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.

calgar 2.5 wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:I don't think Chapterhouse is, in any way, being 'arrogant' in their defense in the past. Even I got tired at all the armchair-lawyers derailing Chapterhouse threads on Dakka to discuss what is or isn't legal.

I'm still disturbed at how many "told-you-so" people actually support GW in this matter; it's sickening really. If Chapterhouse wins, we go on normally and everyone (even GW) wins. If GW wins, everyone (except GW) loses. GW seems to be taking a "only I can profit" stance on this matter.

I really hope this is settled out of court and with minimal damage to either side.

Believe it or not, but not everyone buys from Chapterhouse! How would I lose out? I ask you that simple question. I don't buy from them, I do however, buy kits from GW, the creators of 40k.

Thanks and good night

Absolutionis wrote:LittleLeadMen, I additionally notice, from your blog, that you buy from Irondog Studios.
Blog: http://www.littleleadmen.com/2009/11/skorcha-wagon/
Link: http://www.irondogstudios.com/

LittleLeadMen wrote:Conversion wise, it is an Imperial Guard Hellhound, with front plates from a Stompa, a Skorcha from a Killer Kan, some old Bad Moons icons, plastic card, and resin track links from Iron Dog Studios.

They post the standard "we aren't GW" disclaimer on the bottom. They use copyrighted terms such as Daemonhunters, Burna Boyz, and they even sell an item called a "Grotzooka".

Quit your hypocrisy just because you dislike Chapterhouse's demeanor. You bought items from a company just like Chapterhouse. Just because you don't buy doesn't mean others don't buy.

EDIT: Additionally, Irondog Studios has this to say regarding their rationale:

Irondog Studios wrote:Necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes when you're building a model, you need a part that the manufacturer just doesn't produce. These are a few of the conversion kits I have developed to fill those production gaps. Now I'm making them available to the gaming public, to help save you guys some time.

What argument do you have against Chapterhouse again?

You clearly missed my previous post where I addressed that already. I stated the following:

Just to be clear here, I'm no bits puritan. There's plenty of awesome 3rd party stuff out there, and I've bought a pile of it to add to my regular GW stuff. For example, I've purchased completely resin tank treads that were completely original sculpts. They fit on a variety of GW models. I don't take objection because they were original sculpts, sold in limited runs, didn't look like any GW stuff, didn't use GW imagery, and weren't sold as "GW Ork Treads for Looted Wagons" (for example). No big deal there.

When those tracks were being sold, they were specifically sold using a generic name. I believe they were "crusher tracks" or something to that effect. Completely original sculpts that fit other models from GW. As far as I can recall, they weren't even specifically labelled as being chimera or leman russ fits. Just "crusher tracks". Much like the track guy on Ebay does. That Irondog guy never opened a massive web store, never sold those tracks as "Ork Conversion Kits for Lotted Wagons", etc. That's what Chapterhouse does. By the way, he no longer sells those kits. I don't know why, but I suspect that he may have received a cease and desist. In any event, at the time, they weren't sold a quasi official conversion kits, they didn't use GW terminology, and they weren't sculpted from GW parts.

Your trying to attack me by using aftermarket parts, even after I already stated that I did so previously, doesn't change the essential discussion at hand: Chapterhouse's use of GW IP.

As for Pig Iron, I'd like to point out that Pig Iron heads aren't created for GW exclusively. They aren't sold as "Cadian Conversion Kits". I have no objection, nor care, if other people convert their models anyway they wish. But Pig Iron heads are made for their figures. No different than Westwind Production heads. There are plenty of people that buy those pieces and use them on non- GW models. Again, the key point here is that these other companies never try to sell kits as being "GW kits", in the same way that Chapterhouse does.

You're right, I missed that post. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Either way, I'm really no expert, so I'm not at liberty to say whether or not "Grotzooka" or "Ork Killa Kanz" is copyrighted. However, they're selling a product that uses both those terms.

Either way, I can state my opinion that Irondog and Chapterhouse are doing the same thing. If GW quashes Chapterhouse, the precedent will be set set such that no more of these bits will be made. You also lose.

Irondog Studios wrote:Skrap Gun
Custom-built Grotzookas for Ork Killa Kanz, available for sale in the Store

What argument do you have again?

Aw cmon even for Internet arguments that should be a checkmate lol

Chapterhouse wrote:Wow... I mean, just wow... This is coming from a guy who hopes myself and my company pretty much burn in legal hell and get totally destroyed. Who peed in your cornflakes this morning?

I guess your definition of arrogance is to point out the legal facts in the matter, stand behind what I have always said (that what we are doing is legal, and has precedent). I get it, you dont like anyone who makes money off of someone elses IP. Well gak, I guess Max-mini, Scibor, Secret Weapons and a few other companies are not up to your standards either. The only difference between CHS and them is CHS believes we can legally use trademarks in our descriptions. We all do the same business for the hobby.

Call me silly, but considering all the arm-chair lawyering that is occuring, not to mention pronouncements of guilt before innocence, I am being pretty level headed.

