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.

plastictrees wrote:
Seriously? So he's not just some guy that sells mostly ok third party gaming parts, he's a pioneer now?

I didn't say pioneer you did. Furthering the options of consumers is a good thing, they've done it without recasting. They produce from ground up unique pieces which they then sell. I own a number of CH parts and what I've gotten, is worth the price.

Your notions do not actually speak to the point at hand. This is all about whether CH can use GW's TM names to describe a distinctly separate product, whether the quality of CH diminishes the GW brand, whether true confusion of products is common place, and whether a 3rd party can make something that interfaces with another parties product without licensing. There is a legal basis for the first and the courts will decide if CH meets parameters of it. It is common knowledge that FW products are hit or miss on quality, and while you might not like the aesthetics of CH products every last piece I have seen is of a consistently higher quality than FW worst. Brand dilution is very hard to show because GW has a giant and thorough marketing apparatus that makes people aware of every last release they make; so a reasonable customer of GW products is not going to be fooled or convinced. GW will try to define its customer base in a way that is so broad that it would be like a woman who can't tell a Ford pickup from a Toyota pickup is the same person they ask to compare GW to CH... but it will hinge on where the court decides to define that reasonable person or customer. The last key point, whether CH can produce an interfacing pieces without infringing on GW rights and whether truly unique pieces infringe on their branding. Interfacing components for products when sued as infringing have been time and time again been thrown out because its a mater of simple geometries and not any individually patented complex interface. On both of these last items, GW wants to insist that both the components and the completed model are their protected artistic work; the court will not like that. By doing that GW is doing something that is no different than Lego saying you can only assemble their toys based on the instruction manuals, despite the implicit purpose being to the contrary. If the court favors one over the other it either means we are all infringing by assembling derivative art work in unintended configurations and the over all model is protected... new components are legal but assembling them is not. If they go the other way than the individual components are each protected pieces and each individual CH piece would have to be scrutinized against a GW piece and the fact its a shoulder pad would have little to do with it and would come down to a matter of whats on it. While CH has done a lot of shoulder pads intended for specific sub-factions those groups and their symbols are not trademarked and in instances CH has used a unique depiction of an unmarkable iconographical image.

GW is overreaching. They are doing so to push a company out of business. They are using their larger position to legally force their will on a smaller part of the industry, that is bullying. CH has only done something that in every other industry is perfectly acceptable.

Based on the fact that GW filed the suit in Illinois because they incorrectly identified the target of part of the suit, my guess is that this will be the first thing CH lawyer will point out and he will motion for the case to be dismissed on the basis of that particular court being the wrong venue. The court will acknowledge the undue hardship of the venue on the defendant, dismiss and instruct GW to refile in Texas, where CH is actually located.

malfred wrote:

Chapterhouse wrote:
Any of you professional legal folks want to chime in on that one?

They probably don't, or will disclaimer it since they don't want anything they post on
the Internet to be taken as actual legal advice.

(I've read enough of Janthkin's posts to see how ti works with lawyers )

I used to think that but then I remember a girl I dated/lived with for 2 years. Every time we would attempt to make a joint decision, she would bring up something I said 8.5 months earlier, at 12:17 PM and give me a disclaimer "Now, I'm not saying we should do it this way....but based off what you said prior I think you would probably agree...". Perfect hedge bet. She's now an attorney (and I'm sure a damn good one). I think lawyers are born, not made **.


**All statements regarding attorneys by AgeOfEgos excludes present company and no statements regarding attorneys by AgeOfEgos should be attributed as fact.

but the problem is that the sleeping bear is over weight and cant find its toes......or is paws....hmmmm

I can't speak about anything specific, but there's a pretty simple bit of civics to remember:
1)legislatures make laws
2) executives enforce laws
3) courts interpret laws
4) two parties can consent to a contract

Outside of those area actors, not much is legally binding.

Watch out GW will come after you for informing the masses that their scare tactics are all bark and no bite!

OMG Mr.Dandy if you are listerning, you better hide.

Chapter House is obviously making things people want. They're combi weapon idea is nothing short of genious. At the end of the day, who's buying shoulder pads, combi weapons and giant hammers without buying the GW space marines to glue them to?

