About Lone Wolf

For all non-gaming related discussions. Please keep it clean and friendly.

Moderators: Rangers, Leaders

User avatar
Standard Bearer
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal

About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:04 am

Here are the emails I exchanged with them.

Opening email:

My name is John Ryan, and I’m the Vice President for Business Development and Operations with Lone Wolf Development, publisher of Army Builder®. I am contacting you because your use of the term Army Builder violates a trademark we own and we believe this usage is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. In the past, I had contacted Mr. David Smith to resolve a similar violation of our IP in August, 2012. Unfortunately, I recently noticed several locations where this violation has again been repeated:

· viewforum.php?f=30
· http://lonelyknight.0fees.net/
· viewtopic.php?f=30&t=4810

Therefore, I must respectfully request that you immediately cease using the mark “Army Builder” or any similar term in connection with your roster creation software and any marketing materials or documentation for your offering. This includes not only ceasing to use our trademark on your web site, but also destroying any additional materials, like letterhead, business cards, or advertisements, that make improper use of our trademark. There are several generically descriptive terms such as “roster creation tool”, ”list editor” or other phrases that can be used without reference to our trademark and we have no issue with your using such terms, or any other name that does not suggest affiliation with our company or products. In fact, in September, 2012, as a result of my contact with Mr. Smith, the web page for The Last Alliance was modified to refer to your tool as SBG force builder.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter. Please reply within five business days to confirm that you’ve taken the necessary steps to address this violation of our trademark. Additionally, we would appreciate it if you would prevent another reversion of your web pages that results in violating our trademark again. If you are no longer responsible for The Last Alliance web pages, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with information as to who now maintains it.


John Ryan

My reply:
For future reference I'm the owner of the lonelyknight site and creator of the spreadsheet, David and Matt own TLA.

"Therefore, I must respectfully request that you immediately cease using the mark “Army Builder” or any similar term in connection with your roster creation software and any marketing materials or documentation for your offering."

The first link you sent has no relationship whatsoever with my spreadsheet.
The forum is called SBG Army Builder & Tactics because it's a forum about armies and tactics.
The forum called WOTR Army Builder & Tactics doesn't even have any link to my spreadsheets at all.
It's easy enough to change the names of the forums to army building & tactics but this link clearly shows you are trying to ban all use of those two words, regardless of wether or not it actually violates the trademark.

About the violation, could you forward me the law that denies the use of those two words in a description?
I get that I can't call my spreadsheet Army Builder. It's never been called that anyway, that's like calling your dog Dog. However I fail to understand how a trademark has the right to cripple the English language.

What exactly is the violation here?
Barring the disclaimer the only ocurrence of army builder is when I'm saying that SBG is an army builder. Which it is. I'm not claiming it is "the Army Builder" or that it's affiliated to it.
I clearly describe what the SBG file is, how does this use of army builder lead to confusion in the marketplace?

I guess the description in my site is rather lacking. Always treated it as merely a dumping place for the file and a stop to fiddle with html. I'll have to add more text to it.
The same issue remains though, as long as I make it clear that it's an excel spreadsheet the presence of "army builder" becomes rather irrelevant since your program is not an excel spreadsheet, it's a program.

Also, I have no business cards or advertisements. I'm not selling the file, I just keep it updated it for personal use and share it with the community.

Why such weird sugestions by the way? A roster creation tool is what the two last pages of my first file are, the wotr file doesn't even have the roster part.
Why not "army list builder", "builder of armies" or "army building tool"?
The last one actually sounds fancy, might change to that one.

I'll await your reply before doing anything. It honestly just feels like you are trying to ban those two words.



Notice how they ignore everything I just said and go "legal"

Dear João,

We are legal counsel to Lone Wolf Development, Inc., owner of the ARMY BUILDER® trademark, which is registered under U.S. Registration Number 2,836,150 as well as filed with the EU under REFERENCE NO: A0023257. The foregoing registrations and this letter place you on constructive notice of our client’s exclusive right to use the ARMY BUILDER® brand in connection with war-game roster creation software.

The ARMY BUILDER® trademark has been widely and continuously used by our client since 1998, in connection with point and click war-game roster creation software. Having used the mark exclusively for more than fifteen years, our client has acquired significant secondary meaning in the world marketplace, and has taken steps many times to successfully protect its rights in the ARMY BUILDER trademark.

