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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ulver wrote:And let's face it, one collector liked them enough to use on his army that GW liked enough to feature in their daily blog.

And let's face it, that was only one bit that was used and what's more it was for an army that was given very little in terms of model support(compared to the Blood Angels or Space Wolves).

See? I can make rationalizations to make my point look good too.

Who convinced you your post looks good?

Your rationalisation of 'little support' is obsolete, as you have previously said that a lack of product does not excuse another company to manufacture and profit from said whole in the market.

"Only one bit?" Out of a catalogue of, what? 100 or so products, that one bit represents 1% of CH's offering, and GW showcased 0.0001% of their customer base (making a very uneducated guess of 1 GW million customers). Maybe, just maybe, that individual touch of a none-too-common part (and more importantly, the reason behind using it) made that army stand out.

Polonius wrote:

brettz123 wrote:

Ulver wrote:
* As the saying goes, opinions are like arseholes...

Actually my grandfather in law had ass cancer and they cut out his donkey-cave so that is a demonstrably wrong statement

So he's walking around with a bag of his own feces. How is that any better?

Ohh it isn't better just that excuses aren't like arseholes...... thats all.

Dysartes wrote:A quick question for you, Polonius, that I don't think I've seen a straight(ish) answer crop up to previously - before asking, I want to be clear that I acknowledge your usual disclaimer about not being my lawyer, etc

In general terms, what impact on a case does inaccuracies on the initial filing usually have?

We've seen a couple of points in the GW that may well be quite inaccurate, and I'm curious as to what effect they may have on the case as a whole.

Little to none. I handled a case when I was private practice, and the plaintiff filed an unjust enrichment claim, which had an expire statute of limitations. I responded with a motion to dimisss based on that, and he got leave from the judge to refile as a breach of contract, which has a longer limit.

You can always amend a complaint without permission before a response is filed, and you can move to amend later. Judges like to see cases decided on the merits, not due to fine print.

brettz123 wrote:

Ulver wrote:
* As the saying goes, opinions are like arseholes...

Actually my grandfather in law had ass cancer and they cut out his donkey-cave so that is a demonstrably wrong statement

First off, sorry to hear that.

Second, it just means he's not allowed an opinion any more

OK, I'll change it: opinions are like orgasms...

But I guess in this case, the judge will dismiss it to a Texas court, as the claims of a connection between CHapterhouse Studio and Paulson Games are obviously nonsense.

Ulver wrote:OK, I'll change it: opinions are like orgasms...
Ulver: bringing science to Internet fora since 2001.

Guess you should change your sig!

Polonius wrote:

Black Fiend wrote:

Polonius wrote:Guys, I think it's telling that Kan keeps arguing with you, but in no way acknowledged that actual case law and material I presented. He's just in it for the fight.

Seriously it sounds like you have a vested interest if you know what I mean.

In what? I'll cop to personal dislike of Kan, and he's posting habits.

I'm also interested in the actual legal merits of the case. If you're insinuating that I'm affiliated with CH or representing them, I can give you my ohio Bar number and you find out that I'm not licensed in Illinois, nor have I filed to appear in front of any federal court.

It's also a pet peeve that people argue these issues in a vacuum of facts.

For all we know he is probably sending you lots of bits. You are a lawyer after all.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Then CH's biggest supporters are full of crap Their statements of "I buy CH's pads because they're cheaper alternatives" just mean "I buy CH's pads because I like my models looking like crap".

Hmm, another of Kanluwen's crap posts
BTW when was the Dark Eldar Battleforce released and what will be the price for the Storm Raven? Was it 35-40$ according to your post?

Hmm, another of Kroothawk's attempts at being clever.

You'll also remember that it was your "source"(aka: person who posted something and you copy/pasted their statement) who pegged the Stormraven at $100.
I withdrew my statement, and actually issued an apology, regarding the Dark Eldar Battleforce being released in November.
But of course, you'll ignore that so you can act like you've got some kind of moral superiority.
And never mind the fact that Goodwin said that "Dark Eldar are getting full support, exactly like every other army receives". Or that there's still a large amount of releases to come for Dark Eldar.

Polonius wrote:I'm also interested in the actual legal merits of the case. If you're insinuating that I'm affiliated with CH or representing them, I can give you my ohio Bar number and you find out that I'm not licensed in Illinois, nor have I filed to appear in front of any federal court.

