsidhe]

He's clearly born in 1988, his old avatar was surprisingly a white tiger...

A third possibility I didn't think about. I just assumed he was the 88th person to use the name. That one happens to me all the time when other people use the same nickname as myself (although clearly I've never had racism applied to mine). I hate it when I miss a possibility. In any event, I think it is always better to give people the benefit of the doubt.


and he was right it took what a day before the suggestion of racism when he was worrying about using an iron cross*...[

*Available long before national socialists ran germany

Exactly. Both the Iron Cross and the Swastika were symbols long before Hitler got to start giving them out or co-opted them. It is ironic that the guy predicted the reaction.

[Psychosplodge]

It is ironic that the guy predicted the reaction.


....why is everything considered Racist now days? Then again some people think the Iron Cross is a Racist symbol......


Ha i would have an Ironcross avatar if i didn't think someone would spaz :(

Anyhow....i would say put up the flag and ignore the people who get pissy.

Ironic? Something like that...

[Pendragon38]

GW is shooting in the dark with there light beam las gun. I read a hell of a lot books and there's a book from 1982 and then it's a movie called battlefield earth from L. Ron Hubbard, and yes I know he's the creator of.... I won't go there. Or has anyone read the old scifi digest in the 70's. they talk about space marines in there books to.

[Psychosplodge]

I think the distinction is between space marines and Space Marines.

ie the difference between coca-cola, and cola...

[miteyheroes]

I agree, GW has to do this to protect themselves.

BUT, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine#Appearances_in_fiction
Bob Olsen in 1932 wrote "Captain Brink of the Space Marines". Clearly predating GW and making their claim to the term stupid. So if it got to court, GW shouldn't win. But it won't get to court, as the author has caved in - which the author has to do, not having the money to take it to court.

[Caitsidhe]

I think the distinction is between space marines and Space Marines.

Perhaps and perhaps not. I think it is an overreach personally. They have specific names they have created for their setting without trying to claim rights to what is essentially a generic term which has been around since the birth of the modern SciFi in the 1950s. While it is perfectly acceptable for the creators of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to claim rights to "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" they can't claim the term "Vampire Slayer" anymore than someone could claim "Dragon Slayer" or should be able to claim "Space Marine."

[Pendragon38]

I think the distinction is between space marines and Space Marines.
Now if this indi writer went with Adeptus Astartes or Imperial Space Marines then that would be a problem then. But not Space Marines for say.

[Psychosplodge]

The last time this came up didn't somebody suggest that hasbro or whoever merchandisers Alien includes a "Space Marine is a trademark GW" in the small print on the box, and that covered it?

[Caitsidhe]

The last time this came up didn't somebody suggest that hasbro or whoever merchandisers Alien includes a "Space Marine is a trademark GW" in the small print on the box, and that covered it?

I don't know. I wasn't privy to that thread. I would be surprised though since the Alien's franchise uses the term Colonial Marine.

[Renegade]

Seriously, though, this whole 'GW is the devil!!' shtick has to stop. 'Cus if GW is the devil, well then most of youse are a bunch of heathen satanists. :P

And what is wrong with being a Satanist? Is that some kind of hate speech towards a religious minority?

Oi, TDA! You have a responsibility to monitor this kind of thing!

Seriously though, no one can take you IP off you (at least under UK law) so your copy right is protected whether you fight others off it or no. I think GW are just trying to create some clear blue water between their stuff and knock off's, and who can really blame them.

So while this is a bit of an extreme case, the author and GW should come to some arrangement, where GW actually read the content before issuing demands and jump up and down.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't know. I wasn't privy to that thread. I would be surprised though since the Alien's franchise uses the term Colonial Marine.

That's what I thought. I could be mistaken, it happens rarely :D

@Renegade, my understanding was under English (not UK there's at least 3 separate legal systems English/Scottish/N.Irish) you had to protect your IP in all cases not just some.


Whether their IP stretches that far is a different point entirely...

[Renegade]

Nope, under the copy right laws you are protected from the moment you can prove 'originality' of some kind, and it does not matter who else has used it since you created it (it is my understanding that the others are not that different, and other Commonwealth countries use the same original act as a basis). Your rights can expire over time from the original creation (around 75 years), but your IP/copy right cannot not be taken away, or lost, due to non-enforcement.

[Psychosplodge]

On the otherhand trademarks and copyrights are different and it might be that they're arguing over?

[Renegade]

I think the newest act made them covered equally. Technically, every comment here is covered by copy right laws, as is every email and conversation in media format.

"Intellectual property (or IP) refers to creative work which can be treated as an asset or physical property. Intellectual property rights fall principally into four main areas; copyright, trademarks, design rights and patents."

Please see here (http://www.ihaveawebsite-nowwhat.co.uk/copyright/) and here (http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/intellectual_property), particually the introduction of the latter.

However, there is little you can do to prevent someone else creating their own work based on a similar idea as long as they are not copying your work to do so. meaning that the work is covered in its own right.

All the author has to do is prove that her work is different to GW's, and the name does not relate to anything 40K related, this is a 'civil law' procedure not a 'criminal law' one. She should push on, as it sounds like GW would lose.

[Caitsidhe]

They would lose hardcore and I suspect the author could easily get some Pro Bono representation.

[jimmyriddle]

Nope, under the copy right laws you are protected from the moment you can prove 'originality' of some kind, and it does not matter who else has used it since you created it (it is my understanding that the others are not that different, and other Commonwealth countries use the same original act as a basis). Your rights can expire over time from the original creation (around 75 years), but your IP/copy right cannot not be taken away, or lost, due to non-enforcement.

Depending on the material, it is not always 75 years, and if you willingly allow IP infringement then it does allow a way others can also infringe. A company with shareholders has a legal obligation to follow stuff like this up. It is most likely not a case of wanting to crush the book, especially if it is not seen as anything related/similar to GW stuff, but if they let it slide, it sets precedent for others to do the same.

Edit, Also you cannot really blame GW for trying to obtain broad IP coverage, every company does the same in every industry. What people see as 'unfair' should be addressed by the people issuing IP, not applying it. If I wanted to TM the name Jimmy, it would get thrown out and rightly so, if I was granted it then that would be the fault of the issuing body, not myself.

One great example of IP being granted which many consider unfair is naturally occurring genome sequences, which some people have been able to patent. Depending on your views this genomic sequence was created one way or another, certainly not by the company patenting it, but yet it got granted preventing anyone else from using it.

[Renegade]

They would lose hardcore and I suspect the author could easily get some Pro Bono representation.

It's a civil case matter, no legal representation required.

[Renegade]

Depending on the material, it is not always 75 years, and if you willingly allow IP infringement then it does allow a way others can also infringe.

Nope, at least not under the law as it stands in the UK. You cannot lose your Copy Right it can only expire. You can give it away, but it cannot be taken from you or lost, and you can enforce it any time you choose.

I believe that GW has Space Marine trade marked, which is where usage comes in as an issue.

[jimmyriddle]

Nope, at least not under the law as it stands in the UK. You cannot lose your Copy Right it can only expire. You can give it away, but it cannot be taken from you or lost, and you can enforce it any time you choose.

I believe that GW has Space Marine trade marked, which is where usage comes in as an issue.

Maybe art stuff is different to design, but with design IP you do need to be enforcing it. They won't take it away in the sense that the IP still exists, but it is worthless.

[Caitsidhe]

It's a civil case matter, no legal representation required.

We have lawyers who handle Civil cases too and they also work Pro Bono.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Nope, at least not under the law as it stands in the UK. You cannot lose your Copy Right it can only expire. You can give it away, but it cannot be taken from you or lost, and you can enforce it any time you choose.

I believe that GW has Space Marine trade marked, which is where usage comes in as an issue.


I belive they have it trademarked under class 28 which wouldn't cover books anyway.

[Renegade]

We have lawyers who handle Civil cases too and they also work Pro Bono.

But what is the point where one is not needed? This can be handled very quickly, and magistrates tend to frown on big speeches and lots of 'legalese'. If it can't be tied to the 40K universe, then GW hasn't a leg to stand on.

[DarkLink]

Are you kidding? Going to court at all over just about anything is stupidly expensive. Even if you're guaranteed to win, it's still a nightmare to have to deal with.

[Caitsidhe]

What DarkLink said above. Games Workshop is doing this simply because it knows many people can't afford the legal fees and feels that if it does this enough times it will stick. I think the author should fight and ask for donations. I'd give. I also think it is likely that Pro-Bono representation can be found because the situation is so silly that said lawyers can probably recoup legal fees. I personally believe everyone should fight it and let Games Workshop continue to flush money down the toilet until they learn "not to do this stuff." Space Marines existed before them and will exist after them. Them trying to claim they own Space Marines is like the dog who comes and takes a leak on the Empire State Building. No amount of spraying it and barking to draw attention to it will make the dog the owner.

[Renegade]

Are you kidding? Going to court at all over just about anything is stupidly expensive. Even if you're guaranteed to win, it's still a nightmare to have to deal with.

Not Magistrates, and they are the ones that deal with civil cases. See here (http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex050-eng.pdf), it needn't cost the author much more than £25, and then she can get back to selling her book.

*Other fees could raise it, but not significantly.

[Gotthammer]

I interviewed five lawyers and all of them were willing to take the case, but barring the arrival of a lawyer willing to work pro bono, the costs of beginning legal action start at $2000 and climb into the five-figure realm when it becomes a formal lawsuit.

From the author's blog (she's from the US).

[Renegade]

From the author's blog (she's from the US).

The US system seems to price people out! Maybe you should be more concerned with that than GW prices or attempts to cover its IP.

Probably cheaper to fly to the UK and get it done here.

[RGilbert26]

Took this from the comments for the post on main page -


OnboardG1 3 hours ago −

I think I'm going to withhold judgement on this until I hear the other side of the story. The impression I get from careful reading of the source blog post is that Amazon massively overreacted to GWs request for copyright removal (which, under their European 'Space Marine' trademark they're actually entitled to do... although they probably shouldn't) and yanked it world wide.

