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.

brettz123 wrote:So all the direct links to every other GW site and the copyright information at the bottom of EVERY page wasn't a dead giveaway?

Well, maybe if I put those at the bottom of my site, it becomes legal too!

we trollforgers would welcome you with open arms

Fateweaver wrote:Chapterhouse has been spending money to work with GW's lawyers to make sure they aren't breaking any IP laws.

As with all businesses they spend money to make money. It might seem crossing the line but apparently GW legal has given them the okay on everything.

In another thread someone asked about female IG and one of the guys from Chapterhouse said they could make female models that look similiar to IG cadians but would have to consult with GW's IP laywers which will cost them money so they haven't given it a whole lot of thought due to needing to be sure demand is high enough before investing money to keep everything legit.

Hence, no C&D because GW has given them permission to do what they do.

Can you show me the posts where they talk about consulting with GW's IP lawyers? I've only seen them talk about consulting with their own IP lawyer.

Also, conferring with an IP lawyer -even GW's- and confirming that the model does not infringe on IP is not the same as getting GW's permission.
That is not meant to argue, but to clarify, for those who don't realize the difference.

Eric

Balance wrote:
Actually, GW has some legal claims on the term 'Space Marine' so you probably shouldnt't use the name.

If you're serious, you'd need to consult a lawyer. And, yes, that will cost some cash.

But they can't say anything if you wanted to sculpt and cast some heavily armored soldiers with sci-fi weapons, as long as they don't look too much like GW's Space Marines.

I'd be surprised if GW could claim the term Space Marine. I believe Heinlein was the first to use the term. It is sufficiently generic that it would be hard to claim IP protection. Now, if you made beaky, blue, power-armor 25mm Space Marines for use in a tabletop wargame, then you are getting closer to "look and feel" trademark. So if you meant they have "some claim" that's true, to the extent that using that word gets you closer to their whole gig. But in the abstract, no.

Killjoy00 wrote:

Balance wrote:
Actually, GW has some legal claims on the term 'Space Marine' so you probably shouldnt't use the name.

If you're serious, you'd need to consult a lawyer. And, yes, that will cost some cash.

But they can't say anything if you wanted to sculpt and cast some heavily armored soldiers with sci-fi weapons, as long as they don't look too much like GW's Space Marines.

I'd be surprised if GW could claim the term Space Marine. I believe Heinlein was the first to use the term. It is sufficiently generic that it would be hard to claim IP protection. Now, if you made beaky, blue, power-armor 25mm Space Marines for use in a tabletop wargame, then you are getting closer to "look and feel" trademark. So if you meant they have "some claim" that's true, to the extent that using that word gets you closer to their whole gig. But in the abstract, no.

That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks are an identifier, associated with a particular good or service. "Space Marine" in the context of miniatures and games, is a perfectly valid trademark.

(Heinlein, by the way, wrote about the Mobile Infantry.)

MagickalMemories wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Chapterhouse has been spending money to work with GW's lawyers to make sure they aren't breaking any IP laws.

As with all businesses they spend money to make money. It might seem crossing the line but apparently GW legal has given them the okay on everything.

In another thread someone asked about female IG and one of the guys from Chapterhouse said they could make female models that look similiar to IG cadians but would have to consult with GW's IP laywers which will cost them money so they haven't given it a whole lot of thought due to needing to be sure demand is high enough before investing money to keep everything legit.

Hence, no C&D because GW has given them permission to do what they do.

Can you show me the posts where they talk about consulting with GW's IP lawyers? I've only seen them talk about consulting with their own IP lawyer.

Also, conferring with an IP lawyer -even GW's- and confirming that the model does not infringe on IP is not the same as getting GW's permission.
That is not meant to argue, but to clarify, for those who don't realize the difference.

Eric

I might have misunderstood but I am assuming that GW legal knows about Chapterhouse and apparently CH aren't doing anything to attract GW's ire.

Fateweaver wrote:Chapterhouse has been spending money to work with GW's lawyers to make sure they aren't breaking any IP laws.

As with all businesses they spend money to make money. It might seem crossing the line but apparently GW legal has given them the okay on everything.

