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.

Trasvi wrote:Its like trademarking 'Apple'... its perfectly legal to trademark something 'whimsical' over a limited range of products. The 40,000 number, GW (rightfully) believes, is associated with their brand. They can always choose not to pursue a case against 40,000 leagues under the sea (because they would lose), but they can stop people producing 40,000: A space Odyssey.

Indeed, context matters. But a game simply titled "40,000" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Warhammer 40,000. I could understand trademarking the term "Warhammer" in relation to games of all varieties, as that is the BRAND of the game. 40,000 is a version of the game, not the brand itself.

Coca Cola can't trademark the word "diet" just because they make a product with "diet" in the name. "Diet Coke", sure as the context is there.

Let's look at it this way, how many people would be confused if I released a soda called "coke". Plenty, which is why it's trademarked for it's market. Coke is also a fuel for furnaces, completely unrelated to the beverage.

No one on earth would be confused into thinking that a game with "40,000" in the title has anything to do with Warhammer 40k if the word "warhammer" is left out. "Cola" isn't trade marked by itself by Coca-Cola. The word by itself is meaningless to the brand, as cola is the term for carbonated beverages with kola nuts used for caffeine.

I'll be right back, I'm going to go trademark the word "the" for use in all media.

Sorry for veering off topic.

Please update when summary judgement is posted, as that may decide the fate of this debacle.

Aerethan wrote:Indeed, context matters. But a game simply titled "40,000" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Warhammer 40,000. I could understand trademarking the term "Warhammer" in relation to games of all varieties, as that is the BRAND of the game. 40,000 is a version of the game, not the brand itself.

...

No one on earth would be confused into thinking that a game with "40,000" in the title has anything to do with Warhammer 40k if the word "warhammer" is left out.

You're right, but this is the same company who thinks they have claim to "skulls", "arrows" and the word "Tactical".

Aerethan wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:If GW wins this, you need a ™ on the arrow™ key of your keyboard

this made me chuckle.

trademarking the number 40,000™ out of context seems ludicrous. It may be one thing to trade mark the YEAR 40,000™.

So no 40,000™ leagues under the sea, House of 40,000™ corpses games?

That is nonsense. It's not even the entire brand name. Is GW going to also trade mark the words "war™" and "hammer™"?

I understand trademarking logos or original names like Pepsi and Coca Cola. Those clearly only mean one thing. 40,000™ existed for thousands of years before trademarks.

India should sue GW for using the number "0". They invented it after all.

Just fixed that for you, having a nice little view of the future™!

Aerethan wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Its like trademarking 'Apple'... its perfectly legal to trademark something 'whimsical' over a limited range of products. The 40,000 number, GW (rightfully) believes, is associated with their brand. They can always choose not to pursue a case against 40,000 leagues under the sea (because they would lose), but they can stop people producing 40,000: A space Odyssey.

Indeed, context matters. But a game simply titled "40,000" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Warhammer 40,000. I could understand trademarking the term "Warhammer" in relation to games of all varieties, as that is the BRAND of the game. 40,000 is a version of the game, not the brand itself.

Coca Cola can't trademark the word "diet" just because they make a product with "diet" in the name. "Diet Coke", sure as the context is there.

Let's look at it this way, how many people would be confused if I released a soda called "coke". Plenty, which is why it's trademarked for it's market. Coke is also a fuel for furnaces, completely unrelated to the beverage.

No one on earth would be confused into thinking that a game with "40,000" in the title has anything to do with Warhammer 40k if the word "warhammer" is left out. "Cola" isn't trade marked by itself by Coca-Cola. The word by itself is meaningless to the brand, as cola is the term for carbonated beverages with kola nuts used for caffeine.

I'll be right back, I'm going to go trademark the word "the" for use in all media.

Sorry for veering off topic.

Please update when summary judgement is posted, as that may decide the fate of this debacle.

