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.

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.

Shove that up GW's pipe and tell 'em to smoke it!

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.

Are you definitely using his on your range of Moorcock inspired space soldier components?

Seems like just the sort of things that the legal types will have a great time arguing over.

GW Lawyers: Your honor, it is clear that Chapterhouse is not using a Moorcock inspired Chaos Star on their items. It's obvious that theirs are stolen from Games Workshop.

Judge: How can you tell?

GW Lawyers: Well, sir, it looks exactly like the version WE used when WE stole it from Moorco... err... Can I object to my own statement?

Eric

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.

I was waiting for someone to do something like this. I hate 'folklore theft' and IP piracy.

Reminds me of when swordguys theae group asked the Tolkien Estate to intervene over GW's objection to the theatre troupe using the word Eldar in a production of stories from the Silmarillion. GW backed down.

I strongly suspect that GW obtained these trademarks by deception, informing trademark authorities that the IP was their own when they damn well know different.

WarMill wrote:

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

Generally speaking, in the US, trademark rights arise by use, not by filing. That makes the US different from most other countries. You can have an unregistered trademark, but not without some use. In that case, you have many of the same rights as those who have registered their trademarks. However, an unregistered TM would typically be one that you simply had never filed a TM application for at the Patent and Trademark Office. If you have a bona fide intent to use a particular trademark, but it has not yet been used, you can file a TM application with the PTO to register that mark.

Now, if you look at the complaint, from what I've hard on other forums, many of the alleged marks are both unregistered and have never been"in use," i.e. had a product sold under that mark.

Orlanth wrote:I strongly suspect that GW obtained these trademarks by deception, informing trademark authorities that the IP was their own when they damn well know different.

They *know* different? Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. GW don't know their own history; as far as they're concerned, they ARE the hobby, remember? All their IP came from their own creative genius, back in the dawn of time, or else is actually true. Moorcock, Tolkien, Frank Herbert, Pat Mills, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Bob Tait, A. N. Etruscan (inventor of Roman Numerals) and A. N. South African Homo sapiens sapiens, mitochondrial haplogroup L3 (inventor of the arrow) were all plagiarists.

Ian Sturrock wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I strongly suspect that GW obtained these trademarks by deception, informing trademark authorities that the IP was their own when they damn well know different.

They *know* different? Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. GW don't know their own history; as far as they're concerned, they ARE the hobby, remember? All their IP came from their own creative genius, back in the dawn of time, or else is actually true. Moorcock, Tolkien, Frank Herbert, Pat Mills, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Bob Tait, A. N. Etruscan (inventor of Roman Numerals) and A. N. South African Homo sapiens sapiens, mitochondrial haplogroup L3 (inventor of the arrow) were all plagiarists.

this might get signatured pure win

Kilkrazy, as much as it pains me to disagree with a Japanese girl (you are female, right? I just assumed you are, judging by your picture) I will say that Games Workshop has every right to sue Chapterhouse. Chapterhouse are making a living off of someone else's intellectual property. I fear you may be suffering from "Games Workshop is a big company, so they must be wrong" syndrome.

No offence intended by the whole Japanese thing, by the way. I just find Japanese girls very beautiful. Take it as a compliment...if you are female.

Squigsquasher, I'm not certain you understand exactly how your post came out.
The following is meant with NO smart-assery but, definitely, a little playful sarcasm.
--------------------------
As much as it pains me to disagree with a winged Hive Tyrant Lawyer (you are a winged Hive Tyrant Lawyer, right? I just assumed you are, judging by your picture and the facts you stated in your post) I will say that I'm pleased to see another lawyer in the thread sharing his knowledge. So many people have been just laymen, ascribing "fact" to their opinions lately.
No offense intended by the whole Tyranid thing, by the way. I just find Winged Hive Tyrants scary to disagree with. Take it as a compliment... if you are some other sort of Tyranid.
Also, if you're not a lawyer, I fear you may be suffering from the "I have an opinion I think is right. Therefore, it must be!" syndrome
--------------------------
Now, again, in all seriousness... I admit to poking a little playful fun at your expense. I LITERALLY meant no insult by it, though.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:Now, again, in all seriousness... I admit to poking a little playful fun at your expense. I LITERALLY meant no insult by it, though.

