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.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Does anyone still have that document that was linked several pages back?

 Aerethan wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

czakk wrote:
Hmmm did they just pull down the CHS A-H exhibits that should have been filed under seal?

I would assume that the way the Recap server works is that if a more recent version is detected the old one is dropped. The new one will likely have all the good stuff removed from it...

Not to say I told you so, but...

I have the original saved should anyone want a copy.

Have fun now, boys

Already emailed it to him. If anyone else wants it just PM me here or email me at my username @hotmail.com

Just a reminder to those who are watching this case. The judge said the summary judgement would be released in 10-14 days...12 days ago. Should be popping sometime this week.

I will be out of town for the Thanksgiving Holiday though starting tomorrow night through Sunday, so if those from the Great White North, Down Under or the other side of the pond are interested - they will want to watch the Recap site.

http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/

Thirdeye over at Warseer wrote:I just checked for case up-dates on PACER and found that GW filed a second Complaint against CH. Not sure what it means. I compared the second complaint with the first one, they are very similar. The second one takes out the allegations against Jon Paulson, otherwise pretty-much the same. The second Complaint seems to be an Amended Complaint but it was filed as a new Complaint. It was filed on Nov 12th BTW, new case No. 12-cv-9086.

Would that be a stall tactic? trying to drag out the case for as long as possible?

pitboy2710 wrote:
Would that be a stall tactic? trying to drag out the case for as long as possible?

I suspect the complaint is a placeholder - they wanted to get a new case filed asap, so just grabbed a copy of the current complaint, with the plan of amending it later. No judge will allow them to proceed with a second case using the identical complaint, and I suspect the current judge may be annoyed with them for filing in this fashion.

http://ia601208.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476.1.0.pdf

The new complaint (new case...though it was kicked over to the same judge of the first case...so GW might have some 'splainin to do).

Exhibit A to their claim is a list of their copyright claims:

http://ia601208.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476.1.1.pdf

All of the ones listed their were filed for this year.

http://ia601208.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476.7.0.pdf

Judge Kennely actually requested that the case be given to him as opposed to a new and different judge... <cue dramatic music>Duh, duh duuuuh</>

Filing a complaint before they're clear on what they are planning to complain about does rather seem their style though.

Oh...and just for ease of use:

http://ia701208.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476/gov.uscourts.ilnd.276476.docket.html

Recap root for the new case.
___________________________________________

(MODs - I assume we don't want two threads?)

OK - so I gave everything in the new case a good read.

The jist of the second case is effectively like so:

We sued CHS on claims that they violated our trademarks and copyrights. As opposed to completely stopping any work and product development, they continued to release new products while they waited to find out if they won or lost the first case.

Subsequent to the commencement of the related case, Games Workshop Limited
v. Chapterhouse Studios LLC, 1:10-cv-08103 (MFK), Chapterhouse has also introduced
numerous new products copied from Games Workshop’s original WARHAMMER and
WARHAMMER 40,000 universe, including without limitation various “Tru-Scale” conversion
kits to change the size scale of genuine Space Marine figures to a new size that Chapterhouse
contends is more “true” to Games Workshop’s own original artwork than Games Workshop’s
actual Space Marine figures;Tau heads for Tau “Crisis Model” warriors; various “Heresy” era
shoulder pads for Terminator Space Marines and a “Pilum Imperial Attack Jetbike” equipped
with new weapons copied from Games Workshop’ Space Marine Bike and Games Workshop’s
weapon designs.

The vast majority of the case is a rehash of the claims of the first case. They are still making trademark claims to some generic terms like "Plasma" as well as some things which they no longer are doing business under like "Adeptus Mechanicus".

I wonder why the rush to file? Are they putting on a show for the sake of the LOTR/Hobbit licensor or the computer game folks?

Or are we going to see a joinder motion and a request to re-open discovery coming down the pipes or something?



"with annual sales in this country alone well in excess of $50 million, and Games Workshop invests considerable sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands and in developing new products under these brand names. Games Workshop has thereby built up substantial goodwill and reputation in the marks"

Ignore the testimony under oath of our exec who stated that GW spent no money on marketing or promotion in the US! *snicker*

New case...new facts.

