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.

aka_mythos wrote:

Janthkin wrote:If the "Space Marine" trademark was applied to actual warriors or soldiers who served in space, it would be descriptive.

Here, though, we're talking about miniature plastic & pewter models. And trademarks are all about context - see "Apple," the fruit, the record label, and the technology company.

Suffice it to say, I think the trademark is actually a pretty good one, particularly given all of the secondary meaning it has acquired within its field of use.

Apple is regarded as an "arbitrary" TM'ed name. Space Marine is descriptive of the feature and character that distinguishing those miniatures from non-space "marine" miniatures; but that the same distinction is applicable to many other miniatures and existed in tabletop games before 40k. To make the assertion that GW has a strong claim to that TM, you have to believe there wasn't a common use in the area of gaming before hand and that its use in those ways has not continued today. Characters from Aliens, Gears of War, Starship Troopers, and Halo are all instances where they've been refered to as space marines; those characters have appeared across many media and are only the ones that immediately come to mind; some pre-existed before other have continued that traditional use. They all used other terminology as well, but the term space marine is applied to describe those militant characters. It was in common use then and it still is now. They didn't TM it till 1993, almost 7 years after their creation. Let's put it another way, what is the entymology of GW's "Space Marines?"-Its "space marine," not "space" and "marine." GW didn't take two separate words together to make a name, they took an established description.

GW took what was used as traditional description of a particular sci-fi archetype, capitalized it and treated it as a proper noun, that is the extent of what GW's done with creating that "name."

I believe Heinlein may have got the drop on GW for "space marine" by a considerable period. Like 60 odd years.

odinsgrandson wrote:Yeah, that'd be pretty sweet.
It is possible that the GW lawyers already know that they aren't going to win this case. They aren't going to put Chapterhouse out of business with it either (since the lawyers are working pro-bono).

But they might want to keep the Bully Card to play again later. If Games Workshop were to bring forward art work for the court to examine and compare to CH minis, then they would risk setting a precedent in the future. Basically, if the court takes a good long look at what CH is doing, and rules that it is legal, GW won't be able to throw their weight around as much in the future.

If this is thrown out of court due to lack of specificity, then they might be able to avoid setting a court precedent for other companies like Chapterhouse.

If they can't win this case, they might just want to keep from losing the ability to threaten small companies into oblivion.

That is an interesting point. However, GW might be walking a tight rope with this one. And this kind of goes back to speculation as to why the defense firm took the case. One of the potential reasons is they want to create a precedent. So either the defense could file some sort of counter claims to force GW to stay in the suit and presumably then get a verdict on the merits; or, they might be interested in representing future defendants in similar situations.

I think GW has to get some sort of win on the merits - on something. Otherwise, it just looks like a paper tiger, and we'll see 3d party producers start to get more aggressive with their products, marketing, etc.

As an aside, having worked in a very litigious corporate environment, a lot of corporate executive types will force the issue, because quite often their jobs are on the line. Stock holders, boards of directors, CEO's, CFO's, etc., typically do not like piles of money being spent on law suits that are later dropped. Heads usually roll when these things happen...

aka_mythos wrote: Let's put it another way, what is the entymology of GW's "Space Marines?"-Its "space marine," not "space" and "marine." GW didn't take two separate words together to make a name, they took an established description.

Sorry, I'm an English major....

The word you're trying to use is "etymology." "Entymology" is a mis-spelled study of insects.

Edit: BTW, my research says that the term "space marine" first appeared in a Robert Heinlein story, "Misfit," in 1939; he used it again in "The Long Watch" in 1941. In the 1970s, there was the "Marine Space Corp" in the Doctor Who series. In the late 70's and early 80's, the Japanese series, "Star Blazers," used the term "space marines" to describe the ground troops. Ironically, the specific wording "space marine" hasn't been used all that much, though many very similar names for very similar ideas have been used: Galactic Marines, Mobile Infantry, Colonial Marine Corp, United Star Marine Corp, etc.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I believe Heinlein may have got the drop on GW for "space marine" by a considerable period. Like 60 odd years.