Crablezworth wrote:Chapter House is obviously making things people want. They're combi weapon idea is nothing short of genious. At the end of the day, who's buying shoulder pads, combi weapons and giant hammers without buying the GW space marines to glue them to?

Thats the thing... you NEED GW products in order to use these add-ons... Guess they advertised it wrong but GW did not loose lots of money because of CH.... You need to buy GW before you add the CH parts....

Still, in this world we live crazy things happen... my money is onGW winning... more money, better legal help and a judge would will prob side with a big company..

Interesting read this tread... I'm not even going to pretend I know whats going on or the out come... I don't really understand GW stance on this or if CH is guilty... Just like the hobby... GW pretty much rule the hobby... CH seem to offer some nice upgrades for GW products but am guessing they advertised in the wrong way....

Its not as much making things for 40k that GW doesn't, its using GW IP to make a profit whether GW does or not. GW doesn't want another company using its IP so It wont let it happen. Makes perfect sense to me. Protect your IP or lose it.

aka_mythos wrote:
GW is overreaching. They are doing so to push a company out of business. They are using their larger position to legally force their will on a smaller part of the industry, that is bullying. CH has only done something that in every other industry is perfectly acceptable.

Based on the fact that GW filed the suit in Illinois because they incorrectly identified the target of part of the suit, my guess is that this will be the first thing CH lawyer will point out and he will motion for the case to be dismissed on the basis of that particular court being the wrong venue. The court will acknowledge the undue hardship of the venue on the defendant, dismiss and instruct GW to refile in Texas, where CH is actually located.

I came to that same conclusion (a few pages back). Its almost like they are trying to boot-strap into a favorable jurisdiction (I wouldn't want to be a foreign corporation trying to sue a small, local operator in TX either). That alleged mistake as well as some of the other silliness in the Petition really make me question what is going on. Either the attorneys have no clue about this business (potentially bad for GW), or GW is micromanaging the litigation (bad for GW), or GW is just going to try to wear down CHS's resources (really bad for CHS).

Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out because I want to see what CHS's and Paulson's Answer/Response is.

Chapterhouse wrote: ...there is some stuff on that page that will hold up in a court of law, but there is also stuff on there that has no standing in a court of law as well.

Any of you professional legal folks want to chime in on that one?

Eldanar wrote: GW's IP FAQ is GW's collective opinion. It is more or less a one-sided argument of GW's views concerning the use of its products and IP. It should in no way be interpreted as an actual legal document or memorandum on the actual laws at hand.

aka_mythos wrote:

plastictrees wrote:
Seriously? So he's not just some guy that sells mostly ok third party gaming parts, he's a pioneer now?

I didn't say pioneer you did. Furthering the options of consumers is a good thing, they've done it without recasting. They produce from ground up unique pieces which they then sell. I own a number of CH parts and what I've gotten, is worth the price.

Your notions do not actually speak to the point at hand. This is all about whether CH can use GW's TM names to describe a distinctly separate product, whether the quality of CH diminishes the GW brand, whether true confusion of products is common place, and whether a 3rd party can make something that interfaces with another parties product without licensing. There is a legal basis for the first and the courts will decide if CH meets parameters of it. It is common knowledge that FW products are hit or miss on quality, and while you might not like the aesthetics of CH products every last piece I have seen is of a consistently higher quality than FW worst. Brand dilution is very hard to show because GW has a giant and thorough marketing apparatus that makes people aware of every last release they make; so a reasonable customer of GW products is not going to be fooled or convinced. GW will try to define its customer base in a way that is so broad that it would be like a woman who can't tell a Ford pickup from a Toyota pickup is the same person they ask to compare GW to CH... but it will hinge on where the court decides to define that reasonable person or customer. The last key point, whether CH can produce an interfacing pieces without infringing on GW rights and whether truly unique pieces infringe on their branding. Interfacing components for products when sued as infringing have been time and time again been thrown out because its a mater of simple geometries and not any individually patented complex interface. On both of these last items, GW wants to insist that both the components and the completed model are their protected artistic work; the court will not like that. By doing that GW is doing something that is no different than Lego saying you can only assemble their toys based on the instruction manuals, despite the implicit purpose being to the contrary. If the court favors one over the other it either means we are all infringing by assembling derivative art work in unintended configurations and the over all model is protected... new components are legal but assembling them is not. If they go the other way than the individual components are each protected pieces and each individual CH piece would have to be scrutinized against a GW piece and the fact its a shoulder pad would have little to do with it and would come down to a matter of whats on it. While CH has done a lot of shoulder pads intended for specific sub-factions those groups and their symbols are not trademarked and in instances CH has used a unique depiction of an unmarkable iconographical image.