In another thread someone asked about female IG and one of the guys from Chapterhouse said they could make female models that look similiar to IG cadians but would have to consult with GW's IP laywers which will cost them money so they haven't given it a whole lot of thought due to needing to be sure demand is high enough before investing money to keep everything legit.

Hence, no C&D because GW has given them permission to do what they do.

While I would love to keep this idea out there (it is rather fun) I have to say that I have never spoken to GWs Attorneys or plan to unless it is in court.

We do have our own IP attorney that keeps us honest. To be frank a lot of IP law is very much in grey area. I can probably count the number of attorneys who have any idea how to handle Miniature Wargame Sculpting IP!

So in essence, we dont work with GW, or plan too (I wouldnt be opposed to it, but I am a realist and know GW will not work with any miniature company).

While we do have a complete figure here and there, most of our stuff REQUIRES GW minis to be bought before you can use ours. If anything we add value to GWs products, and I think a Judge or Jury would sit and laugh if GW claimed we took any profits from them.

Nick

Sorry for the mix up.

Still you apparently have your asses covered enough that GW hasn't thrown any tantrums yet (that we are aware of).

Love the Tyrant Boneswords btw, just need to get it painted.

Janthkin wrote:
That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks are an identifier, associated with a particular good or service. "Space Marine" in the context of miniatures and games, is a perfectly valid trademark.

(Heinlein, by the way, wrote about the Mobile Infantry.)

Well, I know how trademark law works. That's why I said, in a certain context, it might be covered. (That link doesn't work, btw). Space Marine isn't particularly fanciful or suggestive - at best it would probably be considered descriptive. You'd have to show secondary meaning (in the games area, probably not a high burden). I'd argue that it has become generic though. There was a movie in 1996 called Space Marines that had nothing to do with Games Workshop.

To say they have the rights to the term "Space Marine" is a bit much.

Heinlein did in fact first use the term Space Marine in the short story Misfit, in 1939.

They claim the rights to a lot of stuff they don't own. The chaos star, for example.

(I eagerly await the Elric movie and the ensuing IP suit from/against GW. Moorcock V Games Workshop, Round Two. FIGHT!)

GW doesn´t claim the right on the "Chaos Star" but rather (as my BoC 2003 book) the "Chaos Device"

Whatever that means if the lawyers come to legal blows could be fun to know.

M.

I'd love to see GW sued by all the people it's ripped off over the years. The Heinlein Estate alone would be worth ordering court TV.

Yea but then everyone could sue everyone else for stealing everything from eachother. Even Heinlein's ideas weren't 100% original.

Still, Court-Battles-From-Outer-Space would make good brain-melting summer TV

It's just that after years of hearing about GW suing/issuing C&Ds to everyone and their dog, it would be nice to see them hoisted by their own petard.

Killjoy00 wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks are an identifier, associated with a particular good or service. "Space Marine" in the context of miniatures and games, is a perfectly valid trademark.

(Heinlein, by the way, wrote about the Mobile Infantry.)

Well, I know how trademark law works. That's why I said, in a certain context, it might be covered. (That link doesn't work, btw). Space Marine isn't particularly fanciful or suggestive - at best it would probably be considered descriptive. You'd have to show secondary meaning (in the games area, probably not a high burden). I'd argue that it has become generic though. There was a movie in 1996 called Space Marines that had nothing to do with Games Workshop.

To say they have the rights to the term "Space Marine" is a bit much.

Heinlein did in fact first use the term Space Marine in the short story Misfit, in 1939.

*sigh* Stupid USPTO website.

The link is supposed to go to GW's registered trademark for the term "Space Marine," filed in 1991, and covering "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith."

So yes - they DO have complete rights to "Space Marine," within the context of this hobby. It's also long since become incontestable.

Janthkin wrote:
The link is supposed to go to GW's registered trademark for the term "Space Marine," filed in 1991, and covering "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith."

So yes - they DO have complete rights to "Space Marine," within the context of this hobby. It's also long since become incontestable.