Yourself on the other hand seems to ignore what many members who have legal background are telling you.

1. I never said that I hope you personally burn in hell. I stated that, given your previous attitudes expressed, and my support of IP rights, the following:

"As I said, I've been looking forward to this for some time. I am going to take some small measure of pleasure in watching them get shut down and/or bankrupted. "

I'm surprised that you take it so personally. If I state that "I'd take some pleasure that Kinkos goes out of business" (they have awful customer service), nobody would get worked up about it. But I say the same thing in a clinical way about your business and you take it personally.

I've made it clear why I said that. Your business is based on a purely parasitical relationship with Games Workshop. I mean this is the truest, most accurate definition of the word, as your work is wholly dependent upon another's to exist. You create nothing original. You do it in a blatant way, and deny the nature of what you do. Businesses that infringe on the property rights of other businesses should, ideally, suffer for their poor choices. It'sa basic principle of free market capitalism and fair competition.

You refuse to discuss or address specific criticisms or questions. Your last exchange with me was a typical reaction.

Your infringement on other's IP has been ongoing, and you've been overly defensive regarding it for a long time. Given that, it's kind of funny to see the end results of the path you've chosen for your company. Its funny in an ironic way, as you've made a big point of pointing out how right you believe you are. Here's your wonderful chance to prove it in court, I suppose.

As for this gem:

Chapterhouse wrote:Yourself on the other hand seems to ignore what many members who have legal background are telling you.

Again, you consistently make assumptions and proclamations as to what your detractors "know" solely on the basis that they disagree with your position. It's ridiculous. I'm fairly well versed in copyright issues. As I mentioned before, I am a member of the California Copyright Conference. I've been involved in copyright related litigation. I have my own lawyers that protect my copyrights in my professional business. That a few lawyers on this toy soldier site believe you may, or may not, be at fault is no way to judge what another person knows.

But you like to make these proclamations. it's all part of your general pattern of distortion and obfuscation. For example, you still haven't addressed any of the specific questions and criticisms that I've asked of you. You're more than willing to show up and argue, and shout down people who dislike your business, but completely unwilling to address the actual criticism in any meaningful way.

People may not like my tone, or may misread it, but one certainly cannot argue that I'm not specific with my criticism or points in this thread. If you don't want a real dialogue, then by all means dispense of the artifice and simply state that you don't intend to engage in any real dialogue.

Maybe you are simply here to see who is "trashing" you, and who is "praising" you. It makes little sense to do so, as it has no effect on your legal proceedings, so why post? Either actually engage in a real dialogue and address people's questions Pro and Con, or don't engage at all. It seems silly and pointless to waste everyone's time with statements like

"I need to open my eyes"

Chapterhouse wrote:You sir are willingly blinding yourself to the legal fact that one company is allowed by law to use another company's trademark to fittingly describe its products. aka "Nominal Use".

Again, you never took the time to address my actual point. How do you claim "Nominal Use" when the item itself is the infringement? In my Farseer Jetbike Conversion example: Even if we accept your generous position regarding nominal usage, it doesn't address that you are selling a figure that has to constitute the "Farseer" portion of the "conversion kit". As such, you are in effect selling your own version of a "Farseer", something which you have no legal standing to do. Your right to nominal use certainly doesn't extend into the figure itself. Your right to nominal use doesn't suddenly allow you to sell products under those trademarked, or copyright protected terms.

Nominal use is conceived as a way to allow people to discuss products without fear of legal reprisals. For example, I can write an article reviewing "Big Macs" without worrying about using the term "Big Mac" in publication. That's distinctly different than selling a "Big Mac conversion kit"..... that includes a hamburger..... which one would naturally assume is being represented or sold as a Big Mac by virtue of the advertisement.

I'd love a real dialogue here. I'd like to think that I'd written this fairly clearly; maybe my point is not being expressed in a way that you appreciate or understand. Please explain why my criticism of your nominal use claim (in this specific instance) is legally incorrect. I'm open to real discussion.

Chapterhouse wrote:I hope it does not get locked. One person who wants to cause drama and harm should not lock down, what until just recently, has been a pretty informative and hobby-important thread.
I am happy to bow out for now, I think its up to a moderator to control some of the ill-tempers around here.

I'm not here for drama and to cause harm. To state that, solely because you dislike what I have to say, is inappropriate. Nor do I have an ill-temper. If you take the time to actually re-read my posts, you'll find them pretty straight forward. I methodically list why I object to your business, as well as why I think you are in (obvious) infringement territory.

When I address some of the distortion of your posts here, you never attempted to correct, explain, or present a counter position. Instead, you told me that I "hated" you, needed to "get off of my pedestal" and "open my eyes". Then you took objection when I took objection to that.

You dislike criticism and you have been vocal about that dislike in many threads for a long time. You seem to hold a default position that any criticism of your business is ill-informed, ignorant, or to be rejected on some sort of moral superiority. "The Little guy fighting for his rights against the big bad oppressor, GW" (solely my characterization, not your words). Yet you never acknowledge the inherent reality of your business' parasitic relationship with GW, instead focusing on how "right" you are.

