Tater
Elder Member
Reckon CH! paid for the right to use "Band of Brothers" as part of their title/advertizing?
I play about 10 PBM games at a time and my SASL and now two campaigns so I always seem to have something to write about!! Ian
You can't copyright a title, so CH didn't need to.Reckon CH! paid for the right to use "Band of Brothers" as part of their title/advertizing?
As I mentioned, the first game blowout was down to poor set up, as explained in more detail in the AAR on my blog. The second game came down to the CC phase of the last turn so no complaints here, Again though the high leader mod coupled with hero mods is a little worrying, I assume though good players well versed with Bocage will do their best to reduce that effect. As always only time will tell how these work out but I am rather pleased with my purchase.Hi Ya-
Other then a few proofing gaffs, the Scenarios are really tight believe it or not for a pack that is heavy with good American Leadership. Paul Mackancy (a fellow Brit of yours) and I finished up Man and Machine ealier this week with my Germans pulling out a win on turn 8, this was due to me putting Paul over on the American CVP cap. Plus he is kinda new to playing ASL, and did not use his Armors Smoke capability alot but he did use the American infantry smoke quite a few times. Anyway, we both had a blast playing this one, a nice medium sized fast paced scenario that puts ya right into the action.
Scott
Reckon CH! paid for the right to use "Band of Brothers" as part of their title/advertizing?
Shakespeare has been dead longer than 60 years in any event. Or whoever it was that wrote that.You can't copyright a title, so CH didn't need to.
Hey there mikey, play any of the ASL BoB scenarios over the weekend dude?Shakespeare has been dead longer than 60 years in any event. Or whoever it was that wrote that.
How could I? Apparently, you already played them all.play any of the ASL BoB scenarios over the weekend dude?
Like I told you. My PC is phucked. I'm running this and WOT but Skype won't start.Hey Trev, Wanna play a couple of scenarios out of BoB Normandy, have a jpg map that I jerryrigged to VASL, so we can give a couple of scenarios a go.
Scott
However ....Shakespeare has been dead longer than 60 years in any event. Or whoever it was that wrote that.
Does the US Navy pay Paramount any royalties?However ....
"Band of Brothers" is a registered trademark of Home Box Office (HBO) & Warner Home Video
Therefore if you are selling a product in the same domain namely "Entertainment", using such a trademark you may well in fact be in violation by using this trademark.
The context of the trademark though is significantly in entertainment products regarding the actions of US forces in France and Germany in WWII: and guess what that is the context of the product CH is selling.Does the US Navy pay Paramount any royalties?
Just because some one trademarks a name doesn't mean diddly until it has been through court. Shakespeare will trump Ambrose methinks.
The context of the trademark though is significantly in entertainment products regarding the actions of US forces in France and Germany in WWII: and guess what that is the context of the product CH is selling.
I think there is a significant chance a court might see the use of the trademark in this context as "passing off" and rule in favor of a plaintiff.
Correct...but they can be protected as "trademarks". And "Band of Brothers" is a registered trademark...this from the HBO website:You can't copyright a title, so CH didn't need to.
Or if a product/service is attempting to gain business by association. IOW, a real attempt to misguide consumers into believing that a given product is actually associated with the "trademark". The main prupose of a "trademark" is to create consumer recognition...allowing just anybody to use the "trademark" diluts that recognition and thus harms the "trade" of the "TM" owner.The context of the trademark though is significantly in entertainment products regarding the actions of US forces in France and Germany in WWII: and guess what that is the context of the product CH is selling.
I think there is a significant chance a court might see the use of the trademark in this context as "passing off" and rule in favor of a plaintiff.
Is that you Tater? Wolkey? Buhller?BTW I have no opinion on the CH product, except that I'll not be buying it.