Do they not already have Warhammer registered? One would assume that if that is the case they would not need to register Warhammer multiple times With its various attached phrases. Anyway if a service allows you to register multiple words in context as easily as one specific term why would you flog that horse to maximOse your protection/claim. Anyone with half an ounce of sense would.

I may have imagined it, but in exhibit 208, did I see that GW can't prove 'ownership' of some of their products because they didn't advertise them?

Got to laugh.

Cheers

Andrew

I hope CHS wins. I would be nice to see some help keep GW prices in check and to fill the gaping holes in the GW line.

It's funny that you imagine GW would not keep increasing prices off the back of that eventuality.

A rash of small mum and pop casters would be seen as more reason for them to price as a premier brand. Up, up and away!

notprop wrote:It's funny that you imagine GW would not keep increasing prices off the back of that eventuality.

A rash of small mum and pop casters would be seen as more reason for them to price as a premier brand. Up, up and away!

GW aren't idiots and such vengeful actions are not part of rational economics.
They'll eat the loss and plan for the future or whatever else their financial division decides.

I'm not sure if this is something that has been mentioned before, but it just occurred to me:

Even if GW loses this case, they are still in a position to win. It would be expensive, but the easiest way of making CHS go away would be to buy it up.

poda_t wrote:I'm not sure if this is something that has been mentioned before, but it just occurred to me:

Even if GW loses this case, they are still in a position to win. It would be expensive, but the easiest way of making CHS go away would be to buy it up.

Chapterhouse is not a publicly-traded company.
The best GW can do is offer to buy Chapterhouse and they'll say "no".

poda_t wrote:I'm not sure if this is something that has been mentioned before, but it just occurred to me:

Even if GW loses this case, they are still in a position to win. It would be expensive, but the easiest way of making CHS go away would be to buy it up.

The real threat to GW is that they actually have their copyrights legally defined in a court of law. If they keep sending C&D letters out afterwards against folks that did not violate the copyrights the court establishes, they might open themselves up to lawsuits by those same mom and pop stores they are trying to suppress. In addition, they might get looked at more closely by regulators for unfair business practices for those C&D letters if they loose the case overwhelmingly. It is really a two edged sword for them.

As for buying CHS out, that would be up to the guys running CHS if they want to even entertain any offers and would be separate from the lawsuit, except as part of a possible settlement.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:On the other hand they seem to have published the email addresses of all their info sources telling them about supposedly foul thing at Chapterhouse.

For those of us unwilling to go diving through legal documents, can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

They actually provided as evidence copies of the emails from various "concerned parties" who informed GW of the existence of Chapterhouse and that they thought they might be doing something wrong. Included in these emails are the email addresses, names and other identifying information.

During the deposition of GW's internal legal staff - it was also revealed that the initial contact with GW concerning Chapterhouse was a member of the administrative staff at Bolter and Chainsword.

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.34.pdf (page 46)

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.2.pdf - Provides an index for the evidence provided by Chapterhouse in their Summary Judgement Request (208 series documents).

The depositions are fairly interesting to read - though nothing too ground breaking. The one for Sandra Casey (head of US GW) doesn't put her in the best light though, she seems a bit unaware of goings on in her little part of the GW kingdom.

Brother Argos shopped Chapterhouse? that's...disappointing

Alan Merrett wrote:Q. How does Games Workshop internally refer to
the process where it creates miniatures?

A. Miniatures design.

Q. And what does it how does—it refer to
the people who create those?

A. We call them miniatures designers. You
know, it's miniatures in the plural. Sometimes
people refer to them as miniature designers, but
they're not small. Some of them are quite large
people.

Genius

And he's the one shepherding the IP for GW, no less.

I'm less surprised at a lot of the boneheaded changes to the backstory now...

A B&C admin outted Chapterhouse? I are disapoint.

Bit surprised anyone can argue that someone from B&C was 'confused' that Chapterhouse were making genuine GW pieces. If you're a complete noob who knows nothing of the miniature market beyond GW, then perhaps, but not someone who has been in this hobby for a period of time.

