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.

I disagree with your choice of wording on point number 3. GW wanted this to go to court. The only way to settle this out of court that would be acceptable to GW is Chapterhouse essentially killing itself and handing over all of its assets...which is unreasonable and stupid. That was the only option.

GW made this personal and went to great lengths to make sure this went to court. They didn't expect it to bite them in the ass as hard as it did, though.

Not quite. I doubt GW ever expected it to go to court, they were just hoping the threat of court would make CHS fold.

At the end of the day, GW spend "indecent" amounts of money (according to the Chairmans annual report), and CHS is still running after the settlement. GW failed spectacularly to do what it set out to (shut down CHS), and wasted a lot of time and money in the process.

The biggest fall-out from the whole thing is GW's new approach to sales; nothing in rules that doesn't already have a model.

Oh, yeah, you're right. Chapterhouse was supposed to get scared and immediately give in to GW's demands. But when that didn't happen then they were more than happy to drag it to court.

I think they were surprised they actually had to do court, as they didn't seem in any way ready for it. I reckon they were either expecting CHS to fail to turn up, or to cave in in the foyer 5 minutes before it started. They seemed almost resentful of the fact it was defended at all.

Herzlos wrote:
I think they were surprised they actually had to do court, as they didn't seem in any way ready for it. I reckon they were either expecting CHS to fail to turn up, or to cave in in the foyer 5 minutes before it started. They seemed almost resentful of the fact it was defended at all.

I got the distinct impression that even a week before the first court date GW where still expecting the 'I'm sorry, I fold' phone call.


From the get go though they really wanted people to see them as the 800 pound gorilla that would bring it's IP hammer down on anyone touching their work. They wanted people scared and expected to make an example of CH.

When this actually went to court though I think their priorities shifted. They had already lost some things by the time the trial started and then (I may be getting the timeline wring but I think this is the correct order of events) we started seeing the mentality of 'Warhammer 40k is our creation, and therefore our strongly protected IP. X chapter shoulderpads come from Warhammer 40k, our protected IP, therefore you're infringing our IP by making them'. There was this weird attitude you could see that seemed like they wanted everything wrapped in a big ball that would then become a single IP instead of thousands of individual ones. They wanted to set a precedent that even the most unorigonal thing in 40k, like skulls or roman numerals, are protectable because they are part of a larger whole.


Instead of folding CH got very good pro bono council BECAUSE GW's claims where so extreme. Powerful law firms didn't want those kind of precedents set for their paying clients so they flocked to CH and showed the world that GW is actually a 60 pound monkey playing with it's own excrement in the corner.

Ultimately I ignore the numbers of claims won or damages awarded when looking at who 'won'.
GW's goal was to kill CH and scare other bits makers away.
CH wanted to survive.
In the end Ch is still around and there are now clear guidelines for what can and can't be done for all those other bits makers to follow now, strengthening them.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
GW used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and mostly missed.

That brought an image of GW sat with the nut on its lap. Missing hurts.

weeble1000 wrote:

The short answer about guidance for others is that the trial court made some scary and concerning rulings that should make folks in this industry nervous in general, regardless of anything to do with Games Workshop. I will go into some of those in my summary.

Some of the bad ones - from my recollection was granting trademark status on GW's say-so for items which were only words mentioned deep in one of their published books, and not actual marks used in trade.

Also in their claim chart they never really specified what was a copyright claim and what was a trademark claim, trying to conflate the issues into 'IP'

The GW case was a big bag of clown shoes.

You only have to read through some of the pre-trial discovery and testimony from various witnesses to see that GW did not have the slightest clue what they were doing.

I personally believe they only won on the points they did because the jury couldn't believe that so much mud could be thrown at the wall without some of it sticking.

It was a great pity the appeal did not get to court because GW probably would have lost on a lot of the things they won at trial.

Just my opinions, of course...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The GW case was a big bag of clown shoes.

You only have to read through some of the pre-trial discovery and testimony from various witnesses to see that GW did not have the slightest clue what they were doing.

I personally believe they only won on the points they did because the jury couldn't believe that so much mud could be thrown at the wall without some of it sticking.

It was a great pity the appeal did not get to court because GW probably would have lost on a lot of the things they won at trial.

Just my opinions, of course...

Personally I think it was funnier that they expected that they had trademarks on things just because they said they did, without actually having one filed.

And let's not forget Kirby's dig at the US court system in the preamble, as though that was the only reason they didn't win 100%, because those darn colonists want to stick it to Britain once again.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Personally I think it was funnier that they expected that they had trademarks on things just because they said they did, without actually having one filed.

This is not actually that crazy. You don't have to file a trademark in order to have a trademark. You do, however, have to use a mark in order to have one, and your mark has to pretty uniquely identify the source of a particular good or service.

GW claimed marks based on very spurious uses and very spurious evidence of use. For example, GW claimed the word mark "jet pack" based on its use in the middle of the fluff description of assault marines on the back of an Assault Squad box.

