Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

Paulson, who made the four-legged walker tank, has been released from the case (there must be a correct legal term) without prejudice.

Shepherd23 wrote:

I agree here completely. While I admire your devotion to the Cult of GW, it really seems that in this case you are just defending them because of your devotion. You know as well as everyone else that there is no other 100% exact comparison currently on the books.

Whether that is true of Kanluwen or not I cannot say. However it may be unfair to assume that an individuals opinions on this case are clouded by their opinions of GW in general, except in the case of those who make comments like the above. After all if it is unthinkable to some not to be biased then it is logical to first apply that measure first to those who assume so.

Now this Chapterhouse case has opened mixed feelings.

I for one enjoy a bit of GW shadenfreude when their rather viscious legal policy led them to bite before realising they could not swallow, I like how someone has stood up to the bully, I also like some resin on the side from an illegitimate manufacturer.

However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Kilkrazy wrote:Paulson, who made the four-legged walker tank, has been released from the case (there must be a correct legal term) without prejudice.

Sorry, have to correct you:
Paulson never had anything to do with Chapterhouse. Every photo of the walker at that time clearly showed the name of the correct sculptor. So either by incompetence or ill will, GW lawyers dragged the wrong guy to court, making this the reason why the lawsuit takes place in Chicago and several states away from Chapterhouse. After a year and a lot of time and money expenses (I don't think that Paulson got a pro bono lawyer, at least not from the start), the judge finally accepted that he had nothing to do with the case.

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Doesn't matter, CHS hasn't copied anything that GW did, the CHS Farseer is a completely new model imagined by CHS's sculptors. GW does not own the IP for Elves, GW does not own the IP for space and GW certainly does not own the IP for space Elves...

If those things were true, wouldn't you think that GW would have sued the pants out of Avatars of War, Banelords and Warpath? They are clearly making minis that can be used in GW games!

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Doesn't matter, CHS hasn't copied anything that GW did, the CHS Farseer is a completely new model imagined by CHS's sculptors. GW does not own the IP for Elves, GW does not own the IP for space and GW certainly does not own the IP for space Elves...

If those things were true, wouldn't you think that GW would have sued the pants out of Avatars of War, Banelords and Warpath? They are clearly making minis that can be used in GW games!

No sorry. Though using that false analogy might be the sort of smokescreen relied upon. You can have your own space elves and GW cant do much about it, but the intent here is to mimic a GW product, Warpath doesnt claim to do that, its an independent gaming system.

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

Indeed so the dashboards will have to be fairly generic and able to fit onto a dashboard or cut to fit, or a license is required for official parts.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Doesn't matter, CHS hasn't copied anything that GW did, the CHS Farseer is a completely new model imagined by CHS's sculptors. GW does not own the IP for Elves, GW does not own the IP for space and GW certainly does not own the IP for space Elves...

If those things were true, wouldn't you think that GW would have sued the pants out of Avatars of War, Banelords and Warpath? They are clearly making minis that can be used in GW games!

No sorry. Though using that false analogy might be the sort of smokescreen relied upon. You can have your own space elves and GW cant do much about it, but the intent here is to mimic a GW product, Warpath doesnt claim to do that, its an independent gaming system.

So you are saying that the Avatars of War heroes weren't produced with the intent to be used as WHFB heroes? That the Banelords Dark Elves standard bearer for example, wasn't made to be used in a WHFB Dark Elves army? Sorry, but I call that BS, put any of those miniatures in the middle of a "compatible" WHFB army and most people will think that they are made by the same company.

IP law doesn't work on "intent", if it isn't a direct copy of something then it is perfectly legal.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

Indeed so the dashboards will have to be fairly generic and able to fit onto a dashboard or cut to fit, or a license is required for official parts.

CHS aren't claiming that they make "official" anything, they just said that their kits are compatible with certain GW miniatures and you don't need a license for that.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Paulson, who made the four-legged walker tank, has been released from the case (there must be a correct legal term) without prejudice.

