In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only litigation

[tnjrp]

A fresh update:
http://mcahogarth.org/?p=10638

Somebody over at TMP claimed to have contacted Fantasy Games Unlimted who published a game called <censored in fear of litigation>s back in 1979 and claimed they are planning to release an updated version of their Space Opera line of books: these would presumably include the use of the forbidden term. Reportedly FGU isn't afraid of the big bad company either and also apparently have the trademark of the term "space opera"(!) so that could turn out to be an interesting publication event to watch...

[King Tiger]

I'm not really sure this is true... I think it is just someone looking for a reason to snipe at GW...

It's GW, this level of backwards stupidity has a very very high chance of being true.

[Hildred Castaigne]

I'm fairly certain that among the terms they claim to have a trademark on is "Inquisitor". Now let's see what the Roman Catholic Church would have to say about this

That can't end well for Games Workshop!
Besides, I heard Pope Benedict XVI has had it in for them since they got rid of Bloodbowl.

[former user]

I am not sure if the one to be sued for damages isn't Amazon. They took the book down because GW simply threatened...
two crooks in action here

[No Such Agency]

I am not sure if the one to be sued for damages isn't Amazon. They took the book down because GW simply threatened...
two crooks in action here

That's the real problem as many musicians who've lost Youtube videos etc. have found out.  A baseless copyright claim will result in a corporate distributor pulling the plug on your work just to avoid any hint of liability.  They lose micro amounts of sales, and avoid any possible problem for them.  You lose your entire chance at selling your product.  GW is just doing what their legal dep't recommends, but I doubt their claim would stand up to a proper legal challenge (if anybody could afford to mount one).  "Space Marine" seems descriptively generic, whereas a claim to "Imperial Space Marine" would probably settle out in GW's favour.

[dijit]

"Space Marine" seems descriptively generic, whereas a claim to "Imperial Space Marine" would probably settle out in GW's favour.

To me Imperial Space Marine is still pretty generic. Adeptus Astartes I'd go with, but any combination of ready used words just seems ludicrous.

[Mason]

To me Imperial Space Marine is still pretty generic. Adeptus Astartes I'd go with, but any combination of ready used words just seems ludicrous.

'Games' and 'workshop'?

The already have that combination....

[FramFramson]

What about "Horses'" and "Arses"? 

[Hildred Castaigne]

'Games' and 'workshop'?

The already have that combination....

As always, their claim there is shakey.
Wasn't there the Game Designers' Workshop?

What about "Horses'" and "Arses"? 

Why don't you copyright it?
A few pounds in royalties can't hurt.

[Patrick R]

From what I understand GW made a request to take down the book, claiming they have a trademark on Space Marine.

Now, I'm by no means an expert on trademark law, but there are a few things people do need to understand.  There is a huge difference between copyright and trademark.  Copyright protects works you have made like a book or a movie.  A trademark is a distinctive feature like a name like a brand or a specific term.  You can trademark almost any word or combination of words, this does not at any point imply that GW has used it first, or invented the words, it merely is a legal setup for a descriptive term linked to a product or service that has a particular distinctiveness and exclusivity.  There are however varying degrees of trademark distinctiveness.  If you use common words like Tree or Book, your trademark isn't going to be very distinctive and harder to establish, though some are quite successful in their use like Apple for instance or the famous computer company.  Yes, there is an Apple records and Apple (of i-something fame) had a little disagreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer)  Trademark distinction is important, this is the reason why new cars get all those fancy made up names that have been triple-checked for prior usage, these are very specific and distinctive trademarks and much easier to protect, and this extends to all the weird and fancy product and company names you come across these days.

GW's trademark for Space Marine covers only the figures and games, Black Library has a copyright for publications, but they don't have much trademark muscle in the realm of fiction (a possible oversight, or underestimation at the time)  GW is trying to release ebooks of their novels, so they are trying to clear the field, but they have a wonky claim so what's the possiblity.

1) They are just using standard scare tactics.  Sending C&D's to people who subsequently get scared, don't have the means to go to court over this and just back down.
2) They are sending DMCA's to Amazon in the hope they won't bother to look up how much of a claim GW may have and hope that they side with the bigger dog.  If Amazon doesn't back down, GW could be screwed.
3) But not entirely, since there is a possibility that if it does go to court and they can establish that GW's use of the word Space Marine is widespread and represents a major trademark and should include fiction and novels, they would have a nice juicy precedent in their favour, which is the equivalent of a legal golden bullet and make subsequent cases much easier for GW.

