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.

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

Chicago = Mos Eisley?

at least chicago has good pizza though!

going there in 2 weeks for acen... gonna eat me lou malnati's and pizza uno as much as possible... all while dressed as gordon freeman

weeble1000 wrote:A little case update:

John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

This is from their website:

"When McAndrews, Held & Malloy was founded in 1988, our mission was to attract the most exceptional intellectual property and technology-focused attorneys the legal world has to offer. Our firm's steady growth has been accomplished at an attorney-by-attorney pace, rather than by merger or acquisition."

Clearly, McAndrews, Held & Malloy are representing Paulson pro-bono. So now we have two large firms representing the defendants pro-bono.

The attorneys representing Paulson are: Ronald H. Spuhler, Ronald A DiCerbo, and Thomas James Campbell, Jr.

The case just got a little more interesting.

Sounds like GW may have kicked over the proverbial hornets nest. Play the 800lb. gorilla, hope that someone doesn't notice the zipper.....

Redbeard wrote:How is running off an extra copy doubling workload or cost? It's an extra few dollars for copies and postage at most. Making a copy might take the office staff a few minutes. It's hardly any extra work at all for the attorney, I would imagine, and I'm sure they deal with this sort of thing regularly.

What if Paulson's lawyers reply and ask questions?

weeble1000 wrote:A little case update:

John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

The case just got a little more interesting.

The case got ALOT more interesting. Apparantly GW looks to have bitten off more then they can chew. I dont care how good GW lawyers are, they're up against lawyers specializing in this part of the law. That cant be good for GW.

Ive only read some of this thread as its a lot of reading.
I have also looked at Chapterhouses Website and the products they offer.

Their products are challenging GW's trademarks and Chapterhouse are obviously well aware of that.
In the end this all comes down to word play.
Chapterhouse advertise lets say Shoulder Pads compatible with Space Marines, now that is a direct infringement and challenge to GW.
However and i honestly can see no reason why Chapterhouse have not done this other than they want to be "The underdog taking on the faceless corporation", just dont advertise them as Shoulderpads to Fit Sci Fi 28mm Figures.
We would still all know what they were and were meant for but GW could do nothing if worded as such.

If i was the judge sitting on that particular case its the first question i would ask and you sure as hell better have a great answer.

As i said i have only skimmed through the thread and looked at the website and i am basing my comments on that alone.

Ps..You do some nice products.

GBDarkAngel wrote:Ive only read some of this thread as its a lot of reading.
I have also looked at Chapterhouses Website and the products they offer.

Their products are challenging GW's trademarks and Chapterhouse are obviously well aware of that.
In the end this all comes down to word play.
Chapterhouse advertise lets say Shoulder Pads compatible with Space Marines, now that is a direct infringement and challenge to GW.
However and i honestly can see no reason why Chapterhouse have not done this other than they want to be "The underdog taking on the faceless corporation", just dont advertise them as Shoulderpads to Fit Sci Fi 28mm Figures.
We would still all know what they were and were meant for but GW could do nothing if worded as such.

If i was the judge sitting on that particular case its the first question i would ask and you sure as hell better have a great answer.

As i said i have only skimmed through the thread and looked at the website and i am basing my comments on that alone.

Ps..You do some nice products.

But it isn't clear cut that their use of names constitutes infringement and places them in the wrong. That's the point. The thread is a lot of reading, but it would seem that because GW derive so much of their stuff from other sources anyway and many things are borderline generic in nature... well to sum up CH may not be beyond reason in using GW names as long as they are careful in other regards. If they claimed to be sanctioned by GW or were seeking to confuse the customer into thinking they were actual GW products they would be in deep water. But mere use of names, it's very grey. Loads of people do aftermarket parts, CH simply calling a spade a spade doesn't necessarily make it direct infringement, no one can call that until the outcome of a case. I imagine a lot of people didn't think it would get as far as this, and it may not go all the way either, because it's fairly common for these things to be settled without pushing all the way through. That's the reason that there aren't a lot of previous cases where people can draw valid comparisons.