Since you're obviously a (big blue) troll, I find this hard to believe.



Anyway, Squidsmasher, they do have a right to sue, but (in my opinion) proceeding to a lawsuit in this case was a mistake. Until Chapterhouse is directly competing (making direct knockoffs) with GW, their derivative works increase the value of GW.

Want to use Chaperhouse's Tervigon kit? Buy a carnifex.
Want to use Chapterhouse's SM shoulderpads? Buy a box of space marines.

With the exception of the recent NearObserver (which is totally not a Farseer, and isn't part of the suit anyway), CH added value to GW by requiring people to buy GW stuff to use CH products.

please can we just ignore the post ^^
flirting with Mods is usually okay I guess but don't wish to see the same tired arguements about who is right or wrong hashed out all over again.

Thank you

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:please can we just ignore the post ^^
flirting with Mods is usually okay I guess but don't wish to see the same tired arguements about who is right or wrong hashed out all over again.

Thank you

+1 Can the mods just delete off topic posts and insults. This is to important to be derailed

Squigsquasher wrote:Kilkrazy, as much as it pains me to disagree with a Japanese girl (you are female, right? I just assumed you are, judging by your picture) I will say that Games Workshop has every right to sue Chapterhouse. Chapterhouse are making a living off of someone else's intellectual property. I fear you may be suffering from "Games Workshop is a big company, so they must be wrong" syndrome.

No offence intended by the whole Japanese thing, by the way. I just find Japanese girls very beautiful. Take it as a compliment...if you are female.

I think he likes you KK.

Maybe I should hook you up at a PD? Blind dating and all that...

Ian Sturrock wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I strongly suspect that GW obtained these trademarks by deception, informing trademark authorities that the IP was their own when they damn well know different.

They *know* different? Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. GW don't know their own history; as far as they're concerned, they ARE the hobby, remember?

Not relevant or defendable. they already have commited to print in their own magazine admissions that the Chaos symboloy was copied from Moorcock.

You cannot copyright and eight pointed star, its a geometric symbol. However an eight pointed star made of arrowheads symbolising Chaos, thats a trademark. GW agrees because they made it their trademark.

Ian Sturrock wrote:
All their IP came from their own creative genius, back in the dawn of time, or else is actually true. Moorcock, Tolkien, Frank Herbert, Pat Mills, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Bob Tait, A. N. Etruscan (inventor of Roman Numerals) and A. N. South African Homo sapiens sapiens, mitochondrial haplogroup L3 (inventor of the arrow) were all plagiarists.

No, this explains why specificity is needed, hence the thread.

GW's plagiarism of Moorcock is a specific complaint. GW's complaint over use of the Chaos Star is also a specific complaint, but one countered by specific permission from the estate of Moorcock.

Other than the CHS claim that Moorcock has given his express permission to use 'the star', is there any other account that anybody has seen of his feelings one way or the other about GW using it? Does he actually care, as far as anybody knows?

I'm a bit tired, so I'll try and say things that hopefully somebody can form into a coherant point (thanks in advance):

I haven't seen anything relating to Moorcock defending his IP on 'the star', and I have looked, albeit not exhaustively. If he doesn't care or isn't able/willing to defend this, does that not damage his legal posession of the IP for 'the star' - by the same reasoning that GW so aggressively hunt down people associating themselves with GW-related products/IP?

If that is the case, and Moorcock's posession of the IP of the star is damaged because he hasn't defended it, is it relevant that CHS allegedly have his written permission to use it?

Ketara wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Kilkrazy, as much as it pains me to disagree with a Japanese girl (you are female, right? I just assumed you are, judging by your picture) I will say that Games Workshop has every right to sue Chapterhouse. Chapterhouse are making a living off of someone else's intellectual property. I fear you may be suffering from "Games Workshop is a big company, so they must be wrong" syndrome.

No offence intended by the whole Japanese thing, by the way. I just find Japanese girls very beautiful. Take it as a compliment...if you are female.

I think he likes you KK.

Maybe I should hook you up at a PD? Blind dating and all that...

Squiqsmasher would be very lucky to have him!

Tantras wrote:Other than the CHS claim that Moorcock has given his express permission to use 'the star', is there any other account that anybody has seen of his feelings one way or the other about GW using it? Does he actually care, as far as anybody knows?

