Who do you want to win: Chapterhouse or GW?

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.

**insaniak**

Polonius wrote:A bigger part of me thinks that because that thread was actually informative, once it stopped including new info it became off topic.

More or less. We prefer to keep News and Rumours threads more on point. Once that point is covered, it's time to move it to discussions. This thread certainly hasn't been as useful, infor-wise, but so long as it doesn't get too silly, it gives people somewhere to discuss this without a whole slew of other threads popping up about it, as tends to happen with this sort of topic.

**Captain Jack**

Yup, getting off thread, but entertaining none the less.

I just want to make a couple of points, that maybe some people might be overlooking, in the feeding frenzy. A lot of people who are dead against CHS are not against the aftermarket pieces (well if they feel like me), but are dead against the way CHS has gone about their marketing and attitude to other peoples work and using it for their own gain. The other aftermarket suppliers that I do buy from don't directly take from GW artwork but put their own spin on their product.

Second point on CHS, and it is that their personal attitude to everything is that they are the only ones who can possible be right. Oh god wait... In CHS' defence what a couple of posters have put up about the CHS product when supplied is pretty off HOWEVER I cannot see how that gives CHS the right to behave in the way they have about it. I am also glad that things seem to be sorted with regards to that. How many threads are there of 'GW/FW screwed me? Count them against all the people who have said they have had great customer service. If you're taking money from people for product, mistakes are going to be made, but the fixing is all important for customers.

Well, if nothing else this thread like the last has polarised further opinion on CHS, and I feel like my opinion has been confirmed, both here and elsewhere.

**MikeMcSomething**

I want X company to win because (insert lack of nuanced understanding here)

**Aduro**

Captain Jack wrote: The other aftermarket suppliers that I do buy from don't directly take from GW artwork but put their own spin on their product.

How so? All the examples I posted a page or two ago from different companies all clearly take off the GW style. Chapterhouse puts just as much original spin into their work as anyone else.

**wolfshadow**

Aduro wrote:
Captain Jack wrote: The other aftermarket suppliers that I do buy from don't directly take from GW artwork but put their own spin on their product.

How so? All the examples I posted a page or two ago from different companies all clearly take off the GW style. Chapterhouse puts just as much original spin into their work as anyone else.

From my understanding (however limited) where Chapterhouse is going to run into trouble is not the products themselves, but how they were marketed. A couple of the products are close... but different enough that it shouldn't cause an issue. Its still apretty grey area, and this case is no where near as cut and dried as some people are making it out to be. (See some of the posts by Polonius as to why it is a grey area)

The stuff from Maxmini is close, but generic enough that no one can complain, and they don't market it on their site as GW related.(Which they have to be careful with due to Polish /EU IP laws) Marine helmets are marketed as "steam Knights'.... etc. Ork heads are marketed as Orcs... and yes, the letter makes a difference.

Conversion kits are legal. Using GWs trademarks to advertise them... questionably so.

**Platuan4th**

wolfshadow wrote:
Conversion kits are legal. Using GWs trademarks to advertise them... questionably so.

And only slightly questionably, at that, considering how large a grey area fair use is. You're legally allowed to sell using some one else's trademark, it's purely up to a court of law whether you crossed a line regarding it when someone takes issue.

At least, that's how it read to me from the law stuff that Polonius posted and tried to explain in lay terms.

**aka_mythos**

Captain Jack wrote:... A lot of people who are dead against CHS are not against the aftermarket pieces (well if they feel like me), but are dead against the way CHS has gone about their marketing and attitude to other peoples work and using it for their own gain....

From the CH side, they've been told what their doing is right, they had a paid professional check that what they were doing is "legal" because they didn't want to step on GW's toes. If you were paying someone a couple hundred dollars an hour to double check the legality of your work, wouldn't you believe him? If CH comes off as having an attitude its because they have a professional telling them what they did was right.

