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.

Another question for Polonius....

Should CH lose the case comprehensively, would they have any recourse as to the lawyer that advised them it was all hunky-dorey in the eyes of the law?

Mr Mystery wrote:If you were representing the plaintiff (GW..not sure on the US terminology!) would you push for settlement, or to try and litigate to a definitive answer? It's just I can see a definite upswing to GW pushing all the way, regardless of cost as it gives them a far stronger position in the future?

It depends what GW's goal is. Do they want to shut down Chapterhouse? Or do they want to test the legal waters and see if they can actually win on the merits?

In this case, assuming they just want to shut it down, I'd do what they are doing. Sue, fight it out, but I wouldn't go to trial. I'd either settle it, buy them out, or somehow avoid trial. I think risking establishing precendent is unwise here, given the neglible impact it has on the bottom line.

I would probably work to get a few of the bigger kits removed (spores and tervigons), and have everything else re-labelled and genericised.

Mr Mystery wrote:In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

You would have the ability to NOT buy any third party products and support GW, a position which I would support. I would buy whatever I thought offered the best cost/benefit ratio. Personally, I think competition is good.

Mr Mystery wrote:Salamanders, Space Wolves for two. Both pretty blatant rip offs.

And as has been argued, most of GW's work is a rip-off from other sources. None of CH's stuff has a GW icon on it - it may have a generic big lizard or wolf head on it, but GW can't protect something like that. And as I noted above, if you don't want to purchase it, you have the right to do so. I would rather have more options to choose from.

Mr Mystery wrote:Another question for Polonius....

Should CH lose the case comprehensively, would they have any recourse as to the lawyer that advised them it was all hunky-dorey in the eyes of the law?

No. Legal opinions are seldom given as absolutes. I'd imagine their lawyer told them that certain actions would be likely to hold up in court. But making an expert prediction and being wrong is not malpractice.

dietrich wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

You would have the ability to NOT buy any third party products and support GW, a position which I would support. I would buy whatever I thought offered the best cost/benefit ratio. Personally, I think competition is good.

Mr Mystery wrote:Salamanders, Space Wolves for two. Both pretty blatant rip offs.

And as has been argued, most of GW's work is a rip-off from other sources. None of CH's stuff has a GW icon on it - it may have a generic big lizard or wolf head on it, but GW can't protect something like that. And as I noted above, if you don't want to purchase it, you have the right to do so. I would rather have more options to choose from.

Thing is, GW can seemingly prove that CH lifted directly from their own artwork, and designed it specifically to cash in on GW's reputation. Where GW took the original inspiration from I would assume is less of an issue? I mean you clearly can't copyright a Wolfs Head design, but you could in the context of it on a Power Armour Shoulder Pad, or Rhino Door?

The Tactical Squad and Assault Squad iconography may not be copyrighted by GW, but the four arrows of the Assault Squad is certainly part of the Space Marine identity as is the arrows for the Tac Squad shoulder pads and Rhino Doors. They aren't the exact symbols, but it is certainly part of Space Marine fluff, insignia and markings.

Mr Mystery wrote:Thing is, GW can seemingly prove that CH lifted directly from their own artwork, and designed it specifically to cash in on GW's reputation. Where GW took the original inspiration from I would assume is less of an issue? I mean you clearly can't copyright a Wolfs Head design, but you could in the context of it on a Power Armour Shoulder Pad, or Rhino Door?

Right now, GW has proven nothing, they've filed a lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit doesn't mean you're right, it just means you took the time and hired a lawyer to file it.

The crux of the argument is whether you can copyright a generic shoulderpad with a generic icon on it. CH isn't copying designs from GW's artwork. It's inspired, but that's how GW avoids some issues too (they're 'inspired' by anime and Tolkien, not ripping off copyrighted works). CH is not reproducing GW work, which would be a clear copyright violation. Whether CH violated copyright by producing shoulder pads that fit space marines and have some generic icons is for a judge and jury to determine (or more likely, for some lawyers to settle). And keep in mind, that most of the lawyers, jury, and judge have no idea of the hobby community, so they're basing decisions on the best argument. If you hold up a CH shoulder pad to a GW one, it's not exactly the same. But, if GW can show they have been 'damaged' by CH, that's enough to win the case.

