GW response to "copyrighting the term Space marine"

[archimbald]

a statement has appeared on their FB page regarding the incident, it goes as follows.

Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.

To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.

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

.




[url]https://www.facebook.com/notes/games-workshop/games-workshop-and-the-protection-of-our-trademarks/595792240435610[/url]


seems to me that it basically seems to say that if there is a whiff of a term they "own" in a product that's in the same type of market, they'll go for it. if the term is used out side of that market, then they have to let it go

[Caitsidhe]

a statement has appeared on their FB page regarding the incident, it goes as follows.

It was a typical, dodgy kind of response, i.e. utterly inadequate and a complete failure to take responsibility for the idiotic overstep of boundaries. In short, they got their nose rapped smartly with a rolled up newspaper and are now doing their best to mitigate PR damage without doing the grown up thing and saying, "we made a mistake."

[ElectricPaladin]

seems to me that it basically seems to say that if there is a whiff of a term they "own" in a product that's in the same type of market, they'll go for it. if the term is used out side of that market, then they have to let it go

That's fair. However, if they consider their market to be "the entire genre of science fiction and fantasy" then they are effectively laying claim to the term "space marine." A more reasonable approach might be for them to examine all examples of the space marine trope and try to see if it really impinges on their intellectual property. If it's just "marines" in "space," well... that's just too broad.

Consider the recent Underworld/Dead Roses for a Blue Lady debacle. White Wolf (or, rather, CCP) was able to show a huge number of similarities between Underworld and the World of Darkness line. It was more than "werewolves" and "vampires" in a modern setting - huge swaths of the background, the tone, the storyline, and many setting details were lifted from the World of Darkness - and Dead Roses for a Blue Lady in particular - to make Underworld. White Wolf got... was it New Line? Can't recall... anyway, got them to settle out of court, and it was just.

If CCP tried to sue Stephanie Meyer, they'd have no ethical (and hopefully no legal) legs to stand on. Twilight has a radically different tone and very few setting bits in common with the World of Darkness, just "vampires" and "werewolves," "they don't like each other," and "modern context."

This case is mostly the latter and none of the former, as far as I can tell.

That said, I don't know as much about the book that's being sued over as I'd like to - and no one ever will, because GW got it pulled from Amazon. I think it's interesting, though, that even in their defense, GW is talking about "words" and "copyright" and "market." If they really had a justification, I think they'd be talking about how similar the author's work is to theirs. It's telling that they aren't saying that.

[lattd]

Has anyone actually read the blurb on the back of the book though? Crab like aliens are making their way to earth attacking a severely depleted Terran army, an injured marine returns to the front line to help fend off the attack. Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

[ElectricPaladin]

Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

Yes.

Now all crab-like aliens are 'Nids? And all grim futures are the Horus Heresy? Give me a break.

[isotope99]

I think what they're saying is they're not trying to exert control over the concept of marines in space just the specific trademark "Space Marine". If the title was "Interstellar marine", "Galactic marine" etc. then the mark wouldn't apply. In effect a quick title swap would get round this.

I'm not making any moral judgements on whether it's justified, indeed it smells like trhose stories where McDonalds are trying to make some 100 year old Scottish knitting store change their name.

[Caitsidhe]

I think what they're saying is they're not trying to exert control over the concept of marines in space just the specific trademark "Space Marine". If the title was "Interstellar marine", "Galactic marine" etc. then the mark wouldn't apply. In effect a quick title swap would get round this.

I'm not making any moral judgements on whether it's justified, indeed it smells like trhose stories where McDonalds are trying to make some 100 year old Scottish knitting store change their name.

They can try to assert that in court (since the book is now back on Amazon) but they will lose. You don't get to trademark titles in creative works either. As long as the work itself is different, the title can be exactly the same.

[DarkLink]

Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

Get out from under your rock. There's a whole lot of stuff out there that isn't GW. In fact, it sounds much more like the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_(novel)"]Armor[/URL] to me.

[Mr Mystery]

They can try to assert that in court (since the book is now back on Amazon) but they will lose. You don't get to trademark titles in creative works either. As long as the work itself is different, the title can be exactly the same.

And again, GW have a legal obligation to aggressively defend their IP and trademarks. Think what you may of their methods, but the motivation remains the same. Defend it or lose it.

Really have no idea why people are getting so utterly bent out of shape over this. You can claim they will lose, and might they will. Still doesn't alter that they have to take action. Win or lose their obligation to their share holders is met and discharged.

[ElectricPaladin]

And again, GW have a legal obligation to aggressively defend their IP and trademarks. Think what you may of their methods, but the motivation remains the same. Defend it or lose it.

You have a legal obligation to defend your IP. You don't have a legal obligation to use bully tactics in an attempt to expand your IP.

Agree or disagree, the Chapterhouse case was justified. Chapterhouse was making money off something GW invented, and arguably, denying GW that money. However you feel about it, it was the sort of thing that there should be a court case about, to decide on what should be legal.

This? Doesn't seem like it to me. It looks like an IP grab by a company that doesn't really need the territory.