If you were reccommended by a doctor a diet and excercise plan to stave off hereditary heart problems and then your not too well liked co-worker who has no expertise tells you to do something to the contrary, who do you believe? This is the health of CH as a company and the way it describes its product is how it was prescribed to, in an aftermarket industry that has a history of being crowded out and sued by GW.

Though following advice isn't a defense of an "attitude," CH's lawyer obviously must know something or he wouldn't be on the bar of his state. The fact that GW's lawyers have only sued for TM and not copyright, shows that CH's lawyers did atleast enough to protect them from that aspect of what GW might have tried to pursue.

What is CH to do? Should any business bend over backwards, spending time, energy, and money to satisfy what some other business who has an amorphous sense of entitlement wants to dictate? That type of "relationship" rarely works. The fact is that GW, through their own legal page tells you, you can or can't do things that legal they aren't in a position to dictate. So how is anyone really suppose to know without getting council.

I think some degree of ill will towards CH, comes from the fact that people believe there is a higher level of rights and protections afforded to IP than there actually is. That some people's feelings and sentiments exceed the actual legal protections. It is the tendency of laws to fall in the grey boundary of what people agree is "right" and thus leaving some to agree an action to be legal but ethically questionable.

Platuan4th wrote:
wolfshadow wrote:
Conversion kits are legal. Using GWs trademarks to advertise them... questionably so.

And only slightly questionably, at that, considering how large a grey area fair use is. You're legally allowed to sell using some one else's trademark, it's purely up to a court of law whether you crossed a line regarding it when someone takes issue.

At least, that's how it read to me from the law stuff that Polonius posted and tried to explain in lay terms.

It isn't even a matter of "phrasing" as people have tried to construct examples. Phrasing is one out of ten or so conditions the court will look at to test and weigh whats presented. That even if the court believes CH's phrasing is poor, that isn't enough. It is the sum total of all the attributes that the court will consider to determine if CH has created an atmosphere of confusion and ambiguity.

**Frazzled**

brettz123 wrote:
Chapterhouse wrote:

I think there are many customers who have ordered from us, have had problems with products and see we are more then happy to do what we can to fix those problems.

Contrary to what some people believe, just being a paying customer does not give you a blatant right to try to make that company look bad if you have a problem with a product, especially when you have not done anythign to reach out to the company and see if they will help. Am I defensive by caring what is posted about me and my company to our customer base, especially when there is no recourse for my company, yes I am.

Call that a false sense of entitlement, or whatever.

Every paying customer has the right to post about bad customer service or experience, even if they have never given the company a chance to make it right or offer customer experience?. That seems a bit unfair, how about to you?

All I want is a chance to try to fix a customers issues before they rant and rave online about it, I dont think that is too much to ask.

And it isn't too much to ask to actually get what you paid for either is it? When I buy something from a company I expect the items I ordered in 100% pristine condition. What I don't expect is a bunch of lip from the company about my complaint no matter what venue I air that complaint. How about you fix the problem like a professional and not go off on someone about a problem they complain about. They gave you money for an item and any problem with that item is 100% your fault. That is period the end.

Your lack of professionalism is rather shocking. Would it have been beneath you to simply say something along the following lines"

"I'm sorry you had a bad experience with your order. If you can provide me with the order number I can find out what the issue was and send you replacement pieces. Again I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you and I will do my best to ensure that this problem is fixed. Thank you for your business and your patience."

I mean why would you say anything other than something along those lines? It makes you look childish and bitter so why do you constantly insist on taking the low road when it comes to any criticism you get on forums? The bottom line is it costs you business.

Moderator Frazzled says
This back and forth between you two is pointless. You two can take it private or off the Board.

**AndrewC**

Sorry to turn the thread back 6 pages.

I said earlier that GW business practice was to cut supplies to the independent stores prior to opening their own, a few people said that was wrong, so I'll clarify my statement.