It's clear you don't want any real dialogue on this matter. You don't want any real debate about rights, intellectual property, creation, etc. For example, you don't want to explain why the Farseer figure in your "Farseer Conversion kit" doesn't constitute the selling of a "Farseer" model. And I'm willing to guess that the reason you won't debate or discuss that indepth is that you know you can't explain it. You can't justify it as a legal position.

You seem to want to read reassuring things about your business from fellow hobbiests, and occasionally vent at people like me that have raised legitimate concerns and complaints about your business.



FINALLY:

I'm only going to address this once, because frankly, this whole thread is getting tedious. I'm fairly surprised that so many people feel my posts here are full of vitriol. To be full of vitriol, it requires excessive cruelty. I don't believe that I've been cruel here in any way. I don't believe that it's cruel, mean, or angry to express objections over how a business handles itself. I don't believe that it's cruel to have a small measure of pleasure in seeing a business fail because it infringes on the rights of other businesses. Especially when the business in question fails to recognize or acknowledge its essential, fundamental nature and business practices.

Here's the fundamental reality of the situation:
CH is a business that depends on a parasitic relationship with a larger more successful company to exist. That's the simple truth of the matter. That CH denies this reality and expresses anger when people state it is either self-deluding or a defense mechanism. There's a certain amount of irony in watching a parasitic business model complain that the host is too aggressive.

That's not emotional. It's not cruel. It's not vitriolic. It's just really clinical and specific.

I think a lot of people have problems with that, as they don't like to have honest, direct conversations about this issue. Frankly, my hat is off to Polonius throughout this whole discussion! While I don't agree with his position completely re: the level of infringement, he's clear, and specific. I appreciate that.

To summarize:

1. I don't have any problems with aftermarket 3rd party manufacturers. I've stated that, but some of you have missed it. Some of you find my use of 2rd party tracks as some condemning act, even though I clearly stated I don't have issues with them. And in that specific instance, the tracks were sold as "crusher" tracks, didn't use GW IP to identify them, and GW makes no model that it would compete with.

Generally speaking, I have no issue with "parts" and more of an issue with full models.

2. The crux of my complaint re: Chapterhouse is that I believe CH uses the explantation of "nominal use" in an inaccurate way. You can't claim "nominal use" when the item being sold is a knockoff. For example, I can't claim nominal use of "Gucci" to sell a knockoff version of a Gucci handbag, and further claim that the only wy to sell my knockoff is to use the Gucci name to explain my product.

3. Given the multitude of complaints and comments CH has received for some time, and their belligerent attitude, it's fairly ironic and funny to see them in their current legal situation. Especially because they were so adamant for so long, and because they used to claim that a lack of litigation was a tacit approval of their business by GW. Given the audacity of those kind of statements, I don't think it's inappropriate to bring them back question CH on that point.

4. People here seem to take this very personally. This is business. If I rooted for any company to go out of business, (like Kinkos) nobody would care. You could give specific complaints or reasons as to why you would enjoy seeing that business shut down (like their poor customer service). Yet when one does the exact same thing here, you assume I'm vitriolic. I'm an advocate for IP rights of creators, as well as open markets that operate fairly. I take objection to the poor quality of CH's product, the use of GW imagery (in ways that other companies don't, such as Kromlech, Pig Iron, etc), and the use of specific GW IP to sell or name the items.

5. My objections are larger here and compounded by CH's insistence on (metaphorically) shouting down everyone in the town square that has distinct objections. It's fairly odd to present a specific set of comments directed to them, only to have them respond that I "need my eyes opened", rather than address the specific points.

Internet arguments Those don't happen


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MajorTom11 wrote:Aw cmon even for Internet arguments that should be a checkmate lol

Internet arguments Those don't happen

Absolutionis wrote:You're right, I missed that post. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Either way, I'm really no expert, so I'm not at liberty to say whether or not "Grotzooka" or "Ork Killa Kanz" is copyrighted. However, they're selling a product that uses both those terms.

Either way, I can state my opinion that Irondog and Chapterhouse are doing the same thing. If GW quashes Chapterhouse, the precedent will be set set such that no more of these bits will be made. You also lose.

Irondog Studios wrote:Skrap Gun
Custom-built Grotzookas for Ork Killa Kanz, available for sale in the Store

What argument do you have again?

I'll agree with you that they probably push the legal limit by producing that conversion kit. It's certainly dangerous and wrong for them to sell them as Grotzooka, as it states that on the home page. On the ad page for the online store, it doesn't use that language. In any event, I'm not here to defend Irondog. If he's out of line, he will either correct it, stop selling the conversion kits, or fight it out with GW. Irondog also never rose to the level of Chapterhouse's widespread infringement. He's not standing in the middle of the "toy soldier town square" (metaphorically) pronouncing that he's right and everyone else needs to open their eyes!

I still find the CH claim funny; that they weren't infringing, and that the "proof" was the lack of litigation.