Anyone who's insinuated that should be smacked upside the head. You've made it very clear, repeatedly, that you have no affiliation with CH or any interest in representing them. You've also made it very clear that you have no formal training in IP law.

It's also a pet peeve that people argue these issues in a vacuum of facts.

Then maybe it's time that this carnival of ridiculousness gets closed and deleted, with discussions about Chapterhouse's lawsuit being put into the list of "no-no" topics?

There will always be a "vacuum of facts" when it comes to things not covered by mainstream media.

Polonius wrote:My initial post included the statutory definition. Either you aren't very skilled at reading comprehension, you posted without reading my entire post, or you posted what you did to be deliberately inflammatory. No matter what, you're not impressing me by claiming I didn't explain it.

No, your initial post included this definition:

"or purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Where does it say "household recognition"? All I see is "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner".

It wasn't until a page later, when you posted:

This is from a district court in Texas, but it cites an earlier case:

"In short, for purposes of § 1125(c), a mark usually will achieve broad-based fame only if a large portion of the general consuming public recognizes that mark. Thane Intern., Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 911 (9th Cir. 2002). In other words, the mark must be a household name. Id."

So no. It wasn't "in your initial post".

I'm discussing the merits of the case. I have a lot of the facts, I have the law. What else do I need? Yes, IP law is murky in that there are a lot of areas not explicitly covered, but as I've shown, there are literally cases already in the area of hobby gaming! I think things are less murky than they were before I did my research.

So you have the exact reasoning as to why GW decided to file a lawsuit now rather than when CH was originally becoming popular? Why Paulson Games was mistakenly included as designing the "Superheavy Assault Walker"?

The overwhelming reaction I'm getting from my research is that anybody that seems to know 100% what will happen is delusional. And that includes you, man. I think that Chapterhouse can mount an effective defense, possibly effective enough to reach a settlement with GW that will allow them to remain in business.

You'll also note that I haven't said "CHAPTERHOUSE WILL BE SHUT DOWN!!!!!".

I've said it's "likely", which is a commonly recognized phrase that makes one assume the speaker is making an inference or prediction.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Polonius is probably the most valuable contributor on this thread.

Good for him. Really. He's gone out of his way to do his research and provide his input.

All you are now doing is to call CH crap time and again.

Then maybe people should stop claiming they're "quality"?

Chapterhouse aren't that cheap IMO, you've been buying GW too long. Tiny parts like shoulder pads and guns are 50p-£1 on the CH site, that's not 'ridiculously cheap' it's probably fair. It's well known that Forgeworld is expensive, they are one of the most costly resin producers I can think of. You can get whole figures for 50p-£1 outside GW, it's only GW plastic kits for instance where figures are commonly £2 a pop or more. GW charges £10 for 10 resin bolters on FW which is more than CH but that doesn't make them "ridiculously cheap"

Those resin bolters are also far exceeding CH's stuff in terms of quality. They're on par with the resin kits I've gotten for 1/35 scale models from companies like Hasegawa or AFV Club Taiwan.

and if they were "crap" then people wouldn't buy them.

Uhhuh. I'm sure. That must be why people will buy grocery store brand cereal rather than "big name" cereals, even if the grocery store brand tastes like crap?

You must not understand what "pennypinchers" are.

Ok I will take your points one at a time:

I'll return the favor.

1. Obviously they did not exist before the book..... thanks for cluing all of us in on that one.

I'll refer you to your statement.

The Iron Snakes are probably fairly popular for one of the successor chapters. They did have a complete book about them by Dan Abnett you know.

Your statement, not unreasonably, makes it seem as though Dan Abnett wrote a book about a previously existing Successor Chapter that was "fairly popular".
That's not the case, and I pointed that fact out.

2. Even if it was a poor seller there still have to be a number of people who would want to build an army like that.

Except just because there's "a number of people who would want to build an army like that" doesn't necessarily mean that they'd make their money back in regards to even limited production runs. Sadly, GW's a business first and foremost which means a lot of that kind of stuff is left by the wayside.

3. GW can make a shoulder pad in a matter of minutes. They don't need to hire a new sculptor to do that it would be easy and cost them nothing. Also there is nothing stopping them from hiring free lancers to do an odd project just because they do not do that doesn't make it unreasonable for them to actually do so.

Sure, they don't need to hire a new sculptor to do it. But they do need to take a sculptor off an existing project to do it. Time is money, after all.
It's quite likely they don't bring in freelancers "to do an odd project" because they have contractual obligations to the sculptors they y'know...actually maintain.