GW will remove competition in marginal areas by cutting supply. If an area is capable of supporting multiple shops then GW will continue to supply the competition as a sale is a sale. Where the local demographics will not support multiple shops but still has a viable sales income, which will support a GW shop, then they will cut supplies to independent retailers to curtail competition.

This is why we have one poster saying there are no stores nearby, and other posters saying there are plenty.

Does that make more sense?

Cheers

Andrew

**Hulksmash**

Could be true in Britain Andrew. But it's not correct from my experience here in the US. I'd say clarify your statement to the country your in and provide some sort of proof beyond "I said so".

I know a ton of independent stores that survive just fine with-in a GW metro selling GW products. In fact, granted this is 7 years ago, the goal was to recruit them in the GW store and then shift them over to the Independents who are better about catering to Veterans. That was standing policy in the Western Region in the US 2001-2003. Not sure if it changed after that though.

**AndrewC**

Hulksmash wrote:Could be true in Britain Andrew. But it's not correct from my experience here in the US. I'd say clarify your statement to the country your in and provide some sort of proof beyond "I said so".

I know a ton of independent stores that survive just fine with-in a GW metro selling GW products. In fact, granted this is 7 years ago, the goal was to recruit them in the GW store and then shift them over to the Independents who are better about catering to Veterans. That was standing policy in the Western Region in the US 2001-2003. Not sure if it changed after that though.

To give that info lands the source in serious trouble, who has already fought off that particular attack once before. And I would never assume to say what business practices of GW are in other countries

Though from this thread I would say they still stink wherever they are

Cheers

Andrew

**JohnHwangDD**

sk82712 wrote:I'm by no means a lawyer. But.

CH (even though they are renaming stuff on their website) is taking names of products from GW. Plain and simple. Which AFAIK is a violation of IP.

-Adam

My take on this thing:

ChapterHouse has every right to use the *exact*, specific GW product names for which their parts are to interchange. When Chaperhouse says they are making a shoulderpad for a "Games Workshop Space Marine", this is no different than Veilside saying that their bodykit is for a "1999 Honda Civic" versus a "1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse". That is, ChapterHouse is simply making a standard nominative reference, which should be generally allowed to provide clarity and avoid confusion. What Chapterhouse cannot do (and I see no evidence of them doing so), is say that they are selling actual GW products.

Also, ChapterHouse also has every right to use GW "interfaces", such as the dimensions and curvature of SM shoulderpad interior "face" / SM arm shoulder exterior "face", because these are necessary and integral to producing a compatible part. In the same way that Lego's brick-to-brick interface is denied design copyright (Lego copyrights their complex brick shapes - things with angles and curves, and so forth because these are properly art compared to the basic mechanical interfaces and dimensions / tolerances), GW may not claim design copyright over mechanical interfaces. Same situation with Honda claiming design copyright over how the bumpers attach to the Civic, or the outline and edge contours of the hood - any part which replaces the OEM part must, by mechanical necessity, follow the same outline and edge contours in order to be compatible with the OEM vehicle.

So from my perspective, Chapterhouse *should* win, assuming they can afford to pay their legal bills.

Of course, I'm just an engineer, so what do I know about law...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:If you're saying that they used the image GW created (the sketch) as the basis, that's also allowed, again, as long as the actual creation is not "substantially similar"

Again, I'd recommend reading FASA v. Tomy http://terrania.us/hg-fasa/legal-5.txt which does a really good job of demonstrating how copyright would apply to hobby products.

Thanks for the reference - it's quite a good read!

I particularly like the section on the Mad Cat, which was probably FASA's strongest example of potential Copyright infringement:

FASA v Tomy wrote:64. Unlike the Mad Cat design, one arm of the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype
has a rotating cannon or Gatling gun that is very highly detailed that goes up
into a much thicker arm than the arm on the Mad Cat design.

65. Unlike the Mad Cat design, the top of the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype
forms a straight line without a dip in the center.

66. Unlike the Mad Cat, the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype has multiple
rounded areas on the cockpit.