Sorry, have to correct you:
Paulson never had anything to do with Chapterhouse. Every photo of the walker at that time clearly showed the name of the correct sculptor. So either by incompetence or ill will, GW lawyers dragged the wrong guy to court, making this the reason why the lawsuit takes place in Chicago and several states away from Chapterhouse. After a year and a lot of time and money expenses (I don't think that Paulson got a pro bono lawyer, at least not from the start), the judge finally accepted that he had nothing to do with the case.

How was the Walker a problem anyway? GW don't make anything like that, I thought it's been said that Tau don't do titans so GW won't be making anything like it in future.

Orlanth wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:

I agree here completely. While I admire your devotion to the Cult of GW, it really seems that in this case you are just defending them because of your devotion. You know as well as everyone else that there is no other 100% exact comparison currently on the books.

Whether that is true of Kanluwen or not I cannot say. However it may be unfair to assume that an individuals opinions on this case are clouded by their opinions of GW in general, except in the case of those who make comments like the above. After all if it is unthinkable to some not to be biased then it is logical to first apply that measure first to those who assume so.

Now this Chapterhouse case has opened mixed feelings.

I for one enjoy a bit of GW shadenfreude when their rather viscious legal policy led them to bite before realising they could not swallow, I like how someone has stood up to the bully, I also like some resin on the side from an illegitimate manufacturer.

However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

No for the same reason why Hasbro owning Wizards owning TSR cannot sue GW for making Warhammer.

The same reason why Ford cannot sue Toyota/Honda/GM Mercedes etc etc for making mass production cars.

You making your IG army out of non GW models is like a customer putting a Mercedes icon on a Fiat. Its what a customer might do.

If Tamiya started making plastic Valhallans then they would likely get GW rightly upset. If Tamiya make 28mm Russians and you make a Valhallan army from them they have to cause to argue.

Chapterhouse Doomseer resembles a Farseer, if it only looked like 'some for of elf in a spacesuit' which is a broader category of which Farseer is a subcategory then it would be ok.

The trouble is that Chapterhouse are finding as easy to be as facetious as you are being.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

No for the same reason why Hasbro owning Wizards owning TSR cannot sue GW for making Warhammer.

The same reason why Ford cannot sue Toyota/Honda/GM Mercedes etc etc for making mass production cars.

You making your IG army out of non GW models is like a customer putting a Mercedes icon on a Fiat. Its what a customer might do.

If Tamiya started making plastic Valhallans then they would likely get GW rightly upset. If Tamiya make 28mm Russians and you make a Valhallan army from them they have to cause to argue.

Chapterhouse Doomseer resembles a Farseer, if it only looked like 'some for of elf in a spacesuit' which is a broader category of which Farseer is a subcategory then it would be ok.

The trouble is that Chapterhouse are finding as easy to be as facetious as you are being.

You are picking and choosing things that you think should be cause for suing without any basis in any legal argument except your opinion of GW and CHS. That is not how the real world works (fortunately).

If things worked out the way you wanted them to work, then GW would have been sued out of existence long ago by the owners of the Tolkien estate...

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

No for the same reason why Hasbro owning Wizards owning TSR cannot sue GW for making Warhammer.

The same reason why Ford cannot sue Toyota/Honda/GM Mercedes etc etc for making mass production cars.

You making your IG army out of non GW models is like a customer putting a Mercedes icon on a Fiat. Its what a customer might do.

If Tamiya started making plastic Valhallans then they would likely get GW rightly upset. If Tamiya make 28mm Russians and you make a Valhallan army from them they have to cause to argue.

Chapterhouse Doomseer resembles a Farseer, if it only looked like 'some for of elf in a spacesuit' which is a broader category of which Farseer is a subcategory then it would be ok.

The trouble is that Chapterhouse are finding as easy to be as facetious as you are being.

