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 don't know what Paulson can do though, he's probably sick of this crap by now.

I suppose it's defamatory, to falsely accuse someone of something in legal proceedings elsewhere. The settlement made with GW is privy to Chapterhouse too but they aren't supposed to discuss the matter unless the court decide it is valid. Of course if GW want to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement they could do better than falsely representing the relationship between Paulson and Chapterhouse because CH lawyers will want to defend this point in open court.

agnosto wrote:GW's legal counsel has submitted the revised complaint. There are some jewels in the document that I'm sure the defense's counsel will have a field day with:

None of the foregoing copyrighted works created in the United Kingdom are
United States works for which registration is required under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)

Yeah because your foreign copyrights hold so much cred here...

It seems that they are saying that in addition to being UK works they are also US works, and that under US law they do not need to register to the copyright to have certain legal protections.

agnosto wrote:

Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade
marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation:
Adeptus Mechanicus, Assault, Alpha Legion, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Blood Ravens,
Cadian, Carnifex, Chaos Space Marines, Chaplain, Chimera, Crimson Fists, Dark Angel, Death
Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 147 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:15404847-7177-8316
9
Watch, Devastator, Dreadnought, Drop Pod, Eldar, Elder Farseer, Eldar Jetbike, Eldar Warlock,
Eldar Seer Council, Empire, Exorcist, Flesh Tearers, Gene Stealer, Grenade Launcher, Halberd,
Heavy bolter, Heresy Armour, Hellhound, High Elf, Hive Tyrant, Horus Heresy, Howling
Banshee, Imperial Fists, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Iron Hands, Jetbike, Jump Pack, Land
Raider, Land Speeder, Legion of the Damned, Librarian, Lightning Claw, Melta, Mk II Armour,
Mk V Armour, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Scorpion, Soul Drinker, Space Wolves,
Stormraven, Storm Shield, Tactical, Techmarine, Termagants, Terminator, Thousand Sons,
Thunder Hammer, Tyrant, Tyranid Warrior.

Emphasis mine. So, why are we here again? Oh yeah, trademark infringement on items that aren't trademarked. Great. But I guess that's where dilution comes in.

Many of the symbols associated with the characters and armies of the
WARHAMMER 40,000 universe, as well as the accessories for these characters and armies,
have also become well-known and immediately recognizable to the many fans of the game as
used on and in connection with the respective characters, including without limitation: skulls,
Wings (eagle wings, angel wings), Lions, Griffon, Triptychs, Broadswords, Skull with horns,
Storm bolter (gun) Sawblade with blood-drop, Clenched fist in a gauntlet, Snakes, Flaming
skulls, Flaming chalice, Salamander, Dragon/salamander scales pattern, Tau Symbol, Tau - Oval
vents, Tau - X marking on power/ammo packs, Tau – circle with diagonal line through it, Tau –
geometric grooves, Roman numerals (combined with) arrows, X crosses and inverted V, Cog,
Iron hands icon – gauntleted left hand shown palm downwards, Overlapping/banded armour,
Wolf fur, Wolf skulls, Wolf tails, Raven wings with blood drop in centre, I symbol (for
Inquisition), Scarab beetles, Spirit stones, Eldar iconography/symbols (seer icons etc), Eldar -
Spirit Stones, Eldar – decorative gems on weapons.

More nonsense, yeah we own such things as broadswords and putting x's on equipment....even skulls with horns...yeah nobody would ever think of that...or decorative gems on weapons; who other than most medieval cultures would think to put gems on weapons?

It is not at all surprising that GW is making such broad claims. As far as I understand there is little penalty attached to doing so. Thus, while they are in court the figure why not try to trademark everything. I suspect that most of their claims in this regard will be rejected.

agnosto wrote:

Exacerbating the injury to Games Workshop’s reputation, the quality of many of
Defendants’ products is materially inferior to the quality of Games Workshop’s originals, which
will cause injury to Games Workshop’s reputation among purchasers of Defendants’ products in
the original or secondary markets.

LoL. No need for a small company to injure GW's reputation, Finecast did that for them...

It would be a very interesting end to the case if GW failed to show damages. It is my understanding that CH only produces stuff that GW does not make. Further they do a good job of it. Thus, I do not see how GW can claim lost sales or damage to its reputation.

So, basically, chapterhouse caved in to GW...

xxvaderxx wrote:So, basically, chapterhouse caved in to GW...

No? What gave you that idea?

xxvaderxx wrote:So, basically, chapterhouse caved in to GW...

Where did that happen?

xxvaderxx wrote:So, basically, chapterhouse caved in to GW...

