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.

Anyone know what THIS is about???


RFC Case Number: T-G10-787C
Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-00787-WDQ
File Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Plaintiff: Games Workshop Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Benjamin R. Dryden of Foley & Lardner LLP
Defendant: Curse, Inc.
Yves Thieblot
Quantam Equity S.A.
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Court: Maryland District Court
Judge: Judge William D. Quarles, Jr.


Unfortunately, this is all the info I have.

http://www.linkedin.com/companies/curse-inc

All I can find about the company "Curse, Inc".

Says that company does MMO stuff and games work shop is supposedly making a 40k MMO from what Ive herd. THey also already have a WHFB mmo, so it could be about either of those,

Curse makes an MMO client that let's you mod your interface.

They had a version for Warhammer Online. www.wardb.com Though how they're figuring that as an IP issue, I'm none too clear, since all the artwork is provided by EA.

"Curse Gaming" makes add-ons and mods for MMOs.

It's likely they made something that GW/Mythic didn't want for the WFB MMO and GW/Mythic decided to take action.

Or hell, Curse is well known for having huge exploitable flaws in their automatic downloader so that could be where it's coming from(account security issues cropping up from it).

It just struck me as strange how quiet they're being about it.

And Mythic/EA are not named as plaintiffs, so it's not about accounts or anything directly to do with the game.

Mythic/EA don't have to be named as plaintiffs, since GW owns the intellectual property.

Mythic/EA is just licensing it from them temporarily.

No, because anything to do with accounts is Mythic's problem. User agreement is between the user and Mythic/EA.

GW only has anything directly IP related. So if Curse was causing the game to be hackable, it would be EA suing. Maybe GW found a eight pointed star on one of Curse's pages someplace...

Boredom and curiosity just cost me $2. But I've just read the complaint and thirteen pages boils down to complaining about "Defendants' Use of the Trademark WARHAMMER ALLIANCE and the Domain Name warhammeralliance.com".

I installed Recap before downloading the files, so if everything worked it should be in that system now if anyone's curious and stingy.

BaronIveagh wrote:No, because anything to do with accounts is Mythic's problem. User agreement is between the user and Mythic/EA.

GW only has anything directly IP related. So if Curse was causing the game to be hackable, it would be EA suing. Maybe GW found a eight pointed star on one of Curse's pages someplace...

I sincerely doubt that if it were anything to deal with the game(i.e., the intellectual property as mentioned) that GW wouldn't be the headliner for the lawsuit.

Ah, it's another domain name suit.

I hope they fight this. The fact that GWS owns the name doesn't preclude anyone else from using it in any context (at least in US law).

Actually it depends on if it is considered confusing (think "passing off" is the right term), whcih given they are in the same market place as GW it *could* be considered to be confusing customers into thinking CUrse Inc have something to do with GW.

Passing Off sounds right. Comign from a pub/bar background i know it can lead to troubel if you sell coke and advertise it as pepsi for instance.

So if this company were selling their own stuff and saying it was for use in 40k that could be the problem perhaps?

According to the complaint, the only thing they were selling was advertising space on their site.

Oh so they're going after them like they did Gameboardgeek.

Yeah, except this time they may have bitten off more then they can chew, since Curse isn't a lightweight fan group, it's a major internet company.

I'm speculating, of course, but I think it unlikely that they're passing off, as in pretending they have a product that is an official release. My feeling is they used the word "Warhammer" in the domain name, and the stance of GWS is that you are not allowed to use their product names in your domain.

Under US law, of course (Curse is based in San Francisco), this is laughable - otherwise there wouldn't be so many "your-brand-sucks.com" sites out trashing whatever brand you have. If you google "gripe site law" you'll see dozens of examples of the courts affirming that the use of the mark in the domain name is a clear case of a first amendment use, and furthermore, they don't even need a disclaimer (which some will likely claim is required to avoid creating a reasonable confusion that they are the mark in question - as an actual holder of the mark is not likely to create a site proclaiming their own shortcomings at we-suck.com).