The GW Far Seers and the Chapter House Doom Seer look like a figure wearing plate armour, a tall helmet and robes.

I am not being facetious in suggesting that GW have not got a copyright on depicting a humanoid warrior in plate armour, a tall helmet and robes.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

Indeed so the dashboards will have to be fairly generic and able to fit onto a dashboard or cut to fit, or a license is required for official parts.

Interfacing geometry would have to be so "novel" as to deserve a patent to get any sort of protection and general aesthetic can't really be protected either. So what sort of protection does that dashboard really have?-Just protection from it being directly reproduced. This is the reality of GW's position in trying to assert its claim on the design of CH's miniatures. GW was more founded when it originally argued that CH was unfairly using its TM and falsely presenting its products as their own, but even that's a stretch since the way CH presented them is common practice and regarded as fair use.

There is a lot of argueing over who is right and who is wrong, but it comes down to this GW's position is only really actionable if it shows CH has directly copied anything GW's made and that's simply not going to happen because CH hasn't copied anything.

Everything else is irrelevent to the case. Intent, is something that comes into this arguement, but that only speaks to damages and not to the validity of the claim somethings been copied.

Orlanth wrote:
No sorry. Though using that false analogy might be the sort of smokescreen relied upon. You can have your own space elves and GW cant do much about it, but the intent here is to mimic a GW product, Warpath doesnt claim to do that, its an independent gaming system.

Bex wrote:Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

The Plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal - with prejudice, by the way. This is still subject to approval by the Court, although I don't think there's any reason for the Court to not grant the dismissal. If you look at the docket, you'll notice that the case against Paulson has not actually been dismissed yet.

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Stuff like this goes on in business all the time. Take a look at the toy industry which is notorious for its knock offs. There is Planet of the Apes, and then there is Apes Attacks. The latter competes with Planet of the Apes, and is probably derived from it. (Another example is Transformers and Go Bots.) However, in the toy industry relatively few lawsuits are filed about this sort of thing. They are either sporting about it, or know that they do not have a case.

The TV and Movie industries also have their fair share of knock offs. Again, relatively few lawsuits.

spaceelf wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Stuff like this goes on in business all the time. Take a look at the toy industry which is notorious for its knock offs. There is Planet of the Apes, and then there is Apes Attacks. The latter competes with Planet of the Apes, and is probably derived from it. (Another example is Transformers and Go Bots.) However, in the toy industry relatively few lawsuits are filed about this sort of thing. They are either sporting about it, or know that they do not have a case.

The TV and Movie industries also have their fair share of knock offs. Again, relatively few lawsuits.

GW was used to issuing a C&D, or the threat of a suit to get third parties to cower to them, thus avoiding an actual lawsuit AND getting the result they desired. Unfortunately for them, CH was able to secure effective pro bono representation which basically took GW's assertions to task. In the light of scrutiny, these assertions are beginning to look hollow. It would seem the emperor has no clothes.

PhantomViper wrote:
So you are saying that the Avatars of War heroes weren't produced with the intent to be used as WHFB heroes? That the Banelords Dark Elves standard bearer for example, wasn't made to be used in a WHFB Dark Elves army? Sorry, but I call that BS, put any of those miniatures in the middle of a "compatible" WHFB army and most people will think that they are made by the same company.

I didnt adress Avatar's of War, they are in the same place as Chapterhouse, however Avatars at least by producing fantasy heroes can say they have a generic product. GW have no IP leg to stand on regarding Vampires, but do with regards to Eldar Farseers

PhantomViper wrote:
IP law doesn't work on "intent", if it isn't a direct copy of something then it is perfectly legal.....

CHS aren't claiming that they make "official" anything, they just said that their kits are compatible with certain GW miniatures and you don't need a license for that.

Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

Well if it's that clear cut then GW should have no problem proving they own these copyrights and can press home a case. Shame they seem a bit vague about all this after a year.