In court, statements like "I hate Chapterhouse and would like to see them bancrupt" or "Stop talking and hang the thief" or "Aftermarket companies are all leechers and parasites", not even "hey GW uses the word farseer therefore everyone else using that word should be jaied even when there is no law for it" don't count. Even GW doesn't claim to have any IP protection for the word farseer, and I think the word Tau isn't protected either even when they claim it to be.

So many armchair IP lawyers here state personal lay opinion as fact and show obvious lack of legal training, not listening to the sound advice of the non-IP lawyers in this thread. Selling aftermarket products is not illegal per se, using trademarked names in a product description is not illegal per se, even looking similar is not illegal per se unless it is too close to a trademark or a copyright. GW lawyers claim many things, some of them obviously false (like sueing the wrong sculptor).

Don't make yourself look like an idiot and at least pretend to follow logic and reason.

Kroothawk wrote:In court, statements like "I hate Chapterhouse and would like to see them bancrupt" or "Stop talking and hang the thief" or "Aftermarket companies are all leechers and parasites", not even "hey GW uses the word farseer therefore everyone else using that word should be jaied even when there is no law for it" don't count. Even GW doesn't claim to have any IP protection for the word farseer, and I think the word Tau isn't protected either even when they claim it to be.

So many armchair IP lawyers here state personal lay opinion as fact and show obvious lack of legal training, not listening to the sound advice of the non-IP lawyers in this thread. Selling aftermarket products is not illegal per se, using trademarked names in a product description is not illegal per se, even looking similar is not illegal per se unless it is too close to a trademark or a copyright. GW lawyers claim many things, some of them obviously false (like sueing the wrong sculptor).

Don't make yourself look like an idiot and at least pretend to follow logic and reason.

Lawyers posting on dakka do not give 'sound advice' they can give their considered opinion like we all can, no matter if it is correct. And like many an internet forum we can choose to ignore this and give our own ideas.

The only relevant details relating to CH Vs GW will come out of any ruling or judgement.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
Chapter House are evil leeches

Mr. Burning wrote:They can give their considered opinion like we all can, no matter if it is correct. And like many an internet forum we can choose to ignore this and give our own ideas.

The only relevant details relating to CH Vs GW will come out of any ruling or judgement.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
Chapter House are evil leeches

I was thinking "He has a point, and then- "

I think the problem people are having with LittleLeadMen's posts is that he's claiming not to be emotionally charged, but I'm apparently not the only one to read some vitriol into his posts.

The second is that he's presupposing a legal finding that, I think, is not quite appropriate. With the farseer conversion bits in particular, that will go down to a jury deciding if it's similar enough to anything GW has made. There's a really good chance it's actually not an infringement.

The thing that interests me in all of this, is to me this smells of GW trying to bury Chapterhouse before it even gets to court via the fee's required to defend themselves alone.

Would GW actually want this to go to court, because if their artwork 'we own the model before, during and after' constructon fails, they'll be uncorking the barrell for any other company that wants in on GW parts.

Will they take it that far if Chapterhouse resists, with GW's current mentalilty can they afford to lose this case?

LittleLeadMen wrote:

"GW is a monopoly, and..." GW isn't a monopoly.

Hummm...they might be be. Remember it's about possession of monopoly power in the market...and the willful maintenance of that power...

If the courts rule that CH is violating IP, then all is OK. The point of many posts is that it is not clear whether CH is violating IP. You have your opinion, but it is not the law. In the past, other less savy companies have simply folded because GW 'accused' them of violating IP without the vetting. So I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out.

LittleLeadMen wrote:A great example of the way that CH distorts what it does. I made a point of stating that you can't infringe on the farseer models (their look, design) "Just because the CH Farseer is "sitting" doesn't distinguish it as a unique creation".

You win! Thankfully I can move on to other things since you covered everything.

Kroothawk wrote:In court, statements like "I hate Chapterhouse and would like to see them bankrupt" or "Stop talking and hang the thief" or "Aftermarket companies are all leechers and parasites", not even "hey GW uses the word farseer therefore everyone else using that word should be jailed even when there is no law for it" don't count.

And in court, statements like "GW doesn't make a model for it so it's okay!" don't count either.

Even GW doesn't claim to have any IP protection for the word farseer, and I think the word Tau isn't protected either even when they claim it to be.

Except, once again as has been explained multiple times over the years, it comes to context. When someone says "Farseer" in relation to 40k--it's talking about a specific idea and a specific expression of that idea(a psychic warleader of a spacefaring Elven race).
Same thing goes for Tau and context. It's stupid to assume that Chapterhouse's use of the word "Tau" is relating to the Greek number.

So many armchair IP lawyers here state personal lay opinion as fact and show obvious lack of legal training, not listening to the sound advice of the non-IP lawyers in this thread.

I'll just let the hilarity of this statement sink in for a moment.

using trademarked names in a product description is not illegal per se

I guess that's why modelmakers like Academy, Legend Productions, AFV Club Taiwan, etc have actually had to get licensing rights to use the names of vehicles like the Stryker and Willys Jeep huh?