Actually, no, because both Aliens and Starship Troopers have both had minis and minis games wherein 'Space Marines' were a part. (in addition, several early sci-fi roleplaying games, which have since lapsed or become public domain, also have had Space Marines) However, in this case, it's quite easy to show 'prior art'. GW may be safe in the UK, but in the US, it works a bit differently.

Further, as the ongoing battle for the rights to the Man of Steel show, nothing is incontestable.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
The link is supposed to go to GW's registered trademark for the term "Space Marine," filed in 1991, and covering "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith."

So yes - they DO have complete rights to "Space Marine," within the context of this hobby. It's also long since become incontestable.

Actually, no, because both Aliens and Starship Troopers have both had minis and minis games wherein 'Space Marines' were a part. (in addition, several early sci-fi roleplaying games, which have since lapsed or become public domain, also have had Space Marines) However, in this case, it's quite easy to show 'prior art'. GW may be safe in the UK, but in the US, it works a bit differently.

Further, as the ongoing battle for the rights to the Man of Steel show, nothing is incontestable.

<_<
>_>

You do realise Baron, that you're arguing with an actual IP Lawyer there?

daedalus wrote:

brettz123 wrote:So all the direct links to every other GW site and the copyright information at the bottom of EVERY page wasn't a dead giveaway?

Well, maybe if I put those at the bottom of my site, it becomes legal too!

You should give it a try and see what happens? Do you have some really nice miniatures to sell


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks are an identifier, associated with a particular good or service. "Space Marine" in the context of miniatures and games, is a perfectly valid trademark.

(Heinlein, by the way, wrote about the Mobile Infantry.)

Well, I know how trademark law works. That's why I said, in a certain context, it might be covered. (That link doesn't work, btw). Space Marine isn't particularly fanciful or suggestive - at best it would probably be considered descriptive. You'd have to show secondary meaning (in the games area, probably not a high burden). I'd argue that it has become generic though. There was a movie in 1996 called Space Marines that had nothing to do with Games Workshop.

To say they have the rights to the term "Space Marine" is a bit much.

Heinlein did in fact first use the term Space Marine in the short story Misfit, in 1939.

*sigh* Stupid USPTO website.

The link is supposed to go to GW's registered trademark for the term "Space Marine," filed in 1991, and covering "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith."

So yes - they DO have complete rights to "Space Marine," within the context of this hobby. It's also long since become incontestable.

You are wrong..... GW claims the tights to "Space Marine" within the context of the hobby. Easy enough to do but a very different thing to actually back it up in court when everyone and their brother can bring in examples of games and miniatures that have used the term Space Marine before. I am not saying they would lose just that it isn't as simple as trademarking something and it getting its way.

Aren't the Alien's Marines "Colonial Marines" and the StarShip Troopers version is the "Mobile Infantry?"

Neither of which is a "Space Marine," so no contest to GW's trademarks.

I believe the "Aliens" line of toys/action figures called the marines "Colonial Space Marines".

Anyone who wants can make 28mm wargame figures called Space Marines.

They just need to be aware that GW will send them a C&D letter, and may sue them if they do not desist.

I've no idea if GW really would sue or if they would win.

Call them Galaxy Soldiers.

Problem solved.

As has been said, it's a huge grey area. Sure, big companies can have their teams of lawyers send out letters to whoever they like, and usually get them to cave, because most individuals or smaller companies are scared of lawyers. Most of us, though -- including GW and their lawyers -- have at best only some capability to guess what a court would decide.

At least in the UK, a lot of this would probably come down to GW alleging that another miniatures manufacturer was "passing off" their range as Space Marines or whatever -- bit of an intro here:

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/free-essays/trademarks-and-passing-off-law.php

Even if you called your range "Space Soldiers", you wouldn't necessarily be safe from a lawsuit over "passing off", if a judge thought you were deliberately trying to confuse customers about the officialness (or otherwise) of your product. I believe there is pretty good precedent under US law, though, for 3rd party companies in all kinds of markets to offer accessories & add-ons that can be advertised as "compatible with" someone else's product, so long as said party makes it abundantly clear that their stuff isn't officially licensed or approved.