Of course, the fact they have literally no case at all will not stop GWS - or other IP trolls - from trying to chill free speech or competition by using the weight of litigation as a battering ram. Were GWS based in the US, I think that Curse could file a anti-SLAPP suit to shut it down. Which they should - this is the poorest sort of IP abuse.

And the fact that a company *can* have you shut down for proclaiming to be an "official" site when you're not won't stop the Clueless Constitution crowd from saying "YOU CAN'T KEEP ME FROM HAVING A BRAND NAME IN MY SITE DOMAIN! HARHARHAR!".

It has to be made clear that there is no actual link between your site and the company. If you're not doing that, you're open to being nailed for it.

"This web site is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited or Mythic Entertainment. Website is Powered by vBulletin.
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises. All Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. See Disclaimer & our Privacy Policy for details."

Bottom of Warhammer alliance website

Then I can't comment as to why it's being done. Perhaps they're releasing an expansion to WFB and it'll be entitled "Warhammer Alliance"?

I vaguely remember something like that being why an EQ chat board called "Planes of Power" got hit up with a C&D back in the day.

Commentary, review or satire are exemptions. So that's how the "ihate(insert company).com" sites get away with it.

I'd say that warhammer alliance definitely falls under review and commentary.

Here's the complaint, in case anyone wants to read what the claims are instead of speculating.

Not sure where they're getting grounds for the charge of cybersquatting; a fully functional website doesn't really fit the bill for that one.

After reading that thing; I'm not sure GW should want a jury trial on this one. They're going to have heck proving a great deal of what they are alleging:
"Defendants' conduct as aforesaid has caused great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless such conduct is enjoined, it will continue and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury."

Looking at it, they should be within the realm of Fair Use under Title 17, section 107.... I can't view their website from work but it appears to be a discussion site, not unlike DakkaDakka. I would conjecture that the main grievance GW holds is the domain name, which is ludicrous.

They're going to have to prove to a court that the defendant is somehow benefiting monetarily from their IP to prove damages; I really hope they fight it because large companies as bullies is just sickening.

The real meat and potatoes of the lawsuit starts on page 6, as an fyi.

As broad as what GW is alleging, in theory, one could open an online weapon store and call it "warhammer arsenal", and be selling real warhammers and they could claim it is infringement.

Kanluwen wrote:And the fact that a company *can* have you shut down for proclaiming to be an "official" site when you're not won't stop the Clueless Constitution crowd from saying "YOU CAN'T KEEP ME FROM HAVING A BRAND NAME IN MY SITE DOMAIN! HARHARHAR!".

It has to be made clear that there is no actual link between your site and the company. If you're not doing that, you're open to being nailed for it.

If by the "clueless constitution crowd", you mean "actual, proven case law" I'd agree with you. No disclaimer is neccesary. Ref: Career Agents Network v. careeragentsnetwork.biz, Taubman v. Webfeats, Coca-Cola v. Purdy, n Greenpoint Financial Corp. v. S & H Greenpoints.com, among others.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from drowning you in an endless quagmire of litigation, where the goal is not to prevail on the facts, but to wear you down with their greater resources. Which is where SLAPP comes in, where available.

Ouze wrote:If by the "clueless constitution crowd", you mean "actual, proven case law" I'd agree with you. No disclaimer is neccesary. Ref: Career Agents Network v. careeragentsnetwork.biz, Taubman v. Webfeats, Coca-Cola v. Purdy, n Greenpoint Financial Corp. v. S & H Greenpoints.com, among others.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from drowning you in an endless quagmire of litigation, where the goal is not to prevail on the facts, but to wear you down with their greater resources. Which is where SLAPP comes in, where available.

I'm dubious GW wants to commit to a lengthy legal battle against Curse, who can probably match them.

It wouldn't be a lawsuit without the opportunity for uninvolved bystanders to stand around, posturing and taking sides in a matter that doesn't directly involve them, right?