Jeep's the biggest example of this, actually. A lot of companies have had to rename their Willys Jeep model kits, because they do not actually own the licensing rights to use that name and trademark.

even looking similar is not illegal per se unless it is too close to a trademark or a copyright.

So you're saying I can produce a comic with a man wearing a red t-shirt with a black skull, fighting crime using excessive brutality using his military training to avenge his family's murder at the hands of gangbangers?

Sweet. "The Retributor", here I come!

GW lawyers claim many things, some of them obviously false (like suing the wrong sculptor).

And you still failed to actually read the document. It stated that "In addition to helping design the Super Heavy Assault Walker, 14 of 15 items produced, marketed and sold by Paulson Games breach IP."

Don't make yourself look like an idiot and at least pretend to follow logic and reason.

Take your own advice, and learn how to read a document through all the way before slinging accusations at people of "making themselves look like an idiot".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sheck2 wrote:

LittleLeadMen wrote:

"GW is a monopoly, and..." GW isn't a monopoly.

Hummm...they might be be. Remember it's about possession of monopoly power in the market...and the willful maintenance of that power...

No, they're not.

GW is not trying to buy out the competing companies like Privateer Press or shutting them out of sales venues with unfair business practices, which is what would need to be proved for a monopoly claim to be leveled at them.

Just because one particular company is more successful than others does not a monopoly make.

If the courts rule that CH is violating IP, then all is OK. The point of many posts is that it is not clear whether CH is violating IP. You have your opinion, but it is the law. In the past, other less savy companies have simply folded because GW 'accused' them of violating IP without the vetting. So I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out.

Name one company where GW has "accused them of violating IP without the vetting". Almost any case where it actually gets to the point that GW is filing lawsuits actually has had merits.

The thing that interests me in all of this, is to me this smells of GW trying to bury Chapterhouse before it even gets to court via the fee's required to defend themselves alone.

Like Polonius said, 95% of civil cases never see the inside of a courtroom. And that's not even exclusively in these "corporations versus individuals" kinds of cases.

CH has stated, time and time again, that they have everything worked out with the legalities and they maintain a lawyer "just in case". It's time to nut up or shut up.

Would GW actually want this to go to court, because if their artwork 'we own the model before, during and after' constructon fails, they'll be uncorking the barrel for any other company that wants in on GW parts.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here.
GW does own the ideas expressed within their universe. It's why it's called their "intellectual property".

Will they take it that far if Chapterhouse resists, with GW's current mentalilty can they afford to lose this case?

Why wouldn't they take it that far? They're in the right here. CH fethed up royally by continuing to poke the bear, so they get to suffer the consequences.

So basically why doesn't GW just steal the market back from CH if they feel it's that much of a problem? In pursuing CH it could infer that they feel they are a threat to them, then surely this inferance would point to a viable market for the items. So simple solution, GW does it themselves. Surely a company the size of GW can get a couple of sculpters to make these bits and get them out, it can't be that much outlay can it? I mean seriously how hard can it be for a pro sculptor to come up with this stuff? It's not like they need to invest a brand new production line is it?

If GW actually got their heads out of their collective arses (don't know if that's too rude) and realised that there is a fan base outside of the 12 - 16 age range, they would recognise the potential sales they are missing.

Wolfstan wrote:So basically why doesn't GW just steal the market back from CH if they feel it's that much of a problem? In pursuing CH it could infer that they feel they are a threat to them, then surely this inferance would point to a viable market for the items. So simple solution, GW does it themselves.

Eh. It's not a case of "stealing the market back" or "feeling Chapterhouse is a threat".
Chapterhouse, in GW's estimation, is making a profit off of their IP. That's unacceptable.

Surely a company the size of GW can get a couple of sculpters to make these bits and get them out, it can't be that much outlay can it? I mean seriously how hard can it be for a pro sculptor to come up with this stuff?

A lot more goes into sculpting than you think. They don't just sit down and whip it up in a day. GW has, despite what people will say here, a modicum of quality control that Chapterhouse doesn't. If something doesn't fit the aesthetic, it doesn't get produced. CH just markets whatever the hell crap they're given.

It's not like they need to invest a brand new production line is it?

No, but they do need to fit the bits in to the standard production schedule, have space for stock, etc.

If GW actually got their heads out of their collective arses (don't know if that's too rude) and realised that there is a fan base outside of the 12 - 16 age range, they would recognise the potential sales they are missing.

Consider this.

The bits that would result in these potential sales likely would end up being "Direct Only", due to the fact that they'd be 'specialized' and not worth a complete, 100% stocking policy.
How much of that fanbase outside of the 12-16 age range do you think would pay for them in that case?

Kanluwen wrote:Consider this.

The bits that would result in these potential sales likely would end up being "Direct Only", due to the fact that they'd be 'specialized' and not worth a complete, 100% stocking policy.
How much of that fanbase outside of the 12-16 age range do you think would pay for them in that case?

More than are buying them from GW at the moment...?

CHS ahve shown there is a demand for these types of things.