I think CH has some strong arguments, and I think GW has some merit. I wonder (and this is somewhat random speculation) if CH didn't get a little too confident and/or complacent. When they started, they seemed to be much more careful tip-toeing around GW. But, in the last few months, it's a little more blatant, even creating a model for the Doom of Malanti.

Part of the reason that I hope CH wins the case is that we may see more third party models, like the great coat soldiers in plastic. They're not marketed as IG models, but yet everyone knows they're stand-ins for IG.

As I said, GW can seeminly prove.


And again, big hurdle for Chapter House would be the lack of subtlety in their marketing, and using GW copyrights to do so. To be honest, my largely uninformed opinion is CH are pretty frakked right now because of just that. I shall follow this case with interest methinks.

Mr Mystery wrote:As I said, GW can seeminly prove.

Maybe, maybe not. GW may realize that they can't win the suit, and may not care. They may simply be hoping to bully someone into submission. You can't run a business afraid of ever getting sued, but it's generally not good to run a business where you encourage people to sue you either.

If the aftermarket car parts comparison holds up, CH are certainly in the clear.

It's way too early to know for sure, though.

Mr Mystery wrote:

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

Pretty much, chapter house was just too blatent with what they were doing

Maybe. If the win the case, then they weren't too blatant. If they lose the case, it might be due to other reasons as well.

I'm not convinced that GW's goal is to win the case. They don't have to win a legal challenge, when they can accomplish the same result (shutting down a third party vendor) by legal attrition. Just drag it out, get them to shut down production, even if you drop the case in 3 years, it's probably too late for the little guy.

I think it's a pretty important case for the hobby. CH wins, and it really opens the door for other vendors. Does someone get bold enough to create 'futurstic genetically engineered warrior in heavy armor', etc.? Even if no one takes it that far, if it emboldens more people to create and sell items like shoulder pads, heads, backpacks, vehicle upgrades, etc. - it's a good thing for the hobby.

In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

I can not agree with that at all. If a company wants to profit through capitalism, they then must accept it wholesale. If another company is willing to offer the consumer what they want when GW will not, and/or will also offer it of a superior quality and/or price, then that is the punishment for refusing to address the needs of the market. So what if their work is derivative or appeals to an already existing market? That's smart business sense in a capitalist model. I find it wrong when someone chooses to benefit from the capitalist model, but then complains when someone else makes smart business decisions which harm them. There is no morality involved, people are encouraged to do what will make money and be successful, and this is one of those things.

As for the legality in all of this, that I do not know, but I anxiously await the outcome and I hope CH triumphs in the end. They routinely claimed they were doing nothing illegal, and I hope for them that was correct. As they surely were doing nothing against capitalist thought, which America routinely claims to cherish.

Heffling wrote:By the same concepts going into this lawsuit, one could argue that noone should manufacture aftermarket car parts without the automakers express permission. Yet, that happens daily.
It is my opinion that GW does not have a strong position in this case.

Actually, if GW WERE a car company, they WOULD sue all tire companies, demanding an immediate stop of tire production! No word if and when GW tires will be available of course

I am waiting for the first kid arrested in a GW store for making a conversion
"Hey, we have to protect our IP! Ask our lawyers how to run a toy store!"

Kanluwen wrote:[You also chose to bring up the C&Ds from last year, of which almost every single one of them was resolved without having to go to court. Only a few stubborn sites that chose to play martyr got hit hard, and that was because of lazy spankers for the most part.

Heffling wrote:By the same concepts going into this lawsuit, one could argue that noone should manufacture aftermarket car parts without the automakers express permission. Yet, that happens daily.

It is my opinion that GW does not have a strong position in this case.

For all Kanluwen says about all the C&Ds from last year being resolved I don't think any made it to court. We don't know the legal outcomes of these cases because the much smaller company buckles under the pressure, mostly due to the cost and GW walk all over them. The case is never fought and GWs claims are not put to the test because they haven't got the cash to front a defence. Which completely plays into GW hands, all they have to do is threaten people and throw their money around and they'll win. That does not mean GW are in the right as I think Kanluwen's "resolved" comment would seem to imply.