Agreed - The B&C folks are about as distilled and hardcore as you'll find out there.

Hard to believe, but the facts are the facts, I suppose!

Kroothawk wrote:On the other hand they seem to have published the email addresses of all their info sources telling them about supposedly foul thing at Chapterhouse.

Let's hope the judge makes no mistake granting GW copyright over the whole universe

Well I think gw just wants to own there universe.

tree667 wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:On the other hand they seem to have published the email addresses of all their info sources telling them about supposedly foul thing at Chapterhouse.

Let's hope the judge makes no mistake granting GW copyright over the whole universe

Well I think gw just wants to own there universe.

To own your universe, you kind of need to prove it's yours first. GW can't even do something as simple as that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Aerethan wrote:Indeed, context matters. But a game simply titled "40,000" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Warhammer 40,000. I could understand trademarking the term "Warhammer" in relation to games of all varieties, as that is the BRAND of the game. 40,000 is a version of the game, not the brand itself.

...

No one on earth would be confused into thinking that a game with "40,000" in the title has anything to do with Warhammer 40k if the word "warhammer" is left out.

You're right, but this is the same company who thinks they have claim to "skulls", "arrows" and the word "Tactical".

Why is that strange? After all, Facebook claims they own the word "book".

edit. Oh crap, I wrote "book" there. Facebook might sue me! Oh crap, I wrote "book" again...

GW not saying it owns "40,000" but owns "warhammer 40,000". it doesn;'t own the word "space" or "marine" but own the pharse "space marine". There not saying they own the word but the context in which there used. Chapterhouse decided to sell there stuff for "space marine" to be used with "warhammer 40k" and games workshop designed products. The arrow, skull, roman numerals and etc etc in which he used are by themselves not infirging on anything but by using them and marketing them as "space marine tactical squad markings" and "space marine company markings" he has infringed on gw turf.

tree667 wrote:GW not saying it owns "40,000" but owns "warhammer 40,000". it doesn;'t own the word "space" or "marine" but own the pharse "space marine". There not saying they own the word but the context in which there used. Chapterhouse decided to sell there stuff for "space marine" to be used with "warhammer 40k" and games workshop designed products. The arrow, skull, roman numerals and etc etc in which he used are by themselves not infirging on anything but by using them and marketing them as "space marine tactical squad markings" and "space marine company markings" he has infringed on gw turf.

Actually, they did trademark 40,000. That is what the trademark was issued for. They also have a separate trademark for Warhammer 40,000.

Alpharius wrote:Agreed - The B&C folks are about as distilled and hardcore as you'll find out there.

Hard to believe, but the facts are the facts, I suppose!

Yes, reading the testimony--it looks like someone was just angry that he was making that stuff and reported his site. "Outraged" was the term used in the testimony--looks like it was a case of someone just being spiteful more than confused.


Looks like the two attorneys have a good, professional relationship with each other--lol. The part where the GW attorney was trying to interrupt CH's attorney (Mr. Oh) with "Mr. Oh oh oh oh oh" made me giggle like a schoolgirl.

tree667 wrote:GW not saying it owns "40,000" but owns "warhammer 40,000". it doesn;'t own the word "space" or "marine" but own the pharse "space marine". There not saying they own the word but the context in which there used. Chapterhouse decided to sell there stuff for "space marine" to be used with "warhammer 40k" and games workshop designed products. The arrow, skull, roman numerals and etc etc in which he used are by themselves not infirging on anything but by using them and marketing them as "space marine tactical squad markings" and "space marine company markings" he has infringed on gw turf.

Especially in consideration of that last comment, I'd like to request that you go back to the beginning and read the whole thread. Dakkites with varying positions within the courts and legal system have made details on what is and is not infringing pretty straight-forward.

On another point, I'm disappointed, too, that someone at B&C did that.

Eric

AgeOfEgos wrote:Looks like the two attorneys have a good, professional relationship with each other--lol. The part where the GW attorney was trying to interrupt CH's attorney (Mr. Oh) with "Mr. Oh oh oh oh oh" made me giggle like a schoolgirl.