All right, I actually found a pretty decent on-point case for at least the copyright aspect of this case:

http://terrania.us/hg-fasa/legal-5.txt

It's FASA v. Tomy, and actually shows how a court will look at two models and decide if they look similar enough to infringe on IP. I dont' have lexis anymore, so i can't make sure it's still good law, but if you scroll down it'll actually show a blow by blow comparison between the two.

Some highlights:

" The bottom line in this case is that Playmates made a conscious business decision that it could proceed with the development of its EXO-SQUAD toy line after it had been given access to the BATTLETECH designs without the necessity or cost of obtaining a license from FASA. After extensive and undoubtedly costly litigation this business decision has been found by this Court not to violate FASA's legal rights. Nevertheless, this Court believes that the facts of this case do not warrant the imposition of any costs upon FASA for seeking to vindicate its legally protectible rights. This case is dismissed with prejudice with both sides to bear their own costs."

" 6. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection a work must be original to the author. Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at 1287; 17 U.S.C. § 102. See generally 1 MELVILLE B. NIMMER AND DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT hereinafter "NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT" § 2.01 (1981). "Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author ... and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at 1287. The requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will

[912 F. Supp. 1147]
suffice. Id. Novelty or uniqueness is not a requirement for copyright protection, and "the search for prior art that frequently goes into a challenge to a patent plays no part in a copyright case." 2 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 2.01A n. 11; See also Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 768 F.Supp. 1036 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1992). Therefore, it was not sufficient to defeat FASA's copyright protection for Playmates to merely submit evidence of prior similar works. 3 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 12.11B; R. Dakin & Co. v. A & L Novelty Co., 444 F.Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).

7. Although the originality concept defies exact definition, the test of originality has been described as "modest," "minimal," and a "low threshold." Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 908-11 (2d Cir. 1980). Perhaps the most frequently quoted formulation of originality was first written by the Second Circuit:

All that is needed ... is that the "author" contributed more than a "merely trivial" variation, something recognizably "his or her own." Originality in this context "means little more than a prohibition of actual copying." No matter how poor artistically the "author's" addition, it is enough if it be his or her own."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From another interesting case, where the court found that an Asteroids knock-off called meteors was not infringment, they cited this older case:

" In Franklin Mint Corp. v. Nat. Wildlife Art Exchange, 575 F.2d 62 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 880, 99 S.Ct. 217, 58 L.Ed.2d 193, the court considered two paintings of a pair of cardinals. The court noted that:

There are indeed obvious similarities. Both versions depict two cardinals in profile, a male and a female perched one above the other on apple tree branches in blossom. But there are also readily apparent dissimilarities in the paintings in color, body attitude, position of the birds and linear effect. In one, the male cardinal is perched on a branch in the upper part of the picture and the female is below. In the other, the positions are reversed. In one, the attitude of the male is calm; in the other, he is agitated with his beak open. There is a large yellow butterfly in "Cardinals on Apple Blossom," and none in "The Cardinal." Other variances are found in the plumage of the birds, the foliage, and the general composition of the works."

The court concluded with this statement:

" In light of this conclusion that the similarities in the forms of expression are inevitable, given the idea and the medium, the large number of dissimilarities becomes particularly significant. Given the unavoidable

[547 F. Supp. 230]
similarities in expression, the Court finds that the ordinary player would regard the aesthetic appeal of these two games as quite different. The overall "feel" of the way the games play is different. In "Meteors" the symbols are more realistic, the game begins with the player's spaceship blasting off from earth, and the player's spaceship handles differently and fires differently. "Meteors" is faster-paced at all stages and is considerably more difficult than "Asteroids."

It seems clear that defendants based their game on plaintiff's copyrighted game; to put it bluntly, defendants took plaintiff's idea. However, the copyright laws do not prohibit this. Copyright protection is available only for expression of ideas, not for ideas themselves. Defendants used plaintiff's idea and those portions of plaintiff's expression that were inextricably linked to that idea. The remainder of defendants' expression is different from plaintiff's expression. Therefore, the Court finds that defendants' "Meteors" game is not substantially similar to and is not an infringing copy of plaintiff's "Asteroids" game."

Grimstonefire wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Consider this.

The bits that would result in these potential sales likely would end up being "Direct Only", due to the fact that they'd be 'specialized' and not worth a complete, 100% stocking policy.
How much of that fanbase outside of the 12-16 age range do you think would pay for them in that case?

More than are buying them from GW at the moment...?

CHS have shown there is a demand for these types of things.

Well, it's important to remember that a lot of the bits that have been big sellers...do actually have a GW analogue. The Salamanders shoulderpads, Space Wolf shields, etc.

All CH has shown is that there's a demand for cheap shoulderpads

Kanluwen wrote:CH has stated, time and time again, that they have everything worked out with the legalities and they maintain a lawyer "just in case". It's time to nut up or shut up.

This reminds me of people who ask Doctors they meet on the street about "Hey, Can you look at my rash?" Any good doctor will refuse simply because if they give them a medical opinion and it is wrong and the person falls ill, they would be negligent.