I can't think of an example of a company in a niche hobby like wargaming actually coming to court over a matter like this. It's all very well saying that a casual customer wouldn't know the difference, but who can really say that? Does anyone in such a niche hobby really not know the difference? It's a hell of a stretch to think that someone's aunty will go online and buy Chapterhouse parts for their nephew believing them to be GW. I bet that has *never* happened. All the parallels drawn for the purposes of defending fair use and the like are quite distant in their relation; ipods and car parts, it's not the wargaming marketplace, or anything really like it. Sure you could use these to argue a comparison in court to claim some precedent, but I'm sure GW will find some examples to argue the other way. It's a grey area that will be won by the best lawyers who can produce all the best examples and precedents. That's why Chapterhouse will either need plenty of money or a particularly excellent argument.

GW will likely win because they are the big company that has come to dominate the marketplace, they have more money than pretty much any other wargames company to throw at crushing anyone they take a dislike to. For all the talk on this thread of ipod extras and car parts we can only speculate on who is the more reasonable party here according to the law. It's really down to who can produce what arguments in court. Chapterhouse will probably fold because they won't be able to mount an effective defence if they can muster one at all. So we'll still be in the dark as to whether GW's demands are reasonable or legally enforcable, because they'll win the way they always do, through massive financial pressure, not because they won in anything like a fair fight in a court room where they argued their case on genuine grounds. But then again, that's how all these companies work. They rarely get to court, they just price the defendant out of the courtroom.

I think the aftermarket car parts comparison should be something attorneys look into as a counterpoint to this.

The only thing I ever see that hurts the GW brand is the crap being played at many gamestores; plastic colored armies on crappy beat up terrain.

Mr Mystery wrote:In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

If GW would release proper model support for thier codexes, many players would not be turning to third-parties to provide the materials needed to produce WSIWYG models. GW itself is creating the demand for these people by releasing codexes with massive holes in the model line for them. Shutting them down is simply opening the door even futher for GW to be lazy and hide behind the moniker of encouraging opportunities for "creative conversions".

Anyone has contacts to the Leverage team?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28TV_series%29

Kroothawk wrote:Anyone has contacts to the Leverage team?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28TV_series%29

Why? you dont think GW will win?

Polonius wrote:Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

The market is full of third party accessories. Ipod cases, off brand car parts, gun sights, etc. I think that the argument that CH is making after-market add-ons, accessories, and replacment components, they can argue by analogy that what they do is ok.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to argue with you, attempting to troll you or discounting your knowledge in this field.

I'll just use my experience in the motorcycle/recreational vehicle industry to state my opinion more clearly on why refering to the automotive industry is a poor example for CHs defence and points to a GW win. As an example, Suzuki makes a saddle bag that mounts to a specific saddlebag mount. Being that its a Suzuki manufactured accessory, it has a distinctive Suzuki "S" or the Boulevard symbol. An aftermarket accessory company can make a saddlebag that fits to that specific mount, but it cannot have a Suzuki "S" or the Boulevard symbol, or attempt intentionally or not, to mislead a customer by having the "S" backward or a slight variation of the Boulevard emblem, or anything else that invokes a similarity to trademarked words or symbols owned by Suzuki. If it has any of those, they're done. I've personally had to pull things off my shelf because an OEM(original equipment manufacturer, Suzuki in this example) brand name has filed suit and won (or always settled out in OEM favor) against some of these off brand guys.

This is how I see Chapterhouse vs GW situation. They make bits and specifically name GW imagery/themes that they are supposed to represent, with no compensation going to GW.

There are other examples , but I think this is pretty clear. I'm sure someone can come up with a scenario/item where the opposite of my example plays out differently, but I've only experienced similiar stories to my example. Big brands damn near always win.

NELS, that is a good example of the analogical argument that Polonious is talking about.

NELS1031 wrote:I'll just use my experience in the motorcycle/recreational vehicle industry to state my opinion more clearly on why refering to the automotive industry is a poor example for CHs defence and points to a GW win. As an example, Suzuki makes a saddle bag that mounts to a specific saddlebag mount. Being that its a Suzuki manufactured accessory, it has a distinctive Suzuki "S" or the Boulevard symbol. An aftermarket accessory company can make a saddlebag that fits to that specific mount, but it cannot have a Suzuki "S" or the Boulevard symbol, or attempt intentionally or not, to mislead a customer by having the "S" backward or a slight variation of the Boulevard emblem, or anything else that invokes a similarity to trademarked words or symbols owned by Suzuki. If it has any of those, they're done. I've personally had to pull things off my shelf because an OEM(original equipment manufacturer, Suzuki in this example) brand name has filed suit and won (or always settled out in OEM favor) against some of these off brand guys.