Read anything Cory Doctorow writes about copyright as carefully as you would read a partisan political blog. He is not the most unbiased of sources on the issue.

[Mr Mystery]

And for a less biaised (either way) view, good old Auntie has this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003) article.

There's also this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7010484.stm) which is a report on Damnatus, without the hysteria, hyperbole and outright lies of the Internets. Interesting read.

[Caitsidhe]

Games Workshop kind of stepped in it. I guess they assumed no one would care about some poor, self-published author doing an E-Book. It doesn't work that way. The ramifications of their actions would cripple fiction writing, requiring every author a nightmare process of trying to research which words could and could not be used without permission, which corporation would want a cut of their book, and to whom they would have to give credit to when it is their "own" work. Authors are not stupid and now that this has gotten press, Games Workshop is boned. The woman will get her funds and the the public relations Games Workshop is going to reap from this is all bad. No one would have said a word (people would have even been supportive) had they moved to protect their unique terms and setting. Instead, they tried to follow in the footsteps of some of the biggest idiots in the United States... like Donald Trump who felt he should have sole rights to "you're fired" or Paris Hilton who believes because she has had 15 minutes of fame and said the phrase "that's hot," that people should have to pay her to say it in the future.

I imagine there is even the potential of a South Park episode being written about the foolishness of Games Workshop here. The South Park people LOVE this kind of stupidity.

[Mr Mystery]

Neatly ignoring that as a Plc, GW has a legal obligation to defend it's IP.

Probably why they picked on the smaller person, looking for a quick favourable judgement to beat the bigger fish with. And people say GW don't know what they're doing....

Seriously, they have to actively defend their IP. Whether you like the way they go about it is immaterial. You're not their share holders!

[Caitsidhe]

Neatly ignoring that as a Plc, GW has a legal obligation to defend it's IP.

Probably why they picked on the smaller person, looking for a quick favourable judgement to beat the bigger fish with. And people say GW don't know what they're doing....

Seriously, they have to actively defend their IP. Whether you like the way they go about it is immaterial. You're not their share holders!

They do have to defend their IP but "space marines" the very notion of marines in space isn't THEIR IP. Their space marines are very clearly defined by the larger setting in which they exist.

*This isn't an attempt to defend their IP; this is an attempt to try and redefine IP so they can claim things which don't (and never did) belong to them.

[Wolfshade]

As Mr Mystery states they have to defend their IP.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

the law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways - and if we do not - we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and table top hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on!

Space Marine is one of GWs trademarks, as can be evident on their website.
Their hands are tied, someone is producing a work that directly references their trademark therefore they have to defend it, as a point of law it can then be found not to derivative work and then be allowed but due process is required.

There is a difference between space marine and Space Marine.

[jimmyriddle]

They do have to defend their IP but "space marines" the very notion of marines in space isn't THEIR IP. Their space marines are very clearly defined by the larger setting in which they exist.

*This isn't an attempt to defend their IP; this is an attempt to try and redefine IP so they can claim things which don't (and never did) belong to them.

Except that by being granted a TM, someone somewhere has said that it is their IP, and so they are entitled to try to defend it.

[Caitsidhe]

As Mr Mystery states they have to defend their IP.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4


Space Marine is one of GWs trademarks, as can be evident on their website.
Their hands are tied, someone is producing a work that directly references their trademark therefore they have to defend it, as a point of law it can then be found not to derivative work and then be allowed but due process is required.

Heh. If you say so (or as in this case Games Workshop says so). If they MUST defend their IP why didn't they choose any of a hundred better known and perhaps closer uses of space marines to their own? :) If they MUST do it then we should be seeing HUNDREDS of lawsuits. They don't have to do anything. I repeat my assertion that they have "stepped in it" and will reap all that they deserve from this newest and stupidest action yet.

[Caitsidhe]

Except that by being granted a TM, someone somewhere has said that it is their IP, and so they are entitled to try to defend it.

A trademark is a symbol which can be registered to represent a company or product. Guess what? Trademark doesn't make words or concepts belong to you. Trademark and copyright are not the same thing. Guess what? There movies, books, and games that have EXACTLY the same name. Each of them was trademarked and yet someone else can make something under the same title. This is because they are different. Games Workshop can trademark the term Space Marines for a particular purpose or product. It does not give them the sole right to the words or ideas. I can't believe you people are actually championing the idea that some corporation has the right to charge you for your own ideas. Let's have some fun with Games Workshop and their "original ideas."

1. Consider Necrons. These are robots (many of whom the models look exactly like Terminators from the movie franchise of the same name). They are robots who "will be back" and repair themselves and keep coming. They often use big laser guns like those in the first movie when we get a glimpse of this dark future where the machines rose up. And the name Necrons? Oddly enough there was a 70s animated film called "Wizards" with a robotic character called Necron-99. He kept coming back too. :) A robot with a laser rifle. I could go on and on.

2. Tyranids. Do I really need to point out who is being ripped off here?

3. Orks?

I'm not going to keep going because Games Workshop are hypocrites. If their own logic were applied to them they would be paying through the nose to other people whose ideas they simply took and packaged. I don't begrudge them the unique twists they put on ideas (many of them good). That belongs to them. They don't get to claim all ideas for the future.

[Wolfshade]

I do agree with you Caitsidhe that this seems to be very far reaching and it is clear that this book is clearly not derivative or passing off.
A quick look on a UK bookseller's website for the term "Space Marine" brings back these results which aren't GW books

The United States Space Marine Corps - Eugene R Hudson (2011)

Print Proceedings of the ASME 2008 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE2008) June 15-20, 2008, Estoril, Portugal: Nick Newman Symposium on Marine Hydrodynamics; Yoshida and Maeda Special Symposium on Ocean Space Utilization; and Special Symposium on Offshore Renewable Energy v. 6 - various (2009)

Space Technologies and Climate Change: Implications for Water Management, Marine Resources, and Maritime Transport - OCED (2008)

The second and third are clearly not Space Marines.
The first are United States Space Marine Corps again clearly not identifing themselves as Space Marines..

[jimmyriddle]

A trademark is a symbol which can be registered to represent a company or product. Guess what? Trademark doesn't make words or concepts belong to you. Trademark and copyright are not the same thing. Guess what? There movies, books, and games that have EXACTLY the same name. Each of them was trademarked and yet someone else can make something under the same title. This is because they are different. Games Workshop can trademark the term Space Marines for a particular purpose or product. It does not give them the sole right to the words or ideas. I can't believe you people are actually championing the idea that some corporation has the right to charge you for your own ideas. Let's have some fun with Games Workshop and their "original ideas."

1. Consider Necrons. These are robots (many of whom the models look exactly like Terminators from the movie franchise of the same name). They are robots who "will be back" and repair themselves and keep coming. They often use big laser guns like those in the first movie when we get a glimpse of this dark future where the machines rose up. And the name Necrons? Oddly enough there was a 70s animated film called "Wizards" with a robotic character called Necron-99. He kept coming back too. :) A robot with a laser rifle. I could go on and on.

2. Tyranids. Do I really need to point out who is being ripped off here?

3. Orks?

I'm not going to keep going because Games Workshop are hypocrites. If their own logic were applied to them they would be paying through the nose to other people whose ideas they simply took and packaged. I don't begrudge them the unique twists they put on ideas (many of them good). That belongs to them. They don't get to claim all ideas for the future.

I'm not saying it's a fair system, but it is the current system and that is how it works.

Also, I'm not saying that GW has/has not infringed anyone else. Ever large company does this, they will chase people when they feel they can, and if people chase them back about other issues then that's up to them. The fact that other people are not claiming against GW is not the fault of GW.

To think that this is GW being any different to any other large company which relies upon IP and protecting its own product is naive. People can shout about it and get their panties in a twist as much as they want, but it's how the world works.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm not saying it's a fair system, but it is the current system and that is how it works.

Actually no. This isn't how the current system works. That is why there is such an uproar about this. Attempting to push one's Trademark in the realm of literature is very new ground indeed. I don't think you understand just how big a leap is being attempted here.


Also, I'm not saying that GW has/has not infringed anyone else. Ever large company does this, they will chase people when they feel they can, and if people chase them back about other issues then that's up to them. The fact that other people are not claiming against GW is not the fault of GW.

This is a rather interesting way of looking at it, but also rather illustrative of the so-called "new" ethics, i.e. anything and everything is ethical if you can get away with it. If other people aren't doing it, that is their own damn fault. :)


To think that this is GW being any different to any other large company which relies upon IP and protecting its own product is naive. People can shout about it and get their panties in a twist as much as they want, but it's how the world works.

Again, this is new ground we are talking about. I think Games Workshop is very different than a lot of companies. And while I didn't have any doubt at all, here is the confirmation:

http://greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/2013/02/space-marine-victory.html

Somebody got their nose rapped smartly with a newspaper.

[jimmyriddle]

Actually no. This isn't how the current system works. That is why there is such an uproar about this. Attempting to push one's Trademark in the realm of literature is very new ground indeed. I don't think you understand just how big a leap is being attempted here.



This is a rather interesting way of looking at it, but also rather illustrative of the so-called "new" ethics, i.e. anything and everything is ethical if you can get away with it. If other people aren't doing it, that is their own damn fault. :)



Again, this is new ground we are talking about. I think Games Workshop is very different than a lot of companies. And while I didn't have any doubt at all, here is the confirmation:

http://greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/2013/02/space-marine-victory.html

Somebody got their nose rapped smartly with a newspaper.

Actually I do understand, as I see this happen all the time, just not with SciFi literature.

Yes, someone most likely has taken a whipping over this, most likely a legal bod thinking they were onto a big bonus and something to prove!

I've not been in the land of GW type stuff for long, but it's certainly not new ethics is other areas of industry, where there are no fans to be upset, just competitors (who it's good to upset ;))

[alshrive]

I see amazon have responded by putting the book back up as available.......

[Learn2Eel]

Legally they have to defend their IP don't they? Hopefully this is resolved quickly in a way that is both convenient and fulfilling for both parties.

[Wolfshade]

Certainly that is how it is interprited, otherwise you are seen as granting an implied licence.
Lest we not forget the famous Warhammer Online forum that was forced to close down because its name was a registered mark.