67. The nose of the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype is shorter than the nose
of the Mad Cat.

68. Unlike the Mad Cat design, the upper part of the Heavy Attack E-Frame
prototype is very solid and very heavy, with much detail running across the
center section.

69. Unlike the Mad Cat design, the Heavy Attack E-Frame has a thicker
transition of the torso down into the base with weapons hanging below the bottom
center section.

70. The legs of the Mad Cat design are significantly taller, thinner and
scrawnier than the legs of the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype.

71. Unlike the Mad Cat design, the legs of the Heavy Attack E-Frame have
swing-out shields on the sides with a tremendous amount of detail imposed on
them.

72. Unlike the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype, the Mad Cat design is very
sleek, very thin-including the arms and legs. The Mad Cat design is much more
fragile-looking than the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototype.

73. The Heavy Attack E-Frame prototypes draw from the following sourc,: the
shoulder joint, leg assembly, gun and feet are from ROBOCOP's ED-209;
the shoulder-mounted missile launcher is similar to many earlier designs,
including the MACROSS Tomahawk and the DOUGRAM
Soltic "Roundfacer HS"

74. Even Mr. Crowe, FASA's own confusion witness, acknowledged that there
were sufficient differences between the Heavy Attack E-Frame for him to
distinguish it from the Mad Cat.

75. Numerous key design differences outweigh any general similarities in the
designs of the Mad Cat and the Heavy Attack E-Frame [*1158] and indicate that
one was not copied from the other. The protectible aspects of the Mad Cat and
Heavy Attack E-Frame designs are substantially dissimilar.

157. To create the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototypes, Mr. Edmisson purchased
six to eight third-party model kits, including the "RoboCop" ED 209 (DX 384)
from a Japanese-imports store, and GI Joe action figures with spring-loaded
weapons and military vehicles from Toys "R Us, all of which were pieced together
along with other materials to form the Heavy Attack E-Frame.

158. Some of the pieces of the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototypes came directly
from model kits: the legs came from the ED 209 kit, the upper portion was
created from a plastic box, and a rotating cannon from a Hasbro GI Joe became
part of one arm.

160. FASA has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any
similarities between the Heavy Attack E-Frame prototypes and the Mad Cat design
are not attributable to the many commonalities inhering in the pre-existing
similar robots that are available to designers.

**Polonius**

By the way, I was very happy when discussing that case with a friend of mine that I was able to say the words, "Actually, I have giant robot precedent."

**MagickalMemories**

Yeah, but it sounds dirty when you say it.

Eric

**Aduro**

No new news on this yet? How long until one would expect for something to happen?

**InventionThirteen**

It is games workshop's intellectual property and chapterhouse need to accept that. I don't expect them to win at all.

**Chapterhouse**

Aduro wrote:No new news on this yet? How long until one would expect for something to happen?

At this time, our attorneys have requested a "waiver of service" from the GW attorneys. From my understanding this is a common agreement between attorneys (it is common courtesy) that allows all involved parties more time to research and get all the ducks in a row.

So I wouldn't expect anything to occur for a one, maybe two months.

Sorry, no LA Law drama to be released.

**aka_mythos**

InventionThirteen wrote:It is games workshop's intellectual property and chapterhouse need to accept that.

Except this is more about TM use, and CH has a big blurb saying its using the GW's TM, but that's perfectly legal. A lot of the other stuff people have emotionally brought up about CH's models copying GW's is a different point that has nothing to do with this case.

The sentiments expressed by some are the equivalent to finding someone guilty of say animal cruelty because people believe a man beats his spouse. It is bad legal practice to find someone guilty just because you believe someone guilty of something else.

CH has acted responsibly following their legal guidance. That is why this case is about unfair TM use and not about copyright.