I'm a bit tired, so I'll try and say things that hopefully somebody can form into a coherant point (thanks in advance):

I haven't seen anything relating to Moorcock defending his IP on 'the star', and I have looked, albeit not exhaustively. If he doesn't care or isn't able/willing to defend this, does that not damage his legal posession of the IP for 'the star' - by the same reasoning that GW so aggressively hunt down people associating themselves with GW-related products/IP?

If that is the case, and Moorcock's posession of the IP of the star is damaged because he hasn't defended it, is it relevant that CHS allegedly have his written permission to use it?

He has had it pointed out to him. His reaction is to shrug and carry on with his life. What does he have to gain from the hassle of suing? I don't know if he does have a case but either way just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Tantras wrote:Other than the CHS claim that Moorcock has given his express permission to use 'the star', is there any other account that anybody has seen of his feelings one way or the other about GW using it? Does he actually care, as far as anybody knows?

I'm a bit tired, so I'll try and say things that hopefully somebody can form into a coherant point (thanks in advance):

I haven't seen anything relating to Moorcock defending his IP on 'the star', and I have looked, albeit not exhaustively. If he doesn't care or isn't able/willing to defend this, does that not damage his legal posession of the IP for 'the star' - by the same reasoning that GW so aggressively hunt down people associating themselves with GW-related products/IP?

If that is the case, and Moorcock's posession of the IP of the star is damaged because he hasn't defended it, is it relevant that CHS allegedly have his written permission to use it?

He has had it pointed out to him. His reaction is to shrug and carry on with his life. What does he have to gain from the hassle of suing? I don't know if he does have a case but either way just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I couldn't agree more, but as I said, doesn't this attitude damage his ownership of his IP? Isn't that why GW so vehemently defend their IP?

You can lose a trademark by not defending it.

I don't believe you lose copyright in your works because you don't defend it. Copyright is an inherent right.

The issue with the Chaos Star is that Moorcock invented the general idea of Chaos as represented in modern fantasy fiction. GW haven't directly copied his characters and prose, they just used the basic idea. There is no Knight of the Swords in 40K.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Tantras wrote:Other than the CHS claim that Moorcock has given his express permission to use 'the star', is there any other account that anybody has seen of his feelings one way or the other about GW using it? Does he actually care, as far as anybody knows?

I'm a bit tired, so I'll try and say things that hopefully somebody can form into a coherant point (thanks in advance):

I haven't seen anything relating to Moorcock defending his IP on 'the star', and I have looked, albeit not exhaustively. If he doesn't care or isn't able/willing to defend this, does that not damage his legal posession of the IP for 'the star' - by the same reasoning that GW so aggressively hunt down people associating themselves with GW-related products/IP?

If that is the case, and Moorcock's posession of the IP of the star is damaged because he hasn't defended it, is it relevant that CHS allegedly have his written permission to use it?

He has had it pointed out to him. His reaction is to shrug and carry on with his life. What does he have to gain from the hassle of suing? I don't know if he does have a case but either way just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Moorcock didnt defend his copyright, however while that prevents him from having th Chaos star becoming generic after a few years of failure to defend it it does not subsequently give GW the right to trademark it.

Moorcock can still give permission to use the Chaos Star that GW cannot counternance.

The real question is: did GW deceive copyright agencies when it registered the Chaos star as its own trademark? As it can been proven that GW copied the Chaos Star it can be infered that when they claimed trademark they were willfully deceiving the copyright agencies by claiming exclusive use to IP that did not belong to them. Moorcock cannot prevent GW from using the Chaos Star and lost the ability to do so decades ago. The window to challenge breach of trademark is only a few years, however he can challenge GW's claims to exclusive ownership of the symbol or empower others to do so by giving specific permission as Chapterhouse achieved.

Trademarks and copyrights are different things.

You can trademark a non-copyright term such as Apple. You can't trademark a copyright term such as Sony, unless you have permission.

The difficulty in the scenario is that Moorcock probably doesn't have a copyright on the Chaos Star, since it is just an eight pointed star and a symbol which appeared in earlier works. By the same rule, GW can't copyright it, but they can trademark it.

