On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, woodelf wrote: > 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
Not sure who you mean when you say "you can't ...", but I'll assume you mean the USPTO, since they are the ones who make the decision. But this is really an issue for those "lots of RPG companies that have used d20 system" - it's not an issue for the fans. If those companies want to file opposition papers, they are free to do so. But if fans go to the USPTO and say WotC's application should be denied because other companies use the term to refer to other RPG systems based on a 20 sided die, the USPTO won't really care if those self-same companies don't care. And it's yet be shown that any RPG has used the term as a mark/brand for their product; much less that they care that WotC is attempting to claim the term as a registered trademark. (Use of a term to describe a product is generally not considered branding, btw.) > (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. That's entirely an issue that WotC will have to deal with; and obviously it's something they believe they can overcome with their marketing. The fact that a trademark was used generically before someone decides to use it as a mark does not actually dilute the mark - it makes it hard to give the mark the value the trademark holder desires. That's why people often try to avoid overly generic terms when creating a mark. Obviously WotC doesn't believe that the term 'd20 system' really is used that much generically (and on usenet groups almost any time the term 'd20 system' is used it is accompanied by the specific game being discussed or it's someone creating their own system - no issue of branding involved) so that they will encounter this problem. And I don't think your correct that there is the need to ban the use of the common-noun equivalent to create value in WotC's trademark. Based on usenet groups it already appears that WotC's trademark has as much if not more value than the use of d20 system as a common-noun decriptor. And WotC has done nothing to ban the use of the phrase as a common descriptor. It's just that if the people using the term to refer to something other than D&D/WotC's d20 system, they are finding out they must say something other than or in addition to 'd20 system'. > 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". First, I find it ridiculous to state that anyone is "forcing the company to talk around what they really want to say". There are so many different ways to say that your product uses a 20 sided die as the primary game mechanic without saying 'd20 system'. If the people putting out Talislanta want to either avoid WotC (who may actually not care about someone using the words d20 system as a descriptor in normal type on the backcover or inside of a product) or avoid confusing some customer into thinking their Talislanta is compatible with D&D they can easily use other language. Heck, if they really want to avoid confusion they can flat out state that their product is *not* compatible with D&D. (Even under the OGL, since the restriction on using others' trademarks is to indicate compatibility - explicitly stating incompatibility should therefore be permissible.) alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