In fact they would save money by your own admission by not having to give these people benefits.

But then they'd also not have total control over what's produced by those sculptors and have to battle them over the designs. It's why Mengil's Manhide Flayers(which were completed in time for the previous Dark Elf army book and not released until like 2005-2006ish) took so long to be released, as Chris Fitzpatrick completed them after leaving the company and GW couldn't touch them until the issues over the designs were hammered out.

4. Several people in this thread have already told you that they and other people they know have and would start a new marine army if specific shoulder pads were available. So there is your proof. Now if your assertion is that 1000 people wouldn't start a new army because of a specific shoulder pad you might have a point but your overly broad assertions are easily provable as incorrect.

That's exactly what my assertion was, considering it was in reference to someone asking why GW didn't bloody mass produce shoulderpads for an obscure Chapter that was from a crummy book that didn't sell well.

Black Fiend wrote:Grasping at straws shows the reality of the situation. I think we all know the outcome. None of the arguments against GW are anything other than emotionally based. Cootbird should wear a gigantic CH Shoulderpad.

Black Fiend wrote:

Polonius wrote:Guys, I think it's telling that Kan keeps arguing with you, but in no way acknowledged that actual case law and material I presented. He's just in it for the fight.

Seriously it sounds like you have a vested interest if you know what I mean.

Black Fiend wrote:Okay all the CH Nazis to the right!! All the GW apologists to the far left. LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE !!!

Black Fiend wrote:For all we know he is probably sending you lots of bits. You are a lawyer after all.

Seeing that half your posts are serious insults, I guess it is time to demand a public apology.

Seeing as you can't let things go, maybe it's time to let the chip off your shoulder.

Black Fiend wrote:For all we know he is probably sending you lots of bits. You are a lawyer after all.

To do what... exactly? Do some half-assed research and then post it on the web?

Also, I hate to say this, but I have a job. I can afford all the CH bits I want. I'm not going to risk my license or my job for some free swag.

Kanluwen wrote:There will always be a "vacuum of facts" when it comes to things not covered by mainstream media.

Sorry? Mainstream media provide facts? Second funniest thing you've said.

That's just naive.

Kanluwen wrote:You must not understand what "pennypinchers" are.

I don't think a penny pincher would even go to CH. A full set of shoulder pads for a ten marine squad would cost at least $20 if not more. So I don't see that as penny pinching by any means, and CH produce sculpts that GW don't so there's also the matter of personal preference. I suppose if a person were to sculpt their own shoulder pad or gun and cast up a load for home use you'd still be whining that they were being cheap instead of buying all the GW kits necessary to get enough studded shoulder pads or whatever.

Ulver wrote:

OK, I'll change it: opinions are like orgasms...

My wife just told me she wants your phone number..... not sure whats up with that..... hmmmmm

I missed this gem.

Kanluwen wrote:

and if they were "crap" then people wouldn't buy them.

Uhhuh. I'm sure. That must be why people will buy grocery store brand cereal rather than "big name" cereals, even if the grocery store brand tastes like crap?

You must not understand what "pennypinchers" are.

SM kits include standard shoulder pads, therefore buying custom shoulder pads is the exact opposite of 'pennypinching' - pennypinchers would make do with the cheapest solution, i.e. not buy any extras.

I know all about pennypinching, I live in Yorkshire. Copper wire was invented here, y'know

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You must not understand what "pennypinchers" are.

I don't think a penny pincher would even go to CH. A full set of shoulder pads for a ten marine squad would cost at least $20 if not more. So I don't see that as penny pinching by any means, and CH produce sculpts that GW don't so there's also the matter of personal preference.

Now by "full set of shoulderpads", I'm guessing you're meaning both the icon bearing shoulderpad and a squad designator shoulderpad, huh?
Really. Who the feth wants sculpted squad designators?

I suppose if a person were to sculpt their own shoulder pad or gun and cast up a load for home use you'd still be whining that they were being cheap instead of buying all the GW kits necessary to get enough studded shoulder pads or whatever.

...
You really did miss my post about "buying bits rather than freehanding or sculpting a relatively simple icon is a form of laziness", huh?

Did some of you ignore the warning posted a while back by...er, me?

There are some attempts at an actual discussion of the subject at hand going on in here.

And there's... other stuff.

So, let me be blunt - being unable to follow the rules of this site AND ignoring warning posted in this thread will earn you a suspension of considerable length.

