Jump to content

Evil Empire has Evil Customer Service - Surprised?


Bruunwald
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 453
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This is par the course for dominant companies.

Recently Facebook tried to trademark "face" and "book"

Apple has tried to trademark "sock", "pad" the letter "i" and the word "app"

The theory goes, wish I could find the original article where I read this--think it was on Ars Techinica, is that while this is a gamble if you get enough people to bend to your will before getting sued (if you get sued at all) then you have shown you own that word or phrase and can be granted the trademark over it even when you normally wouldn't be able to get it (as it's a common word).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't UPS have a trademark on Brown?

 

 

From Wikipedia:

  • Pullman Brown[27] is the color of the United Parcel Service (UPS) delivery company with their trademark brown trucks and uniforms; it was earlier the color of Pullman rail cars of the Pullman Company, and was adopted by UPS both because brown is easy to keep clean, and due to favorable associations of luxury that Pullman brown evoked. UPS has filed two trademarks on the color brown to prevent other shipping companies (and possibly other companies in general) from using the color if it creates "market confusion." In its advertising, UPS refers to itself as "Brown" ("What can Brown do for you?").

 

 

I suppose they can only claim it for shipping issues (hence the "market confusion" line).

 

-Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't UPS have a trademark on Brown?

 

 

From Wikipedia:

  • Pullman Brown[27] is the color of the United Parcel Service (UPS) delivery company with their trademark brown trucks and uniforms; it was earlier the color of Pullman rail cars of the Pullman Company, and was adopted by UPS both because brown is easy to keep clean, and due to favorable associations of luxury that Pullman brown evoked. UPS has filed two trademarks on the color brown to prevent other shipping companies (and possibly other companies in general) from using the color if it creates "market confusion." In its advertising, UPS refers to itself as "Brown" ("What can Brown do for you?").

 

 

I suppose they can only claim it for shipping issues (hence the "market confusion" line).

 

-Dave

What I find most interesting about this portion of the statement "...it was earlier the color of Pullman rail cars of the Pullman Company, and was adopted by UPS both because brown is easy to keep clean, and due to favorable associations of luxury that Pullman brown evoked." is that Pullman passenger cars were painted a forest green color known in model railroad circles as Pullman Green. Now railroad lines that actually owned the cars did repaint them in their own liveries sometimes (especially for their famous routes like NYC's Empire Builder) but as far as I know there is no such thing as "Pullman Brown" at least not in the context alluded to in wikipedia.

 

And a supporting statement: "Throughout the company's existence building wooden carsof the 19th century to the steel heavyweights of the early 20th century Pullmans were always painted a dark, forest green (there is actually a color called Pullman green, and is still used today by model railroaders), unless specified by a railroad. However, that changed in the 1930s when Pullman broke into the lightweight, streamliner era. The company built its last heavyweight in 1931 and following the debuting of several streamliners in 1934 and beyond Pullman built and painted their cars to match the train's colorful livery."

Edited by Heisler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is par the course for dominant companies.

Recently Facebook tried to trademark "face" and "book"

Apple has tried to trademark "sock", "pad" the letter "i" and the word "app"

The theory goes, wish I could find the original article where I read this--think it was on Ars Techinica, is that while this is a gamble if you get enough people to bend to your will before getting sued (if you get sued at all) then you have shown you own that word or phrase and can be granted the trademark over it even when you normally wouldn't be able to get it (as it's a common word).

They get hit with the same rubbish too.

 

Yesterday I spotted an article about Facebook having to go to court because it was being sued by a small company called "Timelines" over the use of the word "timeline" on its site features.

 

I wonder if small companies do this to big companies in the hope that they will be paid a lot to go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find most interesting about this portion of the statement "...it was earlier the color of Pullman rail cars of the Pullman Company, and was adopted by UPS both because brown is easy to keep clean, and due to favorable associations of luxury that Pullman brown evoked." is that Pullman passenger cars were painted a forest green color known in model railroad circles as Pullman Green. Now railroad lines that actually owned the cars did repaint them in their own liveries sometimes (especially for their famous routes like NYC's Empire Builder) but as far as I know there is no such thing as "Pullman Brown" at least not in the context alluded to in wikipedia.