Just because my box of Bic pens says "shows visible ink supply" within the product description on the box does't mean that "ink supply" is a Bic trademark. That's crazy.

Also didn't it have to do with CH making models that GW just wasn't making?

Which could be a reason we are seeing a lot of named but no model for them units dissapearing?

 Vash108 wrote:
Also didn't it have to do with CH making models that GW just wasn't making?

Which could be a reason we are seeing a lot of named but no model for them units dissapearing?

Yea, absolutely. This is one clear result of the GW v CHS litigation.

But GW is shooting themselves in the foot here.

GW was concerned about smaller, more nimble companies putting out products before it was able to. Only despite the fact that Alan Merrett lied his off on the stand saying that every single thing in every army book/codex is a product GW intends to make and sell, we all know that GW had holes in its product line it was unwilling to actually fill.

The customers looking to fill these holes tended to be dedicated customers otherwise laden with GW products. Who gets ornery about not having an official Eldar Farseer on a Jetbike? Certainly not Little Timmy. A lot of those holes were too small for GW to really care about, but kept the game more diverse. So in that instance GW is getting a benefit from the 3rd party company.

Even if the company is producing a whole model, the product is still an 'accessory' at heart, because it is being used as an accessory by GW's target customers; i.e. people playing the game and buying lots of GW products. The model accessorizes the army and the game even if it doesn't accessorize a particular model. Armies and games are absolutely GW 'products'.

Now, GW was also concerned about smaller, more nimble customers putting out miniatures for units GW actually planned to release miniatures for at some point, e.g. Tyranid Tervigon. However, GW still gets a benefit from third party companies here. First and foremost, these companies do not have a shadow of GW's market penetration. We are talking about unit sales in the low thousands. If that was eating up the entirety of GW's potential market, that would certainly be a problem, but it wasn't. GW was selling shedloads of Tervigon/Tyrannofex box sets even after CHS sold a thousand Tervigon Conversion Kits. Secondly, if GW actually paid attention to the sales of these smaller companies, it would have a good idea about how well it could expect certain products to sell once they were released. Thirdly, these types of products help to keep up interest in and demand for a product during the down time before GW releases its version.

Again, recognize what is positive and do a cost/benefit analysis. GW's legal antics in the CHS case haven't chilled the third party market. Look at the companies releasing how many different variations of ogres right now. How much do you lose by trying to swat flies with a hammer? How much does it hurt when you miss?

 Vash108 wrote:
Also didn't it have to do with CH making models that GW just wasn't making?

Which could be a reason we are seeing a lot of named but no model for them units dissapearing?

The reason why we are seeing units with no models disappearing is because GW have NO idea why they lost the claims that they did.
GW is simply cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
Also didn't it have to do with CH making models that GW just wasn't making?

Which could be a reason we are seeing a lot of named but no model for them units dissapearing?

The reason why we are seeing units with no models disappearing is because GW have NO idea why they lost the claims that they did.
GW is simply cutting off the nose to spite the face.

I don't think that's true. I think GW would be doing the same thing even if it had won all of the claims in the case.

And GW knows why it lost just as CHS knows why it lost on some things and why it won on others. It isn't a mystery. GW may think it shouldn't have lost, but it certainly knows why.

GW is just lucky that Moskin's method of sling BS, crying wolf, and try not to get caught in a lie didn't blow up in its face. If this case had gone on appeal, it could very easily have blown up in GW's face.

At the end of the day, GW was blessed in getting Judge Kennelly. Most of GW's victories come down to bad rulings by the court. Some of them come down to bad CHS documents. Very few of GW's victories come from good advocacy, and even fewer come from being in the right.

You need to finish striking the jury and publish your summary. Out of interest, does the jury ever complain when you strike them?

Weeble I agree with your model assessment, Although CH's models naming and explanation were a little too obvious. Lots of companies still make figures that serve that function. Although they have to camouflage it somewhat.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Weeble I agree with your model assessment, Although CH's models naming and explanation were a little too obvious. Lots of companies still make figures that serve that function. Although they have to camouflage it somewhat.

That is sort of the crux of the case though - it needs to be, is allowed to be and should be obvious what it is for.

When I go into a store to buy a cover for my tablet - I don't want to have to sort out whether or not it will fit the particular brand and model that I have by deciphering their description. I want to look at the side of the box, find my tablet's model on the list of compatible devices and then go home.

People often forget that the very first purpose of trademarks and trademark law is not to protect the business or their brand, but to protect the consumer. It allows them to quickly identify products and product compatibility. The secondary purpose is to protect the brand, but that falls second behind the consumer (which is why consumers get to choose what has become a generic term - no matter what the company might think about the issue...).

I wonder how much extra site traffic CH got out of this, and even potentially additional customers from all the exposure GW gave them.