[Gotthammer]

GW responds (https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=595792240435610) (sort of).


At least they're doing better than Applebees.

[Wildeybeast]

Seems like a reasonable and sensible post, though given all the haters posting underneath you have to wonder why they bother.

[Gotthammer]

If you stand in front of a mirror & say 'Space Marine' 3 times, Games Workshop's lawyers will appear and sue you...



http://youtu.be/WYFd_UYc4II

[Wolfshade]

Sigh, they write Sci-Fi books so any mention of Space Marine you'd expect them to challenge. As I've said before if I see Space Marine in the title of a book I presume that it is in the 40k-verse, similiarly if I saw Star Wars (things that have been around individually since before the written form) I would expect it to be set in George Lucas' universe.

Maybe that is wrong but that is what I think.

Come on, look Avengers Assemble was so called in the UK to avoid confusion with Avengers. You would expect some disambiguation.

[Caitsidhe]

If you stand in front of a mirror & say 'Space Marine' 3 times, Games Workshop's lawyers will appear and sue you...

Freaking priceless. Imagine if the Church of Scientology and Games Workshop merged!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIEX-hRE8LA
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=374are79zis

[DarkLink]

Sigh, they write Sci-Fi books so any mention of Space Marine you'd expect them to challenge. As I've said before if I see Space Marine in the title of a book I presume that it is in the 40k-verse, similiarly if I saw Star Wars (things that have been around individually since before the written form) I would expect it to be set in George Lucas' universe.


Your mistake is twofold. One, 40k isn't nearly as popular nor even remotely close to as well known as Star Wars. The only people who thinks of 40k exclusively whenever they see "Space Marine" are 40k players who think that the Black Library is the pinnacle of literary achievement. Secondly, no one else uses the actual 'Star Wars' term very much, really. Space Marine, however, is all over the place. And considering that the title in question isn't even just "Space Marine" on its own, but that the whole title doesn't sound 40k-like at all, you're really, really, really stretching here, even assuming that the law works exactly like you think it does.

[Wolfshade]

Your mistake is twofold. One, 40k isn't nearly as popular nor even remotely close to as well known as Star Wars. The only people who thinks of 40k exclusively whenever they see "Space Marine" are 40k players who think that the Black Library is the pinnacle of literary achievement. Secondly, no one else uses the actual 'Star Wars' term very much, really. Space Marine, however, is all over the place. And considering that the title in question isn't even just "Space Marine" on its own, but that the whole title doesn't sound 40k-like at all, you're really, really, really stretching here, even assuming that the law works exactly like you think it does.

Sigh, there are several logical fallacies here with my "mistake".

I never made the assertion that 40k was as popular as Star Wars...

I think 40k when I see Space Marine but I do not think BL is the pinnacle of literary achievement. Indeed I have never read a book that mention "Space Marines" or even space marines

I wonder why people do not make books with the term "Star Wars" in the title, is this because they already know of the lucas franchise and so or they are prevented from releasing them because of lawyer intervention.

Just because a mark is not widely known there is no reason to use it inappropriately.

[gendoikari87]

Sigh, they write Sci-Fi books so any mention of Space Marine you'd expect them to challenge. As I've said before if I see Space Marine in the title of a book I presume that it is in the 40k-verse, similiarly if I saw Star Wars (things that have been around individually since before the written form) I would expect it to be set in George Lucas' universe.

Maybe that is wrong but that is what I think.

Come on, look Avengers Assemble was so called in the UK to avoid confusion with Avengers. You would expect some disambiguation.

Call me crazy but if I saw space marine in the title of a book and it wasn't written in the traditional gothic script i'd assume the book was going to be about power armor wielding space marines fighting giant bugs AND assume it had nothing to do with warhammer 40k.

For those not in the new check out starship troopers by Heinlein

[Anakzar]

My guess is she will sell a few more books due to this whole mess ;)

[Kirsten]

the fact is that the vast majority of you commenting will have no legal expertise or background whatsoever. you haven't got a clue what you are tlking about but you condemn GW for their actions. I have no legal background, I don't know what I am talking about, so I will leave it to GW. Eight pages of people going 'omg GW are so evil and deserve to lose' is just ludicrous.

I do not agree as it happens that space marine is a particularly generic term. It was used in books in the 30s and 50s certainly, maybe they could have/should have copyrighted the term then, who knows. Referring to Halo is a waste of time because that comes a long time after 40k, Yahtzee refers to a number of video game archetypes as 'space marines' and he has an established knowledge of 40k and references it. 40k is pretty widely known in gaming circles, tabletop, video, and otherwise, so it is not unreasonable to claim that describing characters in the last twenty odd years of gaming as a 'space marine' is down to GW and their space marines. Will they/should they win, I have no idea, and don't care, but arm chair lawyering is just silly.

[Kawauso]

Just because people don't have a legal background doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on the matter.

How well-informed one's opinion is certainly helps, of course. But regardless of what side of the issue anyone is on I think this whole thing helps to highlight how truly ridiculous modern copyright laws are.

Copyright laws -should- exist to protect people from outright plagiarism. They should -not- stymie creativity for fear of a lawsuit over something as trivial as the use of a term like 'space marine'. They need to protect both existing IP -and- the creation of new stuff. Big companies -and- creative individuals. At it stands, currently, copyright laws are mostly just an excuse for companies with money to intimidate and bully smaller business or individuals without as much wealth in the name of 'protecting' their IP.

[Gotthammer]

The main issue for me is how they did it - surely it would have been just as much effort to contact the author directly and say "hey, GW here, sorry to say you're infringing on our copyright with the title of your book so could you please change it ASAP?"

"Company politely asks author to change book title (possibly only in UK)" is a much better headline for GW than "Company gets Amazon to take down book by indie author (who donates part of sales to charity) worldwide under dubious circumstances", regardless whether they achieve the same result.

[Mr Mystery]

Assuming the former wasn't attempted.

Not saying it was, but you know what they about assumption.

[Kawauso]

I don't care how they did it, really.

For me the notion that a book titled 'Spots the Space Marine' somehow infringes on GW's copyrights is a clear example of how bat****-crazy copyright laws can be, and why they need to change. If the book were titled 'Spots the Adeptus Astartes', I wouldn't have a problem with it; Adeptus Astartes is not a generic term, and it is something unique to GW's IP. Space Marine though, really? No one else can use that in, like this example, the title of a book? That's nonsense, and if the laws support that, they need to change.

[Verilance]

Who does GW think they are?!! Disney?!!! lol

[Gotthammer]

Assuming the former wasn't attempted.

Not saying it was, but you know what they about assumption.


Hogarth has said that the first she knew of it was when Amazon sent her an email informing her of the take down. When contacted about it Amazon told her to talk to GW, and Hogarth says GW were unresponsive. Given their general no communication policy about most things and other cases of sending out C&D letters rather than communicating like normal people, I'm inclined to believe her.

[Renegade]

Hogarth has said that the first she knew of it was when Amazon sent her an email informing her of the take down. When contacted about it Amazon told her to talk to GW, and Hogarth says GW were unresponsive. Given their general no communication policy about most things and other cases of sending out C&D letters rather than communicating like normal people, I'm inclined to believe her.

Either way, all GW have done is acted in a way they believe is in the interest of their shareholders, they have not broken any rules.

Either way, this has gotten silly.

GW could have gone about this another way, it was a bit OTT, but they are they ones with a Trade Mark. Whether or not they should have it is neither here nor there, they do have it.

[gendoikari87]

Either way, all GW have done is acted in a way they believe is in the interest of their shareholders, they have not broken any rules.

Either way, this has gotten silly.

GW could have gone about this another way, it was a bit OTT, but they are they ones with a Trade Mark. Whether or not they should have it is neither here nor there, they do have it.
Funny thing about acting in the interest of the shareholders, it is often detrimental to non shareholders.

[Mr Mystery]

Funny thing there, is that the company is run for the benefit of shareholders.

Relatively simple concept, I'm sure you'll agree.

If it's not to your taste, then perhaps you may wish to emigrate to a communist country, or one where capitalism is otherwise frowned upon? Because, you know, that's the way it is in the free market economy....

[daboarder]

the fact is that the vast majority of you commenting will have no legal expertise or background whatsoever. you haven't got a clue what you are tlking about but you condemn GW for their actions. I have no legal background, I don't know what I am talking about, so I will leave it to GW. Eight pages of people going 'omg GW are so evil and deserve to lose' is just ludicrous.

I do not agree as it happens that space marine is a particularly generic term. It was used in books in the 30s and 50s certainly, maybe they could have/should have copyrighted the term then, who knows. Referring to Halo is a waste of time because that comes a long time after 40k, Yahtzee refers to a number of video game archetypes as 'space marines' and he has an established knowledge of 40k and references it. 40k is pretty widely known in gaming circles, tabletop, video, and otherwise, so it is not unreasonable to claim that describing characters in the last twenty odd years of gaming as a 'space marine' is down to GW and their space marines. Will they/should they win, I have no idea, and don't care, but arm chair lawyering is just silly.

THANK GOD, someone with brains!

It's kind of irritating that people are so willing to believe "some dude on the internet" at the drop of a hat. Here's a couple of things you guys should actually do, read the book, realise how similar to GW material it actually is, think of the number of sales its clocked recently and notice that the price of this book has doubled overnight....

Of course GW is the one who wants all your money, the other party just wants the world to be kittens and gumdrops....I have a bridge to sell would you like to buy it?

[gendoikari87]

Funny thing there, is that the company is run for the benefit of shareholders.

Relatively simple concept, I'm sure you'll agree.

If it's not to your taste, then perhaps you may wish to emigrate to a communist country, or one where capitalism is otherwise frowned upon? Because, you know, that's the way it is in the free market economy....

If you would gladly name a communist country I'd love to move there.

[daboarder]

Cuba, best healthcare in the world

[Wolfshade]

Referring to Halo is a waste of time because that comes a long time after 40k,

Of course the other issue is that the main character in Halo isn't a space marine. The title of Master Chief is a Naval term, not a marine term, Sergeant Major would be the marine term...

