So any one hazarded a guess as to the answer ?
never mind I'm a Little late on this one.
Yes. They should sue. They should also sue Nissan, NASA, 20th Century Fox, and the US Army. ;-P
Don't forget that Go-Bot.
Poor Kave99,
In his own mind, it seemed a legitimate question. Then KaeYoss and Fletch were more than willing to point out how incredible, utterly STUPID Kave was to even think the question.
Gods, I love this community! :-D
P.S. I love that Go-Bot! Especially when they gave her a female persona in the cartoon. That rocked!
--Dale W. Robbins
And James Fenimore Cooper
|
Wow, that was... kind of harsh.
It's actually a legitimate question. Contrary what the other posters have implied, trademarks are typically limited to a specific type or range of products or services, so the fact that unrelated companies in other fields use the name does not make it an impossibility.
I assume, since they use the (tm) mark, that Paizo has in fact trademarked the Pathfinder label. I certainly would if I were them. More important, unlike copyrights and patents, trademark law requires that the holder enforce their trademark or risk losing it.
So the OP's question is quite real and legitimate: does Paizo consider the paragon path called "Pathfinder" a violation of their trademark, and, if so, what will their response be?
|
In his own mind, it seemed a legitimate question. Then KaeYoss and Fletch were more than willing to point out how incredible, utterly STUPID Kave was to even think the question.
Gods, I love this community! :-D
If flaming people is why you love this place then I hope you move on to somewhere else. Have a little respect for someone just asking a simple question.
Creative Director
|
So the OP's question is quite real and legitimate: does Paizo consider the paragon path called "Pathfinder" a violation of their trademark, and, if so, what will their response be?
Although the Pathfinder paragon path does, to me at least, feel like a somewhat childish and snarky move by WotC to sneak an in-joke into their core rules... but it's not a trademark violation, any more than us including dragons or dungeons in Pathfinder is a violation of Dungeons & Dragons. That said... I do feel like the OP's original question was an honest one, and the snarky responses he received were unnecessary.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
It wasn't meant to be too snarky. I just wanted to show another couple of instances where the word Pathfinder was used, since it is really a quite general term, not something that's particular to RPGs.
I do understand that at one point, TSR tried to get everyone else to stop using dragons in their games, unless that's just a rumour.
So sorry for any hard feelings, I didn't want to ridicule anyone.
I do agree with the childish joke part, especially since one of Pathfinder's powers seems to be "Wrong Step". But that's wizards, not the first cheap shot they've taken.
|
|
It wasn't meant to be too snarky. I just wanted to show another couple of instances where the word Pathfinder was used, since it is really a quite general term, not something that's particular to RPGs.
My point was that it is irrelevant how common the term is: it can still be trademarked in reference to a specific market. For example, the word "apple" is extremely common, but both Apple (the computer/iPod company) and Apple Records (the music label) hold trademarks on the term when used within their specific areas.
James: Thanks for the official answer!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I do agree with the childish joke part, especially since one of Pathfinder's powers seems to be "Wrong Step". But that's wizards, not the first cheap shot they've taken.
Buzz from the playtesters is that that power was in there with that name *before* we announced the Pathfinder RPG.
|
So the OP's question is quite real and legitimate: does Paizo consider the paragon path called "Pathfinder" a violation of their trademark, and, if so, what will their response be?Although the Pathfinder paragon path does, to me at least, feel like a somewhat childish and snarky move by WotC to sneak an in-joke into their core rules... but it's not a trademark violation, any more than us including dragons or dungeons in Pathfinder is a violation of Dungeons & Dragons. That said... I do feel like the OP's original question was an honest one, and the snarky responses he received were unnecessary.
One wonders then if you could get away with a PrC called Dungeon Master in that case? It would give Jason a chance to correct his grievous oversight of not including a spelunking skill in Alpha 3.
That said... I do feel like the OP's original question was an honest one, and the snarky responses he received were unnecessary.
Agreed.
I apologised, didn't I? No need to pick on me. Well, a little, maybe.