Perfect example, actually. The functional replacement part (the bag) isn't protected by copyright or trademark; Suzuki's trademarks are protected. Third-party manufacturers are prevented from causing customer confusion by making a part which appears to be from Suzuki.

This is how I see Chapterhouse vs GW situation. They make bits and specifically name GW imagery/themes that they are supposed to represent, with no compensation going to GW.

Here's where your example differs: Chapterhouse isn't marketing their products as being manufactured by GW. Many do not include any elements that should be protected by GW's trademark or copyright rights (e.g., "the sword-arms for aliens" sold by Chapterhouse don't have any GW iconography, nor are they remotely close to any bit produced by GW). Others may be closer questions (e.g., shoulderpads). GW has essentially alleged that each and every product sold by Chapterhouse is infringing, which is almost certainly an overstatement of their rights (but is a common overstatement for the initial pleading). There ARE some interesting questions of law to be resolved here, though, and it's not as cut-and-dried for either party as some of the posts in the thread would have us believe.

There are other examples , but I think this is pretty clear. I'm sure someone can come up with a scenario/item where the opposite of my example plays out differently, but I've only experienced similiar stories to my example. Big brands damn near always win.

As a retailer, of course you're mostly going to see situations where the big brand won - you have to take some affirmative action there. You don't get exposed to the situations where Suzuki doesn't win, because you don't have to do anything as a result.

NELS1031 wrote:

Polonius wrote:Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

The market is full of third party accessories. Ipod cases, off brand car parts, gun sights, etc. I think that the argument that CH is making after-market add-ons, accessories, and replacment components, they can argue by analogy that what they do is ok.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to argue with you, attempting to troll you or discounting your knowledge in this field.

I'll just use my experience in the motorcycle/recreational vehicle industry to state my opinion more clearly on why refering to the automotive industry is a poor example for CHs defence and points to a GW win. As an example, Suzuki makes a saddle bag that mounts to a specific saddlebag mount. Being that its a Suzuki manufactured accessory, it has a distinctive Suzuki "S" or the Boulevard symbol. An aftermarket accessory company can make a saddlebag that fits to that specific mount, but it cannot have a Suzuki "S" or the Boulevard symbol, or attempt intentionally or not, to mislead a customer by having the "S" backward or a slight variation of the Boulevard emblem, or anything else that invokes a similarity to trademarked words or symbols owned by Suzuki. If it has any of those, they're done. I've personally had to pull things off my shelf because an OEM(original equipment manufacturer, Suzuki in this example) brand name has filed suit and won (or always settled out in OEM favor) against some of these off brand guys.

This is how I see Chapterhouse vs GW situation. They make bits and specifically name GW imagery/themes that they are supposed to represent, with no compensation going to GW.

There are other examples , but I think this is pretty clear. I'm sure someone can come up with a scenario/item where the opposite of my example plays out differently, but I've only experienced similiar stories to my example. Big brands damn near always win.

Pretty much this.

Manchu wrote:NELS, that is a good example of the analogical argument that Polonious is talking about.

Yeah but his one made more sense

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

If GW would release proper model support for thier codexes, many players would not be turning to third-parties to provide the materials needed to produce WSIWYG models. GW itself is creating the demand for these people by releasing codexes with massive holes in the model line for them. Shutting them down is simply opening the door even futher for GW to be lazy and hide behind the moniker of encouraging opportunities for "creative conversions".

Or they go back to how the Codecies were before, with only stuff currently available included, which has a negative impact upon the game, as people have less variety to choose from. I fail to see how GW not having released a given item is somehow carte blanche for someone else to step in with a knock off product, proclaiming 'all me own work guv'. Which CH have.

I have not posted on here in forever because I am not working on anything 40k, but screw GW, I am going to place an order with Chapterhouse just to show some support. If GW actually made products that people want there wouldn't be such a third party bits market. So look for my order Chapterhouse & give em' hell!

Mr Mystery wrote:Or they go back to how the Codecies were before, with only stuff currently available included, which has a negative impact upon the game, as people have less variety to choose from. I fail to see how GW not having released a given item is somehow carte blanche for someone else to step in with a knock off product, proclaiming 'all me own work guv'. Which CH have.