I think you've completely misunderstood the entire thread.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Did Paulson sculpt it or not?

NO. I have nothing to do with that sculpt, anyone with two brain cells can find out who's sculpt is.

paulson games wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Did Paulson sculpt it or not?

NO. I have nothing to do with that sculpt, anyone with two brain cells can find out who's sculpt is.

Howard A Treesong wrote:he's probably sick of this crap by now

It's very annoying that people keep questioning if I did the sculpt. I had nothing to do with it.

I don't know why people keep thinking it either, but the thing we're wondering is why this

On information and belief, Paulson entered his agreement with Chapterhouse for
the “Super-Heavy Assault Walker” because of an inability to satisfy great consumer demand for
the product, which Chapterhouse now sells at retail for $285

is in the most recent GW document after they already settled with you.

paulson games wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Did Paulson sculpt it or not?

NO. I have nothing to do with that sculpt, anyone with two brain cells can find out who's sculpt is.

As I thought had been established, but GW keep claiming otherwise. I don't see that it is the problem of the sculptor anyway. It's chapterhouse selling the thing.

spaceelf wrote:

agnosto wrote:GW's legal counsel has submitted the revised complaint. There are some jewels in the document that I'm sure the defense's counsel will have a field day with:

None of the foregoing copyrighted works created in the United Kingdom are
United States works for which registration is required under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)

Yeah because your foreign copyrights hold so much cred here...

It seems that they are saying that in addition to being UK works they are also US works, and that under US law they do not need to register to the copyright to have certain legal protections.

Yes. In the US, copyrights are owned by creators once they have created a work. Most of the time, you do not need to register a copyright in order to own the copyright.

agnosto wrote:

Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade
marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation:
Adeptus Mechanicus, Assault, Alpha Legion, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Blood Ravens,
Cadian, Carnifex, Chaos Space Marines, Chaplain, Chimera, Crimson Fists, Dark Angel, Death
Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 147 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:15404847-7177-8316
9
Watch, Devastator, Dreadnought, Drop Pod, Eldar, Elder Farseer, Eldar Jetbike, Eldar Warlock,
Eldar Seer Council, Empire, Exorcist, Flesh Tearers, Gene Stealer, Grenade Launcher, Halberd,
Heavy bolter, Heresy Armour, Hellhound, High Elf, Hive Tyrant, Horus Heresy, Howling
Banshee, Imperial Fists, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Iron Hands, Jetbike, Jump Pack, Land
Raider, Land Speeder, Legion of the Damned, Librarian, Lightning Claw, Melta, Mk II Armour,
Mk V Armour, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Scorpion, Soul Drinker, Space Wolves,
Stormraven, Storm Shield, Tactical, Techmarine, Termagants, Terminator, Thousand Sons,
Thunder Hammer, Tyrant, Tyranid Warrior.

Emphasis mine. So, why are we here again? Oh yeah, trademark infringement on items that aren't trademarked. Great. But I guess that's where dilution comes in.

Trademarks do normally need to be registered.

I love how they think the words "Assault" and "Tactical" belong to them.

Many of the symbols associated with the characters and armies of the
WARHAMMER 40,000 universe, as well as the accessories for these characters and armies,
have also become well-known and immediately recognizable to the many fans of the game as
used on and in connection with the respective characters, including without limitation: skulls,
Wings (eagle wings, angel wings), Lions, Griffon, Triptychs, Broadswords, Skull with horns,
Storm bolter (gun) Sawblade with blood-drop, Clenched fist in a gauntlet, Snakes, Flaming
skulls, Flaming chalice, Salamander, Dragon/salamander scales pattern, Tau Symbol, Tau - Oval
vents, Tau - X marking on power/ammo packs, Tau – circle with diagonal line through it, Tau –
geometric grooves, Roman numerals (combined with) arrows, X crosses and inverted V, Cog,
Iron hands icon – gauntleted left hand shown palm downwards, Overlapping/banded armour,
Wolf fur, Wolf skulls, Wolf tails, Raven wings with blood drop in centre, I symbol (for
Inquisition), Scarab beetles, Spirit stones, Eldar iconography/symbols (seer icons etc), Eldar -
Spirit Stones, Eldar – decorative gems on weapons.

More nonsense, yeah we own such things as broadswords and putting x's on equipment....even skulls with horns...yeah nobody would ever think of that...or decorative gems on weapons; who other than most medieval cultures would think to put gems on weapons?

In fairness, you can probably see how, over the last 20 years GW, have finally convinced themselves they invented the skull.

odinsgrandson wrote:
Trademarks do normally need to be registered.

