Re: Dirtside Lite redux

At 12:03 AM 8/14/97 GMT, you wrote:

>However, I have seen products before that use other companies' TMs
>with a disclaimer explicitly stating that their use was in no way
>to be taken as a challenge to the status of the trademark. As I
>understand the laws about trademarking, so long as a GW trademark
>wasn't used to help market a product (eg. get stuck on the front
>cover) there would be no problem; you would not be trying to pass
>off your product as GW product and they would have no grounds to
>sue you. 
>
>Still, that's by no means an expert opinion... say, Allan, do you
>know any lawyers that deal in intellectual property rights?

Will my wife's boss do? Leann is a litigation clerk. Although most of
her
work is in contract litigation and unjust dismissal, they have had a
number
of intellectual property rights cases.

I asked Leann and she says that she's pretty sure you've got it wrong
(as a
law clerk, not a lawyer, she has to be careful what she says is not
construed as "legal advice"; this is a requirement of the Law Society of
Upper Canada). 

According to Leann, you can't use a trademark without the express
permission
of the party holding the trademark. Now, this might not apply in the UK,
but
it DOES apply in Canada and the US. If you want to use a trademark in
another product, you had better get permission from GW. You don't need
prior
permission to use the trademark in a review of a game or other "fair
use"
circumstances, but you still have to acknowledge the trademark.

Trademark law is quite a bit different from copyright law. You can lose
your
trademark if you don't defend it, or if you are too frivilous about
giving
away licenses (see classic Star Trek and SFB as an example). As such,
companies are more apt to heavily defend their trademarks. This gives
them a
bad image as a litigous company (i.e. TSR) but in most cases they have
little choice. This is why there's been such a hit against Web sites
dedicated to TV shows and movies. If you just let these Web sites go
without
taking legal action, they could be considered to not be defending thier
trademark. (Of course, most companies don't have a process for handing
out
licenses for not-for-profit independant fan web sites, so the loyal fans
usually get hosed.)

Leann's suggestion is to include stats for, say, a "Ground Raider" or a
"Space Elf Grav Tank" and let the player infer the actual association.
Or go
to GW and get permission.

>> I gave the Land Raider 4 HEL-2s in fixed mounts (actually sponsons
using the
>> fixed mount cost). The troop carrier version of the Land Raider had 2
>> HEL-3s. I made the vehicle size 4 (as opposed to David Brewer's
suggestion
>> of size 5) because the Shadowsword tank is bigger than the LR and I
wanted
>> it to sit at size 5. 
>
>Fair enough. I guess we have to assume that GW vehicles have a
>different vertical scale to the horizontal, or something. They do
>look awful daft up against historical 6mm minis. Try putting a
>Rhino next to an M113 (carries... what... 11 troops? 3 DS stands?).

I agree. The GW minis are pretty silly, really. You slope armour.
Period.
Even if the enemy's weapons can't penetrate your armour, you slope it so
you
can put on LESS armour and reduce the vehicle's weight. Mike Miserendino
and
I were talking about this at GenCon vis a vis GZG figures. We both
agreed
that the SG2 resin vehicles and the new DS2 miniatures based on them
were
too tall and boxy. We figured that future weapons would be more sleek
with a
lower profile. 

Allan Goodall:	agoodall@sympatico.ca 
"You'll want to hear about my new obsession.
 I'm riding high upon a deep depression. 
 I'm only happy when it rains."    - Garbage