People make the mistake to think that a lot of things are quite obvious and self-evident but this does not apply to the legal system.  A lot of procedures and principles in law are very counter-intuitive (they do make sense in context) so what appears to be bullying is nothing more than "good business" since the law does require people to make sure their own trademark is being properly maintained.  Trademarks can become diluted, where the rule if you don't use it, you lose it applies.  So certain companies may have used the term long before GW, but GW may have a far more solid claim (due to greater active use) than one that has been dormant for a few decades.  But trademark cases invariably boil down to lawyers trying to establish how important one trademark is in comparison to the other, I'll refer you to the Apple vs Samsung cases for good examples of the procedure.

In my personal opinion GW are being heels in this case, trying to use sneaky legal means to extend a trademark oversight, but then again business has nothing to do with fairness, so it's not entirely stupid of them.

[Legion1963]

From what I understand GW made a request to take down the book, claiming they have a trademark on Space Marine.

Now, I'm by no means an expert on trademark law, but there are a few things people do need to understand.  There is a huge difference between copyright and trademark.  Copyright protects works you have made like a book or a movie.  A trademark is a distinctive feature like a name like a brand or a specific term.  You can trademark almost any word or combination of words, this does not at any point imply that GW has used it first, or invented the words, it merely is a legal setup for a descriptive term linked to a product or service that has a particular distinctiveness and exclusivity.  There are however varying degrees of trademark distinctiveness.  If you use common words like Tree or Book, your trademark isn't going to be very distinctive and harder to establish, though some are quite successful in their use like Apple for instance or the famous computer company.  Yes, there is an Apple records and Apple (of i-something fame) had a little disagreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer)  Trademark distinction is important, this is the reason why new cars get all those fancy made up names that have been triple-checked for prior usage, these are very specific and distinctive trademarks and much easier to protect, and this extends to all the weird and fancy product and company names you come across these days.

GW's trademark for Space Marine covers only the figures and games, Black Library has a copyright for publications, but they don't have much trademark muscle in the realm of fiction (a possible oversight, or underestimation at the time)  GW is trying to release ebooks of their novels, so they are trying to clear the field, but they have a wonky claim so what's the possiblity.

1) They are just using standard scare tactics.  Sending C&D's to people who subsequently get scared, don't have the means to go to court over this and just back down.
2) They are sending DMCA's to Amazon in the hope they won't bother to look up how much of a claim GW may have and hope that they side with the bigger dog.  If Amazon doesn't back down, GW could be screwed.
3) But not entirely, since there is a possibility that if it does go to court and they can establish that GW's use of the word Space Marine is widespread and represents a major trademark and should include fiction and novels, they would have a nice juicy precedent in their favour, which is the equivalent of a legal golden bullet and make subsequent cases much easier for GW.

People make the mistake to think that a lot of things are quite obvious and self-evident but this does not apply to the legal system.  A lot of procedures and principles in law are very counter-intuitive (they do make sense in context) so what appears to be bullying is nothing more than "good business" since the law does require people to make sure their own trademark is being properly maintained.  Trademarks can become diluted, where the rule if you don't use it, you lose it applies.  So certain companies may have used the term long before GW, but GW may have a far more solid claim (due to greater active use) than one that has been dormant for a few decades.  But trademark cases invariably boil down to lawyers trying to establish how important one trademark is in comparison to the other, I'll refer you to the Apple vs Samsung cases for good examples of the procedure.

In my personal opinion GW are being heels in this case, trying to use sneaky legal means to extend a trademark oversight, but then again business has nothing to do with fairness, so it's not entirely stupid of them.

Like your self i am not very knowledgeable on these matters. Your explenation reads very......well.....understandable and it makes things clearer. Well at least for me.
As for your last remark, you the nail on the head. Business has nothing to do with fairness. And with GW it is all, and only about business. And nothing is left for the hobby. In my opinion the hobby is about fairness and people granting or wellcome each other to succes.

[HerbyF]

Maybe they are positioning to sell out to a big toy company. A well known gaming rules company here in the USA tried to lay claim to a lot of common fantasy terms used in their games just before they sold them selves to a big publishing company.

[Donpimpom]

That remembers me many years ago when Gary Gygax tried to release a new game, Dangerous Journeys, with the initial name of Dangerous Dimensions until TSR suit him because of the similitude with D&D and because of their fear to loose D&D market.
To me all that looks like someone in the IP dept trying to earn some reputation with their boss.

[FramFramson]

As always, their claim there is shakey.
Wasn't there the Game Designers' Workshop?
Why don't you copyright it?
A few pounds in royalties can't hurt.

 

[Commander Vyper]

I remember when vw usa attempted to copy right the words beetle and bug, then let lose their legal pitbulls on every little vw facing independent garage, workshop, shop and business that used the words in their title.

I really wish we could find a Russian oligarch with the stones and definitely the collateral to turn this round.

Corporate assclowns! !!!