If you want to talk about the concept of the 'space marine':
E.E. Smith beat Heinlein by 2 years, with his "Lensman" series published in 1937. He, however, called them "Galactic Marines".

The first time the concept of a "space marine" appeared in a Heinlein work is in 'Misfits', published in 1939. Next mention was in "The Long Watch", published 1941. Heinlein, in both works, did actually call them "space marines" however. Then he altered the name the next time he did something with the concept, which gave us the amazing piece of fiction that is 'Starship Troopers', featuring the 'Mobile Infantry'.

Hopefully the outcome will be favorable
Other than that, Chapterhouse Studios makes awesome bitz!

No matter what the outcome is, it will be favorable.

The question is "to which side?"


Eri

Saldiven wrote:Sorry, I'm an English major....

The word you're trying to use is "etymology." "Entymology" is a mis-spelled study of insects.

Edit: BTW, my research says that the term "space marine" first appeared in a Robert Heinlein story, "Misfit," in 1939; he used it again in "The Long Watch" in 1941. In the 1970s, there was the "Marine Space Corp" in the Doctor Who series. In the late 70's and early 80's, the Japanese series, "Star Blazers," used the term "space marines" to describe the ground troops. Ironically, the specific wording "space marine" hasn't been used all that much, though many very similar names for very similar ideas have been used: Galactic Marines, Mobile Infantry, Colonial Marine Corp, United Star Marine Corp, etc.

Sorry, that was my auto-correct being funny, like ha-ha-stupid computer.

Sentence construction and diction aside, what your pointing out is exactly my point. GW lifted something that was established as a generic term simply capitalizing and using it as a descriptive proper name to establish their protangonists as that immediately identifiable pre-existing archetype.

Janthkin wrote:Here, though, we're talking about miniature plastic & pewter models. And trademarks are all about context - see "Apple," the fruit, the record label, and the technology company.

Suffice it to say, I think the trademark is actually a pretty good one, particularly given all of the secondary meaning it has acquired within its field of use.

Put of curiosity, do you know what happened with the Apple trademark when Apple (the tech company) went into the music biz? Did Apple Records throw a fit?

Also, I think in this case what I think is called (Not even a paralegal here, let alone a real lawyer) nominative use of a trademark applies. Chapterhouse's site says 'Space Marine compatible shoulder pads.' If I understand right this is totally allowed under trademark law, and at most GW can insist nominative use be done in a specific way (IE, back in the 3.5 days, Hasbro required that a D&D compatible notice be in the upper right corner of the product, to prevent confusion with official D&D products).

Requia wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Here, though, we're talking about miniature plastic & pewter models. And trademarks are all about context - see "Apple," the fruit, the record label, and the technology company.

Suffice it to say, I think the trademark is actually a pretty good one, particularly given all of the secondary meaning it has acquired within its field of use.

Put of curiosity, do you know what happened with the Apple trademark when Apple (the tech company) went into the music biz? Did Apple Records throw a fit?

Yes, they did. There have been at least two lawsuits about it. Somehow they have been resolved. I don't remember the details. It should be available online somewhere.

WWF vs. WWF as well?

World Wildlife Fund won that one.

That explains the WWE change.

I'd point out that Apple Records and Apple Computers isn't a good example in this case, its more akin to Microsoft DOS or Microsoft Windows (for those not aware, Disk Operating System and Windowed Operating System are the generic terms Microsoft was grabbing).

Requia wrote:Put of curiosity, do you know what happened with the Apple trademark when Apple (the tech company) went into the music biz? Did Apple Records throw a fit?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
BTW Apple Computers not only copied the name of the Beatles record company but also the trademarked logo.

Kilkrazy wrote:World Wildlife Fund won that one.

Gorillas and bears versus men who pretend to hit each other, it was no contest.

Eldanar wrote:

odinsgrandson wrote:
...But they might want to keep the Bully Card to play again later...

...I think GW has to get some sort of win on the merits - on something. Otherwise, it just looks like a paper tiger, and we'll see 3d party producers start to get more aggressive with their products, marketing, etc.

