Re: Dirtside Lite redux

In message <199708150613.CAA04322@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall
writes:
> At 12:03 AM 8/14/97 GMT, I 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 an aside, I'd point people here to GZG's own Full Thrust, which 
references both "Citadel TM" and "Games Workshop TM" and has a 
disclaimer tucked away at the foot of the contents page. DS2 doesn't 
mention them, but I think DS1 did.

> >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? 

How did I know you'd say that...

> 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). 

Understood.

> 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.

Well, I guess GZG's use of GW TM might count as fair use so far...

I suppose I have to accept your Mrs. as a more informed source than
I, but I still maintain a weak belief that, so long as you're not
trying to pass off your product as approved of by the TM holder, you
can use their TMs if you acknowledge the as such. How many books 
have you seen out there with names like "Unapproved X-Files TM 
Companion", e.g. using a trademark without permission, but stating 
so unequivocally to pose no challenge?

This is all assuming that these names are trademarked. I've turned 
up a recent Dwarf and they're not listed among the long list of 
trademarks, registered and unregistered. This isn't to say that they 
couldn't still claim them as TMs.

Suppose we (with JMT's approval) knocked out the proposed "Dirtside
Lite" with an internal table of stats labelled "Land Raider", 
"Rhino", "Skullsmasha" etc. What is the worst-case scenario we could
face? If it were a paper product, GW could make us pulp them, but, 
half the point of the plan is to distribute it electronically. They
could seize revenues that we've earnt... but the other half of the
point is to make it free. They could sue for damages, but, AFAIK,
damages in these cases are assessed on presumed loss of income;
since the third half of the point is to target people who have 
already bought GW product and who aren't going to buy any more, so 
no loss to GW. So we withdraw it. Big fat hairy deal.

> 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, less clumsily, mark as "high-tech", "mid-tech", "low-tech" for
the elfs, humans and orcs, respectively. I'd still prefer to call a
spade a spade, so to speak.

-- 
David Brewer

"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every dog
that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600