 Torga_DW wrote:
You need to finish striking the jury and publish your summary. Out of interest, does the jury ever complain when you strike them?

It depends on the court and the judge, but generally speaking, jurors do not know who struck them or why. They are thanked for their service by the trial judge and dismissed. Most peremptory challenges are made outside the presence of the jury.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
You need to finish striking the jury and publish your summary. Out of interest, does the jury ever complain when you strike them?

It depends on the court and the judge, but generally speaking, jurors do not know who struck them or why. They are thanked for their service by the trial judge and dismissed.

Anyone else got the mental image of a room of blindfolded civies being slapped by someone with the back of a leather glove and then told thank you?

 Henry wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
You need to finish striking the jury and publish your summary. Out of interest, does the jury ever complain when you strike them?

It depends on the court and the judge, but generally speaking, jurors do not know who struck them or why. They are thanked for their service by the trial judge and dismissed.

Anyone else got the mental image of a room of blindfolded civies being slapped by someone with the back of a leather glove and then told thank you?

Ah, yes, 'striking' a jury. Sometimes there's a juror you'd really like to strike. I remember once a Judge asked the jury how deliberations were going, and the foreperson's response was that all the jury needed to render a verdict was a gun and one bullet.

 AduroT wrote:
I wonder how much extra site traffic CH got out of this, and even potentially additional customers from all the exposure GW gave them.

I'm feeling like supporting them just for the bravery and stubbornness

Heads up y'all. I'm going to take a few more days on the summary.

I decided to do an extensive review of the publicly available documents, e.g. motion practice, hearing transcripts, etc. I have also been taking a hard look at the verdict form and the trial transcripts.

It is sort of like doing a summary of your relationship with an ex girlfriend by going back through all of your emails, status updates, and whatnot. In other words, morbidly interesting, but not terribly easy.

So I'm going to take a few more days to finish with the docs.

Weeble, you're awesome.

weeble1000 wrote:
Heads up y'all. I'm going to take a few more days on the summary.

I decided to do an extensive review of the publicly available documents, e.g. motion practice, hearing transcripts, etc. I have also been taking a hard look at the verdict form and the trial transcripts.

It is sort of like doing a summary of your relationship with an ex girlfriend by going back through all of your emails, status updates, and whatnot. In other words, morbidly interesting, but not terribly easy.

So I'm going to take a few more days to finish with the docs.

You can take however many days you need.
Thank you for taking your time to do this.

 Stormwall wrote:
Weeble, you're awesome.

Aye. Take as long as you want with that, it sounds like it will be an amazing resource to have and a very interesting read.

Definitely interested to read it, since I know on certain other sites if you bring it up you tend to find a lot of people siding with GW and thinking that Chapterhouse were thieves and the owner should have been bankrupted for being a thief trying to profit off of GW''s hard work. There was a nice bit of vehemence when CHS' assets were frozen by people saying good on GW for putting an end to this imitator.

Has GW divulged how much they've spent on legal fees yet?

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Has GW divulged how much they've spent on legal fees yet?

Not explicitly, no. Not that I have seen. It is likely buried somewhere in the financial statements. I'm not terribly educated in reading and interpreting those things, so I have sort of been waiting to see if someone finds something about it. I doubt we'll ever know for sure unless GW sues Foley and Lardner for malpractice or something and there's public documents that disclose the fees.

Just to note: there are no such US district court filings, and I searched in New York state courts and Cook County Illinois and did not find anything. Although interestingly, I did find a contract dispute case titled Games Workshop AME v Marc Heller filed in April, 2014. It seems that Marc Heller owns a game store in the Chicago area. Surprising what you find if you go looking. If only all state courts had e-filing and there was a way to comprehensively search all of them at once.

We have info on what costs GW claimed for the trial, and it is easy to ball-park the hourly rates of Mr. Moskin and Mr. Keener. We know the hourly rate of GW's paid expert (~$700/hour if I recall). It is also possible to ball-park the hours spent on legal research, briefs, court appearances, witness prep, depositions, meet and confer, trial, etc. However, that wouldn't really get you to a reliable guess about what GW spent on the litigation. GW might have had a flat fee arrangement with F&L, there might have been a contingency arrangement, F&L could have given a performance-based discount on its fees, heck, GW might be disputing the bill right now.

There are a lot of unknown factors. That said, we do know that Tom Kirby considered the expenditures to be an "indecent" amount of investors' money. It is also more than a fair guess to say that the total expenditures would likely be somewhere in the seven figures, some on costs/expenses (printing, travel, hotels, meals, court fees, trial support, war room, monetary sanction, etc.) and a larger portion in fees.

By the time the suit went before the jury it was estimated GW spent $6 million. Just as much time, but many more man hours and paper work was generated between then and by the time a settlement was reached bringing the defense's estimate of GW's litigation cost up to $12 million. This is GW's profits for a year and why GWs assertion at the end of trial that the $25,000 was all it ever wanted was clearly insincere.