GW is overreaching. They are doing so to push a company out of business. They are using their larger position to legally force their will on a smaller part of the industry, that is bullying. CH has only done something that in every other industry is perfectly acceptable.

Based on the fact that GW filed the suit in Illinois because they incorrectly identified the target of part of the suit, my guess is that this will be the first thing CH lawyer will point out and he will motion for the case to be dismissed on the basis of that particular court being the wrong venue. The court will acknowledge the undue hardship of the venue on the defendant, dismiss and instruct GW to refile in Texas, where CH is actually located.

My notion was that there's no need to mythologize Chapterhouse. They saw a gap in the third party 40k modelling market, created a business around it, and were stupid in how they showcased that product. I imagine this will be less about "their shoulderpad looks like our shoulderpad" and more about "their website is plastered with references to our IP and third party recreations of our imagery". The notion that they can use GW imagery all over their website because some fan drew it and they got _their_ permission strikes me as absurd. I'd be interested to know how long my after market Disney add-on website covered in third party art of Mickey Mouse would stay in business.

I can't speak to the quality of the product as I've never bought any of CH's stuff. If it is of good quality then they need to get a better painter for the stuff in their store is all I have to say.

plastictrees wrote:The notion that they can use GW imagery all over their website because some fan drew it and they got _their_ permission strikes me as absurd.

I only play fantasy now, but it struck me that at least the 40k "Dragon" images were very different from the official "Salamander" ones. Not sure about the rest...

I will point out one thing that may have been missed in all this - the outcome of the case may effect GW's codex design. A year or three back GW switched from only allowing codexes to contain units for which there were models, to allowing any unit as long as there was a plan for the model to be released eventually. There was a white dwarf article on this. Since that happened we've seen codexes filled with what can only be described as a wild array of options, many without models. I see this as a good thing - I enjoy more options and the conversions and scratchbuilds they generate.

If, however, GW finds that every time they put out a codex without covering all the models, they cannot stop 3rd party studios from jumping in to create the missing unit (thunderwolves and tevigons are the most obvious examples), they may decide to clamp down and only have units (or even worse, options) in the game for which they have models/bitz. That would suck, IMHO.

Why? I don't think it encourages creativity. Lots of people will just avoid taking that unit or will use a crappy stand in. The people who want to make conversions and stuff are already making conversions of existing models.

I'm a customer of both GW & CH.

I bought enough heads for my Genestealers to make them y(whatever) tentacle heads. I outfitted maybe 30 "normal" 'stealers with the Alien heads.

My Seer jetbikes use their models on GW bikes.

I see CH as stepping over the line, but they produced items that GW did not.

I find it sad that CH will most likely be litigated out of business and I won't be able to buy the bitz I want / would like to have that GW does not make.

Sure, if GW made these items than no problem, CH is in the wrong.

But the fact of the matter is GW wasn't making these parts (sure they gave you 1 Y 'stealer head, but really{?}). Do you remember when they sold bitz, I do. Why did they stop, I'm guessing it was to sell more boxes and less bitz.

So, was CH overstepping the bounds and infringing on GW's IP in my mind: Yes. But, I couldn't get those parts from another source and I don't have the talent to make them myself (hell, I send my models off for painting).

If GW made those parts I'd buy them from GW (frankly I believe they'd be higher quality), so if GW shuts CH down then I feel GW should offer similar bitz. If GW does not, than they are just doing the community a disservice.

It isn't like I'm asking for codex updates on the release of a new rules edition. I'm asking that they (GW) provide me with models from Citadel, that correspond to what is usable in the rules.