[RGilbert26]

Even then there are no Sergeant Majors in Space Marine Chapters :P

[Mr Mystery]

China? It's pretty enormous as well.

Bit strict on censorship, and shonky record on things like human rights, but defo commie!

[Wolfshade]

Even then there are no Sergeant Majors in Space Marine Chapters :P

Nope, but then their aren't Chapter Masters in marines,

[daboarder]

China is not economically communist anymore though, hasn't been since tianamen

[gendoikari87]

Cuba, best healthcare in the world

Sadly not communist. Neither is Norway, sweeden, vietnam, north korea, venezuela, or any other country you can name past or present.

[daboarder]

Sadly not communist. Neither is Norway, sweeden, vietnam, north korea, venezuela, or any other country you can name past or present.

Sigh...dream land calls, it wants you back, in the mean time the rest of us live in the real world.

[Caitsidhe]

The issue is one of an attempt to expand Trademark into the realm of Copyright. Games Workshop figured that since they now had an E-Book that they had sole domain of the use of the words "space marine." It doesn't work that way. If they want to try and apply that in an actual court of law, let them go for it. I look forward to watching that debacle with great amusement. They can add wasted money to bad public relations to this ridiculous move.

Games Workshop has EVERY RIGHT to say we apply the Trademark to the "Space Marines" series of books. Trademark applies identifying a specific sort of product, but not to titles of books, characters within, and so on. I could right a book titled "Star Wars" if I wanted to do so. The key would be that my book would have to be VERY DIFFERENT from the setting George Lucas made famous. I can (and now I'm contemplating) writing one called Space Marines and there isn't a damn thing Games Workshop or anyone else can do about it as long as the story is unique and my own. Copyright applies.

[crartist24]

I so want to see the Heinlein family sue the crap outta games workshop most of their armies are stolen directly from star ship troopers. The ip that games workshop owns is not directly infringed upon by sci fi novels if it were then other sci fi writers wouldn't be able to reprint there books that have been written since the 1920's. This was a bone head move by games workshop personally as a free lance writer and artist I will choose to support my fellow creators and will not buy gw products until a proper sorry is issued. I am not calling for a full scale ban of gw this is my personal decision to vote with my pocket book.

[Mr Mystery]

Funny. As a freelance writer and artist I'd have thought you'd be acquainted with the need to defend your works, as GW are doing?

As for expanding their IP? Sounds like a shrewd business move, and one any given business worth it's salt would take.

Again, not one of us here are particularly well versed in IP law. As I and others have pointed out, GW are obliged to take action here. Whether they're being heavy handed or not we simply aren't informed enough to say with anything even dimly resembling certainty. However I am confident in saying GW's legal team know way more than anyone discussing this. It's entirely possible IP law means they have to be this heavy handed. But as I said, nobody here actually knows, so all we are left with is speculation!

[Psychosplodge]

If you would gladly name a communist country I'd love to move there.

I don't think any of the attempts have ever really worked...

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I have family in Cuba and I've been able to visit several times and it's great. The people are all universally smart and educated with excellent manners and level of intelligence, and yeah the health care is top-notch.

[scadugenga]

Funny. As a freelance writer and artist I'd have thought you'd be acquainted with the need to defend your works, as GW are doing?

As for expanding their IP? Sounds like a shrewd business move, and one any given business worth it's salt would take.

Again, not one of us here are particularly well versed in IP law. As I and others have pointed out, GW are obliged to take action here. Whether they're being heavy handed or not we simply aren't informed enough to say with anything even dimly resembling certainty. However I am confident in saying GW's legal team know way more than anyone discussing this. It's entirely possible IP law means they have to be this heavy handed. But as I said, nobody here actually knows, so all we are left with is speculation!

Actually the main page article, including GW's canned response, clearly shows they were in the wrong, and knew it.

[Denzark]

1. 'Spots the Space Marine' sounds shoit. Even if they were a USMC style, aliens-esque marines in space type of thing, no true leatherneck gyrene would allow themselves to be called 'Spots'. I am glad GW did what they did.

2. Everything in the USSR, North Korea, China and Cuba, and Mongolia, are/were commie countries. Anyone who says different is a looney who flings their dung around their own cage.

That is all.

[Mr Mystery]

Actually the main page article, including GW's canned response, clearly shows they were in the wrong, and knew it.

Again, GW do own Space Marine (note the capitalisation, as it's important) in the Eurozone, and according to the BBC website, have done since 1995.

Others can use the term space marine, but not Space Marine in the eurozone.

Beyond that, all we have is largely speculation. Where does GW's obligation to defend their Tradmarks end? Has their current action been overboard? Buggered if we know, we're just plebs on the internets flapping our metaphorical gums.

And let's remember. GW haven't taken any legal action at this stage, according to the main article, so there's a lot of knickers in a twist over precisely nothing. This sort of thing is seemingly really rather common, hence extensive trademark law and international treaties in respect of said laws.

[scadugenga]

Denz, it's currently ranked #16 on a,Aaron's kindle military sci fi list...and apparently about a cookie baking mom who decides to come out of "retirement" to kick alien butt. I'd gather its more lighthearted than serious. Also has great ratings on amazon before this debacle.

Mr. M: they own squat in terms of literary trademarks for the term. Their "apology" clearly states this. Why are you continuing to fight this when they've acknowledged they were wrong?

[Mr Mystery]

Your grasp is even more flawed than my own.

They haven't said owt about being wrong. They stated, quite accurately, that they are obliged to defend their trademarks and IP. Funnily enough, Squat is another one they own..... Regardless of what you choose to believe, they do own Space Marine within at least the EU, and use it outside. Said book was on sale within the EU. Therefore, regardless of the authors intent, it was infringing on GW's trademark.

See. Facts are fun!

[Chris Copeland]

I'm a Marine. I paid my dues and served my time in the Corps. I am proud of this. Some day the Marines will be in space. The Navy will be in space. The Army will be in space. The Air Force already is looking forward to those days. The day of the real Space Marine is just around the corner.

Science fiction writers always knew this was coming and have long used Space Marines in their works. The Marines in the movie Aliens are some of my favorites. The Space Marines in the book the Legion of the Damned are also high on my list (that book deals with Space Legionnaires but they end up coming to blows with Space Marines). The term Space Marines predates anything that GW came up with by a wide margin. They existed in literature and our collective imaginations long before Adeptes Astartes were ever thought of. It seems singularly silly to me that GW could ever own such a generic term.

I like GW. I like the background they've created and the games they make. However, I HOPE that they LOSE and LOSE BIG when it comes to owning the term "Space Marines." I'm with Cathsidhe on this one: I'm tempted to write a story about Space Marines (projecting my own experiences in the Marine Corps into the near future) and publish a short story or novella using Space Marine as a title. They don't own this any more than they own imperium, galactic empire, Emperor, space ship, chaos, or eldar. I'd LOVE to see them defend this in a court of law. Cheers and Semper Fi! Cope

[Mr Mystery]

Oh, you mean the colonial marines from Aliens?

GW first used (at least to my limited knowledge) Space Marine (again, since many are struggling, the capitalisation is key here) in a book title. Issue isn't the someone described someone in a book as a space marine, but that Space Marine has been used in a books title.

This really is pretty straight forward stuff.

[Wolfshade]

I'm a Marine. I paid my dues and served my time in the Corps. I am proud of this. Some day the Marines will be in space. The Navy will be in space. The Army will be in space. The Air Force already is looking forward to those days. The day of the real Space Marine is just around the corner.
I hope that we don't, I hope that space never needs a military presence.

It seems singularly silly to me that GW could ever own such a generic term.
It may seem silly, but they do, it is their registered trademark, even in its use for Christmas tree decorations...

[Chris Copeland]

Well, I hope they eventually lose in a court of law... it is a generic term and they shouldn't own it. Cheers.

[Wolfshade]

They don't own the generic concept, they do own the name Space Marine, which is a subtle difference.
If imagine I was able to register Bleach as a mark of trade then although other products may be bleach they wouldn't be able to sell their product as Bleach. Now, in reality, I very much doubt that you could register it as a mark, but this is what we are talking about.

[Mr Mystery]

Assuming it's even going to court.

Article mentions lawyers, but we don't know the jurisdiction it would be under. If it's US? Problematic I guess, but not insurmountable. If it's EU? Open and shut on account they've had the trademark for nearly 18 years already....

It's like Whisky and Whiskey. One is a general term for malt spirits. The other means it has be distilled in Scotland. Again, at least in the EU. Is it daft? I don't think so, but that's matter for the individual to decide. The rest of it is law.

[Chris Copeland]

There was a story with the TITLE Captain Brink of the Space Marines that was published in 1932... title or concept, GW is not new to this old and generic term. As a Marine (myself) I am offended that they claim ownership over this and hope they lose. I am as big a phanboi as you will find when it comes to GW but they shouldn't claim they own this... Cope

[Mr Mystery]

And it would seem that it wasn't trademarked then, or wasn't defended. Ergo, said author's estate would no longer control it...

And again, the method is open to question, and none of us really know enough to exert authority, but the motivation is a matter of legal obligation.

[daboarder]

And it would seem that it wasn't trademarked then, or wasn't defended. Ergo, said author's estate would no longer control it...

And again, the method is open to question, and none of us really know enough to exert authority, but the motivation is a matter of legal obligation.

Let it drop Mystery, they're all indignant because they do not really understand capitalism and as such they will disagree with anything anyone can possibly say, its just another stupid uninformed internet mob. KONY2012 on a smaller sale basically, it will die, dissipate and the masses will find another righteous cause to throw their voice behind for the fleeting moments that it holds their attentions.

[Wolfshade]

But the author of the book did not have it is a registered mark, also unless the there are subsequent works any copyright will have expired by now.
The inventor of an item might not decide to register its name.

As a Marine are you offended by the Union Tobacco & Cigarette Industries owning the term Marine in Jordan?