I don't think it has anything to do with whether GW has a kit for a unit entry or not. I have no problem with people making whole models that are '28mm futuristic bulky guys in bulkier armor with big guns', but they can't call them 'Space Marines'. Someone already has greatcoat sci-fi warriors, which are clearly inspred by DKoK, but aren't copies of them either.

Goon3423 wrote:I have not posted on here in forever because I am not working on anything 40k, but screw GW, I am going to place an order with Chapterhouse just to show some support. If GW actually made products that people want there wouldn't be such a third party bits market. So look for my order Chapterhouse & give em' hell!

That's a load of crock.

People who want Salamander or quite a few of the Chapters that CH make Shoulderpads for can buy GW's.

But they won't, because they feel that it's "too expensive" to personalize their army using GW's.

Is there anything stopping someone from ordering GW shoulder pads? No. They're an alternative. Just because there's an alternative, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Buying non-GW bitz may result in armies being excluded from GW tournies, but if you don't care about that, there isn't any consequence. My daughter likes Burger King, my son likes McDonalds, and I prefer Wendy's. I'd rather have choices than only have one drive thru.

Just because people buy CH products doesn't mean that is money that's not going to GW. People may not have bought the GW product because they didn't like it, they thought it was too expensive (regardless if there's a cheaper alternative), or because GW didn't offer what they wanted.

dietrich wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Or they go back to how the Codecies were before, with only stuff currently available included, which has a negative impact upon the game, as people have less variety to choose from. I fail to see how GW not having released a given item is somehow carte blanche for someone else to step in with a knock off product, proclaiming 'all me own work guv'. Which CH have.

I don't think it has anything to do with whether GW has a kit for a unit entry or not. I have no problem with people making whole models that are '28mm futuristic bulky guys in bulkier armor with big guns', but they can't call them 'Space Marines'. Someone already has greatcoat sci-fi warriors, which are clearly inspred by DKoK, but aren't copies of them either.

And that's the problem Chapter House face. In my opinion, they somewhat took the piss, and were blatantly ripping off GW's work. And now it has caught up with them, and they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I seem to remember a particular line from them on this very website, proclaiming 'now we've shown the way'. Yeah, looks like that worked out just swell huh!

BTW, as an interesting aside, anyone know if this has had an effect on other companies selling custom bits? I know CH weren't the only ones doing Boneswords for example. I wonder if they've followed suit with hasty re-labelling.

Kan, just because there is some overlap in the offerings doesn't mean everything CH makes GW makes. The majority of stuff they have on there is not being made by GW atm. You have stated that point many times in the past 2 pages, it is misleading and incorrect in general bro. Where do I go if I want a tervigon kit right now? farseer on jetbike? Soul Drinker shoulder pads? Pre-heresy Jump packs? A giant tau-ish walker? Not to GW. They don't have it.

Many of your other arguments have merit both from your point of view and definitive terms. This one however isn't really fair, and Goon's opinion of how he feels about it isn't up for debate either, it's just how the dude feels, right or wrong.

dietrich wrote:Is there anything stopping someone from ordering GW shoulder pads? No. They're an alternative. Just because there's an alternative, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Buying non-GW bitz may result in armies being excluded from GW tournies, but if you don't care about that, there isn't any consequence. My daughter likes Burger King, my son likes McDonalds, and I prefer Wendy's. I'd rather have choices than only have one drive thru.
Just because people buy CH products doesn't mean that is money that's not going to GW. People may not have bought the GW product because they didn't like it, they thought it was too expensive (regardless if there's a cheaper alternative), or because GW didn't offer what they wanted.

But that's kind of irrelevant to the point here, isn't it?

The complaint was that "the option isn't offered by GW". That is false. It is offered by GW via their website.

dietrich wrote:Is there anything stopping someone from ordering GW shoulder pads? No. They're an alternative. Just because there's an alternative, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Buying non-GW bitz may result in armies being excluded from GW tournies, but if you don't care about that, there isn't any consequence. My daughter likes Burger King, my son likes McDonalds, and I prefer Wendy's. I'd rather have choices than only have one drive thru.

Wendy's and Burger king dont sell McDoubles's for a reason