>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Rogers Cadenhead wrote: > >> I find this confusing also, but it's probably because I'm relying on >> my own reading of the USPTO site rather than advice from a high >> priest of trademark law. Five years ago, if I created a roleplaying >> game and mentioned in advertising that it used a "d20 system," gamers >> would understand that it meant the game used a 20-sided die as a >> significant resolution mechanic. That would seem to preclude its >> adoption later as a trademark -- the term "d20 system" seems too >> descriptive to serve as a unique mark. > >I thought one of the points Ryan had made was that he (and I'm assuming >WotC) had looked and found little to no use of the term 'd20 system' used >by anyone in advertising their products. If someone had created a >roleplaying game 5 years ago, called it a 'd20 system', used the term 'd20 >system' regularly in marketing their game (i.e. 'd20 system' is stressed, >not just used as a comment in the text on the backcover) - then yes, that >would pose a problem for WotC registering 'd20 system'. But only if that >company now decided to oppose WotC's registration of the 'd20 system' >mark.
part of the differenc here seems to be what constitutes significant use. it is true that no one has, AFAIK, used "D20 System" as a brand name or trademark in the RPG world. however, i believe[0] that lots of RPGs and RPG companies *have* used "d20 system" in specific descriptive text about their games, including ad copy, and at least one example has been raised of a company using "D20 System" in their marketing and writing. in this case, i think the distinction between formally-designated trademark and general descriptive text is too iffy to be meaningful, meaning that (1) you can't just discount all those other uses of "d20 system" when considering the trademark application and (2) the term is insufficiently distinct from it's common-noun equivalent to be easily kept distinct, except by effectively banning the use of the common-noun equivalent. >But that fact that X number of gamers generically use the term 'dY' to >refer to games that use the Y die as the base of their mechanic isn't a >problem for WotC registering the mark unless these gamers can convince the >uspto that WotC's registration is going to cause confusion in their >purchasing habits. Does anyone really think that's possible? yeah...sort of. that is, it won't cause any confusion in *my* purchasing habits, 'cause i'll just look for the little red-n-black d20 logo. but i'm overly-informed. i do sincerely worry that it may cause confusion in others' purchasing habits--everybody either knows, or soon will know, that the little logo means "compatible with D&D" (or words to that effect). and, people will probably slowly come to the realization that there can be products that are, in some sense, compatible with D&D, but do not bear the little logo (once games like Farscape hit the market). which means absence of te logo is no proof that the game s not D&D-compatible. so, what happens when said partially-informed gamer stumbles on Talislanta in the store. they've never heard of it, they haven't seen ads, so they look at the book a bit. and on the back cover [continuing with my reasonable hypothetical], it says something like "...using a streamlined d20 system...". is that a perfectly reasonable description of the new game mechanics? sure. would it be reasonable for them to believe it was somehow a D&D derivative? sure. would forbidding the company from using the phrase "d20 system" be an improvement? it might eliminate that particular type of consumer confusion, but at the cost of forcing the company to talk around what they really want to say--potentially causing other confusion. and if "D20 System" starts appearing with a little circle-r after it, it only makes the situation worse (as i don't expect the average consumer to note, much less properly interpret, the difference between "D20 System (circle-r)" and "d20 system". [0] this is going on memory--i could be mistaken. i'm certain that others have regularly used the phrase to refer to games other than D&D3E, i'm just not certain the manufacturers themselves have. -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.net/woodelph/ Finding consensus and common ground is *dull*! Nobody whants to watch a civilized discussion that acknowledges ambiguity and complexity. We want to see fireworks! We want the sense of solidarity and identity that comes from having our interests narrowed and exploited by like-minded zealots! --Calvin _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