Yeah, WTF was that about??

tree667 wrote:GW not saying it owns "40,000" but owns "warhammer 40,000". it doesn;'t own the word "space" or "marine" but own the pharse "space marine". There not saying they own the word but the context in which there used. Chapterhouse decided to sell there stuff for "space marine" to be used with "warhammer 40k" and games workshop designed products. The arrow, skull, roman numerals and etc etc in which he used are by themselves not infirging on anything but by using them and marketing them as "space marine tactical squad markings" and "space marine company markings" he has infringed on gw turf.

Read GW's complaints (and summary of alleged violations) amongst fun things which they allege Chapterhouse infringed upon are the terms "halberd" - "grenade launcher" - "plasma"... Those are just a couple that I recall from one of the depositions. When the GW staff was questioned regarding it (believe it was head of licensing) - he stumbled, fumbled and that eventually conceded that they could not have valid trademarks on such general terms. There still may end up being some there there - but a lot of the claims are frivolous at best. If you read through the settlement hearing, the judge came right out and asked if GW would be willing to settle, or if their goal was to destroy this company who is working out of their garage, take them for whatever legal fees they could and make them go away and die (paraphrased...but only slightly). As opposed to answering the judges question, the GW lawyer skipped along past it. Luckily, the settlement judge is not the trial judge for them...as he seemed to have a particularly distasteful opinion of how GW was playing ball.

Next they will be after the phrase "grim dark" or "gothic" no doubt .
More I see GW doing of late, especially the "don't mention we are releasing stuff or we will cut off your supply of our products" to FLGS more I think they are actually controlled by the whales who wrote Family Guy episodes in South Park . They are certainly regressing to when they used the FLGS to get an idea of the market then put them out of business.
But it is ok for GW stores on facebook to post about getting down to see what the new releases would be, surely even mentioning there will be some breaks their own policy in GW world

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.213.1.pdf

got this from Bols

Chapterhouse has in every instance
copied unique combinations of colors, symbols, the unique shape of the pad itself (including the
little aesthetic indents on the back of the rim), together with the specific name given to the
underlying character by Games Workshop. (Undisputed Facts #57-68).

This is GW stance in there arguement. It has merit in my opinion.

I'm just saying GW is within it right to try and defend its IP. Chapterhouse seems to have gone out of it way to "borrow" heavily from GW. Some of there own artists were told to make it look like this or that. I'm of the side that says chapterhouse poked the beast a bit too much and went too far. I honestly like some of there stuff and have ordered from them. I just think there going to lose this round.

Aerethan wrote:

(iv) finding that the entirety of defendant’s product offering as well as individual products infringe Games Workshop’s copyrights in its Warhammer 40,000 works

This made me chuckle. Are they saying that every single CHS product violates a copyright?.

Yes, all 143 of them. They list each one and which GW product is supposedly infringed.

Typical entry:
CH product: Lashwhip (Tyrant Size) with CH description

Games Workshop Works:
The Tyrant is a Tyranid creature - see product 37

The Lashwhip is a weapon used by Tyranid creatures, including the Tyrant. The lashwhip forms part of the creature's arm rather than being held in the hand.

Games Workshop sells the Tyrant on its Website (URL)

Miniature designed by Jes Goodwin.

So no mention of the CH lashwhip being a copy of the GW piece, or even being substantially similar to it, just a reference to the fact that GW also sells a lashwhip. In the depositions, Alan Merrett goes further and says that they are not claiming copyright infringement on the piece at all, its really the use of GW trademarks that could cause confusion between GW and CH products that is the problem. He does the same for a number of other items in the few pages of his depositions (out of 200) that are posted in the PDF.

IMO Based on Merrett's depositions, many of the copyright claims will be tossed and the CH lawyers will destroy most (if not all) of the rest of the copyright claims. Then its down to trademark infringement and I doubt that those claims will go very far given fair use options.

Tim