It has come to our attention that you have been offering war-game roster creation tools, offered at the following website: http://lonelyknight.0fees.net/ under the names “SBG army builder”, “LOME army builder” and “WOTR army builder.”

Our client has not authorized the use of its trademark in connection with the foregoing products and believes such use will create confusion in the marketplace, either through a false impression that your product is somehow associated with the ARMY BUILDER® brand, or by leading the public to believe that our client’s company has endorsed, sponsored, or has otherwise associated its goodwill with your endeavor.

We demand that you immediately take steps to cease and desist from any further use of the ARMY BUILDER® brand name, including variations thereof. In this regard, please note that any use of the term "Builder" together with the word "Army" in connection with roster creation software will be deemed objectionable as it may result in a likelihood of confusion. In this regard, you may note that our client deems use of the descriptive terms "roster creation software", "army roster editor", "army roster generator", "army roster writer", or "army roster organizer" to be acceptable, non-infringing, generic alternatives to describe your product.

We are also aware of correspondence between yourself and our client wherein you have argued that the term “building” is generic when applied to the use of a spreadsheet to create a war game roster. Please be advised that this is in fact contrary to the long established secondary meaning that our client has attained through its continuous use of its mark in commerce, and the commercial association that has resulted therefrom. Moreover, the claim is factually incorrect, as a study of the internet prior to 1998 has shown that before our client began marketing its product, the terminology “army builder” had no known usage in connection with writing war-game army lists.

Finally, your claim is incorrect in that the ARMY BUILDER® trademark was granted incontestable status in 2009, under Section 15 of the Trademark Act, and is afforded similar status under European law by virtue of the Madrid Treaty and Protocol. As such, ARMY BUILDER is protected from claims of alleged descriptiveness.

In light of the foregoing, we must also demand that you immediately remove the inflammatory and disparaging “EDIT” you posted at viewtopic.php?f=30&t=4810. Not only are the claims made in this “EDIT” incorrect as a matter of law, but this post damages our client’s reputation and unfairly characterizes our client’s position. Moreover it may unwittingly aide or abet others to infringe on our client’s mark, exposing you to liability.

The diligent enforcement of the ARMY BUILDER® brand is, as you must appreciate, of great value and importance to our client. Nevertheless, it is our client’s hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and informally. In furtherance of that spirit, our client will release you from any liability for past infringing uses of the ARMY BUILDER® trademark and for any defamation noted above, in return for your changing the above-cited words on your websites and deleting the above-noted “EDIT”, in good faith, within the next ten (10) days. You are welcome to seek the advice of a trademark lawyer on these issues, naturally, and if you engage an attorney to represent you, please forward his or her name to us so that we can work these issues out in a professional manner.

We caution you not to mistake our client's willingness to resolve this matter without formal legal action as unwillingness to pursue a legal remedy, if necessary. We reserve the right to seek damages in the event that this cannot be resolved in good faith as requested.


Robert A. Lippman, Esq.



I can remove the edit, all I have to do is post all your emails in public view for people to see how you conduct yourselves. Your own words make you look a lot worse than what I wrote there.
Like I've said before these spreadsheets are mostly calculators, some of them don't even have rosters so please stop with the sugestions of "roster something"
You are not trying to be civil, you just disregard anything I say and bully me.
If you were trying to be civil you would have picked one of the various sugestions I posted on the last email and I'd simply change to one of those.

Here's a fun quote from rob:

"LWD is fully aware that descriptive terms are available for use by the public to describe their products and services in marketing them, provided that the words are used in their primary or descriptive sense and are not used deceptively or untruthfully. Thus, LWD has no beef with anyone claiming that their product's function is to "build army lists." On the other hand, naming a rival program "Joe's Army Builder" or "Army Builder 2010" would be considered an infringing use and be subject to legal action."

Here's the link if you don't believe me: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=9735&page=3

Yes I actually provide links to stuff. Thanks for providing me a link to the law like I asked by the way, really civil of you to just throw out lawyer words. Next time send whoever you are contacting links to the relevant laws. Surely they must be available online, portuguese law is and I find it hard to believe your country is that far behind.

You aren't responding to the fact that you asked "army builder" to be removed from forum names that had nothing to do with roster creation software.

I hope you apologised to the folks at TLA for the completely shameless bullying over uses that had nothing to do with your trademark.