Orlanth wrote:
Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

Me buying an entire Imperial Guard army from Pig Iron and Wargames Factory also denies them a sale, doesn't mean that they have a basis for a legal lawsuit.

In fact, taking your argument to its "logical" conclusion, me buying a Warmahordes Legion army will also deny GW a sale, since I could have used that money to buy GW minis instead.

Did CHS copy any miniature made by GW in their "Doomseer"? No.
Does GW own the Elf in Space IP? No.
Does GW own the Elf in Space wearing armour IP? No.
Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.
Does GW own the term "Farseer"? Maybe, that is why CHS called theirs "Doomseer".

Again, you're basing your arguments in your opinions of the companies involved, they have absolutelly no basis on how things actually work on the real world.

weeble1000 wrote:

Bex wrote:Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

The Plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal - with prejudice, by the way. This is still subject to approval by the Court, although I don't think there's any reason for the Court to not grant the dismissal. If you look at the docket, you'll notice that the case against Paulson has not actually been dismissed yet.

Thanks, So we won't know if he is dismissed until Dec 2012? Is that the next court date?

PhantomViper wrote:Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.

I think they do actually.

Oddly though, they only applied for it in 1992 along with Space Marines in 1992.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=1498855

Also, their list of UK TRADEMARKS (lets be specific) is actually quite short and some have actually expired.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-adp?propnum=0671428001

DARK FUTURE WO 25.08.1988 Registered 16 28
CITADEL DW 25.08.1988 Registered 16 28
GAMES WORKSHOP. SW 25.08.1988 Registered 09 16 28
WHITE DWARF DW 25.08.1988 Registered 16
ARMAGEDDON WO 13.04.1991 Registered 28
SPACE MARINE WO 18.04.1991 Registered 28
CITADEL WO 15.11.1991 Registered 16
CITADEL WO 15.11.1991 Registered 28
GAMES WORKSHOP WO 15.11.1991 Registered 09 16 28
ELDAR WO 24.04.1992 Registered 28
WARMASTER WO 16.07.1992 Registered 28
TYRANID WO 16.01.1993 Registered 09 28
GAMES WORKSHOP SW 16.01.1993 Registered 16
DARK ANGEL WO 16.01.1993 Expired 28
DUNGEONQUEST WO 25.03.1993 Expired 28
HEAVY METAL WO 27.04.1994 Expired 16
HEAVY METAL WO 27.04.1994 Expired 28
INQUISITOR WO 16.03.2001 Registered 09 16 28
WARHAMMERONLINE WO 04.04.2001 Registered 09 16 28 35 41
WARHAMMERONLINE.COM WO 04.04.2001 Expired 09 16 28 35 41


For context, their Tradmarks typically apply to class 28 (toys) or 16(paper products, books etc)

Howard A Treesong wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.

I think they do actually.

Oddly though, they only applied for it in 1992.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=1498855

Just had a poke around the web and stumbled upon this:

Eldar is a word of the Iberian language, a language of the Iberian about 2,500 years ago, but going back to the past of the megalithic culture. Eldar in this language means "Epidemic"

Would that make their claim invalid?

Edit:

Found this on Wiki as well:

Eldar is both a Hebrew first/last name meaning "god resides" and a rare Norse first name meaning "Warrior who fights with fire"(Eld+ar(ar=Harjar)) Eld=fire. It is also a Muslim name meaning 'ruler' in the Persian language. Its also the word for 'fires' in the Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian language. It is also a common first name among the Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, the Azeris, the Georgians and the Bashkirs.

Can they claim such a word?

No.

A company can trademark any term for use in trade unless the term (e.g. Sony) is itself a copyright term.

Wolfstan wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.

I think they do actually.

Oddly though, they only applied for it in 1992.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=1498855

Just had a poke around the web and stumbled upon this:

Eldar is a word of the Iberian language, a language of the Iberian about 2,500 years ago, but going back to the past of the megalithic culture. Eldar in this language means "Epidemic"

Would that make their claim invalid?