GW paid a few grand for a booth at GenCon this year and they are also paying for a small advertising campaign on Facebook as well this year.

czakk wrote:
I wonder why the rush to file? Are they putting on a show for the sake of the LOTR/Hobbit licensor or the computer game folks?

Or are we going to see a joinder motion and a request to re-open discovery coming down the pipes or something?



"with annual sales in this country alone well in excess of $50 million, and Games Workshop invests considerable sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands and in developing new products under these brand names. Games Workshop has thereby built up substantial goodwill and reputation in the marks"

Ignore the testimony under oath of our exec who stated that GW spent no money on marketing or promotion in the US! *snicker*

It wouldn't be GW's problem if someone else made LOTR/hobbit minis and sold them as such. Much like other licencing deals, New Line would come down on the infringer, possibly with a lot more prowess than GW.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

czakk wrote:
I wonder why the rush to file? Are they putting on a show for the sake of the LOTR/Hobbit licensor or the computer game folks?

Or are we going to see a joinder motion and a request to re-open discovery coming down the pipes or something?



"with annual sales in this country alone well in excess of $50 million, and Games Workshop invests considerable sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands and in developing new products under these brand names. Games Workshop has thereby built up substantial goodwill and reputation in the marks"

Ignore the testimony under oath of our exec who stated that GW spent no money on marketing or promotion in the US! *snicker*

It wouldn't be GW's problem if someone else made LOTR/hobbit minis and sold them as such. Much like other licencing deals, New Line would come down on the infringer, possibly with a lot more prowess than GW.

Right you are!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
New case...new facts.

GW paid a few grand for a booth at GenCon this year and they are also paying for a small advertising campaign on Facebook as well this year.

... well I guess a few grand might qualify as a considerable sum....


Do you folks down there keep track of who's been assigned as the clerking students for federal judges? I know the Supremes' clerks get announced... This would be a fun case to catch as a clerk.

czakk wrote:
... well I guess a few grand might qualify as a considerable sum....


Do you folks down there keep track of who's been assigned as the clerking students for federal judges? I know the Supremes' clerks get announced... This would be a fun case to catch as a clerk.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a considerable sum (we don't advertise at all - but probably spend more than they do all year on advertising on business cards). However, it at least prevents them from immediately blowing their claim by the prior deposition.

You can take a look at the Judges staff on the Northern District Court website.

https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx - Doesn't allow direct linking - just look up Judge Kennelly in the list.

It has two clerks listed, Avani Bhatt and Sarah Grady. Normally they will be full fledged lawyers to become clerks for District courts (at least all of them I have met are).

http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol171004art1.html

Article written by Justice Kennelly on conducting trials at the fed court in Illinois:

"a. Assume Discovery Cutoff is Written in Stone

Among the important deadlines that will be set is a deadline for completing discovery. The best way you can think about a discovery cutoff date is to assume it is written in stone."

GW has a strange concept of "considerable".

Mcdonalds spent roughly 2.3 billion on marketing in 2010, during which year they did 29 billion in sales. Roughly 8% of their revenue was spent in order to make more revenue.

Seeing as Mcdonalds surely knows what they're doing, You'd think other companies would follow suit.

8% of their US sales would be a meager 4 million a year in marketing, which I think would do wonders.

How much does it cost to "run" a facebook for a company? That is like 3 people tops, so at a healthy wage that's still under 100k per year, and adding the GenCon fees let's guess a round $100k.

So that right there is .2% of their US revenue spent on marketing. Far from considerable.


GW puts forth very little effort in getting their name out there, which seems counter intuitive.

I'm sure the judge will scrutinize both cases more heavily now that it's obvious GW is being stubborn and will just keep pushing.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

czakk wrote:
... well I guess a few grand might qualify as a considerable sum....