Thanks!

I penny-pinch, which is one reason I don't go to Chapterhouse. The stuff I could do with, that they make, would be a Doom (got a model of that in progress, using a mix of Tyranid spares, old plastic dinosaur skeleton bits, and various clays/putties -- should look OK), some Ymgarl heads (I've got as far as cutting the fronts of the faces off some stealers...), some Tervigon add-on kits (made my own Tervigons, one of which is just about finished).

If I played a Marine faction other than Dark Angels, though (for which I can buy shoulderpads for a few pence from a bits supplier) I probably would buy from them. If I weren't a pennypincher.

Kanluwen wrote:
Then maybe it's time that this carnival of ridiculousness gets closed and deleted, with discussions about Chapterhouse's lawsuit being put into the list of "no-no" topics?

There will always be a "vacuum of facts" when it comes to things not covered by mainstream media.

Again, not really. We have the complaint, we have access to both GW's and CH's work. We have the law. There are facts available. I'd rather see us discuss what we do know, rather than speculate wildly.

Polonius wrote:My initial post included the statutory definition. Either you aren't very skilled at reading comprehension, you posted without reading my entire post, or you posted what you did to be deliberately inflammatory. No matter what, you're not impressing me by claiming I didn't explain it.

No, your initial post included this definition:

"or purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Where does it say "household recognition"? All I see is "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner".

It wasn't until a page later, when you posted:

This is from a district court in Texas, but it cites an earlier case:

"In short, for purposes of § 1125(c), a mark usually will achieve broad-based fame only if a large portion of the general consuming public recognizes that mark. Thane Intern., Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 911 (9th Cir. 2002). In other words, the mark must be a household name. Id."

So no. It wasn't "in your initial post".

I said the statutory definition was in my initial post, and it was. The explanation about being a house hold name comes from dicta in a later case. The statue does, however, say " a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner." you'd be hard pressed to read the phrase "general consuming public" as anything other than everybody. And I doubt, that you statement of "I dunno about that. You show anyone a picture of a Space Marine model or an image of a Space Marine, period, they'll usually be able to relate it to Games Workshop" is true. Regardless of how I explain the law.

Do you not understand what a statutory definition is? Statutes are actual laws passed by the legislature, in this case 15 USC 1125. These laws are often interpreted by courts, offering more useful legal definition to emerge.

So you have the exact reasoning as to why GW decided to file a lawsuit now rather than when CH was originally becoming popular? Why Paulson Games was mistakenly included as designing the "Superheavy Assault Walker"?

Why do I need to know those things to discuss the merits of the case? No offense man, but I do this for a living. Initial pleadings are usually a lot less fact rich than this one. You can look at the actual claims made, look at the elements of those claims, and see if GW can prove them. That's what legal analysis is.

You'll also note that I haven't said "CHAPTERHOUSE WILL BE SHUT DOWN!!!!!".

I've said it's "likely", which is a commonly recognized phrase that makes one assume the speaker is making an inference or prediction.

OK. Well, I don't know what, if anything, you're basing that prediction on.

Kanluwen wrote:
...
You really did miss my post about "buying bits rather than freehanding or sculpting a relatively simple icon is a form of laziness", huh?

Sculpting every shoulder pad emblem really is a lot of work and more than some people's sculpting skills. You avoided the specific point which was me asking if is it ok for someone to cast up their own shoulder pads? Or is that laziness/being a cheapskate?

Polonius wrote:Little to none. I handled a case when I was private practice, and the plaintiff filed an unjust enrichment claim, which had an expire statute of limitations. I responded with a motion to dimisss based on that, and he got leave from the judge to refile as a breach of contract, which has a longer limit.

You can always amend a complaint without permission before a response is filed, and you can move to amend later. Judges like to see cases decided on the merits, not due to fine print.

Thanks for that, Polonius - it is a little surprising, though, as I'd've thought that it would have had more of an impact than that.

Polonius has, in my opinion, gone above in beyond in terms of researching actual cases potentially related to this one and he's given us his informed opinion (which, remember, is in no way legally binding - if you want a lawyer go out and get one - all this is for entertainment purposes only!) on the subject too.

I'm grateful he's done this - and any attempts to slag off lawyers in general or Polonius specifically will be frowned upon.

This, of course, also goes for any insults hurled at anyone - as per the rules of this site.

