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.

skrulnik wrote:If you are arguing that the CH shoulderpads and Farseer are infringing for existing, than the same holds true for Scibor, no matter what name you call the models.

yeah and when have i said that? the point is they're not going around using GW trademarks and you dont see 40k/fantasy iconography slaped all over their mini's (wait "farseer"? whats that?)

Hashshashin wrote:making bits is one thing but when I saw this and other threads (warseer, B&C, etc) I starting cruising the CH website. I have seen some of there stuff before was never thoroughly impressed but hey whatever. As I looked at products they offered I realized that some of these products are kit bashes using GW pieces, then cast and sold as original pieces.

Care to provide examples, Hashshashin?

The pachyderm fields bit was a joke, obviously... I laughed, and don't much care if I was the only one! :p

Gibbsey wrote:well my opinion but yeah CH has definatly sold some product because of its link to GW, and you could also say that yeah GW has lost some sales that people would just convert from GW parts otherwise.

and my opinion is that GW has definitely sold some product because of people buying chapterhouse bits. i've always had a pipe dream of making new rhinos look like my old ones but i'm not going to sculpt the bits myself (they'd look like crap if i did). i'll be buying some of their rhino kits and then i'll have to buy the rhinos to put them on otherwise they're useless bits... rhinos i NEVER would buy otherwise. that's not lost sales.

Polonius wrote:CH used trademarked terms to sell their products. It could be argued that they actually represented their products as being GW products by the use of the trademarks. That is, IMO, the strongest claim GW can make in this case.

I completely agree with you, this is the only claim with significant substance. From the legality of it, is the fact that there is legal basis for even competitors to make fair use of a trade mark. For example if someone wanted to sell a calender depicting only "Ford Mustangs" they can call it a "Ford Mustang Calender" and they can do so without licensing... even if Ford were to sell a "Ford Mustang Calender." That use of name and competing are not enough to claim CH use of GW's trade mark is an unfair one. This hinges more on use of names leading to consumer misidentifying the producer.

So the real question that the court must address is, when you look at CH's website, packaging, and product are they distinguishable enough to the common consumer? That while on face value use of names may blur who is the creator of a product, it is a matter of degrees.

Gibbsey wrote:I think one of the points GW is trying to make is that CH is moving into their IP which is not fair competition, if CH had made the parts sound more generic then that would be fine, but as i've said before i think the doom is what pushed GW. There is no mistaking what that model was intended for and yes it hurts GW current sales, there is a reason why the Doom's entry is listed under the zoan model.

CH will argue that it can use the names of GW trademarks because it is essential to the character of their products... as much as when you buy a computer game and it says "for use with Windows XP." In much the same way that Microsoft makes a word processing program and can't ban another company from marketing their word processing program as compatible with Microsoft's operating system; CH will argue this is exactly the nature of what GW's trying to do.

Yeah here's an example I edited into my last post but thats already a page ago :(

Those two skulls really don't look much alike...

beside the fact that CH skull is slightly deformed possibly due to the casting or if it was a green cast of the bit I am displaying, you can look at the eye sockets especially to see they are very similar, I would argue identical

Even if they were perfectly identical a human skull is not something the can be trademarked or copyrighted.

I'm not looking to get sucked into this BS. I'm casting a vote that this thread be locked.

aka_mythos wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:I think one of the points GW is trying to make is that CH is moving into their IP which is not fair competition, if CH had made the parts sound more generic then that would be fine, but as i've said before i think the doom is what pushed GW. There is no mistaking what that model was intended for and yes it hurts GW current sales, there is a reason why the Doom's entry is listed under the zoan model.

CH will argue that it can use the names of GW trademarks because it is essential to the character of their products... as much as when you buy a computer game and it says "for use with Windows XP." In much the same way that Microsoft makes a word processing program and can't ban another company from marketing their word processing program as compatible with Microsoft's operating system; CH will argue this is exactly the nature of what GW's trying to do.

At the same time though i couldent go out and make a 40k game and sell it withought GW jumping all over me for it. Parts being compatable is not a problem nor is inspiration from GW, the problem is that CH porducts are presented as being 40k/Fantasy parts, also if a design is close enough (doom for example, there is no confusion what this was meant to be) then that could also be a point from GW. Genestealers and Aliens are close but they are different enough, genestealers are definatly a derivitive work (and GW have been acused of ripping of Aliens) but they are definatly a different design.

yeah I'm just saying that that is a direct copy of a GW bit from a sprue, (which I believe have the copyright info on them) recast and sold as an original work.

Thats all I'm saying is that is not ok with me, and I think its legally highly questionable, but whatever just trying to add to the discusion in a positive way

Skull isnt a really good example though because sculls are quite common, you should of gone for the door shape/size itsself

But a recast would definatly be a problem for CH.

Hashshashin wrote:yeah I'm just saying that that is a direct copy of a GW bit from a sprue, (which I believe have the copyright info on them) recast and sold as an original work.

Thats all I'm saying is that is not ok with me, and I think its legally highly questionable, but whatever just trying to add to the discusion in a positive way

it's not a copy. the eye sockets, nasal bones, and maxilla are all different. it's not legally questionable because your entire premise is wrong as they're not identical. they're only similar because *gasp* human skulls tend to look alike.

