--- "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good points Alec, very provocative (in the good sense)
email.
> Just because someone claims
> something is a
> trademark does not mean it is a valid trademark
> under the law...The
> onus does not fall on the OGL author to get the
> trademark revoked, the
> onus still falls on the individual claiming the
> trademark to prove they
> possess a legal trademark.
Which bring me back to the point I origanally had
questions about. I publish a "Vampires guide to the
Long Forgotten Realms" (hypothetcally.) Both WOTC and
WW claim I infringed on their trademarks. Maybe I
did, maybe I didn't. Obviously civil suits for
infringement will determain this. But at what point
does the OGL become involved. Even if the clause is in
there I don't see it having any teeth cause unlike
Copyright (which in my non-lawyer understanding exists
whenever someone writes something) trademarks have to
be "proven" valid before the use of them is considered
a violation.
I think this is where most people get into the "but
what if the trademark Hercules?" arguement. Obviously
using the publicly known Hercules character (as oposed
to the TV, comics or animated version) isn't a
trademark violation. But could it be a violation of
the OGL clause because at the moment of penning the
adventure none of the Hercules trademark (and this is
an example, for all I know WB vs. Disney may exist and
set presidence in trademark law) have been affirmed.
So how does the OGL determine which Hercules will be
acceptible since they are so simular and no legal
division is available at the time. (I guess that's
rhetorical, since OGL isn't finished yet.)
> > >> because they have a series of modules on these
> gods. That
> > >> effectively takes those gods away from the rest
> of us.
> > >
> > >Could you provide a better example? The one you
> provides is invalid under
> No, the term does not do that since if WotC
> attempted to sue you for using
> the term Drow to as defined in Webster's dictionary
> you would have the
> evidence to demonstrate how & why you are not using
> their trademark and
> they would lose the case. Since you know (and
> actually WotC does as
> well) that this is the case there is no requirement
> that you do anything
> prior to publishing your use of the word Drow.
>
Does trademark law follow along the same path as
copyright law? As I understand it, proving that you
drew your own inspiration with no relationship to an
earlier work is a defendable position in copyright
law, but I thought the same wasn't true in reguard to
trademark. Just because my name is Ford and I own a
Car plant doesn't mean I can sell Ford cars, because I
like Shaw's plays doesn't mean I can sell Superman
comics.9 (right?)
>http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wade/HyperDnd/TSR/drow.html
> formore details on this example.
I'll check this out when I have a minute to review it
instead of rapid read it now.
=====
http://www2.50megs.com/danccomp/tsnoishome.htm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