Again: kave99, I'm sorry. It was in good fun, I didn't want to insult you.
I doubt that they could get exclusive rights to a term like pathfinder, as it is quite common, and wizards isn't using it as product name. (Now, "Complete Pathfinder" might cause problems.)
Buzz from the playtesters is that that power was in there with that name *before* we announced the Pathfinder RPG.
I bet they had to say that due to some contract they signed ;-P
I do agree with the childish joke part, especially since one of Pathfinder's powers seems to be "Wrong Step". But that's wizards, not the first cheap shot they've taken.Buzz from the playtesters is that that power was in there with that name *before* we announced the Pathfinder RPG.
You've heard from playtesters? And they weren't shot for violating the "you can't discuss ANYTHING" NDA? Wow...
If Paizo does decide in favor of legal action, I'd like to offer the services of my firm: Spitsalot, Droolsabunch, and Hurls. We specialize in smiting, crusading, and custody hearings.
You've heard from playtesters? And they weren't shot for violating the "you can't discuss ANYTHING" NDA? Wow...
Well, it *was* mostly single posts from people who stopped posting shortly afterwards <_<
I don't think it does and even if it did its not really something worth fighting over.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm... just for completeness sake, we should perhaps list NASA and JPL as co-defendants :)
Don't forget the Galaxy Rangers ;-)
Snarky joke or not, WotC should add it to their FAQ, since you guys had the Pathfinder first.
|
Yeah, it should have been an Epic Destiny.Although the Pathfinder paragon path does, to me at least, feel like a somewhat childish and snarky move by WotC to sneak an in-joke into their core rules...
Well they got one thing right in the description of The Pathfinder
"I can find us a path through that maze of horror, and I can safely lead us to the other end"
I created an RPG back in 1995 called Pathfinder...maybe I should sue. :)
http://www.serenadawn.com/
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
It wasn't meant to be too snarky. I just wanted to show another couple of instances where the word Pathfinder was used, since it is really a quite general term, not something that's particular to RPGs.
This really doesn't have any bearing on the trademark issue unless the term is generic for the goods or services, which Pathfinder is not. So this was not only a snarky response but a completely erroneous one in its implication. People can and do obtain trademark protection for "general" terms. As was noted above, PATHFINDER is, in fact, a trademark of Paizo's.
The problem with trying to assert a claim against WotC is that WotC isn't using Pathfinder as a trademark. There isn't likely to be any confusion.
This is kinda like Games Workshop. If you look at the fine print on one of their products they claim to have trademark status on words like Chaos, Empire, Elves and the like. These are words not ideas. It boggels the mind. No wonder they're called the Evil Empire.Then again it was TSR that trademarked the term Nazi. :)
Not true.
For the Indiana Jones board game (published under license from LucasFilm), TSR was required to TM every specific character image used in the game. As the game included chits/tokens for the various characters, including various Nazi "mooks," there was a Nazi-uniformed character illustrated on a chit, the chit also had the word Nazi on it, and there was a TM symbol ... for the illustration. You can trademark a specific image of a Nazi (though in this case it was ridiculous to do so) even thought you can't trademark the word Nazi.(I think I said "Nazi" more times in that paragraph than I have in the past year.)
I can see now why Paizo brought SKR into the fold. :)
Then again it was TSR that trademarked the term Nazi. :)Not true.
For the Indiana Jones board game (published under license from LucasFilm), TSR was required to TM every specific character image used in the game. As the game included chits/tokens for the various characters, including various Nazi "mooks," there was a Nazi-uniformed character illustrated on a chit, the chit also had the word Nazi on it, and there was a TM symbol ... for the illustration. You can trademark a specific image of a Nazi (though in this case it was ridiculous to do so) even thought you can't trademark the word Nazi.(I think I said "Nazi" more times in that paragraph than I have in the past year.)
Unfortunately, this one just never goes away, no matter how many times it's explained. Easier to start a fun rumor on the internet than to stop one. :)