Do you folks down there keep track of who's been assigned as the clerking students for federal judges? I know the Supremes' clerks get announced... This would be a fun case to catch as a clerk.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a considerable sum (we don't advertise at all - but probably spend more than they do all year on advertising on business cards). However, it at least prevents them from immediately blowing their claim by the prior deposition.

You can take a look at the Judges staff on the Northern District Court website.

https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx - Doesn't allow direct linking - just look up Judge Kennelly in the list.

It has two clerks listed, Avani Bhatt and Sarah Grady. Normally they will be full fledged lawyers to become clerks for District courts (at least all of them I have met are).

Thanks. Judging by their CVs they look like civil liberties types, so maybe not as interesting to them, as say the NSA wiretapping case Kennelly had a few years back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW has a strange concept of "considerable".

Mcdonalds spent roughly 2.3 billion on marketing in 2010, during which year they did 29 billion in sales. Roughly 8% of their revenue was spent in order to make more revenue.

Seeing as Mcdonalds surely knows what they're doing, You'd think other companies would follow suit.

8% of their US sales would be a meager 4 million a year in marketing, which I think would do wonders.

How much does it cost to "run" a facebook for a company? That is like 3 people tops, so at a healthy wage that's still under 100k per year, and adding the GenCon fees let's guess a round $100k.

So that right there is .2% of their US revenue spent on marketing. Far from considerable.


GW puts forth very little effort in getting their name out there, which seems counter intuitive.

I'm sure the judge will scrutinize both cases more heavily now that it's obvious GW is being stubborn and will just keep pushing.

The 'considerable sum' is likely just a style issue and it matches the other filings, he tosses in the word "myriad" at the beginning of the complaint for ex. Myriad is just a ten dollar way of saying "a lot". From a Canadian perspective the filings look a bit exagerated - we are taught to remove adjectives / adverbs and shoot any word that ends in -ly. If you use a lot of them they look like false intensifiers and are viewed as a sign of a weak position / not knowing the correct active verb. But we have a very different courtroom style, more restrained.

Honestly, the issue with their claim to [legal] fame is the product that they sell. No matter how popular it might be within those who are interested in it - it will remain niche.

The same can be seen in the somewhat recent (past 10 years if my addled mind is sharp on the issue) Thane International v. Trek Bicycle Corporation. Trek sponsored high profile bicycle races like olympic teams and the Tour de France and was widely recognized as being one of the top manufacturers of bicycles by a variety of independent magazines...however the court determined that they could not be considered famous because bicycles are too niche of a product category.

Wargames miniatures, RPGs and even a few video games would likely park GW in that same category even if they spent 10% or more per year on advertising.

And yes, our lawyers do like their superlative adjectives.

 Aerethan wrote:
How much does it cost to "run" a facebook for a company? That is like 3 people tops, so at a healthy wage that's still under 100k per year, and adding the GenCon fees let's guess a round $100k.

You forgot the big production team to make this epic short movie (I can feel the hands of Peter Jackson himself in this masterpiece)

czakk wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

czakk wrote:
I wonder why the rush to file? Are they putting on a show for the sake of the LOTR/Hobbit licensor or the computer game folks?

Or are we going to see a joinder motion and a request to re-open discovery coming down the pipes or something?



"with annual sales in this country alone well in excess of $50 million, and Games Workshop invests considerable sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands and in developing new products under these brand names. Games Workshop has thereby built up substantial goodwill and reputation in the marks"

Ignore the testimony under oath of our exec who stated that GW spent no money on marketing or promotion in the US! *snicker*

It wouldn't be GW's problem if someone else made LOTR/hobbit minis and sold them as such. Much like other licencing deals, New Line would come down on the infringer, possibly with a lot more prowess than GW.

Right you are!

Actually, it would be the Saul Zaentz Company, as they hold the actual copyright/trademarks. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17350103 where they assert they have "exclusive worldwide rights to motion picture, merchandising, stage and other rights in certain literary works of JRR Tolkien including The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit". Not to say that New Line couldn't sue depending on what the models were (exact likenesses of movie characters perhaps), but if they were just using the names it would SZC who would come after them.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

czakk wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

czakk wrote:
I wonder why the rush to file? Are they putting on a show for the sake of the LOTR/Hobbit licensor or the computer game folks?