I am actually curious if CH actually had an IP/Copyright/Business specialist lawyer actually go over thier process and business model in an official capacity and prepare a legal policy on how and why the business operates within the law. I also wonder if this Lawyer who gave the legal advice was kept on retainer to fight any impending battles resulting from said policy or opinion or if this was the equivalent of asking some random lawyer friend over beers "hey, this sounds ok right?" Unless a specific Copyright/IP lawyer vetted it and was willing to stand up in court to defend it, you might as well have gone to a dentist for help with a heart condition. I mean if 99% of the other stores have figure out to sell "Galactic Viking of the Wulfen" models instead of "Games Workshop Space Wolves(TM)" models, then you would have thought a qualified Lawyer would have said, "you would be better off if you marketed this way to protect yourself." Google Answers is not 'a lawyers opinion' as a friend of mine once found out the hard way.

I wonder if CH actually has had time to have a lawyer look into this suit in the past week over Christmas... I can't imagine any lawyer willing to support a client who is continuing to stir the pot with posts on forums when the intent and process used by by CH could be directly on trial during this case. There is a reason why you remain silent and let the courts handle it no matter how 'right' one thinks they are. If you are right then 'nut up' and let your lawyer vindicate you in court. I just can't see any of this posting to at all be helpful legally or in a business sense. Let armchair lawyers carry your water for you on the forums and step back from it. The wolrd will not end if people fight on the internet...

Small businesses are not immune from basic customer service and maintaining a professional demeanor in the public. I am not sure I would have used the account that is used for internet marketing and business generation via forum posts to argue with people on the internet.

Interesting from the aspect of the models actual physical appearance issues. If I'm reading it right they might be able to not be forced to destroy their molds and shut down but would have probably not label stuff as they were (i.e. fleshtearer shoulder pads, tervigon conversion kit, farseer jetbike conversion kit).

Which would explain why GW has left everyone else alone up till now and is coming after CH and Paulson. They just didn't label stuff appropriately. Though I think the reach for Paulson was due to their new products coming out, not so much the labelling.

That is all assuming it's still a "good law" and that I read it right. But I'm no lawyer

Eh. It's not a case of "stealing the market back" or "feeling Chapterhouse is a threat". Chapterhouse, in GW's estimation, is making a profit off of their IP. That's unacceptable.

Oh come off it, CH weren't actually sensible when it came to the use of their IP, but it was hardly a major infraction of their IP. From what I've seen most the IP issues have been that they used GW term's to point out what their products were used with, "Space Marine shoulder pads". For crying out loud they could of sent a letter and said, look, you're close to the mark here, sort it before we have to take legal action. If they then chose to ignore that they have to take the pain.

With regard to "stealing the market back" it refers to them taking action to get customers buy from them. They could quite easily of mass produced all thes offending items, forcing CH to go under, whilst making money. Their sole aim is to build up a pool of so called IP protected items just in case they can get Forge World to make them in 10 years time.

At the time that the Iron Snakes book came out I did play around with making an Iron snakes force, but didn't fancy making my own individual pads, even though I'd been on a modeling course and knew how to make & cast a piece. If GW had made them and they had been sensible price I would of started building a force. They didn't and I'm sure that if they did, it would of added another £10 to the cost of a squad. Further back in time (about 15yrs), when I wanted to give my Blood Claws jump packs I ended up casting my own as it would of cost me £2 per pack, stupid money. My point is, if GW make these things (even if they were sold at a break even price) it would open the door for more models to be bought. As people keep saying, you have to have a base model for these bits to go on.

Wolfstan wrote:

Eh. It's not a case of "stealing the market back" or "feeling Chapterhouse is a threat". Chapterhouse, in GW's estimation, is making a profit off of their IP. That's unacceptable.

Oh come off it, CH weren't actually sensible when it came to the use of their IP, but it was hardly a major infraction of their IP. From what I've seen most the IP issues have been that they used GW term's to point out what their products were used with, "Space Marine shoulder pads". For crying out loud they could of sent a letter and said, look, you're close to the mark here, sort it before we have to take legal action. If they then chose to ignore that they have to take the pain.

And again: They have, by Chapterhouse's own admissions, sent C&D letters to Chapterhouse to inform that they were getting too close with their descriptions and naming.
CH ignored them, claiming they had a foolproof legal defense.

With regard to "stealing the market back" it refers to them taking action to get customers buy from them. They could quite easily of mass produced all these offending items, forcing CH to go under, whilst making money. Their sole aim is to build up a pool of so called IP protected items just in case they can get Forge World to make them in 10 years time.

But what the hell is the point in mass producing these items? They're not useful to everyone. They're likely not even useful to half of the GW playerbase.
The reason CH is doing as well as they are is they're playing off the constantly changing whims of players. One week everyone wants Salamanders bits, the next week everyone wants Mantis Warriors out the wazoo.

And you also have to consider that quality does play a factor with GW's actual mass production runs. They have to pay to maintain their own casting equipment, Chapterhouse likely is just outsourcing to a company that has open production slots.

