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.

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:lol?

One law firm "stood in line" to defend Chapterhouse pro bono. More likely than not, it's because they're a firm that specializes in IP law.

Well, there were more than one, Kan, given that Paulson Games managed to get a second law firm of roughly the same size to defend them.

I also recall (though I'm not going quote-hunting) that one of the law-types on this thread mentioned that multiple firms wanted to be involved in this. It's anecdotal evidence, but more evidence than there has been for your view.

Lol. Not in Kan's opinion. Have you seen how emotionally vested his is in the fluff threads?

I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.

I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.

Bad news.

I expect the GTs will loose much in player turn out.

Cottonjaw wrote:I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.
I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.
Bad news.

Always difficult to predict how restrictive regimes in decline like GW react on pressure. Current decisions seem to indicate that the management snapped and now openly fights reality to the death. But GW left Chapterhouse no choice but to end GW's omnipotency dreams.

Are we predicting cyanide and bullets in the GW Bunker?
If so can we draw lots to administer the "last rites" please?
I do hope my name is drawn.

I believe there are three law firms involved; GW's, Chapter House's and Paulson's. The latter two are working Pro Bono Publico.

Cottonjaw wrote:I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.

I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.

Bad news.

No. That would put a stake right in the heart of tournament Warhams. That's a great thing. Thaat's what we need to get the game back to "fun" and no :life validation."

Alpharius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Where are you getting this from?

From all of the descriptions I've read from Moorcock, and when you look at all the variations used by GW...

I think it is REALLY hard to say that GW got to their version of the 8 pointed star of Chaos without being HEAVILY influenced by Moorcock's version.

Also, "fun fact' (and variations thereof) is right up there with 'pro-tip' for phrases almost guaranteed to come across in a negative sense and as such, really not something to use in polite discussion

More to the point at least one White Dwarf article written by senior designers at GW openly admits this to be the case. It was one of the anniversary issues, looking back at GW's history, Issue 300 perhaps.

I do have one question that I would like to ask, but it is a bit OT, obviously other manufacturers are watching this case, and hopefully this thread as well, do you think that they will change their product names if CHS wins?

Cheers

Andrew

I think it will depend on the ruling and where the company is based. I do think that if CHS wins, there will be many counter-suits depending on the IP laws in various countries.

If CHS wins, I know for a fact, two different people that are really good sculptors that will be launching their own 3-party bits/sculpt shops here in the US.

AndrewC wrote:I do have one question that I would like to ask, but it is a bit OT, obviously other manufacturers are watching this case, and hopefully this thread as well, do you think that they will change their product names if CHS wins?

Cheers

Andrew

I think if they win you'll see more 3rd party models and advertising as what they are supposed to be. instead of "human space gladiator team" you'll actually see it advertised as space marines tac squad. same for "orc warrior" to ork boyz

Xelkireth wrote:I think it will depend on the ruling and where the company is based. I do think that if CHS wins, there will be many counter-suits depending on the IP laws in various countries.

If CHS wins, I know for a fact, two different people that are really good sculptors that will be launching their own 3-party bits/sculpt shops here in the US.

i welcome more models and in the US once there is precidence it'll be hard for things to change in the US meaning they will likely have to lower prices to coompete here with other modelrs and I can see it also bringing in mroe high end models with much mroe detail. I think it'd be good for the hobby and make it more popular if prices were more reasonable ( i could have never spent this much money on the hobby as a teen which is why i wrote it of fin highschool, had it been better priced who knows how much i'd have spent by now on gw products and how many armies I'd have.

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:lol?

One law firm "stood in line" to defend Chapterhouse pro bono. More likely than not, it's because they're a firm that specializes in IP law.

Well, there were more than one, Kan, given that Paulson Games managed to get a second law firm of roughly the same size to defend them.

I also recall (though I'm not going quote-hunting) that one of the law-types on this thread mentioned that multiple firms wanted to be involved in this. It's anecdotal evidence, but more evidence than there has been for your view.

*shrug* If you say so. I'm having a hard time believing that there were a bunch of firms waiting for Chapterhouse/Paulson to pick them.

Kanluwen wrote:*shrug* If you say so. I'm having a hard time believing that there were a bunch of firms waiting for Chapterhouse/Paulson to pick them.

You're underestimating what a boon it is for a lawfirm to be involved in a case that sets a legal precedent. Not to mention the $ a counter-suit will bring when involving a largish corporation.