[Chris Copeland]

I hope that common sense eventually prevails and corporations are disallowed from owning such generic terms. I am as big a fan of GW as you'll ever find and I think they've overreached and are trying to expand their rights outside of what is right and acceptable. What if I wanted to own the term "catsup" and found that no one had ever gone through the steps to own that word? Would I be right? No. I'd be wrong. Catsup is a generic word that cannot belong to anyone.

I'm a Marine. Soon my 21st century brethren will be serving in space. They will be real world Space Marines. I am offended by GW's overreach here. Sci Fi writers have long referenced Space Marines. I'll grant that GW owns the term when it comes to tabletop wargames... but little else. I want them to lose. I am offended that they are trying to own something so generic. I hope they are soundly defeated in a court of law in regards to this matter. Cheers.

[Chris Copeland]

As a Marine are you offended by the Union Tobacco & Cigarette Industries owning the term Marine in Jordan?

No. There is no confusion there. "Marine" is an English word with many uses... Cope

[Chris Copeland]

... they're all indignant because they do not really understand capitalism and as such they will disagree with anything anyone can possibly say...

Wrong and asinine.

[Wolfshade]

I would point out that you were a marine in the USMC. Since marine is the generic term. If the US puts a marine in space and they have a specialised space division those marines will be Unites States Space Marine Corps (one would imagine).

Once again it is the proper noun where the issue lies...

[Chris Copeland]

Eh... we'll see. We've all stated where we are coming from on this one. I hope it comes to a head and that GW (one of my favorite companies in the world) gets smacked down. It's one thing to claim that you own something unique that you've created (Adeptes Astartes, Mickey Mouse, Spongebob Squarepants) and it's another to claim ownership over basic bits of the English language (catsup, Space Marines, space ships, highways, Alien Invaders). I am neither some kind of anti-capitalist nor anarchist. I simply am offended by corporations trying to usurp and own our language... you can't own the terms orcs, n@zis, eldar, bugbears, or Martians (because all predate whatever you've created)... the same must apply to Space Marines. If I'm wrong then I hope it all gets sorted out in an American court of law right quick. Cheers.

[Chris Copeland]

I would point out that you were a marine in the USMC. Since marine is the generic term. If the US puts a marine in space and they have a specialised space division those marines will be Unites States Space Marine Corps (one would imagine).

Once again it is the proper noun where the issue lies... Wolf, we all know that the popular vernacular "Space Marine" will come into play. The English language has a way of steamrolling over silly corporate pretensions... Space Marines, as an idea, predate GW and Space Marines will be used by the populace when that day comes... GW is just trying to expand it's IP beyond what is reasonable and they need to be smacked down for it (in my humble opinion)... Cheers! Cope

[daboarder]

Wrong and asinine.

Sorry Chris but I'm not sure where I read Chris Copeland in that sentence....could you point it out for me? OR do you have a guilty conscience or something?

[Chris Copeland]

Sorry Chris but I'm not sure where I read Chris Copeland in that sentence....could you point it out for me? OR do you have a guilty conscience or something?

Sorry, Daboarder. I overreacted. I shouldn't have. I was on my way back to edit my post to be more reasonable but you saw my post first. Please accept my apology. I will do my best to carry on this conversation in a reasonable manner. Cope

[Chris Copeland]

I truly am sorry. I want to be a reasonable and pleasant person and need to remember that even when I am on the interwebz. Sorry about that.

[gendoikari87]

Sigh...dream land calls, it wants you back, in the mean time the rest of us live in the real world.

Ignorance, it's not pretty, Tell me has anyone here actually read the communist manifesto? what about Das Kapital?

If not, then you need to STFU. About anything even closely related to economics. Hearing only one side of an issue is a clear sign of ignorance, and it's clear that none of you have even attempted a read through.

[daboarder]

Eh, its overrated!

Makes a big point about humanities history being a story of class struggles and completely ignores that human nature is what gives rise to those classes. While it suggest wonderfully Idealistic ideas it just doesn't work in practice and the last 100 years prove it.

[scadugenga]

Your grasp is even more flawed than my own.

They haven't said owt about being wrong. They stated, quite accurately, that they are obliged to defend their trademarks and IP. Funnily enough, Squat is another one they own..... Regardless of what you choose to believe, they do own Space Marine within at least the EU, and use it outside. Said book was on sale within the EU. Therefore, regardless of the authors intent, it was infringing on GW's trademark.

See. Facts are fun!

Incorrect...yet again.

You cannot trademark a work of literary fiction. It's not something that's even remotely covered under the basic definition of a trademark. To whit, here: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf Here's the cliff notes version:

Do trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect the same things?
No. Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A
trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright
protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention.

So 1) GW was in error with the order, since by definition, there was no trademark infringment. and 2) GW understood this in their press release--quoted hereunto:

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.

They tried to pull this stunt using trademark law, which their legal team should have damn well known was in error. They have no recourse under copyright law, as Ms. Hogarth's work has nothing to do whatsoever GW's IP. And no, the words "space marine" is not even remotely considered an IP. Now the image of a GW space marine--that's a different story. As is their fictive background (no matter how crudely, (if entertaining) they stole from several different creators) also a viable IP. And they're not in violation of patent law because, well, that's a law that covers actual things, and not concepts, names, or literary works.

To take this one step further---I'll even give you a real world example of how trademarks to not apply to literary (and gasp, even motion picture) works: In 1995, there was a movie released, titled "The Hunted" with Christopher Lambert, John Lone & Yoshio Harada. (If you're a fan of the genre--it's a fun watch.) In 2003, just 8 short years later, another movie came out titled "The Hunted" this time with Benicio Del Toro and Tommy Lee Jones. (Also a very good watch, with some spectacular choreography). Both movies had as the antagonist, an assassin who was tired of the life. Both of them used primarily bladed weapons. But...wait for it...there was no IP infringement! How, you say? Because you can't trademark the substance of either movie, even the name!

Now please, for the love of all that's holy, if you still believe otherwise--please do not post about this further until you have you own legal material to back up your claims. And make sure to post the sources.

[Caitsidhe]

To take this one step further---I'll even give you a real world example of how trademarks to not apply to literary (and gasp, even motion picture) works: In 1995, there was a movie released, titled "The Hunted" with Christopher Lambert, John Lone & Yoshio Harada. (If you're a fan of the genre--it's a fun watch.) In 2003, just 8 short years later, another movie came out titled "The Hunted" this time with Benicio Del Toro and Tommy Lee Jones. (Also a very good watch, with some spectacular choreography). Both movies had as the antagonist, an assassin who was tired of the life. Both of them used primarily bladed weapons. But...wait for it...there was no IP infringement! How, you say? Because you can't trademark the substance of either movie, even the name!

Now please, for the love of all that's holy, if you still believe otherwise--please do not post about this further until you have you own legal material to back up your claims. And make sure to post the sources.

Excellent examples.

[Wolfshade]

Incorrect...yet again.

You cannot trademark a work of literary fiction. It's not something that's even remotely covered under the basic definition of a trademark. To whit, here: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf Here's the cliff notes version:

Do trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect the same things?
No. Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A
trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright
protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention.

So 1) GW was in error with the order, since by definition, there was no trademark infringment. and 2) GW understood this in their press release--quoted hereunto:

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.

No one is suggesting anywhere that GW are trying to trade mark a book, if that is what you are thinking then you are mistaken.


They tried to pull this stunt using trademark law, which their legal team should have damn well known was in error. They have no recourse under copyright law, as Ms. Hogarth's work has nothing to do whatsoever GW's IP. And no, the words "space marine" is not even remotely considered an IP. Now the image of a GW space marine--that's a different story. As is their fictive background (no matter how crudely, (if entertaining) they stole from several different creators) also a viable IP. And they're not in violation of patent law because, well, that's a law that covers actual things, and not concepts, names, or literary works.

The action GW are taking is with unlicenced use of their registered mark of trade (or registered trademark if you prefer) under the specific term "Space Marine". This is Space Marine with captials used as a proper noun, rather than space marine used as adjective noun. GW are entitled to challenge any use of any of their registered marks of trade that are unlicenced. Any and all unlicenced use of their registered mark could lead to a dilution of the brand and an undermining of their value.

Your example is quite right but in this case irrelevant. If I were to release a book with the term "Scotch Tape" whether it was about the sticky tape or a murder mystery set in the highlands where the only evidence is in the form of a tape I would expect to be asked to change the name so as to not cause confusion with the "popular" brand of sticky tape. Indeed this is quite a weak argument in this case as I doubt the Scotch Tape is a registered trademark when it comes to written works.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Moved to the Oubliette, because once again, it has turned into a petty little bickering fest.

[Psychosplodge]

Moved to the Oubliette, because once again, it has turned into a petty little bickering fest.

That's it lower the tone. We have a better standard of discussion down here.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

That's it lower the tone. We have a better standard of discussion down here.

I know. :(

[Wolfshade]

That's it lower the tone. We have a better standard of discussion down here.


Does this mean that the topic will now include ponys?

[Psychosplodge]

Does this mean that the topic will now include ponys?

I suppose I could raise the tone...

http://www.deviantart.com/download/259161789/mlp_fim_luna_woona_by_atticus83-d4aaqil.png

[Caitsidhe]

No one is suggesting anywhere that GW are trying to trade mark a book, if that is what you are thinking then you are mistaken.

Actually... I and several others here and elsewhere have made the statement that we think that Games Workshop was attempting to use Trademarks in a way to control books. This is tantamount to the same thing as trying to Trademark a book. Either they are ignorant of the law (which I doubt) or they were attempting to game the system and inappropriately use their weight to get their way.


The action GW are taking is with unlicenced use of their registered mark of trade (or registered trademark if you prefer) under the specific term "Space Marine". This is Space Marine with captials used as a proper noun, rather than space marine used as adjective noun. GW are entitled to challenge any use of any of their registered marks of trade that are unlicenced. Any and all unlicenced use of their registered mark could lead to a dilution of the brand and an undermining of their value.

