TalkBloodBowl.com going offline, or... GW really effin' up here

Thanks for your critique, Bobtail. It would be interesting indeed to see if someone fought back, but I'm sure GW's lawyers are relying on the fact that most will either be intimidated by a C&D letter, or will wish to avoid the hassle and cost of getting into legal battles: they're likely not expecting to get involved in an actual dispute. It may cost GW more in legal fees if someone dares to challenge, but most regular blokes who run hobby websites likely can't afford one hour with a lawyer or would rather buy a small army with that money. But if GW should ever come for the UE, we're standing and fighting (we've got the Cornered Rats rule now!). And hey, can we get you to go pro bono for us?

It's been a while since I last checked this thread, so it's horrifying to see the number of sites that have been hit now. It's definitely gone beyond just what TalkBloodBowl did, and the fact they hit Darkreign40K suggests it's not just the Bloodbowl trademark renewal either. It's not the standard trademark infringement issue that Bobtail described though, I don't think that's GW's angle. They're trying to muscle out all unofficial uses of their copyright and trademark, not actually sue someone over a breach, but there has to be more practical reason than just a power trip. Possibly a trademark dilution issue? Competition and confusion aren't criteria for that. "Intention to trade on the trademark owner's reputation" is the angle I thought GW was taking against TBB's donation button, and the rest of the problem might lie along these lines.

That is true, but the reality of most companies is that their component departments will have different modus operandi with how they execute their responsibilities, and the board, being concerned with the big picture, only dictates the outcomes and does not regulate the intricacies of their techniques unless necessary. I don't find it surprising that the legal department would take a legalistic approach rather than acknowledging the potential marketing benefits that they are tromping over.

The heavy handed approach (for those who are wondering that) is for one simple reason. As Bobtail pointed out thier actual legal "ground" is about as sound as quicksand. Which means they are moved to rely more on "shock and awe" than sound legal reasoning. They know that these sites are run on a fan-base system rather than by legal corporate entities so by yelling "Cease and Desist!" loudly and in legal-ese scares most civillians into obeying without question (lacking as we do dedicated legal departments).

In fact a C&D letter is not the be all and end all and as Bobtail said someone could easily challenge them (and more than likely) and win - but for the same reason that say, TV licensing send round a big red letter saying "You're breaking the law, pay us now OR ELSE" despite the fact I don't OWN a TV/recording equipment and they've made no attempt to contact me prior - they hope people will be scared into complying without looking onto the actual legal implications. Largely (and this is from someone with inside knowledge of the company - and not from a redshirt p.o.v either) because thier legal department is actually really, really lackluster and so forced into an actual legal battle they might strain themselves.

Rather sad, but indicative of GWs policies in recent years.

That is true, but the reality of most companies is that their component departments will have different modus operandi with how they execute their responsibilities, and the board, being concerned with the big picture, only dictates the outcomes and does not regulate the intricacies of their techniques unless necessary. I don't find it surprising that the legal department would take a legalistic approach rather than acknowledging the potential marketing benefits that they are tromping over.

You're welcome, glad I can contribute in some small way.

Yes, but not likely a GW army after this nonesense leaves such a bad taste in their mouths. The thing that strikes me is that GW's case for trademark infringement is so weak - the odds of a misfire (to put it in terms we all understand) are quite high. As for copyright, there is a case to be made potentially if they want to go that way as a matter of policy (note, they used to have a published policy on their website about reuse of their images on loine by fan sites that was quite open. I don't know if it's still there. But are you familiar with the terms laches and estoppel?

LOL, cornered rats - good one! I would certainly make myself available at a massive discount for any joint defense group with the aim of a negotiated settlement which keeps the site up and avoids litigation.

I echo the horror. Has anyone considered a petition drive? I bet if the board of directors got a petition with 10,000 signaures on it threatening a boycott it would get their attention - especially hitting just before xmass!

Depends on the jurisdiction, and I don't practice enough in the UK (other than Madrid protocol trademark work) to say what the standard for dilution is in the UK. NY has a very liberal dilultionlaw, but even it has exceptions and defenses. As for GW's artwork, I noted this before. Site may be realistically requirted to swap GW's official images with original works. But that does not mean we can't post transformative works, minimal copying for purposes of critique under fiar use and photos that we've taken of GW products. There has to be a compromise middle ground in a case like this. GW knows it cannot afford, and I'm sure does not desire, teh demise of it's internet fan base. As big as they are, GW is not so big that it can have its legal and marketing depts at cross purposes.

Not necessary in our case. (I'll explain later).

As a member of the (now) TalkFantasyFootball.com community, I'm able to follow some of the discussions that are going on regarding the approach of Games Workshop (though, Grandma Wendy does have a better ring to it ) towards the online communities. In one of those discussions, Darkson (of Darkson Designs, known from AE-WWII) has done some searching regarding trademarks and found out that in the UK, one apparently needs to renew his/ her trademark once every ten years. (Link). On the same site, you can find a list of Games Workshop's trademarks. (Link). Initially, that one amused people, as Blood Bowl seems to be missing. However, that list is not entirely complete... A check on this site (search for Blood Bowl) shows Games Workshop has Blood Bowl registered, but simply overdue (apparently) for renewing. So, as said, I doubt it's an attempt on 'doing something new' with the product line (check this thread for more information), but more the Legal Department waking up.

Now UnderEmpire has never been listed in Games Workshop's trademark and disclaimer list (link) and even while I, as the paranoid Skaven against the global corporation, every once in a while do check the legal part of their site, the name UnderEmpire hasn't been listed yet... The point is that some things can not be trademarked. (As an easy example: You won't be able to gain a penny for everytime someone says "Hey"). Although I don't have the legal knowledge, I think that Under and Empire is a combination of words that Games Workshop can't trademark. Most likely Bobtailmaneater will know this much better then me (so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me), but at this point, there isn't anything to worry about (yet).

Greetz

Yes, you need to renew a trademark every 10 years in the States as well.

With trademarks, the more fanciful the name, the higher the degree of protection. Arbitrary names are the best, while descriptive names are entitled to the least amount of protection. Generic names are not protectable at all.

Under+Empire is just a name that's made up of two words stuck together, so i think GW can't claim copyright for the name alone. They can trademark it if they wanted to (e.g. Warhammer), but they'd need to trade on it in order for it to be validated, and that's not going to happen unless the skaven become a whole game of their own or something. Trademark law disallows people from stockpiling rights to names without actually using it. So our web address should hopefully be safe.

You have to understand that GW is very aggressive when it comes to claiming a trademark on any and every word or phrase that appears in their games and fiction. Quite likely they claim more than they can ever hope to actually have legal rights to, but they have a shotgun approach to things when it comes to legal stuff (roll 100 dice, hope for 50 hits...)

Speaking as the attorney for Lone Wolf now, we trademarked the name AMRYBUILDER very early on, knowing that GW was working on a similar product and we didn't want the term to become either generic or for GW to put a claim on it before we could. This site's admins should consider filing for trademark protection for the name "underempire" before they discover that GW has made a claim to the name.