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.

**Agamemnon2**

Kilkrazy wrote:It probably will worry GW, because they will incur serious costs themselves which they may not be able to recover.

Oh, that would be great. It would throw the entire field into chaos, if only for a little while. And chaos is its own reward.

**Eldanar**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
chaplaingrabthar wrote:It looks like this firm has a history of representing major clients, including Google, but are taking the Chapterhouse case on a pro bono basis for some reason. I suspect it's t try and establish some kind of clarity in the murkier areas of IP law and trademark usage but one of Dakkadakka's many law-talking guys might be able to grasp it more clearly.

As in, they may have a *much* larger case in the background, and see this as a cheap way to set a precedent? Or they are retained by clients for whom setting such precedent would be beneficial?

Or, maybe, the partner's simply got a kid who plays 40k and wants some stuff cast up legally.

We won't find out for a year, so it's pure speculation

Also, while CHS probably can't comment on the details, legal filings which are part of the public record (e.g. PACER / LexisNexis) can be shared without much risk. In this case, they've simply stated who their counsel are. That is a matter of record that all interested parties are entitled to know as a matter of course.
____

Buzzsaw wrote:I'm not sure if you're trying to make a very subtle point, or are just ignorant of the mechanisms of the American legal system. Presuming it's the latter (if it's the former I'm very curious as to your meaning), there are certain things I think we can reasonably infer:
1) The original legal work Chapterhouse had done was by "local counsel"; either a small firm or a solo, who gave them general guidelines,
2) If that's the case, such a firm would be very hard pressed to answer the extensive, federal matters that the current litigation presents,
3) Even if they were willing to, it must be realized that CH has "traded up" in almost every sense.

I dunno who gave the original opinions to CH (not does it matter), but Winston & Strawn is Big fish. As in, a 900 lawyer, multinational firm. As in $744 million in 2008 revenue. And CH is being represented by a partner at said firm.

I don't think that the real impact here may be quite clearly appreciated: previously, I think the best bet was that CH would have been lucky to have settled in such a way as to preserve some part of their business. That's not on the table anymore really, or at least not in any sort of worrisome way.

We're looking at the very real chance now of this case going to trial. And let me tell you, as an IP attorney, that's something that is going to worry GW's lawyers to a major degree.

The reason for that is that Intellectual Property is the only kind of property where you don't know what you have until you go to court.

Going before a judge means a very real chance that GW might not just lose this particular action, but they may have some of their terms simply stripped away; that is, that some of the things they claim as "their IP" simply goes away. Will this happen? I dunno. But it must be understood that in IP, when cases go to court, there is a real chance that the parties come out completely transformed.

Yeah, IP law is very interesting stuff, precisely because we're talking about pure thought.

Based on the Playmates case, I suspect that GW's model IP may be vastly weaker than they've been able get people to believe, but has been "protected" simply by virtue of everybody they challenge being smaller guys and unable to mount a proper legal defense. Kinda like how Monster Cable operates. If / when the curtain is pulled, the Wizard may turn out to be nothing but a little old man.

Should be interesting.

I've been checking Pacer about once a week for the past month. CHS's attorney has yet to file a Notice of Appearance, although she was probably just secured. However, the Answer is due late next week. The judge has a standing order for an in camera status conference to be held as well. I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when the parties try to explain to him exactly what is going on and why...

If you read the firm's pro bono pledge, this just might have been the first opportunity this particular attorney had to do some pro bono work in her particular specialty. I would not imagine there are a lot of opportunities to do pro bono commercial or trademark litigation. Also, maybe she wants to write an article about some sort of esoteric point of law; or maybe she sees an opportunity to have her name associated with a new precedent or new interpretation on a point of law? Or maybe she doesn't like the attorneys on the other side? Who knows...

**Ketara**

Eldanar wrote:Or maybe she doesn't like the attorneys on the other side? Who knows...

**JohnHwangDD**

Kilkrazy wrote:GW may prefer to try for some out of court settlement, to avoid the risk of their claimed IP rights being broken down legally.

In general, one always prefers a settlement - cheaper and less risky. The only time to go to trial is if you want to make a point, or if the settlement demand is totally unrealistic.
____

filbert wrote:Not only that but what if this sets some sort of legal precedent?

I think GW may have gotten themselves onto very shaky ground.

If it goes to trial, it will most likely reinforce / extend / clarify existing precedents.

There is a lot of IP law out there, and from some perspectives (e.g. automotive / motorcycle automotive) GW is indeed on very shaky ground.

IMO, Polonius did a lot of good by bringing up the Playmates case as example. It is an excellent example, very close to the matter. Google the relevant Battletech and Playmates toys, while you read the ruling. Then think about a "Space Marine". Great stuff.