 

And a supporting statement: "Throughout the company's existence building wooden carsof the 19th century to the steel heavyweights of the early 20th century Pullmans were always painted a dark, forest green (there is actually a color called Pullman green, and is still used today by model railroaders), unless specified by a railroad. However, that changed in the 1930s when Pullman broke into the lightweight, streamliner era. The company built its last heavyweight in 1931 and following the debuting of several streamliners in 1934 and beyond Pullman built and painted their cars to match the train's colorful livery."

 

 

I think whoever wrote the article may have mixed up two Pullmans. Pullmans trains here in the UK were brown, I think the UK company was named after the US company but I'm not sure they were actually part of the same company together.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_train_%28UK%29

 

Edited for linkage:

Edited by Nocturne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is par the course for dominant companies.

Recently Facebook tried to trademark "face" and "book"

Apple has tried to trademark "sock", "pad" the letter "i" and the word "app"

The theory goes, wish I could find the original article where I read this--think it was on Ars Techinica, is that while this is a gamble if you get enough people to bend to your will before getting sued (if you get sued at all) then you have shown you own that word or phrase and can be granted the trademark over it even when you normally wouldn't be able to get it (as it's a common word).

They get hit with the same rubbish too.

 

Yesterday I spotted an article about Facebook having to go to court because it was being sued by a small company called "Timelines" over the use of the word "timeline" on its site features.

 

I wonder if small companies do this to big companies in the hope that they will be paid a lot to go away.

 

 

They do. It's all part of a game they all play, a very annoying game I should add.

 

Most likely nothing will come of this as soon as someone challenges GW as none of those things I listed in my original post ended up being rewarded to the company that went after them after a court got aa holdof them. The current on going on is the word App as Apple went after amazon and, well, Microsoft joined in on Amazon's side and it's been quite amusing.

 

Now if GW was only enforcing Space Marine on Genetically modified super humans, that might be plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the story Heisler mentioned earlier. Over in the literary world right now there's a furore because GW, claiming it completely owns the trademark of the term "space marine," got Amazon to actually yank an author's book from sales. The first link is the author's blog. They couldn't have picked a sweeter, more decent target if they tried.

 

http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html?view=24685739#t24685739

 

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=Games+Workshop&src=typd

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/06521321890/games-workshop-proves-it-would-rather-bully-authors-than-be-culture-participant.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited by Pingo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait! I have a plan. Send Space Marines backwards in time to be discovered by Reaper buried in the sands of Denton and then sue the Evil Empire for copyright infringement, or whatever lawyery term applies. It worked for Megadodo Publications!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the story Heisler mentioned earlier. Over in the literary world right now there's a furore because GW, claiming it completely owns the trademark of the term "space marine," got Amazon to actually yank an author's book from sales. The first link is the author's blog. They couldn't have picked a sweeter, more decent target if they tried.

 

http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html?view=24685739#t24685739

 

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=Games+Workshop&src=typd

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/06521321890/games-workshop-proves-it-would-rather-bully-authors-than-be-culture-participant.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

I was beginning to wonder when this would happen, condidering the popularity of eReaders.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, I had always heard their CS was pretty good, in fact a buddy scored two additional copies of some new collector's rule book that came out recently because it was slightly marred when it arrived. They didnt even ask for the original one back... But it doesn't surprise me... with the reaming they give everyone on the sales end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Here's the story Heisler mentioned earlier. Over in the literary world right now there's a furore because GW, claiming it completely owns the trademark of the term "space marine," got Amazon to actually yank an author's book from sales. The first link is the author's blog. They couldn't have picked a sweeter, more decent target if they tried.http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html?view=24685739#t24685739https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=Games+Workshop&src=typdhttp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/06521321890/games-workshop-proves-it-would-rather-bully-authors-than-be-culture-participant.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

I was beginning to wonder when this would happen, condidering the popularity of eReaders.

I'm a little confused*. The book that was shut down was an ebook, but the term "space marine" has been used in science fiction for most of the last century. It preexists in a lot of physical books and stories.

 

Unless you are referring to how vulnerable this book was to being yoinked because it was an ebook dependent on Amazon for its very existence. Convince Amazon and you kill the book.

 

 

 

*Then again, it is way early in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...