Except, they didn't take legal action. They still haven't. Why is that? :) They did, in fact, go out of their way in their press release to backpedal like hell saying the opposite of what they sent to Amazon that got the book pulled in the first place. More to the point, why this particular author? Why didn't Games Workshop go after a big fish if they MUST defend their IP? :) If what you say is true, we should now see the formal case launched in the legal arena. Their threat, after all, to Amazon indicates that is what we would see if it wasn't pulled. When do you expect the case to be filed? :)


Your example is quite right but in this case irrelevant. If I were to release a book with the term "Scotch Tape" whether it was about the sticky tape or a murder mystery set in the highlands where the only evidence is in the form of a tape I would expect to be asked to change the name so as to not cause confusion with the "popular" brand of sticky tape. Indeed this is quite a weak argument in this case as I doubt the Scotch Tape is a registered trademark when it comes to written works.

If you expect that you would be wrong. You can, indeed, release a book of that name. I don't even think the company that owns Scotch Tape would ask you either, even if they had a Trademark. This has been covered many times now, but it bears repeating; TRADEMARK doesn't apply to works of art and fiction in the way you are suggesting. You cannot Trademark ideas. You can only Trademark a particular image/look/presentation for an identifiable product. Hence, the words "Star Wars" presented in a specific LOGO can be Trademarked, but the words cannot.

[Wolfshade]

Of course they were trying to control the book as it was in their opinion an unlicensed use of their mark of trade, but made no claims over the "whole book"!

I'm sure a letter from a lawyer is legal action. Cease and Desist letters are legal action. You do not need to engage with someone in a court or sue them to have a "legal action". Not everwhere is so litigus, in the UK most concerns of trademark violation are mediated outside of a court. It is very narrow minded to think legal action = law suit.

Scotch Tape is the brand, it is not the name of the object. Any use of their register mark of trade they are duely entitled to challenge. The challenge will be once again against the name of the product and not what the product is.
I have never suggested that trademarks extend to entire works or even parital works. In fact I have been quite strenous to point out that this is a fallacy!


No one is suggesting anywhere that GW are trying to trade mark a book, if that is what you are thinking then you are mistaken.


Trademarks can be both the word in question and the particular presentation of it. Indeed a particular representation could even be a copyright but I digress.

Allow me to quote from Nike's website:

All brand names, product names and titles used on the website are trademarks or trade names of Nike or third party trade mark or trade name holders. You are not allowed to use of reproduce any such trade marks or trade names as this may constitute an infringement of the holders' rights.

Certainly Nike seem to think that they control their trademarks...

Sigh. I am weary of this argument.

[Mr Mystery]

And let's just wind this back a bit....

GW are not trying to claim ownership of this other book. The bone of contention is the use of Space Marine in it's title. GW claim this is their trademark, and as far as the Eurozone is concerned, they are entirely factually accurate in this claim, and this has been the case since 1995.

We know the author has been in touch with GW and their lawyers and that. What we do not know is what has occurred within those conversations, hence my earlier point about jurisdiction. If this is the author trying to get her book released (not sure of wording to be fair) in the Eurozone, well she's utterly stuffed. Trademark is nailed down. This is an entirely different kettle of fish from the US situation.

What is common law trademark? I have absolutely no idea.

GW have not issued a statement saying they are wrong. At all. That's reading between the lines and into a totally different letter. They have stated why they are doing it, and that statement is factually accurate. They own Space Marine (again note the capitals...) as a trademark in the UK and Europe, therefore they have an obligation to defend this, and challenge uses which they consider to be infringing.

Leaving the issue alone, for whatever reason, is simply not an option for them here. GW are their IP. Take that away and there's precious little left of the company worth two hoots.

[Caitsidhe]

Of course they were trying to control the book as it was in their opinion an unlicensed use of their mark of trade, but made no claims over the "whole book"!'

So you feel the cease in desist was made in good faith, and that they now intend to follow up in court? For if they made the threat without a genuine intention to make good on said threat, they have opened themselves up for legal action against them. By your argument (and please note that I'm not trying to be snide) you seem to infer that you feel that their intentions were pure. Fair enough. That means you and I should see something in court now that the book is back up?


I'm sure a letter from a lawyer is legal action. Cease and Desist letters are legal action. You do not need to engage with someone in a court or sue them to have a "legal action". Not everwhere is so litigus, in the UK most concerns of trademark violation are mediated outside of a court. It is very narrow minded to think legal action = law suit.

Fair enough. I'm an American and we often think of such things as the letter as "foreplay," with court being the main event. I will gladly cede you the point that this is in fact a legal step. This of course begs the question of when we will see the next step now that the letter has failed. Either they will follow through or they will not. If they don't follow through, what does that say about their intent?


Scotch Tape is the brand, it is not the name of the object. Any use of their register mark of trade they are duely entitled to challenge. The challenge will be once again against the name of the product and not what the product is.
I have never suggested that trademarks extend to entire works or even parital works. In fact I have been quite strenous to point out that this is a fallacy!

The problem is that you are still all over the map. I can write a book, make a film, or do a painting using the words Scotch Tape all I want. Hell, as a painter I could paint a picture of actual Scotch Tape and there isn't much they can do about it. Can they say "don't do that?" Sure. Can they stop me? No. Saying they have the right to challenge is a bit of a reach as far as a point goes because ANYONE can sue ANYONE over ANYTHING at ANYTIME. That is how the legal system works. You can always try. That doesn't mean you actually have a case. As a member of one of the most "sue-happy" people in the world, I assure you that we are quite familiar with the notion that you can be challenged or sued at anytime. We are also quite familiar with the concept of unethical or frivolous lawsuits for the purpose of bullying and/or getting one's way. That is what happened here. If that isn't what happened here we should see the case go further. Games Workshop is in an odd position now. Either they follow through and take it to the next step or we know they were never serious in the first place, i.e. that they were simply attempting to use the threat without the actual intent. It means that author could, if she could afford it, launch legal case back and have a pretty good chance of winning.


Allow me to quote from Nike's website:


Certainly Nike seem to think that they control their trademarks...

Sigh. I am weary of this argument.

I'm sorry you are growing weary of this. Are you suggesting I couldn't write a book called Nike without the shoe company's permission? :) Does anyone using this Greek Goddess in their films, comics, books, or art require the rubber stamp of those that make shoes in China? I'm not trying to be anal here. I'm making a valid point. They only thing anyone would have to go to Nike for is IF they tried to sell shoes and called them Nike brand shoes or IF they tried to use a logo that looks like the Nike logo. Are you trying to claim otherwise?

[Mr Mystery]

Bit more from Auntie for consideration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

[Wolfshade]

Woohoo progress.

We might not see anything in court as previously said most issues are settled in mediation. We are unaware of any of the conversation that is occuring between the different parties. I would imagine that the asking of amazon to take down the book was an initial defence to protect their trademark till it was determined what exactly was going on. In the same way Apple and Samsung have had their products variously blocked around the world on alleged claims of infringement. Indeed for all we know the parties may have come to an agreement with regard to this and so resolved be back available. Amazon might have decided not to act on this request, after all it was a request and not a mandate.

In a painting it would be very hard to distinguish Scotch tape from any other form of sticky tape such as sellotape for instance. If the image of the packaging was included in your picture then how it was composed would determine whether or not it violated their copyright (as you would have to include their logo to distinguish it).

England & Wales law differs markedly from American law in this respect. If you paint a picture of a Space Marine for example, GW are able to claim rights to your representation of a Space Marine, the background and other details would remain yours. The Space Marine would be a derivative work from which GW holds the original IP/Copyright therefore despite you having painted it it would not be yours and if you sold said image you would be in violation of the commerical use of their brand. Now whether or not they would ever find out is a moot point.

If the term Space Marine was genric, then when the mark was registered there was sufficient time for people to raise objections about it, and if they were valid the mark would never have been granted.

As you can see http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU000278028 the class which Nike own their mark for does not cover any literay function so indeed you could produce books about it. So if you made a Nike Christmas tree decoration Nike could challenge you and then you would need to explain that it is merely a representation of asteriod 307 and so not a use of their trademark.

The ounus is on the person challenged to prove that their use of an identical term is such that it would not lead to confusion and/or is seperate enough.

Let us not forget, New Line Cinema came down hard on the pub The Hobbit (trading for two decades) for their use of their brand.

[gendoikari87]

2. Everything in the USSR, North Korea, China and Cuba, and Mongolia, are/were commie countries. Anyone who says different is a looney who flings their dung around their own cage.

That is all.

Flaunting ignorance is not pretty. Again if you haven't read Das Kapital and The communist manifesto, you need to STFU about communism and what is and isn't communist. And probably all economics as well.

[gendoikari87]

Eh, its overrated!

Makes a big point about humanities history being a story of class struggles and completely ignores that human nature is what gives rise to those classes. While it suggest wonderfully Idealistic ideas it just doesn't work in practice and the last 100 years prove it.

Wrong again bob, if you can show me how in any country ever, they put the means of production fully in the hands of the people, then you can speak, but they haven't and no ones even tried. In the USSR they put it in the hands of the government, which is NOT socialism or communism, it's backdoor fascism. And that's what every country that everyone ever speaks of being "communist" is, fascist under the name "communist.

Furthermore, in order for one to claim the title of communist one must first be a socialist, and have moved past a scarcity based economy. As far as I know, no body has created replicator technology yet so anyone claiming anything as communist, is just being ****ing retarded.

Now, there is one case of socialism, it's not a country, and it's right here in america, it's isthmus engineering, and they're doing just fine.

[eldargal]

In other words, Communism is a load of fanciful nonsense that has been used as justification to kill tens of millions of people since 1917.

[Psychosplodge]

Flaunting ignorance is not pretty. Again if you haven't read Das Kapital and The communist manifesto, you need to STFU about communism and what is and isn't communist. And probably all economics as well.

Just because those that have tried and failed don't meet the utopian ideals of the theory doesn't mean they aren't communist.

Basically it doesn't work.

Democracy doesn't work either, but I can't think of a better method beyond me running things...

[eldargal]

Also both the USSR and China tried to put the means of production in the hands of the workers, particularly with agriculture, and both times it resulted in famine. Turns out when people don't have a profit motive and aren't being ordered about they do a really, really terrible job.