**chaplaingrabthar**

I'm too lazy to go back through the thread, anyone have a link to the Playmates ruling?

**JSK-Fox**

I still support GWS 100%.
A good analogy of what happened (as far as I can tell) is as follows.
Every company is a house, and all the bitz are dogs.
There is a park called "Generic Park" and that is where most of the bitz makers go with their dogs to walk them, and eventually, pee and leave turds.
This turd represents the customers who didn't appreciate the services.
What happened, is that chapterhouse's dog went up, treaded all over GWS's flower and vegetable garden, and left a big wet sloppy pile of turd on the doorstep.
So, Mr. GWS walks outside, and *SQUISH*.
He just got some customers who dislike him, even though the products they are complaining about are complaining about CH.
Uh oh.
So Mr. GWS knocks on the door of CH, and kindly asks, "Could you make sure your dog doesn't leave a turd on my doorstep?".
Mr. CH says, "No way! If it wants to do that, then it will do that."
Obviously, Mr. GWS is pissed, and sues Mr. CH for property damage.
Suddenly, everyone sides with Mr. CH, despite him letting his dog take turds on the aforementioned doorstep.
This makes no sense, now, does it?
Just think about that dog turd on the step the next time you put your money on CH.
Sorry to sound biased.

**Dysartes**

JSK-Fox wrote:This makes no sense, now, does it?

You're right - that analogy didn't make any sense to me.

**Karon**

So...CH making cool stuff for GW products is the equivalent of defecating on their doorstep.

**Amaya**

JSK-Fox wrote:<snip>

You do realize that third party add ons to items are perfectly legal as long as they don't violate IP laws, don't you?

The issue is in the advertising and not the products.

The whole idea of GW going after CH for making products people use for GW units that don't have GW models makes about as much sense as GW going after the GI Joe jets some people used for Stormravens.

**Kroothawk**

GW claims on their website that they have the right to sue everyone doing a private conversion of their models, they are just not enforcing that right currently. So who knows

**shrike**

Kroothawk wrote:GW claims on their website that they have the right to sue everyone doing a private conversion of their models, they are just not enforcing that right currently. So who knows

but basically every GW player has a conversion, every WD has a conversion in it that I can remember, and GW would lose 99.99999% of thier market because of it. I highly doub that that is a law, and I very highly doubt that GW would ever sue everyone.

**Captain Jack**

The difference in this case is that those people are not selling them for profit as a buisness...

**Kilkrazy**

God forbid that anyone should start a business selling stuff that people want.

Has it really come to this?

**shrike**

Kilkrazy wrote:God forbid that anyone should start a business selling stuff tat people want.

Has it really come to this?

short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but.

**Captain Jack**

To some extent, yes (tat it is too, very apt

). It's a personal thing, I'll buy from sellers that come up with stuff that is new and unusual Maxmini is a good example, but what I hate is a manufacturer that is so devoid of artistic licence that they have to copy/use art /ideas of other manufacturers.

If this was Hasslefree being picked on by CHS, I'm sure feelings would be entirely different. Meh, until the case comes forward all of this is opiniion.

**Kilkrazy**

A lot of Hasslefree's best figures are "inspired" by popular culture.

Aliens
Hot Fuzz
Shaun of the Dead
Scooby Doo
and so on.

**Captain Jack**

True, but there aren't miniatures available for them, licenced or not. I know it's a fine line I am walking, but what I am most scared of if GW gets hung out to dry is crass companies like CHS cherry picking the big selling lines of smaller companies. Killing their ability to produce the cool individual stuff that may not sell so well, thus making us all poorer in choices.

I also really like HF's attitude, plus the majority of the other small manufacturers. CHS just sticks in my throat unfortunately, and I hope (for my own personal choices) that GW is vindicated thus protecting other (much smaller companies) from such poaching.

**JohnHwangDD**

JSK-Fox wrote:This turd represents the customers who didn't appreciate the services.

This makes no sense, now, does it?

Just think about that dog turd on the step the next time you put your money on CH.

Sorry to sound biased.

Seriously? That's what you're posting?

**Mr Mystery**

Having digested quite a bit of information, I still think CH are in the wrong.

The whole Battletech thing appears only semi-relevant. It's one thing to have designs based/inspired by another's IP, but still quite another to refer to it using copyrighted terms. I reckon this case will go GW's way, and Chapterhouse whilst technically allowed to continue, just using different names, will go under due to the costs.