At the time that the Iron Snakes book came out I did play around with making an Iron Snakes force, but didn't fancy making my own individual pads, even though I'd been on a modeling course and knew how to make & cast a piece. If GW had made them and they had been sensible price I would of started building a force. They didn't and I'm sure that if they did, it would of added another £10 to the cost of a squad. Further back in time (about 15yrs), when I wanted to give my Blood Claws jump packs I ended up casting my own as it would of cost me £2 per pack, stupid money. My point is, if GW make these things (even if they were sold at a break even price) it would open the door for more models to be bought. As people keep saying, you have to have a base model for these bits to go on.

And how many people do you think would have bought those Iron Snakes bits?

Likely it would have taken up until now to actually make back the cost of a full production run.

Wolfstan wrote:

Eh. It's not a case of "stealing the market back" or "feeling Chapterhouse is a threat". Chapterhouse, in GW's estimation, is making a profit off of their IP. That's unacceptable.

Oh come off it, CH weren't actually sensible when it came to the use of their IP, but it was hardly a major infraction of their IP. From what I've seen most the IP issues have been that they used GW term's to point out what their products were used with, "Space Marine shoulder pads". For crying out loud they could of sent a letter and said, look, you're close to the mark here, sort it before we have to take legal action. If they then chose to ignore that they have to take the pain.

With regard to "stealing the market back" it refers to them taking action to get customers buy from them. They could quite easily of mass produced all thes offending items, forcing CH to go under, whilst making money. Their sole aim is to build up a pool of so called IP protected items just in case they can get Forge World to make them in 10 years time.

At the time that the Iron Snakes book came out I did play around with making an Iron snakes force, but didn't fancy making my own individual pads, even though I'd been on a modeling course and knew how to make & cast a piece. If GW had made them and they had been sensible price I would of started building a force. They didn't and I'm sure that if they did, it would of added another £10 to the cost of a squad. Further back in time (about 15yrs), when I wanted to give my Blood Claws jump packs I ended up casting my own as it would of cost me £2 per pack, stupid money. My point is, if GW make these things (even if they were sold at a break even price) it would open the door for more models to be bought. As people keep saying, you have to have a base model for these bits to go on.

I'm still utterly amazed that you and others still think no correspondence actually occured before the filing of the suit

Earthbeard wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Eh. It's not a case of "stealing the market back" or "feeling Chapterhouse is a threat". Chapterhouse, in GW's estimation, is making a profit off of their IP. That's unacceptable.

Oh come off it, CH weren't actually sensible when it came to the use of their IP, but it was hardly a major infraction of their IP. From what I've seen most the IP issues have been that they used GW term's to point out what their products were used with, "Space Marine shoulder pads". For crying out loud they could of sent a letter and said, look, you're close to the mark here, sort it before we have to take legal action. If they then chose to ignore that they have to take the pain.

With regard to "stealing the market back" it refers to them taking action to get customers buy from them. They could quite easily of mass produced all thes offending items, forcing CH to go under, whilst making money. Their sole aim is to build up a pool of so called IP protected items just in case they can get Forge World to make them in 10 years time.

At the time that the Iron Snakes book came out I did play around with making an Iron snakes force, but didn't fancy making my own individual pads, even though I'd been on a modeling course and knew how to make & cast a piece. If GW had made them and they had been sensible price I would of started building a force. They didn't and I'm sure that if they did, it would of added another £10 to the cost of a squad. Further back in time (about 15yrs), when I wanted to give my Blood Claws jump packs I ended up casting my own as it would of cost me £2 per pack, stupid money. My point is, if GW make these things (even if they were sold at a break even price) it would open the door for more models to be bought. As people keep saying, you have to have a base model for these bits to go on.

I'm still utterly amazed that you and others still think no correspondence actually occured before the filing of the suit

Hey, if it did then they only have themselves to blame for being chased. It's one thing to walk close to the line, it's another to over step it and moan if you get caught out.

Interesting. The fourth count in the complaint is for trademark dilution, but the relevant code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html

At paragraph C, the statute defines "famous trademark:"

"or purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. "

So that count might be dismissible as none of GW's trademarks are likely to be found as "famous."

shrike wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:They can give their considered opinion like we all can, no matter if it is correct. And like many an internet forum we can choose to ignore this and give our own ideas.

The only relevant details relating to CH Vs GW will come out of any ruling or judgement.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
Chapter House are evil leeches

I was thinking "He has a point, and then- "

Was the 'evil leeches' a bit too much? I really have no beef with GW or CH.

25 or so pages in and this is still a reasonably' polite thread, bar the, you know, usual impoliteness.

I've read on these boards CH might well have received, and promptly ignored a C&D letter.

Dunno about the veracity of it, but I would assume given GW's prior, this might well be the case.

Polonius wrote:
So that count might be dismissible as none of GW's trademarks are likely to be found as "famous."

I dunno about that. You show anyone a picture of a Space Marine model or an image of a Space Marine, period, they'll usually be able to relate it to Games Workshop.