Or are we going to see a joinder motion and a request to re-open discovery coming down the pipes or something?



"with annual sales in this country alone well in excess of $50 million, and Games Workshop invests considerable sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands and in developing new products under these brand names. Games Workshop has thereby built up substantial goodwill and reputation in the marks"

Ignore the testimony under oath of our exec who stated that GW spent no money on marketing or promotion in the US! *snicker*

It wouldn't be GW's problem if someone else made LOTR/hobbit minis and sold them as such. Much like other licencing deals, New Line would come down on the infringer, possibly with a lot more prowess than GW.

Right you are!

Actually, it would be the Saul Zaentz Company, as they hold the actually copyright/trademarks.

Newline holds the rights too all of the art work, likenesses' etc. The LotR IP itself is licensed to them, but they own what they created for it. Clearly they don't own the names and such, but everything that New Line made for the movies that didn't already exist they own.

GW has license with the Tolkien estate, so that even if New Line backed out, a LotR game could be made. All it would mean is that 100% of the model line would be discontinued since Tolkien doesn't own that.

Wildly off topic, I'll not continue on it sorry.

I get the distinct impression Kennelly is not amused by this new turn of events.

Gw: Drak! Just messed up me slipper trying to stomp out a flaming bag of poop at me front door.

(looks at bag still burning)

All rightey, now left foot it is!

So is this second suit a good or bad thing for CHS?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So is this second suit a good or bad thing for CHS?

On balance, probably neither for CHS. The judge has taken the new case and wrapped it into the first case - so it should not impact CHS and their relationship with their lawyers or the case they are attempting to present.

However, it may not be good for GW, which can of course be good for CHS. Although the final case will be in the hands of a jury, a judge and how he may or may not feel about a particular litigant can impact things throughout the case. Even to the extent of remaining impartial under the law, judges are able to exercise some measure of leeway in how they make their decisions.

Here's the USFL penalty...

Sounds to me that GW tried to
1.) charge CHS twice for the same "crime"
2.) circumvent that GW wasn't able to present all documents in time for the first lawsuit.
Both sound illegal to me as a layman.

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) charge CHS twice for the same "crime"

But this is a civil trail, not a criminal one. Is there double jeopardy for civil charges?

robertsjf wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) charge CHS twice for the same "crime"

But this is a civil trail, not a criminal one. Is there double jeopardy for civil charges?

Also, I feel as though they are trying to present it as different counts of the same crime.

robertsjf wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) charge CHS twice for the same "crime"

But this is a civil trail, not a criminal one. Is there double jeopardy for civil charges?

Well, it's not called that for starters. Res Iudicata is the term you're looking for, as mentioned before on this topic. Why, despite my usual aversion to such, I'll even link you to the (in this case actually quite decent) WP article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata

have fun now!

...And please everyone, can we stop mislabeling (alledged) torts as crimes? They're not the same thing, really.

In fairness, GW is, in principle, allowed to challenge CHS products released after this case started in a separate procedure, if they can make a case for it.

They could hardly be expected to add as of that moment unreleased products to the original complaint, could they?
Of course, under certain conditions, using such rights to bury an opponent in work and costs is considered to be vexatious litigation but really, assuming (and I'm being generous here, but let's) a good faith basis for every complaint yes, using a second procedure to challenge products released since the first suit was filed is proper procedure.
That they assert the same trademarks/copyrights/whatever does not run afoul of any res iudicata (what is it with you yanks inserting a J in a language which did not even have that letter? ) or equal provisions; that's just someone asserting their rights.
As soon as they challenge the same product on anything but a very distinctly novel, not before argued (and some would say up until then unbeknownst to them) basis, that would run afoul of res iudicata; also any trademarks which are deemed invalid or copyright assertions found to be overly broad will by and large carry over (though how exactly procedurally, that's not something I can answer).