Edit:

Found this on Wiki as well:

Eldar is both a Hebrew first/last name meaning "god resides" and a rare Norse first name meaning "Warrior who fights with fire"(Eld+ar(ar=Harjar)) Eld=fire. It is also a Muslim name meaning 'ruler' in the Persian language. Its also the word for 'fires' in the Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian language. It is also a common first name among the Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, the Azeris, the Georgians and the Bashkirs.

Can they claim such a word?

Maybe in regards to applying "Eldar" to space elves (elves in soace etc).

Wolfstan wrote:

Eldar is a word of the Iberian language, a language of the Iberian about 2,500 years ago, but going back to the past of the megalithic culture. Eldar in this language means "Epidemic"

Would that make their claim invalid?

No. Be fair, the Trademark has been issued to them.

The context is important, if applies to toys and stationary, if you search for "Eldar" other people have the term for other uses.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
IP law doesn't work on "intent", if it isn't a direct copy of something then it is perfectly legal.....

CHS aren't claiming that they make "official" anything, they just said that their kits are compatible with certain GW miniatures and you don't need a license for that.

Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

Orlanth, GW doesn't have a right to a sale. Copyright is actually pretty specific - it protects the expression of an idea, which is to say that it protects a specific sculpture of an Eldar Farseer. There is a little looseness around the edges (i.e., if I took GW's Farseer model, and modified it to be kneeling, it would likely still fall under the concept of a derivative work, something that only the copyright holder has the right to create), but if I make my own sculpture in the same general aesthetic as a copyrighted work, copyright law doesn't prevent me from selling it.

All that's left after that is the risk for customer confusion (unfair competition law), which can be challenging to prove.

Orlanth wrote:However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

You've always been able to do that. GW is not the only miniature maker out there. I have multiple models made by a variety of different manufacturers that I have used in GW games because I like the competitor's model better. GW can only control that if I wanna play in a GW store; they can't prevent me from buying Reaper or other minis and using them instead of whatever GW produced model that I don't like as much. The only reason this CHS instance crossed the line was when they advertised it by using GW names; once they changed that, GW no longer had a valid reason to attack that issue. That's why the case has moved into different issues from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

So what? Competitors deny other competitors sales all the time. That's a fact of doing business. As long as CH is not marketing their Doomseer as a GW produced Farseer, they're not breaking any laws, unless it can be shown that the Doomseer is a direct copy of a GW product (which it's not).

Bex wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Bex wrote:Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

The Plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal - with prejudice, by the way. This is still subject to approval by the Court, although I don't think there's any reason for the Court to not grant the dismissal. If you look at the docket, you'll notice that the case against Paulson has not actually been dismissed yet.

Thanks, So we won't know if he is dismissed until Dec 2012? Is that the next court date?

The date you have in mind is the trial date (December 3rd, 2012). This is the date that the actual trial begins, therefore indicating voir dire, jury selection, and subsequent events leading up to a verdict. The Court will rule on the stipulation much sooner than that. And at this point, for all practical purposes, Paulson is out of the case.

In the Northern District of Illinois, the parties will appear before the Judge on essentially a weekly basis.

GW needs to wake up here.



And HIRE these guys. Obviously they are talented and could add their talents to GW's existing talent.

IronSnake wrote:GW needs to wake up here.



And HIRE these guys. Obviously they are talented and could add their talents to GW's existing talent.

Apparently GW take a pretty meh view if they see their products come up when searching for sculpters. They like seeing original stuff.

Of course what is a GW like product will be subject for change when this case is finished!

If this bounces CHS way would it be possible for them to sue others if they are first to market, as an example, with a standard Jetbike suitable for Space Marines. What if sculpted a female farseer and sold copies? Could CHS then sue me since aesthetically I would sculpt it to be like GW Eldar/CHS Doomseer?