GBDarkAngel wrote:Ive only read some of this thread as its a lot of reading.
I have also looked at Chapterhouses Website and the products they offer.

Their products are challenging GW's trademarks and Chapterhouse are obviously well aware of that.
In the end this all comes down to word play.
Chapterhouse advertise lets say Shoulder Pads compatible with Space Marines, now that is a direct infringement and challenge to GW.
However and i honestly can see no reason why Chapterhouse have not done this other than they want to be "The underdog taking on the faceless corporation", just dont advertise them as Shoulderpads to Fit Sci Fi 28mm Figures.
We would still all know what they were and were meant for but GW could do nothing if worded as such.

If i was the judge sitting on that particular case its the first question i would ask and you sure as hell better have a great answer.

As i said i have only skimmed through the thread and looked at the website and i am basing my comments on that alone.

Ps..You do some nice products.

And your law degree is from where? Otherwise yeah you have an opinion....

In the US individuls and companies have a right to fair use, in using a trademark of another company when it is necessary to the description of a product, or to make comparisons. The first is what CH attempted to do, utilize a legal right as used by many compaies in many other industries. To say GW is right in its actions just because of this aspect of what CH has done, ignores established practices and allows GW an overly broad and exclusive control that far out reaches most companies.

Mad4Minis wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
It is interesting that the English word and meaning differ from the Legal meaning.

Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

agnosto wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

Chicago = Mos Eisley?

Crap.
Now, we're going to get a whole thread full of the next Dakka meme:
CHS shot first.

Kilkrazy wrote:What if Paulson's lawyers reply and ask questions?

Paulson doesn't have a lawyer. Didn't have the luck of a pro bono one. He tries to defend himself.
Edit: Oops: haven't seen today's update by weeble1000.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if Paulson's lawyers reply and ask questions?

Paulson doesn't have a lawyer. Didn't have the luck of a pro bono one. He tries to defend himself.

I think you skipped a page on your read through, reported on page 21 that Paulson has retained the services of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, a large, Chicago based firm specializing in IP litigation.

Honestly, I'm not sure how the combined suit against Paulson survived the first filing, when I'm almost sure I read in one of the pages on this topic that even CHS claimed that Paulson had no part in the Walker design that GW claims he did. I suspect GW's motive in it was to try to kill two birds with one stone though. By naming an uninvolved competitor in the same suit, they perhaps sought to make both CHS and Paulson financially unable to continue operations while only having any "evidence" against CHS?

My only take on Paulson's representation is as follows: whatever counterclaims CHS might have for malicious litigation, etc., Paulson in many ways has a stronger claim. GW's atorneys either didn't do their (very simple) homework to establish the ownership interests of CHS, or they did, and ignored it. Either way, I think it is fair to say, based on the initial filings so far (as well as internet rumor and hearsay...which we all know to always be true and accurate ), that Paulson has been added in this suit incorrectly. It was possibly done so as not to have to face a court and/or jury in TX, using Paulson's residency in IL to establish venue there. (This is all assuming that GW does not have a previously unknown smoking gun or a proverbial rabbit to pull out of a hat.)

This firm might have taken this case because it will get to see its name attached to a potentially precedent setting case. And too, it might see an easy mark with a counterclaim.

weeble1000 wrote:John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
...
The case just got a little more interesting.

From my understanding of the case, Paulson never should have been joined as a defendant. GW would be wise to drop him quickly, given that they will have to respond to all discovery requests in duplicate.

Also:

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

the proper term is wretched, not retched.

Eldanar wrote:My only take on Paulson's representation is as follows: whatever counterclaims CHS might have for malicious litigation, etc., Paulson in many ways has a stronger claim. GW's atorneys either didn't do their (very simple) homework to establish the ownership interests of CHS, or they did, and ignored it. Either way, I think it is fair to say, based on the initial filings so far (as well as internet rumor and hearsay...which we all know to always be true and accurate ), that Paulson has been added in this suit incorrectly. It was possibly done so as not to have to face a court and/or jury in TX, using Paulson's residency in IL to establish venue there. (This is all assuming that GW does not have a previously unknown smoking gun or a proverbial rabbit to pull out of a hat.)