Like I've said multiple times the files are not named army builder, you can go there rigth now and download them.
I just want an accurate description of what they do, and they are used to build armies. Your software helps make rosters, mine doesn't, I've added some pages that allow you to do that if you wish to in some of them but the files are mostly just for army building.

If you guys really want to be civil I'll try this again.
Battlescribe seems to get away with army list builder, I'm ok with going even further away and putting "army building tool", or army building spreadsheet, that one is actually even more descriptive. This would be ok according to rob's quote, please confirm.

Note that all you had to do was say "go with that one" right after I had sent you the reply and I'd have changed it by now.
I would even have been ok with adding a disclaimer redirecting people to your site if they stumble on mine while looking for your "ARMY BUILDER" program. I don't have a business to run, I have no interest in stealing clients from you or in amassing more users of my file. Frankly after this second mail I don't think you deserve any publicity.

I've been waiting your reply for ages, and now instead of a reply I get threats.

Hope you actually reply this time. It's not that hard, just say "that option is acceptable" and I'll change it as soon as I can.

I'll be waiting for an actual reply.



PS: Can't change anything right now, in the wrong country and don't have the details for my account. Won't have acess to those until the 13th.

Notice how in this one they have the nerve to say that "army building" a term that has been in use since way before they appeared and that they admit preceeds them is something I can't use. Even they know how generic their term is.

Dear Mr. Marques,

Thank you for your prompt reply. We regret that you interpret our client’s need to protect its intellectual property as “bullying”. Trademark law requires that we police infringing use of the trademark, so what you perceive as "bullying" is legally required on our part. Our intent remains to amicably resolve this matter with you, if possible, and to release you from liability, in exchange for some rather minor changes to your web content. These changes should have no economic impact on you, especially in light of your statement that you are not making commercial use of your spreadsheet offering.

We cannot supply you with “links” to the law of trademark infringement. The legal precedents relied upon include both statutes and case law, in the United States and Europe, and we do not endorse or rely upon internet links as authority. We encourage you to seek the advice of a trademark lawyer on these issues, as that should afford you a better understanding of the issues involved, and if you should engage an attorney to represent you, please forward his or her name to us so that we can work these issues out in a professional manner. Notwithstanding, you should be able to verify on your own that the law of trademark infringement provides that any branding that is either identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers, is infringing.

With this in mind, whether or not your software/spreadsheet produces a “roster” is irrelevant. It is similar enough in function to our client’s product that the use of a similar brand name cannot be allowed. Given the similarity of the products, the term “army building” is far too similar to ARMY BUILDER. This is why our March 11, 2013 letter suggested the alternatives of “creation software" (or spreadsheet, if you prefer), “creator”, "editor", "generator", "writer", or "organizer" as possible non-infringing, generic alternatives. If you were to re-brand your spreadsheets as “Army Creation Spreadsheet” or “Army Generating Spreadsheet”, our concerns would be resolved.

Finally, your citation to Mr. Robert Bowes email concerning a situation with Privateer Press some years ago (since resolved) misses the point. That email addressed the permissibility of saying that the purpose of a program was to "build army lists” in descriptive text. This is not the same as using the term BUILDER or BUILDING in the name of a tool, which you specifically have done at http://lonelyknight.0fees.net/. Additionally, given that ARMY BUILDER is in fact our client’s incontestable trademark and not merely ”two words from the english dictionary that describe it's function”, we again must insist that the “EDIT”, which mischaracterizes our client’s position, be removed from viewtopic.php?f=30&t=4810.

We thank you for calling our attention to the use of the ARMY BUILDER term in connection with the Battlescribe product. We were unaware of this, and will address it in due course.


Robert A. Lippman, Esq.



"and we do not endorse or rely upon internet links as authority" Seriously? Did you understand what I stated? The portuguese goverment has it's laws available online on official sites. They are as valid as the printed version. Wasn't aware Britain was still stuck in the 20th century.
Seriously was that suposed to be some smug superior joke? Kind of makes you look like idiots who don't know how to use the internet.

That title is descriptive text. The spreadsheets are not named/branded/called any form of army builder. How many times do I have to state this? Have you ever downloaded the files? One more time they were NEVER named army builder or any variation of that. That's why your bullying has been so annoying.
Jesus will you shut the hell up if I turn it into a more complete form of the obvious sentence? LOME army building spreadsheet is a ->DESCRIPTION<- of what I have there. It's an Army building spreadsheet for LOME. It's not the name of the bloody file, it never was. How the hell did you never notice that??
I'll go change it right now since you all appear to be too thick to realise what is written there.
Look through my site, all the titles are descriptions of what that section contains.