**Jon Garrett**

JSK-Fox wrote:Stuff

That...really, really doesn't make any sense. I mean, seriously?
If you wanna use this example, which is madness, then both Games Workshop and Chapterhouse would be Dog Breeders. Games Workshop has managed to corner the market, and release what they want. If they don't have it, well tough. Go breed your own dog. Or there are a few other companies that sell cats, hamtsers and the occasional over sized rat that looks a lot like a dog, but isn't really. But another guy comes along, selling dogs he's bred. And selling types of dogs that GW aren't! Worse yet, they're compatible with Games Workshop dogs. I won't say how, because there are far too many creepy people on the 'net panting already. So GW goes over and says, 'Stop selling dogs. Shoot the dogs you own. Set fire to the kennels. Never say the word 'dog' again, for we own that word.'

And Chapterhouse looks blank and goes, 'What?' and summons a lawyer instead.

Of course, this is still a crap comparison. But it's better than protraying GW as some innocent person who kindly asked someone to stop doing something naughty and with much sadness taking futher action. While Chapterhouse may not be perfect in this argument, GW haven't exactly been playing nice either.

**Mr Mystery**

Erm....define how GW haven't played nice, seeing as how they have a credible claim to creating the very market they now dominate, and through hard graft at that....

**Ma55ter_fett**

I really don't care, the gak slinging that is being done by the supporters of either side is getting old.

**Platuan4th**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I really don't care, the gak slinging that is being done by the supporters of either side is getting old.

QFFT.

**JohnHwangDD**

Mr Mystery wrote:The whole Battletech thing appears only semi-relevant.

It's one thing to have designs based/inspired by another's IP, but still quite another to refer to it using copyrighted terms.

The Battletech v Playmates case is *very* relevant, because the case will likely delve into the copyrighted designs, GW claiming the designs are too similar to their IP. At which point, the BTvP case starts stripping away the GW designs based on the armoed "space knight" concept, and what GW has which is specifically protectable about their Space Marine vs Star Wars Stormtrooper, and every single other Sci Fi suit of armor, along with everybody else who uses big shoulderpads. Being "close" in general design isn't infringement. Based on the interface necessity, GW could easily find themselves in a Lego v BestLock situation, allowing someone to come in with 100% bit-compatible injected plastic Space Marines at a fraction of the price. That would be an absolute disaster for GW, but a tremendous win for the customer. GW is playing with fire, here.

The term "Space Marine" cannot be copyrighted. It can be Trademarked, and that means that others can use the phrase for refererence purposes to ensure that people are referring to the correct thing.

Also, GW didn't create the "toy soldiers" market - it existed long before GW ever got involved. If you track the evolution of wargames, GW is merely a very successful company. But they're not deserving of any magical protection for something they didn't actually do.

**Gridge**

This isn't just about CH vs. GW. Precedence could be set here that effects the ability of companies large and small to keep their IP safe. Sorry, but CH clearly crossed a line with how they market their product. I understand the desire to root for the underdog...I do the same, but only when the underdog is actually in the right.

**Polonius**

FASA is on point for one of the issues: copyright infringement. I mainly cited it to show that making "similar" products isn't always IP violation.

The more serious issue, IMO, is the use of trademarked phrases such as "Thousand Sons." At one point their website seemed to be selling actual "thousand sons" parts, not parts that can be used with Thousand Sons.

Now, given that a GW 1K sons is a complete model, and CH was selling shoulderpads, it's actually really possible that the trademark wouldn't be infringed, simply because they weren't selling the same thing! The law is unpredictable: a classic contracts case every student reads involves a sub shop in a strip mall that a clause making him the exclusibe sandwich shop for the plaza. A burrito place opens, he sues the landlord for breach, and loses because the court decides that a burrito isn't a sandwich.

The point is, GW has trademarks only to fairly specific things, some of which don't actually exist. For example, what exactly is trademarked by the term "Blood Ravens?"

**edweird**

Let's be frank, CH makes conversion bits & minis that GW does not want to or currently does not sell. This idiotic law seems to center on the idea that only GW should be allowed to use GW related terminology on products. Apply this rationale to other industries, like aftermarket car parts. The purpose and lifeblood of the aftermarket maker is to promote and grow the symbiotic host via free advertisement and expanded possibilities. This being said GW should be much more warm to bits makers and extend a noncompete license agreement to end the uncomfortable word hockey that only serves to foster a negative public image of GW.

**Captain Jack**

Quite unsurprisingly there is only a negative image because GW is silent on the issue, and we are only seeing supposition about intent/previous and what ever falls out from CHS. This argument is getting old, because it is just circling the drainhole without any new content.

For or against, I recon this should be dropped until there is some kind of ruling.

My last words on this, Jack, out.

**Kilkrazy**

I agree. We are going in circles now.

Locking thread.