Gibbsey wrote:Skull isnt a really good example though because sculls are quite common, you should of gone for the door shape/size itsself

But a recast would definatly be a problem for CH.

Proving that skull to be a recast would be tricky, though, especially as they are visually different (as even Hashshashin has stated they are only "very similar"). I'd lean towards oni's opinion here, and say that I doubt you can trademark/copyright a human skull.

Gibbsey, if CH have produced a blank that corresponds with the dimensions for a Rhino top hatch, and are using that as a base, I think they're probably safe, in the same way as a company producing a bodykit designed to be compatible with a specific car models, which would also require use of certain dimensions.

oni wrote:Even if they were perfectly identical a human skull is not something the can be trademarked or copyrighted.

I'm not looking to get sucked into this BS. I'm casting a vote that this thread be locked.

I agree. 32 pages of this is quite enough.

here's a little photoshop action, I layered them ontop of one another and and increased the opacity, I think its pretty telling.

at 20-30% they really are identical, especially when you can slide the slider back and forth smoothly, but warboss is free to disagree.

Indeed. The little photoshop makes it even more obvious that the two skulls are completely different shapes.

Edit: They look similar when the overlay is nearly transparent because it's too transparent to make out the differences...

Ugh, geez, your trying to compare a skull the size of a pinhead..

Not to mention your comparing the picture from our website to another picture..

(this posting reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials)..

If I float in the water Im guilty, if I sink and drown Im not guilty...

I don't think the skulls the same, both the forehead and the chin seem longer than the gw one.

Actually had a second look and it does look a bit like the second one. Not so sure now.

Chapterhouse wrote:Ugh, geez, your trying to compare a skull the size of a pinhead..

Not to mention your comparing the picture from our website to another picture..

(this posting reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials)..

If I float in the water Im guilty, if I sink and drown Im not guilty...

and by making that reference, you're obviously copying the witch hunter fluff in the GW codex and are guilty of even more copyright infringement. don't you know that GW invented both human skulls and the idea of witch trials??? you can't win with some people if they're trying that hard to string you up and you probably shouldn't try. i agree that this thread has LONG outlived its usefulness. thanks to mythos and polonius and the other legal eagles for sharing their opinions and doing some legwork for us forum folks; that part of the thread was helpful.

Sorry if my post is a bit weird, but when I was on your website I noticed this door and this skull jumped out at me as "oh thats from the berserker sprue" anyone can agree or disagree but I went into my bits box and grabbed the skull took a quick pic of it and I feel that when you look at them they are identical (again agree or not your choice) the reason the shapes look slightly out of wack is because the angle of the skull in my poic is slighly different then in the door.

(I guess I will also point out that in the same door you can see pieces ganked off the CoD buildeing with the skull panels that have little tubes running through the eyes, just like the ones on the door.)

and isn't this whole kerfuffle over things the size of "pinhead" ie, marine heads shoulder pads, etc.

So are you saying that none of your products are kit-bashed and casted, they are all %100 originals?

warboss wrote:

Chapterhouse wrote:Ugh, geez, your trying to compare a skull the size of a pinhead..

Not to mention your comparing the picture from our website to another picture..

(this posting reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials)..

If I float in the water Im guilty, if I sink and drown Im not guilty...

and by making that reference, you're obviously copying the witch hunter fluff in the GW codex and are guilty of even more copyright infringement.

LOL

Kandle wrote:CH are parasites ( not meaning any negative here ) and GW is the Host organism.

Lots of people throwing the term parasitism around here. I don't believe it is accurate. CH sell a few bits that *may* mean that GW lose the odd sale, but on the other hand to make use of their parts I'm sure some people have felt inclined to buy more GW kits to have the extra variety. Either way I doubt the effect is particularly significant either way because CH is very small potatoes compared to GW.

This talk of CH being the parasite and GW the host, if we want biological comparisons the their relationship is a commensal one, where one benefits and the other is neither significantly harmed or benefited.

Parasites are usually defined as being harmful to the host, as well as dependend upon them. It's not a very useful term in business, as two firms can be competitiors while one is also reliant on the other for a market. Look at after-market parts producers for a classic example. They compete with the orignal manufacturer, but are also reliant on them existing.

Objectively, it's not a terrible analogy, but it's a pretty loaded term. It's not one I'd use if you're trying to articulate a ratioanal point. However, if you're just trying to ignite controversy, it's a great term.

Those two skulls look pretty much the same as far as I'm concerned. I think you could make a good case it's a recast.

I noticed on the CH website they are asking for donations now. Seems pretty opportunistic to me.

Polonius wrote:Does anybody think that CHS sells products because of how they lable them? I mean, do we think that if they refrained from using the trademarks, they'd sell appreciably less? I'm interested in hearing opinions here. I think it's a good question to ask about the ethics of the situation.