I thought this as well, but I just found out that there is such a thing as an unregistered trade mark, and it has certain protections under US law. It would be useful if one of the lawyers who posts here could educate us on this topic.

Registered or not the validity of such Trademarks are questionable when they're so generic.

Trademarks don't have to be registered. You obtain rights in a trademark as soon as it is used in commerce to identify a product. However, your remedies for unauthorized use of an unregistered trademark are limited.

Copyrights also do not need to be registered. Your rights under copyright attach as soon as the work is published. Like trademarks, there are certain remedies that are unavailable for unregistered copyright works.

One additional element of copyright law is that the work must be registered before you can recover. Usually this just means you file your copyright registration, wait for it to issue (or don't, depending on which circuit you're in), and then file the lawsuit.

An issue that complicates this is that most of the GW copyrights were created in the UK. We have treaties with the UK that governs how UK copyrights are applied in the United States, but I don't know enough about that issue to opine on the subject.

GW claiming a trademark on the word Tactical reminds me of when TSR printed a TM mark next to the word Nazi.

How about trying to claim an unregistered trademark on Chaplain, Chimera, Empire, Exorcist, Grenade Launcher, Halberd, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Librarian, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Scorpion, Terminator or Tyrant.

So we've got...
- Mythological creature name
- Film reference
- Real weapon
- Real creature
- 4th state of matter
- Historical military designations
- and several generic terms or job descriptions

biccat, how justified are unregistered trademark claims on this sort of thing, in your experience?

EDIT - Realised I'd used the wrong term regarding the claim. Amended above, in italics.

A couple have mentioned that there is little penalty to making such broad claims... surely there's the issue that it's just wasting the time of the court. I would have thought that you should try to be a bit more to the point rather that use the 'throw everything and see what sticks' approach especially after a year of litigation has passed. It comes across as time wasting and malicious, to not identify specific cases and just make obviously stupid claims. But maybe that's how it works.

As for GW legal, they seem like a bunch of buffoons. Here we are after a YEAR of litigation and they are still wrongfully claiming that Paulson made the Tau walker for them, yet only last week they made a settlement with him. Is the GW legal department so big that one half doesn't communicate with the other? I'm sorry I had to ask Paulson to clarify again, but the fact that GW are still claiming this made me think I was wrong somehow.

It's beyond stupid, I relish the thought of coming on here in a year's time to read that GW have been torn to pieces in court. They seriously need to be taken down a few pegs.

Dysartes wrote:How about trying to claim copyright on Chaplain, Chimera, Empire, Exorcist, Grenade Launcher, Halberd, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Librarian, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Scorpion, Terminator or Tyrant.

So we've got...
- Mythological creature name
- Film reference
- Real weapon
- Real creature
- 4th state of matter
- Historical military designations
- and several generic terms or job descriptions

biccat, how justified are unregistered trademark claims on this sort of thing, in your experience?

LOL, thats awsome thank you for the good laugh, I needed that this morning....moving sucks hardcore.

Interesting that they claim an unregistered trademark for "Gene Stealer" - but the actual unit is a Genestealer.

I wonder how much impact the presence of a space has...

Just for clarification:
The first official photo of the Chapterhouse walker explicitely stated the sculptor. So it was obvious from the start that Paulson was a deliberately false victim of GW's claims.

So in US law there is no penalty to deliberately and continuously lie to the judge, deliberately accusing innocent people and claiming copyrights that clearly belong to others (Moorcock's Chaos Star) or noone (angel wings, wolf's fur)? Well, I know that US patent law allows patents on indigenous blood (making their children in principle non-sanctioned copies requiring a fee), so this could be true as well. What happens when the judge forgets to reject one claim: Does GW then get copyrights on Roman numbers and wolf's fur?

Could Paulson possibly now sue GW for making false claims against him in court?

Not that I think it should be a serious consideration, or even possible, mind you. Just curious.

No doubt "Paulson abandon all potential claims and legal action against Games Workshop Limited" was present somewhere in his settlement.

That would not protect GW from action based on new things they do.

Dysartes wrote:biccat, how justified are unregistered trademark claims on this sort of thing, in your experience?

I'm not going back to review the complaint to see what they're claiming for trademarks vs. copyrights, mainly because I'm dealing with a cold. Are the examples above "Copyrights" or are they "Trademarks"?

You can get trademark protection for certain words that are in common use (for example, Apple) if there's little relation to the actual product being produced (computers). But if the word is generic or merely descriptive of the good being sold then you can't get protection.