As an aside, having worked in a very litigious corporate environment, a lot of corporate executive types will force the issue, because quite often their jobs are on the line. Stock holders, boards of directors, CEO's, CFO's, etc., typically do not like piles of money being spent on law suits that are later dropped. Heads usually roll when these things happen...

You make a good point. As a note, I've read one of Games Workshop's letters to stockholders, and they made it very clear that "protecting their Intellectual Properties" was paramount on their priorities.

It is possible that they've talked it up so much that they simply cannot let it go without looking like they aren't protecting their stockholders' interests. And with that kind of pressure, I can see why they might be pursuing a lost cause (even if someone knows it is lost).

On the other hand, it is always possible that they think they can win this, but they would also have to think that they don't need to be specific with their claims, and I just can't see how someone could think that.

Kroothawk wrote:

Requia wrote:Put of curiosity, do you know what happened with the Apple trademark when Apple (the tech company) went into the music biz? Did Apple Records throw a fit?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
BTW Apple Computers not only copied the name of the Beatles record company but also the trademarked logo.

Not according to the linked article... It's more that the agreement was that Apple (Computer) agreed to stay away from audio, which was the older Apple (Records)'s turf. The boundaries of this were a bit vague, as computers have had audio of some sort for decades, and this caused subsequent lawsuits, but the biggest lawsuit was the recent one as Apple effectively became a distributor for music.

Apple Records generally used a full apple, so Apple's bitten apple was different.

To make this relevant to 40k, it'd be more like if a company started to make Space Marine bodywash. This would, technically, be legal. If a bit bizarre. GW and the Bodywash company could sue over it, but it probably wouldn't go anywhere. If the Bodywash company then moved into plastic toys, GW might have to talk to them again, as that's a different story.

Okay, so here's what's happening with the lawsuit.

At the hearing on Wednesday in which Chapterhouse Studios presented its renewed motion to dismiss, Judge Kennelly denied the motion to dismiss, required an answer to the amended complaint by 4/20/2011, and rescheduled the status conference for 5/11/2011.

"Motion to dismiss [35] is denied for the reasons stated in open court. Status hearing held and continued to 5/11/2011 at 09:30 AM. Answer to amended complaint is to be filed by 4/20/2011."

However, Judge Kennelly indicated that he would require Games Workshop to respond to early discovery aimed at clarifying its copyright claims.

What this means, as far as I understand, is that Chapterhouse will be able to direct discovery to Games Workshop prior to answering the complaint and Games Workshop will be required to answer said interrogatives. Ostensibly, the purpose of this is to clarify the claims of copyright infringement, meaning that when Chapterhouse asks Games Workshop which of its products are accused of infringement and in what way, Games Workshop will be required to answer and anything left out would be out of the case, assuming that I understand this correctly.

My guess is that Judge Kennelly was rather unhappy with Games Workshop, but not so pissed off as to dismiss the case right off. This decision of his to require Games Workshop to respond to early discovery is a rather direct and pointed way to get some focus on the case.

I think that Judge Kennelly was unhappy with the amended complaint and figured that he didn't want to see a bunch of back and forth over this issue, so instead of allowing Games Workshop to amend the complaint again, he required it to respond to early discovery, thus forcing Games Workshop to tip its hand. All of this is pure speculation on my part. I further speculate that Kennelly doesn't feel that he's got much of anything to go on in this case so far and he's looking for some clarification before he starts making decisions.

Ultimately, I'd say that this is a good thing for Chapterhouse. It'll probably get everything in the world thrown at it, but at least it should be specific. I don't think Games Workshop is in a position to keep being vague at this point and I think that's how Judge Kennelly wants it to be. It is also worth saying that with a requirement for Chapterhouse to answer the complaint by the 20th and a status hearing scheduled for May 11th, Judge Kennelly wants this thing to move along pretty quickly, another reason why I'm guessing he's a little frustrated.

weeble1000 wrote:Ultimately, I'd say that this is a good thing for Chapterhouse. It'll probably get everything in the world thrown at it, but at least it should be specific. I don't think Games Workshop is in a position to keep being vague at this point and I think that's how Judge Kennelly wants it to be. It is also worth saying that with a requirement for Chapterhouse to answer the complaint by the 20th and a status hearing scheduled for May 11th, Judge Kennelly wants this thing to move along pretty quickly, another reason why I'm guessing he's a little frustrated.