Regardless, Communism doesn't work. I mean when your response to criticism is 'well we haven't got Star Trek replicators yet' I think you need to have a good, hard look at your ideology.:rolleyes:

[Caitsidhe]

We might not see anything in court as previously said most issues are settled in mediation. We are unaware of any of the conversation that is occuring between the different parties. I would imagine that the asking of amazon to take down the book was an initial defence to protect their trademark till it was determined what exactly was going on. In the same way Apple and Samsung have had their products variously blocked around the world on alleged claims of infringement. Indeed for all we know the parties may have come to an agreement with regard to this and so resolved be back available. Amazon might have decided not to act on this request, after all it was a request and not a mandate.

If we accept the Author at her word (and I have no reason not to) there was zero discussion between her and Games Workshop despite her best efforts. They merely ignored her. This means the only discussions that happened were between Games Workshop and Amazon. No change in the situation came until the author, in frustration, got more attention when she appealed for public help and received it. You and I have a different way of looking at things. A "cease and desist" order doesn't sound like a request. :) The law doesn't look at it that way either if there was no real intent to follow up. However, I am willing to consider the fact that Games Workshop might have issued it without bothering to really look into the matter. That is unprofessional and idiotic, but it isn't full of malign intent. In other words, they either acted like idiots or they acted like brutes. I'm not sure which label they prefer. I don't expect to hear anything more about it because I think Games Workshop knows they wouldn't win in court and all they are reaping from this exercise in futility was bad press.


In a painting it would be very hard to distinguish Scotch tape from any other form of sticky tape such as sellotape for instance. If the image of the packaging was included in your picture then how it was composed would determine whether or not it violated their copyright (as you would have to include their logo to distinguish it).

This may be a difference of country. In the United States I can paint a portrait of ACTUAL Scotch Tape right down to the little TM mark indicating a Trademark. Warhol's Soup Can painting is an excellent example of this. The painting is not an infringement on their Copyright or their Trademark. This is because it in no way can be confused with soup, nor was Warhol selling any. I can write a book called Scotch Tape and do fiction or parody as I see fit. The Trademark is not an issue because referencing a real world product or company doesn't impede the Trademark. In the United States, at least, you don't get to own ideas utterly simply by planting a flag on them.


If the term Space Marine was genric, then when the mark was registered there was sufficient time for people to raise objections about it, and if they were valid the mark would never have been granted.

Again, I've been reading up on Trademark in the United Kingdom since I like to know something before I say too much. Your laws and our laws don't seem to differ in any substantial way in regards to the meat and potatoes of this issue. Trademark cannot be applied the way it was attempted here. I think you and I can agree on the substantial issue that the book in question doesn't infringe, has nothing to do with Games Workshop, and Amazon did the right thing in putting it back up. I think you and I can also agree on the fact that it should probably have been researched before it was taken down.

[gendoikari87]

Also both the USSR and China tried to put the means of production in the hands of the workers, particularly with agriculture, and both times it resulted in famine. Turns out when people don't have a profit motive and aren't being ordered about they do a really, really terrible job.

Regardless, Communism doesn't work. I mean when your response to criticism is 'well we haven't got Star Trek replicators yet' I think you need to have a good, hard look at your ideology.:rolleyes:No china put the means of production in the hands of the government. and yes, being as one of the prerequisites for communism is moving past a scarcity based economy, it's a valid criticism to those who know nothing of what they're ****ing talking about, as you clearly do not.

[gendoikari87]

In other words, Communism is a load of fanciful nonsense that has been used as justification to kill tens of millions of people since 1917.

Wrong. That would be fascism parading around as communism. Now yes you can make teh accusation that in attempting to implement a socialist society, you run the risk of instead creating a fascist one, that's fair. But to say socialism doesn't work because of the few ones that turned to fascism is just ****ing ignorance.

[Caitsidhe]

<laughs> I'm not in Kansas anymore am I Toto? I just noticed this thread had been moved in location. I was "this" close to commenting on the weird tangent into the nature of Communism and why I thought it should get its own thread. Down here that doesn't matter I expect. I'm not jumping into that pool of economic and political voodoo. That is way over my head.

[Psychosplodge]

As I said, we have a higher standard of debate down here...

[Wolfshade]

I think we are approaching consensus here Caitsidhe. :eek: (the internet must be broken)

I think we both agree that GWs request to stop the book was done before the content of the book was known.
If the book was a dilution of GW's brand then it would be seen as prudent, as it's not it would be seen as rash or if you prefer brutish.

When attempting to block such things it is often easier to target the service provider (Amazon) rather than content provider. Indeed this is evident in the way that instead of stopping Pirate Bay and closing it down, ISPs in the UK have been told to block access to it. The service provider is often not bothered too much about whether or not the case has merit as the specific custom is not going to effect it's business and so it is the weakest link.

I think the issue is how the term was being used, if you see space marine as adjective noun then it is common usage and so not a trademark issue, the same was I can use 40,000 in normal usage (though that again is owned by GW). However, if you see it as Space Marine as a proper noun then it is no longer common usage and is GW registered trademark. it is a subtle difference I know but the distinction is clear.

Consider the household item the vacuum cleaner. A very famous brand is Hoover and indeed if I spoke of an hoover you would know exactly what I meant, but I could never sell my vacuum cleaner as an hoover.

[Caitsidhe]

I think we are approaching consensus here Caitsidhe. :eek: (the internet must be broken)

Perhaps, but I prefer to believe that people like you and I can engage in a civilized debate (even a passionate one) and actually come to some conclusions and mutual agreement on the points upon which can be agreed upon. Likewise, I like to believe that such people can also agree to disagree when the discussion makes it clear. Far too many people argue just for the sake of argument and thus don't actually care about the search for truth in the debate. I'm glad that you and I don't fall into that grouping.


I think we both agree that GWs request to stop the book was done before the content of the book was known.
If the book was a dilution of GW's brand then it would be seen as prudent, as it's not it would be seen as rash or if you prefer brutish.

I think this is likely, so I will defer and agree to it. The cynical part of me wants to believe that they knew better and were making an aggressive move to try and expand their IP, but in researching "how" Games Workshop and some other companies just use search engines and send "automated" letters, I am convinced they didn't do it on purpose. I think they need to REVIEW that process. I think accuracy is more important than quantity in this case.


When attempting to block such things it is often easier to target the service provider (Amazon) rather than content provider. Indeed this is evident in the way that instead of stopping Pirate Bay and closing it down, ISPs in the UK have been told to block access to it. The service provider is often not bothered too much about whether or not the case has merit as the specific custom is not going to effect it's business and so it is the weakest link.

I think that is how it happened too, and therein lies the problem. Treating EVERYONE as hackers and pirates, assuming guilt and acting as if every artist is a thief is not a good way to run a business nor public relations. While I understand the mentality of going after Amazon, my issue is the lack of context and assumption that I (and everyone else) is by default a thief. If they are going to make the jump into literature and such, they are going to accept that the same process by which they try and look for and stop people from scanning and distributing their books via PDF is not appropriate.


I think the issue is how the term was being used, if you see space marine as adjective noun then it is common usage and so not a trademark issue, the same was I can use 40,000 in normal usage (though that again is owned by GW). However, if you see it as Space Marine as a proper noun then it is no longer common usage and is GW registered trademark. it is a subtle difference I know but the distinction is clear.

I'm not so sure about this part (in our agreement). My reading and understanding of Trademark is that it deals in specifics, not generalities. By my understanding, I can write a book about Space Marines if I want as long as it is clearly not the Space Marines of Games Workshop. In short, the product line is defined by more than a generic name. We would have no argument at all if as... see below...


Consider the household item the vacuum cleaner. A very famous brand is Hoover and indeed if I spoke of an hoover you would know exactly what I meant, but I could never sell my vacuum cleaner as an hoover.

Hoover is a very distinct, i.e. near unique name and applied to vacuum cleaners. This is a strong Trademark and you will get no argument from me about their ability to say, "you can't call your machine a Hoover." The context counts, however, as I could certainly write a book about an evil Hoover that starts killing people (silly as such a story would be) and I would not require their permission. I would probably ask for it to be polite, but in such a flight of fantasy and parody, it is not required.

The issue comes into clarity with the word "cola" which is generic, while coca-cola is not.

[Denzark]

Flaunting ignorance is not pretty. Again if you haven't read Das Kapital and The communist manifesto, you need to STFU about communism and what is and isn't communist. And probably all economics as well.


Really? So there are no good sports commentators who have never played the sport they comment upon? I can't talk about what is an Islamic country becuase I haven't read the Koran? What a stupid argument - I don't need to eat a sh*t sandwich to know it won't taste nice and it will make me vomit.

You are clearly sensitive about this Comrade Gendoikariavisch - are you a red under the bed or bouncing up and down on it with a picture of Comrade Che on your nighty?

[Mr Mystery]

Well this has gone awry!

Me, I've been mucking about with a custom sofa design website....£760ish for a corner sofa/sofa bed combo? Not bad at all!

[Caitsidhe]

Well this has gone awry!

Me, I've been mucking about with a custom sofa design website....£760ish for a corner sofa/sofa bed combo? Not bad at all!

What's the site and do they deliver in the U.S.? :)

[Wolfshade]

Perhaps, but I prefer to believe that people like you and I can engage in a civilized debate (even a passionate one) and actually come to some conclusions and mutual agreement on the points upon which can be agreed upon. Likewise, I like to believe that such people can also agree to disagree when the discussion makes it clear. Far too many people argue just for the sake of argument and thus don't actually care about the search for truth in the debate. I'm glad that you and I don't fall into that grouping.

Yes, too often debates devolve into mud slinging which benefits no one and is detrimental to the commnunity as an whole.




I think that is how it happened too, and therein lies the problem. Treating EVERYONE as hackers and pirates, assuming guilt and acting as if every artist is a thief is not a good way to run a business nor public relations. While I understand the mentality of going after Amazon, my issue is the lack of context and assumption that I (and everyone else) is by default a thief. If they are going to make the jump into literature and such, they are going to accept that the same process by which they try and look for and stop people from scanning and distributing their books via PDF is not appropriate.