If they (GW) can't do it, they should allow 3rd party folks to.

Amaya wrote:Why? I don't think it encourages creativity. Lots of people will just avoid taking that unit or will use a crappy stand in. The people who want to make conversions and stuff are already making conversions of existing models.

+1


Look at the guard codex, there's barely any of the new models in the damn thing. If 3rd parties want to make alternatives nothing is going to stop that even if GW releases an official model. Who the hell really wants to spend like 200$ for a squad of rough rider models that are older than they are?

AgeOfEgos wrote:I used to think that but then I remember a girl I dated/lived with for 2 years. Every time we would attempt to make a joint decision, she would bring up something I said 8.5 months earlier, at 12:17 PM and give me a disclaimer

No, that's just because she is a woman in a relationship. My wife brings up things from 10 years ago.

Has the CH guy even hired a lawyer?

And do the lawyers in the thread think this will even get to a trial?

If he doesn't have tons of cash just laying around to put up until he (hopefully) wins isn't he completely at GW's whim anyway?

RiTides wrote:

plastictrees wrote:The notion that they can use GW imagery all over their website because some fan drew it and they got _their_ permission strikes me as absurd.

I only play fantasy now, but it struck me that at least the 40k "Dragon" images were very different from the official "Salamander" ones. Not sure about the rest...

I'm referring mostly to the little banners and buttons that lead to the different sections in their store. The "salamanders" section has a banner saying "Salamanders" with the GW salamanders symbol on it.

Question for the lawyers in the audience - without providing an opinion on the merits of the case as presented to date, would it be possible to explain what the following points translate to in layman's terms, rather than legalese?

Copyright Infringement by Chapterhouse and Paulson Under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Trademark Infringement by Chapterhouse Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
False Designations of Origin by Chapterhouse Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Dilution and Tarnishment by Chapterhouse Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
Violation by Chapterhouse of the Illinois Anti-Dilution Statute, 765 ILCS 1036/65
[Violation by Chapterhouse of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.
Violation by Chapterhouse of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.
Common Law Unfair Competition–Trademark Infringement by Chapterhouse

I think I have a rough idea, but I'm generally rather hazy on this sort of law - hell, on IP stuff in general - so an informed explanation may well help the discussion along.

plastictrees wrote:I can't speak to the quality of the product as I've never bought any of CH's stuff. If it is of good quality then they need to get a better painter for the stuff in their store is all I have to say.

I do need to agree with this, to an extent - some of the painted pieces aren't brilliant, and some of the photos could o with improvement as well. Not massively, but you want to show your product in the best possible light, after all.

plastictrees wrote:I'm referring mostly to the little banners and buttons that lead to the different sections in their store. The "salamanders" section has a banner saying "Salamanders" with the GW salamanders symbol on it.

My understanding with those banners is they were created by a third party - i.e., neither GW or a licensee - and that CH sought the creator of the images permission to use them on their site. I could be wrong about this, but that's what I've put together based on their disclaimer and a search for the original images.

Mr Mystery wrote:

derek wrote:I wonder if Nintendo knows that GW is trying to claim they own the rights/trademark to the term "Star Fox." Is it illegal to lie in a court filing?

In the UK, Starfox was renamed Starwing due to issues.

True story.

Very true, because the makers of the original (non related) game for Atari had the rights to the name in Europe. Nintendo bought those rights before the release of Star Fox Adventures, and has afaik has always owned the North American rights.

Still wondering if it's illegal to claim you own the rights to something in a court filing if you don't.

I like CHS, they make some nice things but they have been pushing the boundaries for a while now; specifically using GW IP is just asking for trouble.

Still wondering if it's illegal to claim you own the rights to something in a court filing if you don't.

If its in a court filing and it hits court I think that its perjury?

Could also be contempt?

And general stupidity!

If the rights are disputed then, its a whole new ball game and lawyers get some more more dollar!

Amaya wrote:Why? I don't think it encourages creativity. Lots of people will just avoid taking that unit or will use a crappy stand in. The people who want to make conversions and stuff are already making conversions of existing models.