Couldn't have anything to do with the VI Amendment of the US Constitution? The fair and speedy trial one?

The 20th is more then 2 weeks away... seems like more then ample time to get their facts together. I don't read any emotion into this at all from the judge, in regards to CH or GW. Its not like he's making them pull an all nighter to make their case. I know it might be fun to ascribe some intensity to this like its a Law & Order episode or somethng, but really 5 minutes listening to this whole procedure would probably put most of us to sleep.

NELS1031 wrote:

Couldn't have anything to do with the VI Amendment of the US Constitution? The fair and speedy trial one?

Not really. In the RPG world, there's a dust up between the orginal creators of Villians and Vililantes, now Monkey house games, and Fantasy games unlimted, the distrubutor/printer/working partner(I forget exact what the actual title is). The case is going on through 2011 into 2012 summer, with discovery and rebuttle and such.

VI ammendment is more geared towards criminal, not civil trial. So no that might not have anything to do with it at all.

Fair enough.

Worth mentioning that my post wasn't meant to be snarky at all, just an honest question.

The 5th Ammendment applies to criminal trials and other actions against individuals/groups by the government. It does not apply at all in civil cases.

weeble1000 - thank you VERY much for the updates, as well as for the explanation/commentary, it is appreciated!

weeble1000 wrote:My guess is that I think that I further speculate that I'm guessing.

The update is appreciated, but it's really a lot better if you leave out the stuff I quoted above

The chap is allowed to have an opinion y'know.

Ketara wrote:The chap is allowed to have an opinion y'know.

Agreed. Not being of the legal persuasion I find his commentary very helpful. What use is the information if you don't receive assistance in interpreting it? I think all the legal professionals commenting in this thread have been excellent.

Ketara wrote:The chap is allowed to have an opinion y'know.

Yes and I'm allowed to have an opinion about that, right?

What he did is give us info, which is great, but after that he sets a certain tone that is purely his (probably incorrect) speculation, which in turn will be interpreted as fact by some. Because of this last bit we could do without a lot less guessing & speculating in threads like these. That is my opinion

Yes you are TBD
Not sure what the problem is though, as we are aware that there is speculation rather than fact if someone is honest enough to state that something is their opinion.

You seem to be asking Weeble to remove the caveat then complain that speculative comments will be interpreted as fact.

The point is that Weeble and others have offered their useful and interesting insights into what may happen in the case.
This discussion on the other hand is merely dragging the thread OT.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Not sure what the problem is though, as we are aware that there is speculation rather than fact if someone is honest enough to state that something is their opinion.

You seem to be asking Weeble to remove the caveat then complain that speculative comments will be interpreted as fact.

Unfortunately while you and I and others may be aware there also are many dumbarses who are not able to make the distinction. It's not exactly like this hasn't caused misinterpretations and wrongful assumption of fact @ Dakka & the internetz before. So better to prevent it, if possible.

I did not ask him to remove anything, but attributing emotions to another person (in this case judge Kennelly or whatever his name is) in legal matters and/or certain other situations is something we can really do without in the future. That, of course, in my opinion.

OK - we get it everyone!

Aside from certain legal 'facts' in this thread, everything else is "opinion", be it legal, personal or otherwise!

Of which, of course, we're all entitled!

Thanks!

Personally, i like the personal comments. speculation right or wrong isnt important, its discussing the matter of why things are progressing as they are that IS. we cant pretend to know whom has the right of it till judgement is passed. and then all bets are off anyway and everything we HAVE discussed dont mean diddly.
As for Tone well TBD, if your allowed opinion i find it quite all right for others to have a tone. and as YOU DO and ARE intitled to have a Voice, so is everyone else. tone, speculation and all.
But thats also just my opinion..