This firm might have taken this case because it will get to see its name attached to a potentially precedent setting case. And too, it might see an easy mark with a counterclaim.

That's pretty much my take on it, Eldanar. I expect that McAndews, Held & Malloy will echo Winston and Strawn's actions thus far, including a motion to dismiss based on lack of specificity and similar counterclaims. Winston and Strawn have already taken the ball and run with it, and it's relatively simple for McAndrews, Held & Malloy to follow suit. I wouldn't be surprised if Paulson went to the LCA or some similar organization. Winston and Strawn was likely not the only firm interested in taking on the case for Chapterhouse, so much of the legwork in finding pro-bono support for Paulson was probably already done. I know that at least one other major law firm, not involved in the case, was interested in representing the defendants.

weeble1000 wrote:I know that at least one other major law firm, not involved in the case, was interested in representing the defendants.

I don't doubt you, Weeble. You've spoken well on this topic from the beginning, but would it be pushing it too far to ask how you know this?

When two or more legal firms are both interested in injecting themselves into a case in this fashion, is there a certain amount of client-schmoozing to do? Or is there a more above-board way of handling it? Is it just a case of representatives from firms speaking to the potential client and saying "We're best for you in this case because of X, Y and Z".

Tantras wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:I know that at least one other major law firm, not involved in the case, was interested in representing the defendants.

I don't doubt you, Weeble. You've spoken well on this topic from the beginning, but would it be pushing it too far to ask how you know this?

When two or more legal firms are both interested in injecting themselves into a case in this fashion, is there a certain amount of client-schmoozing to do? Or is there a more above-board way of handling it? Is it just a case of representatives from firms speaking to the potential client and saying "We're best for you in this case because of X, Y and Z".

This case presents many interesting legal questions. Quite naturally, interesting legal issues come up when one is talking with attorneys. In personal conversations, attorneys from law firms other than those currently involved in the case have at one point expressed interest in being involved in this case due to the compelling nature of the legal issues. For obvious reasons, it ins't cool for me to go naming names. The only important point is that there are interesting legal issues here and it isn't therefore surprising to me that more than one major law firm is involved in representing the defendants.

I'm no legal expert my any means but how is this different/similar to the thousands (millions?) of websites and stores that sell aftermarket car parts with ford and chevy logos plastered all over them?

You don't see "exhaust system for 2dr sports car with wheelbase of XXX' its "exhaust system for 98-02 ford mustang"

wwwZugZugorc wrote:I'm no legal expert my any means but how is this different/similar to the thousands (millions?) of websites and stores that sell aftermarket car parts with ford and chevy logos plastered all over them?

You don't see "exhaust system for 2dr sports car with wheelbase of XXX' its "exhaust system for 98-02 ford mustang"

That's one of the legal issues I find interesting: are "after market" parts for individual sculptures allowable, under the copyright system in the US?

Question for the legal minds - how enforceable are look&feel? I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago where Harley sued another bike manufacturer over a violation of a 'trademarked sound'. Possibly another where they claimed that the other bike manufacturer had made deliberate design decisions in order to look like a harley. I don't remember how either of these ended.

Do they need to trademark every element of their designs in order to be protected? For example, we can all recognize a GW lascannon, it has a distinct profile. But do the courts recognize that, or is it just a space laser to them? We all know that meltaguns have little melta supply tanks on them and cylindrical barrels with either slots or holes in them - and Chapterhouse's combi-meltas feature both of these design elements. Is that protected, or does it also fall under 'generic sci-fi gun'?

Redbeard wrote:Question for the legal minds - how enforceable are look&feel? I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago where Harley sued another bike manufacturer over a violation of a 'trademarked sound'. Possibly another where they claimed that the other bike manufacturer had made deliberate design decisions in order to look like a harley. I don't remember how either of these ended.