If you don't like his conclusions, or anyone else's, fine - DISCUSS them intelligently and all will be well.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Earthbeard wrote:
I'm still utterly amazed that you and others still think no correspondence actually occured before the filing of the suit

You have no evidence to the contrary. Don't go facepalming when you don't have more than your own supposition to go on.

There was NO prior correspondence prior to the release of the C&D carpet bombing of 2009 in relation to IP on fansites.

GW have, prior to this, always used a sledgehammer to open a walnut. There is nothing to suggest they have changed tack now.

I personally think Chapterhouse using the actual GW names for things was asking for trouble and creating 'whole' miniatures also would have eventually brought GW boiling up to the surface to attack. I hope that some kind of accord can be reached out of court or that Chapterhouse can survive this as I believe they provide a service to hobbyists.

GW should definately leave Paulson Games the hell alone, they have taken active steps to respect IP, including stopping the production of the resin space ship miniature over IP concerns regarding Battlefleet Gothic.

Emphasis mine.

Edit - I agree with your other points, but the no prior correspondence thing is just utterly naive at best.

I just want to get a couple of points across:

1.Ford for example does not make tires (as far as im aware), they make no claim to tires and they do not own exclusive rights to make tires.

2.Firestone does make tires, if you decide to make a tire and slap writing across it saying "Firestone" then they will sue you.

3.40K is not a market, 40k is part of the miniatures market

4."Specializing in custom sculpts and bits for Warhammer 40,000 and fantasy" is plastered across the top of chapterhouse's website, this is something GW has issue with

5."Witness "The Doom of Chapterhouse", hehe." irony much? (that model is really going a bit too far)

6.Chapter house would be completely fine if they had made miniatures parts instead of 40k and fantasy parts.

7.If your lawyer really saw no problem with the use of GW names and explicitly saying the stuff was for GW games fire him!

8. I do actually like some stuff form CH just not the spore/ doom models and i've heard the lw and bs are to big (warrior one is tyrant size and tyrant one is too big).

My recommendation is to talk with GW and see what they have problems with and move into selling generic minatures stuff (sorry but some of these icons make it clear what they were intended for)

If you can get out without having to pay GW then take that option unless they are going to far, hire a lawyer who knows about this to help you

I do find CH makes some good stuff unfortunately i think GW's case has merit, it would be sad to lose CH but i do think you will need to lose some of the models.

brettz123 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
They didn't exist before Dan Abnett wrote the book, actually.


See above. The Iron Snake book were also some of the worst sellers in the Black Library line-up, from what I've been led to understand from talking with various authors/BL employees.


GW doesn't pay sculptors to do one product at a time.
They maintain the sculptors on a permanent basis, and also provide the standard benefits that employees of companies would receive.

No, I just see it as an outlying factor that really doesn't play much of a part other than exhibit the laziness inherent in some people in the hobby.
If I were to want to do Iron Snakes bad enough, them lacking shoulderpads wouldn't have stopped me.

Ok I will take your points one at a time:

1. Obviously they did not exist before the book..... thanks for cluing all of us in on that one.

2. Even if it was a poor seller there still have to be a number of people who would want to build an army like that.

3. GW can make a shoulder pad in a matter of minutes. They don't need to hire a new sculptor to do that it would be easy and cost them nothing. Also there is nothing stopping them from hiring free lancers to do an odd project just because they do not do that doesn't make it unreasonable for them to actually do so. In fact they would save money by your own admission by not having to give these people benefits.

4. Several people in this thread have already told you that they and other people they know have and would start a new marine army if specific shoulder pads were available. So there is your proof. Now if your assertion is that 1000 people wouldn't start a new army because of a specific shoulder pad you might have a point but your overly broad assertions are easily provable as incorrect.

Sorry for the correction, but they did exist before the book. They appeared in a couple of issues of the Warhammer Comic, where I believe Petrok (I think is his name) was a young and up and coming Librarian, the tale was being told by his mentor. I'll take my anorak off now

brettz123 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

And what about it? Iron Snakes are so obscure that Wolfstan is really the first person I've heard of who were actually interested in doing them.

Howling Griffons are an "eh" example. Especially considering that they're supposed to be one of the Chapters that are getting Forge World(which is traditionally responsible for the more 'obscure' Chapters or responding to fan demand) infantry shoulderpads and/or a transfer sheet with IA10.


Well I have been interested in doing them for some time. I would love Forge World to do Howling Griffon pads and I would have bought the CH ones by now if I wasn't waiting to see how Forge World handles this. The Iron Snakes are probably fairly popular for one of the successor chapters. They did have a complete book about them by Dan Abnett you know.