You see the same kind of thing in the tabletop RPG market -- companies have offered what are basically D&D supplements for years, even before WotC embraced the idea with their d20 Licence and Open Game Licence.

Ketara wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
The link is supposed to go to GW's registered trademark for the term "Space Marine," filed in 1991, and covering "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith."

So yes - they DO have complete rights to "Space Marine," within the context of this hobby. It's also long since become incontestable.

Actually, no, because both Aliens and Starship Troopers have both had minis and minis games wherein 'Space Marines' were a part. (in addition, several early sci-fi roleplaying games, which have since lapsed or become public domain, also have had Space Marines) However, in this case, it's quite easy to show 'prior art'. GW may be safe in the UK, but in the US, it works a bit differently.

Further, as the ongoing battle for the rights to the Man of Steel show, nothing is incontestable.

<_<
>_>

You do realise Baron, that you're arguing with an actual IP Lawyer there?

I've argued with layers before, and won. In front of judges, no less.

The first, and most easily argued, is that Space Marines is a generic term, much like Xerox. Or Super Hero. You might recall when comic book companies copyrighted/trademarked that term. It did not hold water in court. Adeptus Astartes, yes. Space Marines, no.

Miniatures of 'space marines' have been produced since the early 80's, most of them NOT by Games Workshop, or it's subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Grenadier produced 25mm 'space marines' for the star soldiers mini line as early as 1976, and again for the Space Squadrons game. I'll add these were registered trademarks and copyrighted by Grenadier, which did not go out of business until 1996, though they may have lapsed in the intervening period.

Wow... why does it look like GW took 50% of that directly and made it into a terminator?

Thats a nice model too for the times

Janthkin wrote:
*sigh* Stupid USPTO website.

The link is supposed to go to GW's registered trademark for the term "Space Marine," filed in 1991, and covering "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith."

So yes - they DO have complete rights to "Space Marine," within the context of this hobby. It's also long since become incontestable.

As a fellow IP lawyer, I'm surprised to see you use such absolute language. As I'm sure you know, genericity can operate to lose trademark rights, long after the period for incontestability is over. In fact, most of the time, it will be after a long time. Examples like aspirin and escalator.

As for whether Space Marine has reached that area... well, I would argue yes. Maybe you would argue no. But you certainly can't argue that because the statutory period for incontestability has passed, that GW has "complete rights" to the term.

Chapterhouse wrote:Wow... why does it look like GW took 50% of that directly and made it into a terminator?

Thats a nice model too for the times

Almost all of GW's work is derivative. If I remember right, the Tau Firewarrior is from a Rodger Waters album cover. The Rhino and Chimera are derived from real world armor, as is the Leman Russ. The Dark Eldar are largly pulled from early Metal and hair bands and/or the Elric saga. The list goes on. That's why I'd like to see them slapped. The staggering hypocrisy of them suing anyone for 'derivative works' or 'infringing intellectual property'.

Further: wouldn't Games Workshop's 'card games' claim conflict with Wizards of the Coast's claim on all 'collectible card games'?

Back on topic, if the original poster wants to make and market a range of Star Marines, which don't look too much like the GW Space Marines, would he be OK?

(I suppose the Devil is in the detail.)

I would say yes. At least until it's successful. Then he'll find out that Star Marines is owned by some obscure company in a country signatory to the Berne Convention, and they took out the trademark as an Expansion to HG Well's Little Wars a century ago.

Dork Eldar wrote:Hope somebody has some useful info here.

The basic question is - what are the legal issues surrounding creating your own range of models for use in 40k and other tabletop games?

I.E. - Forgeworld (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/) has their own range of 40k models and they've been around for quite some time. Can't GW sue them somehow for infringing on their trademarks or something?

Lol, I'm sure you've been hearing this all day, but GW OWNS FW. Everyone knows that. They talk about on their own site all the time, and there's a forgeworld link on every page. Lol.Fail assumptions are fail.

anyway, you can make whatever you want, just call it something different and don't say it's for tabletop games. Also, basic ideas,like space marines, are off limits. Don't bother making stuff like marines or tau, they've compyrighted those to death. Nids are a generic alien race, so that might be easier to make...idk though