Regardless what people's responses here are, numerous CH detractors have stated that their negative opinion was based on the infringement of IP and trademark, and that is why they would never use them. At least one (who goes so far as to wish financial ruin upon them) even goes so far as to list other companies he WOULD and DOES do business with for "aftermarket" parts and defends it because they use generic names & not GW trademarks and/or IP.

I think that, if anyone wanted to go over 32 pages of history of this thread without a jaundiced eye, they'd find a number people here have made statemets that could be taken to indicate such tendencies.
So, that being the case, I'd say that they wouldn't likely lose -and, in fact, may INCREASE- sales by ditching the use of trademarked terms.

Eric

Gibbsey wrote:
At the same time though i couldent go out and make a 40k game and sell it withought GW jumping all over me for it. Parts being compatable is not a problem nor is inspiration from GW, the problem is that CH porducts are presented as being 40k/Fantasy parts...

If saying "for" as a paraphrased form of the perfectly legal "for use with..." to show inter-compatibility than how does one do so? The fine distinction is whether the parts presented as 40k/fantasy parts or "for 40k and fantasy" as in "to be used with;" one is not legal, one is legal. CH has simply said "for;" the court will determine if that with a statement of having no association with GW is enough to satisfy avoiding ambiguity of the two companies relationship.

Gibbsey wrote: ...also if a design is close enough (doom for example, there is no confusion what this was meant to be) then that could also be a point from GW. Genestealers and Aliens are close but they are different enough, genestealers are definatly a derivitive work (and GW have been acused of ripping of Aliens) but they are definatly a different design.

If GW were suing for monetary damages this would come up and the court would decide what % of GW's genestealers concept were derivative and what proportion is original... that proportionality would then be taken into consideration for awarding GW since their originality on the idea only goes so far. GW however is asking for CH to be shut down completely and the court will weigh more heavily on GW to prove that CH, a mostly one man operation is in fact causing them unfair damage. GW is asking for the highest possible punishment the court can impose and nothing in between, and that can really work against them if this does go all the way through court.

Hashshashin wrote:making bits is one thing but when I saw this and other threads (warseer, B&C, etc) I starting cruising the CH website. I have seen some of there stuff before was never thoroughly impressed but hey whatever. As I looked at products they offered I realized that some of these products are kit bashes using GW pieces, then cast and sold as original pieces.

<SNIP>

edit:
Just wanted to share this pick I made to support my example:



Cheers

First... You've got to be kidding me?
That skull doesn't even LOOK the same. It's readily apparent around the eyes.
Not even GW would have the nerve to claim that they own the skull design, in general, so that point holds no water.

As for some parts being, "kit bashes using GW pieces, then cast and sold as original pieces" goes, you're completely wrong there, as well.

**IF MEMORY SERVES** some of CH's INITIAL pieces were sclupts put right onto GW stuff, then casted and sold. I believe the legality of that became questionable, and then they stopped dong it entirely. They created their own blanks, sized to fit GW pieces, and began sculpting right onto them.
I could be misremembering the "initial pieces" bit, but they *do* work from their own blanks, now.


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chapterhouse wrote:If I float in the water Im guilty, if I sink and drown Im not guilty...

No. No. No.
If this was a Witch Trial, you'd be innocent if you sank & drowned.

This is, like, the opposite of a Witch Trial.
If you sink & drown, then you're surely guilty.
If you're innocent, you'll float to the top (you know what they say about cream rising to the top!).

: )

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Polonius wrote:Does anybody think that CHS sells products because of how they lable them? I mean, do we think that if they refrained from using the trademarks, they'd sell appreciably less? I'm interested in hearing opinions here. I think it's a good question to ask about the ethics of the situation.

Regardless what people's responses here are, numerous CH detractors have stated that their negative opinion was based on the infringement of IP and trademark, and that is why they would never use them. At least one (who goes so far as to wish financial ruin upon them) even goes so far as to list other companies he WOULD and DOES do business with for "aftermarket" parts and defends it because they use generic names & not GW trademarks and/or IP.

I think that, if anyone wanted to go over 32 pages of history of this thread without a jaundiced eye, they'd find a number people here have made statements that could be taken to indicate such tendencies.
So, that being the case, I'd say that they wouldn't likely lose -and, in fact, may INCREASE- sales by ditching the use of trademarked terms.

Eric

Its just important to point out those people may turn out to have baseless opinions. Since there is legal precedent for CH use of GW's trademark as a legitimate and a use necessary to the character and description of their product, CH is on stronger ground than it might otherwise be. Those individuals while entitled to their opinion are not too different than a Harley Davidson rider who uses only Harley made accessories and generic accessories but not third party sellers' products that are explicitly made to fit a Harley. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when one bases it on potentially incorrect assumptions of the law, it becomes solely a matter of preference and not higher moral ground some are trying to claim.

True.
I don't know that all can be compared to the Harley Rider, though.
With no disrespect to him intended, look at Little Lead Men. His site extolls 3rd company bits (which is okay with me). he has a problem with CH because of CH's use of trademarked terms, essentially (yes. I know I'm simplifying things a bit). So, going by that rationale -and barring any negative insinuations that might remain afterwards, if CH didn't use GW trademarks, theoretically, he'd see them as being a good company to buy from.

Eric