They didn't exist before Dan Abnett wrote the book, actually

These are from the the Warhammer 40k Compendium,Printed in 1989.
Kan, would you please stop lying and posting it as fact.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
...
You really did miss my post about "buying bits rather than freehanding or sculpting a relatively simple icon is a form of laziness", huh?

Sculpting every shoulder pad emblem really is a lot of work and more than some people's sculpting skills.

No, really? I never knew that! Thank God you told me!

You avoided the specific point which was me asking if is it ok for someone to cast up their own shoulder pads?

First off: That actually has nothing to do with "laziness". That has to do with legal matters. In my own personal estimation, yes. It's fine for someone to cast up their own shoulderpads provided they don't intend to make a profit off those shoulderpads and do the work themselves.

Or is that laziness/being a cheapskate?

The fact that I said "buying bits rather than freehanding or sculpting a relatively simple icon is a form of laziness" should tell you something about how I feel on the subject.

Also notice I mentioned "freehanding". That's not "sculpting skills", and has nothing whatsoever to do with sculpting.
That's "painting skills".

Both of those are specific skills which are time consuming(which also involve a financial outlay) to practice and perfect.

So you tell me; does it seem that I think either of those options are "lazy" or "cheap"?

Polonius wrote:I said the statutory definition was in my initial post, and it was. The explanation about being a house hold name comes from dicta in a later case. The statue does, however, say " a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner." you'd be hard pressed to read the phrase "general consuming public" as anything other than everybody.

Did I say that the "general consuming public" is "anything other than everybody"?
No. You brought forth the specific of "household name" which appeared from a judge in Texas' notes regarding a later case.

Polonius wrote:And I doubt, that your statement of "I dunno about that. You show anyone a picture of a Space Marine model or an image of a Space Marine, period, they'll usually be able to relate it to Games Workshop" is true. Regardless of how I explain the law.

What does your "explanation of the law" have to do with anything?
I made a statement that is true based upon my experiences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChainswordHeretic wrote:

These are from the the Warhammer 40k Compendium,Printed in 1989.
Kan, would you please stop lying and posting it as fact.

Would you please learn how to actually read a post?
The "book by Dan Abnett" he's referring to is "Brothers of the Snake", which is the first time the Iron Snakes ever appeared in GW lore.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:
Sorry for the correction, but they did exist before the book. They appeared in a couple of issues of the Warhammer Comic, where I believe Petrok (I think is his name) was a young and up and coming Librarian, the tale was being told by his mentor. I'll take my anorak off now

I would love to see that, actually. Abnett always has made it seem as though "Brothers of the Snake" was the first time they'd been mentioned in any real detail.

ChainswordHeretic wrote:These are from the the Warhammer 40k Compendium,Printed in 1989.
Kan, would you please stop lying and posting it as fact.

Psst... He was talking about the Iron Snakes, not the Griffons...

Kanluwen wrote:I'm going off what Insaniak is saying, MGS. He had posted that he recalled a thread where CH actually said that he's received a C&D letter and ignored it.

I actually just said that I thought that I recalled CH having hinted at receiving a C&D.




Meanwhile, hats off to Polonius for his contributions to this discussion. Way above and beyond.

Kan, I think my problem is that I made the assumption that you understand basic legal terminology. I think that assumption was flawed, which is why I didn't understand your confusion.

It's my fault, really. I should have known better than to think that an avid poster in a thread dedicated to a lawsuit would either have, or be interested in gaining, any amount of legal knowledge. My apologies.

Anyone think the true scale kits will make it on sale? I hope they do.

Polonius wrote:Kan, I think my problem is that I made the assumption that you understand basic legal terminology. I think that assumption was flawed, which is why I didn't understand your confusion.

It's okay, I am a bit of an idiot when it comes to legal terminology. Copyright and IP law blows my mind beyond belief, and criminal law is still something I'm perfecting my understanding of.

It's my fault, really. I should have known better than to think that an avid poster in a thread dedicated to a lawsuit would either have, or be interested in gaining, any amount of legal knowledge. My apologies.

Considering most of my posts have been regarding why or why not GW hasn't produced specific items or the similarities between items produced by CH compared to GW, you'd think it was clear that I'm far more interested in the manufacturing aspect and also pointing towards the actual "iconographic" aspect.