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:*shrug* If you say so. I'm having a hard time believing that there were a bunch of firms waiting for Chapterhouse/Paulson to pick them.

You're underestimating what a boon it is for a lawfirm to be involved in a case that sets a legal precedent. Not to mention the $ a counter-suit will bring when involving a largish corporation.

True enough.

People do not need to jump the gun...a federal district court decision, even well written and with good analysis does not set a binding precedent on other cases that may be potentially brought. GW could lose this case and turn around the next day and bring a similar suit against another manufacturer.

All a district court case does is set up a rebuttable presumption over a specific application of the law to a specific set of facts. It is precedential, but it is not a binding precedent, meaning other co-equal courts can ignore it or distinguish it somehow. District courts, time and time again, simply ignore even appellate and supreme court precedents, much less other district court decisions, merely by claiming that there is a slight difference in the fact situation to a new case, and arguing the law should be applied differently.

If GW loses, probably all it will do is make them a little more circumspect about how they use their muscle in future legal matters; and it will probably make their legal team start looking for a better fact situation in front of a different district court judge where they then might get a more favorable result. This is even assuming that all of the future 3d party start ups can make it through the intitial expenses of legal proceedings. Not everyone is going to be able to get pro bono representation.

Eldanar, wells said.

If nothing else, GW representation will probably be more careful in preparing their legal actions and the wording of the complaints. I would think so anyway.

Cottonjaw wrote:I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.

I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.

Bad news.

GW doesn't really run any GT's in the USA anymore. I really doubt that GW could force any of the independents like Adepticon to enforce a GW product only rule.

G00fySmiley wrote:

AndrewC wrote:I do have one question that I would like to ask, but it is a bit OT, obviously other manufacturers are watching this case, and hopefully this thread as well, do you think that they will change their product names if CHS wins?

Cheers

Andrew

I think if they win you'll see more 3rd party models and advertising as what they are supposed to be. instead of "human space gladiator team" you'll actually see it advertised as space marines tac squad. same for "orc warrior" to ork boyz

I think that is only partially the case. I don't believe that Chapterhouse is going to be able to set a precedent for replacement sculpts- those will still need to be named in some generic kind of way.

However, what you won't see anymore is "Shoulderpads for Sci-fi Vikings" but rather you'll see "Shoulderpads for Space Wolves."

Like Doomseer rather than Farseer?

Yeah,if they win, 3rd parties still can't name their products using GW specific names. What they CAN do is use GW products in descriptions. To include photos.

I'd kind of like to see this case get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Something about arguing the right to make little plastic toy soldiers in the supreme court makes me giggle

ironicsilence wrote:I'd kind of like to see this case get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Something about arguing the right to make little plastic toy soldiers in the supreme court makes me giggle

It's unlikely that the USSC would actually consent to hear the case.

Not even a Battlefoam case? *groan*

Justr as well. The recent price hike was to pay for the lawyers. If it went all the way to the Supreme Court you'll be looking at $50 for a box of Tactical Marines!

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

I can confirm the fact I have written permission from Mr. Moorcock on use of his Chaos Symbol.

OT: That is way cool!

Personal contact with and Permission from the man himself to use the symbol?

Awesome!

So is there any actual updates to what's going on?

SickSix wrote:Yeah,if they win, 3rd parties still can't name their products using GW specific names. What they CAN do is use GW products in descriptions. To include photos.

This may be of interest to a few people ;P Anyone fancy registering Dark Angels?


Also, for fun and games try entering a few names on this site for an enlightening look at just what is and isn't trademarked. Let's just say I suddenly feel like releasing a line of Ultramarine bases

Or Adeptus Mechanicus figures.

Bummer, Dark Angels is stil live in the US. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:tuei6c.2.23

Thought Adeptus Titanicus is dead and wide open.

agnosto wrote:Thought Adeptus Titanicus is dead and wide open.

Please do not equate "dead trademark" with "wide open." The US & the UK have common law protections on trademarks as well, and many countries have broader unfair competition laws designed to prevent customer confusion, e.g., by using a mark which might mislead a consumer into believing a product is from one company, when it is not.

Chapterhouse wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

I can confirm the fact I have written permission from Mr. Moorcock on use of his Chaos Symbol.

Being sued for trademark infringement -$125,000.00

Being sued by a company that is infringing on a well known authors IP, while you have permission and they don't......- Priceless