The people who use crappy stand-ins are lazy, uncreative souls anyway, the kind of sluggish twerps who can't be bothered to paint well. I don't see why I should have to suffer because lesser hobbyists can't be bothered to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them

Agamemnon2 wrote:The people who use crappy stand-ins are lazy, uncreative souls anyway, the kind of sluggish twerps who can't be bothered to paint well. I don't see why I should have to suffer because lesser hobbyists can't be bothered to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them

Wow, that was pretty harsh. In any case, GW isn't going to change the way they make Codexes. They're not hemorrhaging money or anything like that just because a bunch of garage companies are selling bitz. They don't care about bitz sellers. They care about people who are illegally using their IP.

about the fan drawn pics, unless theyve been sent in to GW, then GW cant do a lot about it, as the pic is not THERES. the only time GW can complain about a fan drawn pic being used, if its one that they have recived on there site.
this is from there legal page
" SUBMISSIONS
Any notes, e-mails, online messages or bulletin board postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts, designs, or other material submitted to any physical GW company address or to any web site owned or controlled by GW and/or to any e-mail addresses contained in or on those web sites ("GW Web Sites") will become the property of GW throughout the world and GW shall be entitled to use the material for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit any material to any physical GW company address or any GW Web Sites, you agree, offer, warrant, and represent, both explicitly and tacitly (and GW accepts) that you are assigning all intellectual property rights in that material to GW and that GW has the right to use that material at any time entirely in its own discretion for whatsoever purpose including for commercial, promotional, and advertising purposes without any obligation (including any financial obligation) to you now or at any time in the future. You waive and relinquish any rights, including "moral rights," that may exist in any content to the furthest extent permissible by law and agree not to assert any rights over that content. We are afraid that in order to protect ourselves legally, this is the only way we can operate. If you are unhappy with this policy, then please do not post or send any material to GW"
otherwise no website or forum could have a fan art section, otherwise GW will step on you.
Mind you, the way GW are going, i wouldnt be surprised if they try and claim rights to any pics of art or fan paint4ed models on the web, wither they own said site or not

Except we're not talking about fan-art on someone's portfolio or on a fan-site, we're talking about fan-art, using GW imagery, being used to sell product.

My understanding of the blurb you posted is that it doesn't really relate to this situation and is more protection for GW so they can't get sued if someone sends them some terrible fan-fic about marines fighting hyper intelligent sex bunnies from space and then ten years later GW bring out a range of hyper intelligent space rabbits.

It may be past the point of relevance but I wanted to wander back to all those analogies surrounding the after-market car industry. Is the key issue here not to do with prior art and how generic the product is? Even if a particular cam or cylinder assembly will only fit a particular brand of car engine, can you actually copyright (or whatever) the details of an internal combustion engine, or is it considered too generic as they have been around for about 100 years?

Also has no-one here read the intro to all 40k books? It does seem to describe modern capitalism pretty well

MagickalMemories wrote:
They mass produce tiny metal and plastic bits (According to the complaint, that's a distinctly British term. As as American, should I say "pieces?") that we, the end user, use and assemble as we see fit to represent little army men on a gameboard. The game on this board represents an imaginary battle in an imaginary place at an imaginary time.
I do not believe you play games with art. I believe it is solely for collecting and appreciating.

I haven't seen much discussion on it but I think the 'bits' complaint is outrageous. People like my dad have had ' bits boxes' for as long as plastic kits have been made. It's not a uniqe term, British or not. GW like the term 'bitz' but that isn't what their complaint says and would be a hell of a stretch anyway. This has to be perhaps the most absurd claim on the whole thing.

Chapterhouse wrote:Yeah, but I also have heard of "Stand up for what you believe in".

As long as it wont hurt you in court Stating the basic facts that is out there for anyone to see, I dont think that will hurt me.

I'm not a lawyer but I would suggest just staying out of any threads that are about the lawsuit. It really can't help you and might hurt you.

Question for the lawyers out there. If you are making an add on to an item and the company who produces the original owns the IP to the look and feel of the item are you by the very nature of what you are doing infringing on their IP? Is that a difference between this and car add ons? Obviously I know nothing of the law but I was just wondering.