Trademarks can be (in decreasing order of protection):
Fanciful (EXXON for oil company)
Arbitrary (APPLE for computers)
Suggestive (MICROSOFT for microprocessor software)
Descriptive (SHARP for copiers)
Generic (MINIATURE for miniatures games)

Generic marks can never be protected, descriptive marks can only be protected to the extent they've developed secondary meaning. So while "Games Workshop" might be descriptive (for example; although GW would probably argue that the mark is suggestive), it has developed secondary meaning in the market beyond its literal meaning. Therefore, the term is protected.

What GW is (probably) going to argue is that the words described above are "Descriptive" and have developed secondary meaning on their own. CH will say that those terms are merely generic, or have not developed secondary meaning, and therefore not protected.

In terms of legitimacy, there's little difference between registered and unregistered trademarks (registered trademarks just go through this process before the USPTO rather than waiting for a court to make the determination)

biccat wrote:

Dysartes wrote:biccat, how justified are unregistered trademark claims on this sort of thing, in your experience?

I'm not going back to review the complaint to see what they're claiming for trademarks vs. copyrights, mainly because I'm dealing with a cold. Are the examples above "Copyrights" or are they "Trademarks"?

The ones I quoted are listed in the complaint as unregistered trademarks, biccat - I went back and reviewed my post, and I'd typed copyright instead, which I've now amended. Gah, the terminology gets confusing

For a descriptive trademark, would context need to be given - for example, the context of a Librarian within miniatures gaming is fairly distinctive (I can't think of many examples other than a SM Librarian off the top of my head), but claiming something like Chimera or Salamander might be more problematic, especially when they use it in two contexts (tank vs creature, in the case of the Chimera)?

Equally, I'm struggling to see how they could descriptively trademark plasma, given that is a factual state of matter which is used in multiple sci-fi settings in a similar fashion to the GW approach.

Dysartes wrote:For a descriptive trademark, would context need to be given

Context always matters for trademarks. Apple can prevent the sale of computers under their mark but they can't prevent the sale of apples (or cars, or any other industry that they haven't used the mark in) under their mark.

Dysartes wrote:claiming something like Chimera or Salamander might be more problematic, especially when they use it in two contexts (tank vs creature, in the case of the Chimera)?

Hopefully the above answers this question; trademarks are only valid for certain goods. GW might be able to prevent the sale of 28mm scale vehicles under the name "Chimera" but they can't prevent the sale of monsters under the name "Chimera."

Dysartes wrote:Equally, I'm struggling to see how they could descriptively trademark plasma, given that is a factual state of matter which is used in multiple sci-fi settings in a similar fashion to the GW approach.

Plasma will probably be more difficult. The mark is likely descriptive (at best), but GW will have a tough time selling that it has acquired secondary meaning. Even among miniatures gamers, I would guess that the word "plasma" doesn't immediately bring to mind "Games Workshop Plasma Weapons." But then, maybe it does. Lots of gamers don't know much about sci-fi miniatures outside of GW.

biccat wrote: Even among miniatures gamers, I would guess that the word "plasma" doesn't immediately bring to mind "Games Workshop Plasma Weapons." But then, maybe it does. Lots of gamers don't know much about sci-fi miniatures outside of GW.

Certainly, this would make an interesting debate for open court with witnesses and attorneys, if it came to that. Kinda reminds me of

Oddly relevant to another thread here as well lol.

My favorite quote from GW's amended complaint is from item 58: "WARHAMMER $40000."

I think that GW will be hurt by the changes that they made to their models and books. For example, there was the old screamer killer carnifex, and now the plastic one. I understand that both models are copyright, but it certainly makes the trademark of carnifex confusing. GW also retcons the fluff. Again, this makes it difficult for them to say that something is X, when they then change it to Y. For example, what is a Necron? The old models look a whole lot different than the new ones, and now the fluff is all new. Possibly most significantly, GW also undermines their trademarks by making models with different names that look very similar. Two such models are the necron warrior and the plastic chaos android. Thus one could argue that visual appearance does not define their trademarks. You also have name changes like gretchin and grot. This would lead me to believe that the name is of little value.

Another related point are changes to their rules. There has been a long tradition of gamers making changes to the rules. Tournaments usually have their own rules. I think that this undermines GWs contention that it is solely their IP. People also publish fanzines, again emphsizing the fact that the hobby is a cooperative enterprise, not something that is controlled solely by GW.

I think that GW's hobby articles opened the door to using non-GW products in 40k and fantasy. My favorite is the famous deodorant tank. I think that they will have a hard time convincing a jury that a company cannot produce a generic item like a shoulderpad and sell it for use with GW products. Such shoulder pads occur in many sci fi settings including Unreal, and thus would not necessarily be considered copyright infringement from GW.

Any news on this? been a few weeks since we've heard anything.