The question is whether GW can prevent anyone else from using an eight-pointed star as decoration on pieces of armour, banners and the like, by claiming a trademark on the symbol.

Kilkrazy wrote:Trademarks and copyrights are different things.

You can trademark a non-copyright term such as Apple. You can't trademark a copyright term such as Sony, unless you have permission.

The difficulty in the scenario is that Moorcock probably doesn't have a copyright on the Chaos Star, since it is just an eight pointed star and a symbol which appeared in earlier works. By the same rule, GW can't copyright it, but they can trademark it.

The question is whether GW can prevent anyone else from using an eight-pointed star as decoration on pieces of armour, banners and the like, by claiming a trademark on the symbol.

The problem is that while you can indeed trademark such icons and terms you cannot trademark them in areas connected to someone elses IP. This is why Apple couldnt use the trademark apple in relation to their music technology because of Apple studios, so we get iPod instead.

GW trademarked an eight pointed star, not a problem, in relation to fantasy chaos, plagiarism and IP theft.

Any news on case yet

loki old fart wrote:Any news on case yet

Dont know but Kilkrazy is still a damn nice jap gal

NAVARRO wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Any news on case yet

Dont know but Kilkrazy is still a damn nice jap gal

He's not bad for an otsubone (おつぼね).

Kilkrazy wrote:You can lose a trademark by not defending it.

I don't believe you lose copyright in your works because you don't defend it. Copyright is an inherent right.

The issue with the Chaos Star is that Moorcock invented the general idea of Chaos as represented in modern fantasy fiction. GW haven't directly copied his characters and prose, they just used the basic idea. There is no Knight of the Swords in 40K.

They did however take the character of the Eternal Champions nemesis (the Fallen one cant remember the name off the top of my head) and made him a character in 4th or 5th ed. Also he wore the armour of damnation from the descriptions .
Then theres the island of dragons rules by an older race than man who once rules the world through their might but are now a civilisation in decline. Oh and the weird lizardmen in the southwest of the planets maps who used aztec type imagary... Oh and ofcourse the exiled dragon prince imrik... And beastmen serving chaos, chaos mutating people, he was a huge influence on the beginning of the warhammer mythology, with aspects just plain being used as was.
Thants all just off the top of my head from one source too. And I'm pretty sure that the arrow design GW trademarked was described in Moorcocks work. But meh, life is full of plagerism....

The arrow design is also in Aleister Crowley's work dating from the 1930s.

Noticed that in a piece I was reading about the Chaos Star that the upright arrow signifies Order and is the opposite of Chaos.

Not familair with Moorcock's writing but did think immediately of the white arrow as seen on SM vehicles.

Kilkrazy wrote:The arrow design is also in Aleister Crowley's work dating from the 1930s.

Fine, make as many eight pointed arrowheaded stars as you wish and trademark them. If they symbolise Chaos then you are treading on the IP of Michael Moorcock.

This is why Apple Computers and Apple studios both existed, the word apple is generic just like a star is. however Apple computer company could not call their new technology related to the music industry apple because of Apple studios. Everything else they did was Apple, until iPod.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The arrow design is also in Aleister Crowley's work dating from the 1930s.

Fine, make as many eight pointed arrowheaded stars as you wish and trademark them. If they symbolise Chaos then you are treading on the IP of Michael Moorcock.

This is why Apple Computers and Apple studios both existed, the word apple is generic just like a star is. however Apple computer company could not call their new technology related to the music industry apple because of Apple studios. Everything else they did was Apple, until iPod.

A slight nit to pick with this.

Trademarks cover what is referred to as a "class of goods." For example, the Apple (computer) trademark covers "computers and computer programs recorded on paper and tape" (among others covered by later registrations).

Apple (music) trademark covers "gramophone records featuring music; pre-recorded audio tape cassettes featuring music; audio compact discs featuring music; pre-recorded video tape cassettes featuring music".

Since the class of goods covered by the computer registration is different than the music registration (lawsuits between the two notwithstanding), both can operate independently.

Switching to the Moorcock/GW case, Moorcock may claim a trademark in the use of the star to sell books while GW can claim a trademark in the use of the star to sell miniatures. Without more, the two wouldn't have any problems.

Note that there's a lot more involved in trademark law, I'm just trying to give a quick overview.