**Boomer**

I've hard the worst week at work ever, sooo glad its Friday.
And as I got home tonight, guess whats waiting for me. The 24 Yrgals heads I ordered.
All the way from US! Im quite impressed the delivery took about 12 days or so from day of order, but consdering the cost that really good in my book.
The parts were also wrapped up nicely and nothing was smashed, tho I was shocked when I saw on the front of the envelope 'toy parts' on the contents box. God only knows what the post man now thinks!
The heads themselves are great, nice crisp details and little flash. And i got the correct amount.
I'm really glad I made my order now. As I'm going to use them in my xeno army as the heads of my converted stormboyz.

Nick, I've seen you get a lot of flak on this thread. But as a pleased customer, I rate your site and service as A1 and will be placing second order soon for more parts.
I hope we see ChapterHouse keep going for a long time yet!

**kirsanth**

I still have only good things from CH, which works for me as I am adding them to the good things I have from GW.

Without GW, I would order less from CH. Without CH, I would order less from GW.

**Howard A Treesong**

I'm surprised so many want to see GW win the lawsuit. Can't understand why unless it's merely GW loyalty, dislike of Chapterhouse or a confused sense of the damage GW are suffering.

GW aren't really being damaged by CH, they aren't losing money to them, they won't lose their IP, they won't end up as a generic product, there won't be precedent to open the floodgates to a million legitimate recasters on eBay. NOTHING significant will happen if GW lose. If GW win it just means another company supplying materials for the hobbyist goes out of business. A victory for all I suppose.

People aren't being asked to choose between GW and CH, effectively you are choosing between a world where you have GW and CH, or a world with just GW.

Perhaps those voting for GW to crush Chapterhouse think they are voting for the legal or moral high ground. Well that's hardly clear cut, though there are people in spades on this and other threads declaring that "Chapterhouse are in the wrong" and "Chapterhouse broke the law" as though their declarations were proof in themselves. Nobody can say for sure, the unfortunate thing is that GW may just price CH out of the courtroom.

I don't get it. Very few here are qualified to make a call on the legal rights and wrongs of the case either way, so all the majority can reasonably do is vote as a hobbyist. Do you want an independent company like CH to continue trading? Do you want there to be a wider variety of conversion parts enriching the market? The fact that a sizeable number of so-called hobbyists would rather see them go out of business, to suit a company who are not affected at all either way, disappoints me. All people are achieving by hoping GW win is that there's less customer choice for hobbyists everywhere. Hurrah.

**Just Dave**

For me at least Howard, and the poll being Yes or No can't display this, but it's not so much that I want GW to win (although I did vote so, due to the black/white nature of the poll), but I believe Chapterhouse are in the wrong.

I don't claim to be a lawyer or have any real comprehension of the system, however I do still nonetheless GW are almost right in their claim/case.

I've got nothing against Chapterhouse and am not biased towards GW, however I still believe Chapterhouse is in the wrong.

**Captain Jack**

+1

For me it's the attitude of CHS that puts me off, none of the other parts suppliers have gone so close to the bone. To even put out a mini and call it by the official codex name is damning to me, most of the others skirt around the edges and are fine. Are Maxmini or Scibor being squeezed? Nope, because they are being smart about it, kinda like natural selection for minis companies. The attitude that 'well GW doesn't make it now, so I will' doesn't wash, and trying to make money by in effect claiming that these are almost official bits is laughable, and based on fan artwork and not original. The statement that now that they have made a 'Doom of Manatees' and they now own the rights to the name and mini (from another forum) is also laughable, and probably one of the kickers for GW taking action in the first place.

As for the Legal aspect, well 99% of us aren't trained, and those that are have given a great insight to the system. However forums are by nature an area of discussion, and peoples oppinions will come out. Rightly or wrongly.

IMO, the bitz world can stand to loose the odd company that shouts too loud, while the rest quietly get on with coming up with original pieces to compliment and not replace.

**alphaomega**

Just Dave wrote:For me at least Howard, and the poll being Yes or No can't display this, but it's not so much that I want GW to win (although I did vote so, due to the black/white nature of the poll), but I believe Chapterhouse are in the wrong.