Some fun and rather obvious facts:
You openly admit army building was a common term when referring to amassing a physical army for gaming before your software emerged. You claim that you defined army builder as applied to software because you were the first to use it on the internet (which obviously means no one must have ever used it before because the internet was huge in 1998). Now if I was to describe to a judge this process of army building that predates you, and then asked the judge what he would call a program or spreadsheet that helped with that process what do you think he'd call it?
Your trademark was declared incontestable because you duped an idiot judge with meaningless drivel, if the judge had been a gamer he'd have been familiar with army building and he'd have denied your claim and voided your trademark. Your trademark was generic from the very start.

PS: You can't touch battlescribe, they are branded "Battlescribe" and only use Army list builder in descriptive text which you just said was ok. You folks are rather fond of contradicting yourselves.

They finally realize my spreadsheets aren't named army builder

Dear Mr. Marques,

Thank you for your March 15, 2013 letter and the edits that you have made on your website. We believe that we are close to a final resolution of this matter and ask that you try to put aside some of the more inflammatory language of your replies so that we can focus on the remaining issues and close this matter. We appreciate that you believe that our requests are “bullying”. However, as we have tried to make clear, it is not our client’s desire to take legal action against you, provided you are willing to make the necessary changes. Lone Wolf is compelled by law to police its trademark and tries to do so in a way that acknowledges your right to publish a competing roster editor and market it fairly to your target audience. All Lone Wolf has sought in this matter is that the potential for confusion be minimized.

While we acknowledge that the tools/spreadsheets that you have created are not called ARMY BUILDER, the law of trademark protects both a product name and how that name is used in marketing to describe similar or identical goods. You may, for instance, use our client’s trademark in advertising to compare your product with our client’s product. For example, you can say “the LOME spreadsheet is a roster calculator which performs many of the same functions as Lone Wolf’s Army Builder”, but if you say that “the LOME spreadsheet is an Army Builder”, you have infringed on our trademark. We accept that this is a bit confusing, as due to the prominence of our client’s product some people may mistakenly believe that the term Army Builder is generic. However, we can assure you that this has been found not to be the case, and our client’s mark was held incontestable without any judge having been "tricked", as you put it.

We appreciate that you have changed your web pages to refer/link to your products as “The LOME army building spreadsheet”, and this is naturally preferable to the former infringing “LOME army builder”. However we do ask that you be consistent, and in this regard wish to point out that the web page viewtopic.php?f=30&t=4810 still contains a link which reads “Need an army builder? Try these for SBG (v1.35) and WOTR (v1.13)”. Please address that instance as well.

As for your “Edit”, we have no objection to your posting our letters publicly if you so choose. Indeed, we would prefer you do so over your editorial comments, which we believe to be disparaging and not reflective of our actual requests, or of the tone and spirit in which they were made. If you are determined to have your readers become involved in this matter, let the letters, and the record, speak for itself. Having said this, we do believe that the better alternative is to remove all mention of our respective positions and simply get on with servicing our respective products and customers

We expect that you will bring this matter to a mutually acceptable close in short order.


Robert A. Lippman

And what I hope will be my last email to them

First of all let me just say that the link in question is in my signature, it appears on all my posts in that site and I kind of forgot it was there. Thanks for reminding me, I'll change it.
You also seem to be ok with LOME army building spreadsheet so I'll change it back to that as soon as I can. I like to keep the description as short as possible.

That concludes our interaction.

Here are some final points.

I am not being inflamatory. You people have thouroughly proven to be devoid of the ability to understand basic english (either that or you simply don't read the emails) and clearly have no idea how to use the web. This last time is the first time you have acknowledged that my spreadsheets were not named army builder. You've been making that claim for ages and continuously ignored me. That tends to annoy people.
Also, when you last replied to me I had already changed to the description LOME army building spreadsheet (no "the" btw, it's just one possible spreadsheet) so yes I was rather angry that you were still complaining after that. Apparently you hadn't noticed I had already changed it.

You also spend half your emails making false claims, which also erodes anyones patience away rather quickly.
And contradicting yourselves, that part is simply priceless. Rob said that it was ok to use army builder to describe, you say that's missing the point since I have "branded the product army builder", I point out that no I haven't - it's named SBG. You then say that Rob was wrong and using it as a description is ilegal.