Do they need to trademark every element of their designs in order to be protected? For example, we can all recognize a GW lascannon, it has a distinct profile. But do the courts recognize that, or is it just a space laser to them? We all know that meltaguns have little melta supply tanks on them and cylindrical barrels with either slots or holes in them - and Chapterhouse's combi-meltas feature both of these design elements. Is that protected, or does it also fall under 'generic sci-fi gun'?

You're mixing a couple of issues in there.
1) Trademarks. These are used to indicate the origin of a product, such that you know if you're buying a Space Marine, it's from GW. Trademarks don't have to be registered (most states still have common-law trademark protection), but if you want to invoke the Federal protections, you need to register.

2) Trade Dress ("Look and feel"). This tends to be a totality of the experience issue - to over-simplify one of the classic cases on trade dress, just because you have a pinata in your Mexican restaurant, doesn't mean you're infringing on the trade dress of another Mexican restaurant. The entire appearance of a Space Marine might be protectable under a trade dress theory; I have serious doubts whether a shoulder pad could be. You don't have to register trade dress (and aside from protecting individual elements of your trade dress as trademarks, there's really no way to do so).

3) Copyright. Individual sculptures are protected under copyright. Whether a single portion of a sculpture (e.g., a meltagun) is protectable in its own right as a separate sculpture...I couldn't guess at the moment.

Redbeard wrote:Question for the legal minds - how enforceable are look&feel? I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago where Harley sued another bike manufacturer over a violation of a 'trademarked sound'. Possibly another where they claimed that the other bike manufacturer had made deliberate design decisions in order to look like a harley. I don't remember how either of these ended.

Do they need to trademark every element of their designs in order to be protected? For example, we can all recognize a GW lascannon, it has a distinct profile. But do the courts recognize that, or is it just a space laser to them? We all know that meltaguns have little melta supply tanks on them and cylindrical barrels with either slots or holes in them - and Chapterhouse's combi-meltas feature both of these design elements. Is that protected, or does it also fall under 'generic sci-fi gun'?

Harley lost.

Janthkin wrote:

wwwZugZugorc wrote:I'm no legal expert my any means but how is this different/similar to the thousands (millions?) of websites and stores that sell aftermarket car parts with ford and chevy logos plastered all over them?

You don't see "exhaust system for 2dr sports car with wheelbase of XXX' its "exhaust system for 98-02 ford mustang"

That's one of the legal issues I find interesting: are "after market" parts for individual sculptures allowable, under the copyright system in the US?

I have a feeling that's going to be the focus of the legal proceedings, because that's really (IMHO) what Chapterhouse is doing. "Buy your GW X and slap our part Y on it."

GW says "No". CHS says "yes". And, all the guys out of GW legal reach say "we don't care".

I really, really hope CHS will win this one and give GW a slap

Just for you boys.

biccat wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

the proper term is wretched, not retched.

Maybe after all those all-nighters pulling together a case the cold pizza and noodles fought back!

Cheers

Andrew

PS, I know that there's nothing more that we can know at the moment, but the suspense. Weeble, where's our update!!!!! (please)

A

Whens the update due ?

agnosto wrote:

Redbeard wrote:How is running off an extra copy doubling workload or cost? It's an extra few dollars for copies and postage at most. Making a copy might take the office staff a few minutes. It's hardly any extra work at all for the attorney, I would imagine, and I'm sure they deal with this sort of thing regularly.

You've never worked for or hired an attorney, have you? 4 words, charge by the hour. By the time GW sees the bill, the time taken to communicate with the defending counsel's office, consult with the attorneys there and extra filing charges and fees associated with paperwork costs.... yeah; not cheap but hardly sufficient to break GW's bank.

The lawyers are going to be getting paid anyway; I'm sure GWS has a permanent legal department, yes?

They probably have a small department on staff who will retain specialists for specific work.

They do and indeed and have been advertising for IP lawyers in the last week.

For those that may be in need of an opportunity - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=5300001a§ion=community&aId=4300004a