I don't claim to be a lawyer or have any real comprehension of the system, however I do still nonetheless GW are almost right in their claim/case.

I've got nothing against Chapterhouse and am not biased towards GW, however I still believe Chapterhouse is in the wrong.

It is in essence more debate but, Contract and Civil Law in the UK (which covers Copyright infringement) would state that if the product was of a certain degree of difference from the original then the product is a new product. And the next precedent will contradict this and so forth.

Chapterhouse would have to ideally prove that they had not infringed on that copyright and as such no damage to the IP of GW.

I have a basic idea of the concept of Civil law, so not in any form a Solicitor-Advocate (A Lawyer in the UK), but can see that this case is in fact a very grey case and could take a long time to sort out. Which means that high legal fees can be induced meaning even if CH did win, they might find themselves bankrupt.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

I still don't get the "CH are too blatant" argument.

Because someone says that x can be used with 40k they have been labelled with some nasty tags, whereas if thay had made the same product (and it would remain blindingly obvious what the use is intended for) no one would apparently care.

Sorry, just don't get it.

**Kilkrazy**

That was precisely my point about 17 pages ago.

There is little merit in the GW case, however the expense of defending it might scare Chapterhouse out of the market, and this result would have a salutary effect on other companies who might think of providing after market parts for GW kits.

The ultimate losers are the wargaming public. No suitable kits and parts from GW (for Tervigons, as an example) and no third party conversion parts either.

Experienced gamers can simply mod and scratch-build of course.

**Guitardian**

Some people have a talent for ideas.
Some have a talent for figuring out which ideas to imitate or jump on.
Some have a talent (like that Tomy vs FASA) for figuring out legal technicalities why it wasn't actually a rip-off of an idea.
(translation)
Some people create the concept art
Some people steal the concept product
Some people cheat the rules of what is stealing

I root for the first. Intellectual property is property, and sadly the ones that decide these cases are most likely not the types to own intellectual property of their own creativity, so don't know what its like to watch someone else profiteering off their ideas.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some people have a talent for ideas.
Some have a talent for figuring out which ideas to imitate or jump on.
Some have a talent (like that Tomy vs FASA) for figuring out legal technicalities why it wasn't actually a rip-off of an idea.
(translation)
Some people create the concept art
Some people steal the concept product
Some people cheat the rules of what is stealing

I root for the first. Intellectual property is property, and sadly the ones that decide these cases are most likely not the types to own intellectual property of their own creativity, so don't know what its like to watch someone else profiteering off their ideas.

**BloodQuest**

My original view was that CHS were pushing their luck, but I have to say that between this and the other (legal) thread, I've completely changed my mind about the whole thing.

I hope CHS prevails in this without taking too much of a financial hit from the legal costs.

Also, it is very hard to bite your tongue when people are attacking a small business that you've put heart and soul into, so let's cut the guy a little slack, can we?

**MagickalMemories**

BloodQuest wrote:My original view was that CHS were pushing their luck, but I have to say that between this and the other (legal) thread, I've completely changed my mind about the whole thing.

I hope CHS prevails in this without taking too much of a financial hit from the legal costs.

Yay!

:Looks at current poll numbers:

One down, 244 to go!

Eric

**Dysartes**

Guitardian wrote:Some people have a talent for ideas.
Some have a talent for figuring out which ideas to imitate or jump on.
Some have a talent (like that Tomy vs FASA) for figuring out legal technicalities why it wasn't actually a rip-off of an idea.
(translation)
Some people create the concept art
Some people steal the concept product
Some people cheat the rules of what is stealing

I root for the first. Intellectual property is property, and sadly the ones that decide these cases are most likely not the types to own intellectual property of their own creativity, so don't know what its like to watch someone else profiteering off their ideas.

Quick point, Guitaridan - you do realise that a lot of the time GW fall into your second category, not first, right? As such, surely you should be neutral regarding this case.....