I do think that this is a bit strange, especially in context of the shared view of "Innocent until proven guilty". However, it does seem a (worrying) trend that in terms of copyright/patent infringements etc. it is infact guilty until proven innocent and so the burden moves from the accusor to prove that what has been done is illegal but is now the defender to prove that they are innocent, which could end up with a lot of spurious claims that cost individuals their livelihoods as they cannot afford to defend themselves.




I'm not so sure about this part (in our agreement). My reading and understanding of Trademark is that it deals in specifics, not generalities. By my understanding, I can write a book about Space Marines if I want as long as it is clearly not the Space Marines of Games Workshop. In short, the product line is defined by more than a generic name. We would have no argument at all if as... see below...
I agree with this and it is the issue where the registered name and the common name are the same. But I think the reason why this book does cause issue is that it uses the term which is ambigious and could cause confusion. Though realistically, if you know GW you know what their books look like and so it wouldn't cause confusion, the other group probably is unaware of GW or their registered mark so wouldn't cause the confusion otherwise.




Hoover is a very distinct, i.e. near unique name and applied to vacuum cleaners. This is a strong Trademark and you will get no argument from me about their ability to say, "you can't call your machine a Hoover." The context counts, however, as I could certainly write a book about an evil Hoover that starts killing people (silly as such a story would be) and I would not require their permission. I would probably ask for it to be polite, but in such a flight of fantasy and parody, it is not required.

The issue comes into clarity with the world "cola" which is generic, while coca-cola is not.

Certainly, however we must remember in this instance GW does sell books with the word Space Marine in their title. In the examples we have explored the product does not sell books and so the registered mark isn't in place for that specific use.

[Psychosplodge]

Well this has gone awry!

Me, I've been mucking about with a custom sofa design website....£760ish for a corner sofa/sofa bed combo? Not bad at all!

Pics or it didn't happen :D

[Caitsidhe]

Certainly, however we must remember in this instance GW does sell books with the word Space Marine in their title. In the examples we have explored the product does not sell books and so the registered mark isn't in place for that specific use.

Yes but that is their choice, i.e. using generic terms in the industry/setting. They have left the world of toy soldiers now and must accept that they are NOT the big dog. I will agree (as would most of us) that in the world of tabletop gaming, they are whom you think of first in regards to space marines. Beyond their little world (and it is little as much as I hate to say it since I am a denizen) they don't hold that honor. Most people don't know Games Workshop, and would laugh at the idea of people playing with toy soldiers. They know the term "space marine" because of books of science fiction that they have read, movies they have seen, or simple discussion of the military moving into space. In that light, a toy company seems trivial to them and is not unlike the old movie "The Mouse that Roared!"

Let's compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples. There are literally thousands of thousands of books out there with the word dragon in the title. Without a doubt there are many series of books that have a Trademark. Dragonlance would be a good example. Please note the specificity of the name. Consider the specificity of the Trademark. Let's look at another gaming company. The owners of Magic the Gathering AND Dungeons & Dragons is called "Wizards of the Coast." I'm sure they would rather have just called themselves "Wizards." Wisely they considered the weakness or impossibility of such a Trademark.

I can see why Games Workshop might do a double-take and look into a book that has "space marine" in the title, but I don't understand why it went any further than that.

[DrLove42]

My only comment is that there seems to be a lot of Vitriol over this, more so than if any other company had done it.

When Bethesda slapped Mojang over the word "scrolls" in a title there wasn't this much hate. If that happened to any other company other than GW people wouldn't care. People seem to actively be looking for excuses to kick and stab at GW

[Caitsidhe]

My only comment is that there seems to be a lot of Vitriol over this, more so than if any other company had done it.

When Bethesda slapped Mojang over the word "scrolls" in a title there wasn't this much hate. If that happened to any other company other than GW people wouldn't care. People seem to actively be looking for excuses to kick and stab at GW

To the contrary, I would have reacted exactly the same if any company (of any kind) tried to use their Trademark to censor literature in this way. I don't need an excuse to bash Games Workshop. If I don't like someone or something I've never been shy about saying so. :) The famous authors who spoke out don't give a rat's patootie about Games Workshop either. It is the chilling idea that one day all writers would have to spend weeks if not months of research trying to find words they can use without paying some entity and the economic censorship that would create that inspired the passionate reaction.

Let's consider how many terms there are for space and how many for soldier in the common, generic vernacular. It would only take a handful of people/companies planting their flag before nobody could write anything without paying a "toll." :)

[lattd]

What I find so frustrating with this discussion is the amount of people and organizations claiming that GW has not got a trademark on Space marines in terms of books. It seems because people did not find one in America that one hasn't existed in any other country. The fact was a English company with a European wide Trademark on Space marine in various areas since 1996, took action to defend its trademark as required by law so that its shareholders, the key interest of GW, again by law was not negatively impacted.

People just seem extremely offended that a company has acted under its legal requirement, even if the link was on the extreme end.

[Caitsidhe]

What I find so frustrating with this discussion is the amount of people and organizations claiming that GW has not got a trademark on Space marines in terms of books. It seems because people did not find one in America that one hasn't existed in any other country. The fact was a English company with a European wide Trademark on Space marine in various areas since 1996, took action to defend its trademark as required by law so that its shareholders, the key interest of GW, again by law was not negatively impacted.

People just seem extremely offended that a company has acted under its legal requirement, even if the link was on the extreme end.


I don't think anyone is claiming they don't have a Trademark. What people are pointing out is they don't apply the way Games Workshop's attempt implied.

[DrLove42]

See my example still stands. You sya "Space Marine" is common in fiction.

How common would the word "scrolls" be in Fantasy? And yet when Mojang tried to make a game called "scrolls" Bethesda (maker of "The Elder Scrolls") moved to shut them down because they were similar words. Not trademarked. But similar words.

This case is more clear cut than that one was. And that was with American lawyers, not British ones.

[Caitsidhe]

See my example still stands. You sya "Space Marine" is common in fiction.

How common would the word "scrolls" be in Fantasy? And yet when Mojang tried to make a game called "scrolls" Bethesda (maker of "The Elder Scrolls") moved to shut them down because they were similar words. Not trademarked. But similar words.

This case is more clear cut than that one was. And that was with American lawyers, not British ones.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Several things:

1. I never heard of either game so I certainly can't get my hackles up about it if I never hear about it.
2. A video game is a specific product so there is much more leeway for this "possible" Trademark infringement.
3. I agree with you, "scrolls" is way too generic a word to try and cry foul over. I hope they got their butts kicked.

This isn't a case of American versus British. If the situation were reversed, I would be just as vocal about an American company trying to lay claim to certain words, ideas, and so on. So what was the outcome of the scroll silliness?

[lattd]

So when GW has a trademark that covers all paper and cardboard products, eg Books you claim it doesn't work that way?

[Caitsidhe]

So when GW has a trademark that covers all paper and cardboard products, eg Books you claim it doesn't work that way?

Correct. It doesn't. Trademark doesn't work that way which is exactly why Amazon put the book back up when this was pointed out and why Games Workshop did a switch in comment on their Facebook page. Trademark doesn't allow you any kind of monopoly on an ideas or concepts. Trademark is very specific and simply does NOT apply the way they attempted it. Trademarks are Trademarks. Copyrights are Copyrights. Patents are Patents. However, if you think I'm wrong, when do you expect Games Workshop to take this to court formally? If I'm wrong in pointing these things out there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this case not to proceed to court. What is your estimate? Do you think we have days, weeks, or months?

[daboarder]

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Several things:

1. I never heard of either game so I certainly can't get my hackles up about it if I never hear about it.
2. A video game is a specific product so there is much more leeway for this "possible" Trademark infringement.
3. I agree with you, "scrolls" is way too generic a word to try and cry foul over. I hope they got their butts kicked.

This isn't a case of American versus British. If the situation were reversed, I would be just as vocal about an American company trying to lay claim to certain words, ideas, and so on. So what was the outcome of the scroll silliness?

1) You've never heard of the elder scrolls? Morrowind? Oblivion? Skyrim?
2) a video IS a specific product...interestingly enough so is printed media....
3) as he said they we're completely successful because that is how the world works

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Several things:

1. I never heard of either game so I certainly can't get my hackles up about it if I never hear about it.
2. A video game is a specific product so there is much more leeway for this "possible" Trademark infringement.
3. I agree with you, "scrolls" is way too generic a word to try and cry foul over. I hope they got their butts kicked.

This isn't a case of American versus British. If the situation were reversed, I would be just as vocal about an American company trying to lay claim to certain words, ideas, and so on. So what was the outcome of the scroll silliness?

And this is where is step in....

You have NEVER heard of the Elder Scrolls?

Per your 4th point, Bethesda are an American company, Mojang are Swedish, so that statement is invalid. You can't even include British people into that argument...

Also, Mojang as a business are so ridiculously terrible that I have no idea how they can turn a profit over...

[gendoikari87]

Regardless, Communism doesn't work. I mean when your response to criticism is 'well we haven't got Star Trek replicators yet' I think you need to have a good, hard look at your ideology.:rolleyes:
Just wanted to put into perspective how utterly retarded this comment was. It's like saying "capitalism is horrible" if you don't have a free market. It's something integral to the definition.

[gendoikari87]

As I said, we have a higher standard of debate down here...

Internet arguments, real Srs bizness.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Gendo, hush up.

[gendoikari87]

Really? So there are no good sports commentators who have never played the sport they comment upon? I can't talk about what is an Islamic country becuase I haven't read the Koran? What a stupid argument - I don't need to eat a sh*t sandwich to know it won't taste nice and it will make me vomit.

You are clearly sensitive about this Comrade Gendoikariavisch - are you a red under the bed or bouncing up and down on it with a picture of Comrade Che on your nighty?
Wow you're an idiot. Yes if a sports commentator has never played or read or been taught anything about a sport then they shouldn't be commentating on it. you'd be hearing things like "Wow that was a nice 3 point strike from half court there" (which by the way is what you people sound like when you are talking about communism/socialism)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Then he continued... Temporary ban for him.


Let that be a message, Agent isn't nice anymore. Anyone found insulting any other forum member shall be dealt with.


Thread closed.