From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Under federal law a company can bring action on the basis of trademarks
for
> two reasons; INFRINGEMENT, or DILUTION:
Every trademark holder with a competent attorney knows that the best way to
lose a trademark is to have it pass into "common usage". Therefore, they
fight tooth and nail to avoid having their marks used in any way that
implies that the mark is not a specific product, but is a type of good or
service. Reference "Heroin", "Aspirin", and the battles over "Xerox".
And they >sue people< to make that point.
> Further, the use that Mr. Dancey refers to, eg, a small label saying:
This product is designed to work with Dungeons and Dragons. The
makers of this product are not associated with The makers of
Dungeons and Dragons and have used this trademark without
permission.
> is ... simply ... not ... against ... the ... statute.
I >never said< that the quote you published was against the statute. The
adding a restriction against using a mark in that fashion is not to clarify
the law in this case, it is to restrict the ability of a 3rd party publisher
to tap into a game network using a trademark owned by another publisher
without permission.
That's why the provision was described as "carrot & stick" - the carrot is
the ability to use the Open Game Content, the stick is a limitation on your
existing ability to use a trademark.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