You are not trying to minimize the potential for confusion, your software is similar to excel from what I've been told. So my spreadsheet would rank on the level of the army files which are not even made by you.
It's not a competing roster editor. That would be Microsoft excel and open office. I'm assuming you know what those are but if not, Google them.

Army builder IS generic, rather sad that you can't see it. You know how I arrived at that term? Everyone kept saying army building, and I need to build a new army and so on and so on. Like they've said for ages before your software ever existed. So what do you call something that helps with army building?
I didn't copy it from your software and I had never seen "army builder" any where when I started using that term. As far as I knew no one had used it before, yet it still seemed like a generic term.

You've shown your argument, it makes no sense and only a judge with no knowledge of the term army building would aprove it. Considering how bad you fellows are with the internet and with logic I guess it may appear to make sense for you. It really doesn't.
By your reasoning someone could have trademarked lawn mower when they made the first one, even though it's a generic term for something that mows the lawn.

Freedom of speech means I can publicly say that I think anyone on earth is "insert the most horrible insult possible here". Not really sure where you got the idea that I can't insult you.
Not really sure why you think you could have any objections to the posting of the correspondence either, that's now how it works. Unless I sign a non disclosure agreement I have the right to post literally anything I see.
That's kind of common knowledge. Heck in america there is literally no restriction, you can even post racist stuff.
Do you have any idea how many websites are out there saying Obama is a [censored] (or worse) ?

You are bullies, no idea how you can't see that considering your history. You threatened a forum for having army builder in some of their pages back in 2010. Then were forced to apologize for being bullies.
TLA has nothing to do with my files. They had a forum called Army builder and tactics that was simply a forum to build armies and discuss tactics. And you threatned them and asked them to change that. Next thing you know you'll try to bully that guy on youtube because he refers to ->himself<- as an army builder. You know, someone that builds armies? That's how generic your term is.

Hope to never hear from you again

PS: Took me a whole second to find on Google http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.

And now I will use my freedom of speech. Lone wolf, you are incoherent self contradicting idiots.

User avatar
Standard Bearer
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:48 am
Location: Massachusettes, USA

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:38 am

Wow, I read that whole thing, what a load of garbage. Is it ok to use your "troops and heroes listing by region, gathering and organizing into a force spreadsheet tool" to build an army? Or can I only think it is an army just not a built army...or I built a force that is not an army....hmmm kind of hard not to use the description of BUILDING AN ARMY with this spreadsheet.
Screw Lone wolf whoever they are. Can I trademark the words Lone Wolf is a Tool?
"So comes snow after fire, and even dragons have their ending!" \m/

User avatar
Standard Bearer
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:57 pm
Location: Newton Aycliffe, Durham

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:52 am

Jesus Christ...

Let the Internet Wars commence.


You should consider bringing this to the attention of prominent sites, such as Miniwargaming and Beasts of War.
Last edited by Eldarion Telcontar on Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:45 pm
Location: In the water............watching!!!

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:56 am

Sithious wrote: Can I trademark the words Lone Wolf is a Tool?

Lol if you can i'll pay half the fee ..idiots!
A New Power is Rising!!


Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:24 pm
Location: Edinburgh Scotland

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:58 am

can't say that^ the church trade marked last week¡
who is lone wolf and what game system is his army builder for?

User avatar
Standard Bearer
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:57 pm
Location: Newton Aycliffe, Durham

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:26 am

They have a facebook page for their army builder product if anyone feels in the mood for posting rude comments. :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 574
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:38 am

Wow. :roll:

User avatar
Standard Bearer
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:57 pm
Location: Newton Aycliffe, Durham

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:06 am

I found the snide remark about your "Edit" disparaging and misrepresenting their client rather amusing. I don't think you misrepresented them at all.

User avatar
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:53 am
Location: Mornington peninsula victoria Australia

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:59 am

Lonely knight, you are amazing. In your position, I don't think I would have kept my cool anywhere near as well as you did.
Also, had anyone else ever heard of these lone wolf guys? Because I never had.
That's what i'm Tolkein about!

Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:24 pm
Location: Edinburgh Scotland

Re: About Lone Wolf

Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:37 am

too the Facebook page :lol:
lets gw this fracker.

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests