Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**tree667**

The chapterhouse bike Minus the cowcatcher and the pipes on the back look 99% like a marine bike. The tank, engine, the back"wheelwell" the gun placement, I mean I can get the shouldar pads and such but that bike is seriously close to GW's. Kromlechs is in the spirit of GW's but no real connection. I like some of the stuff Chapterhouse has done, but some items and the way he DID market his stuff was poking GW with a giant stick.

**Aerethan**

Kanluwen wrote:The chaos star is not owned by Michael Moorcock.

Care to elaborate? Is it owned at all? If so, by who?

It is of course common for copyrights to be sold, especially in the music industry.

But surely if it's IP, someone has to own it. And if someone who isn't GW owns the Chaos Star in both name and design, then they could sue GW for infringement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tree667 wrote:The chapterhouse bike Minus the cowcatcher and the pipes on the back look 99% like a marine bike. The tank, engine, the back"wheelwell" the gun placement

Except all those parts that look 0% like a marine bike. Yes, both models have a fuel tank. Yes both models have an engine. Yes both models have a rear section. Yes both models have guns.
The CHS fuel tank is longer than the GW one and rounded on top. The CHS engine looks entirely different than the GW one. The rear of the CHS model quite different than the GW one. The CHS guns both look different and are mounted differently than the GW ones. You were saying?

**Kanluwen**

Aerethan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:The chaos star is not owned by Michael Moorcock.

Care to elaborate? Is it owned at all? If so, by who?

It is of course common for copyrights to be sold, especially in the music industry.

But surely if it's IP, someone has to own it. And if someone who isn't GW owns the Chaos Star in both name and design, then they could sue GW for infringement.

The eight-pointed star was used in Crowley's "Thoth" tarot for the Eight of Wands.

It was the same general look, just with a "zigzag" effect for the lines making up the arms of the star.

**Dawnbringer**

tree667 wrote:The chapterhouse bike Minus the cowcatcher and the pipes on the back look 99% like a marine bike. The tank, engine, the back"wheelwell" the gun placement, I mean I can get the shouldar pads and such but that bike is seriously close to GW's. Kromlechs is in the spirit of GW's but no real connection. I like some of the stuff Chapterhouse has done, but some items and the way he DID market his stuff was poking GW with a giant stick.

Man, if those two are 99% similar and reason enough for GW to sue, it's a wonder car companies actually bother make cars these days, what with all the sueing each other they should be doing.

**Kaptajn Congoboy**

Dawnbringer wrote:
Man, if those two are 99% similar and reason enough for GW to sue, it's a wonder car companies actually bother make cars these days, what with all the sueing each other they should be doing.

It kind of remains me on the guy on BoLS that decred that the Cygnar Cyclone warjack was "ripping off GW" because it had a pair of chainguns. When you are so invested in an IP you cannot see beyond it for reference, everything, no matter how minor the similarity, looks like a ripoff.

**Saldiven**

Aerethan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:The chaos star is not owned by Michael Moorcock.

Care to elaborate? Is it owned at all? If so, by who?

The eight pointed star isn't owned by Moorcock for the same reason that GW doesn't/cannot own Roman Numerals and Arrows. The eight pointed star has appeared in the archaeological record as far back as 2000 BC in various forms. It has relationships to various astrological phenomena as well as being related to the Compass Rose. Additionally, there have been various religious connotations in different cultures through the ages. The eight pointed star has appeared in a variety of iterations, from overlapping squares to eight acute triangles joined at the base to four intersecting lines which form outward pointing arrows.

**Pacific**

Kanluwen wrote:
Aerethan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:The chaos star is not owned by Michael Moorcock.

Care to elaborate? Is it owned at all? If so, by who?

It is of course common for copyrights to be sold, especially in the music industry.

But surely if it's IP, someone has to own it. And if someone who isn't GW owns the Chaos Star in both name and design, then they could sue GW for infringement.

The eight-pointed star was used in Crowley's "Thoth" tarot for the Eight of Wands.

It was the same general look, just with a "zigzag" effect for the lines making up the arms of the star.

Didn't he claim though that Thoth's memory had imprinted on him from 4000 years previously, or that somehow the star is some form of racial memory?

I'm not sure that such a claim to 'own' the star would be taken seriously in any case, there would be many hemp-wearing earth mothers crying out to say otherwise

**Alpharius**

The 8 Pointed Star may not be owned by Moorcock, but to deny that GW was "Heavily Influenced" by Moorcock's works, including 8 Pointed Stars and CHAOS for crying out loud is beyond Pant On Head Stupid.

**Vermillion**

They even took characters from the Moorcock Eternal Champion mythology and used them in warhammer. Plus beastmen and spawn ofcourse as servants of the chaos gods.

**Pacific**

Yep, the entire concept of 'chaos' (at least in its original form) was influenced heavily by the 'new wave' of spirituality of the 70's in the UK and US. Moorcock was just one of the writers that was part of it, and there are a whole gamut of other artists involved (Ursula Le Guin, Robert Heinlein to name but two).

In fact, I started a thread on it in the background section if anyone is interested and wants to read more about it: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/434941.page

Found an interesting snippet from Moorcock on the 8-pointed star, I'm guessing from some time ago:

"I drew a straightforward geographical quadrant (which often has arrows, too!) – N, S, E, W – and then added another four directions and that was that – eight arrows representing all possibilities, one arrow representing the single, certain road of Law. I have since been told that it is an "ancient symbol of Chaos" and if it is then it confirms a lot of theories about the race mind ... "

**Kaptajn Congoboy**

Moorcock keeps winning my Pretentious Git award nearly every time I see him quoted

**CURNOW**

They also relesed a stormbringer game and a range of eternal champion minis

**Shepherd23**

There is a third jetbike out there that the front half looks like an Imperial Gothic warship prow. I would say that one is more of a rip off of GW than either the CH or Kromlech jetbikes.

I cannot find an image right now, but I am sure someone here can easily find it.

**Pacific**

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:Moorcock keeps winning my Pretentious Git award nearly every time I see him quoted

Haha right, although he has written some bloody good stories!

Shepherd23 wrote:There is a third jetbike out there that the front half looks like an Imperial Gothic warship prow. I would say that one is more of a rip off of GW than either the CH or Kromlech jetbikes.

I cannot find an image right now, but I am sure someone here can easily find it.

Do you mean the Maxmini one?

Although if we are talking about being able to sue someone for generic art-style tropes (gothic in this instance?) then surely the world is GW's oyster.

**Vermillion**

Pacific wrote:
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:Moorcock keeps winning my Pretentious Git award nearly every time I see him quoted

Haha right, although he has written some bloody good stories!

Exactly

. Anyone quoted can be seen in a negative or pretentious context though.

**Kaptajn Congoboy**

Vermillion wrote:

Exactly . Anyone quoted can be seen in a negative or pretentious context though.

Until you've read "Epic Pooh" and heard the man speak (or read him) on New Wave scifi. Then you realize the label fits him like a glove

**MisterMoon**

Alpharius wrote:
MisterMoon wrote:
G. Whitenbeard wrote:
alphaecho wrote:Presentation to the jury is the important thing.

Collected Vision art plus Space Marine bike model (especially focussing on fuel tank) against Chapterhouse model could lead to a jury member going "Rip off!"...or not! Resemblance or similarity could lead to a stronger impression than any amount of legalese.

It is very unlikely that this case will ever make it to a jury trial. The pre-trial procedure in civil cases is intentionally designed to keep cases out of the courtroom. Trials are expensive and can be very long and logistically challenging. Over 90% of civil actions never see court. Most are settled either privately by the parties, dismissed for lack of sufficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (which is what this is), thrown out by summary judgment post-discovery, or dealt with in court ordered mediation.

(2nd year law student)

Corporations sue on patent or CW infringement, because they think they have a case, and chose not to, when they don't. More times than not, pre-trial procedures either convince the other party that they do have a case, and they settle, or convince the plaintiff that they don't have a case, and it's no longer sought.

This is a simplistic version of things, and there are usually multiple aspects of any civil litigation (which to the most of us would be boring and highly detailed). There are some areas where one side has a case, the other has a case, and eventually they discover they are better off with some kind of deal.

Are you a lawyer, law student, court bailiff or some such as well?

Just curious!

Doug Llewelyn

**Trasvi**

I just rediscovered the other day that the babylonian god of pestilence is Nergal.

(He's actually their god of the Sun, War, Fire and Pestilence, rather than Pestilence, Sickness and Disease... but still).

**English Assassin**

Alpharius wrote:The 8 Pointed Star may not be owned by Moorcock, but to deny that GW was "Heavily Influenced" by Moorcock's works, including 8 Pointed Stars and CHAOS for crying out loud is beyond Pant On Head Stupid.

Indeed, though Mike is well-known for his relaxed attitude to others borrowing his creations, he would, I'm fairly sure, face little disagreement were he to point out that the use of an eight-pointed star as the symbol of Chaos-with-a-capital-C was his innovation.

Vermillion wrote:They even took characters from the Moorcock Eternal Champion mythology and used them in warhammer. Plus beastmen and spawn ofcourse as servants of the chaos gods.

Warhammer 3rd edition's "High Elves" were indeed repackaged Citadel Melniboneans, originally sculpted under contract for Chaosium's Stormbringer game. As I recall the men of Pan-Tang (and their tigers) were likewise reused as Chaos warriors.

**Warboss Gubbinz**

So I've combed over the Exhibit's for Chapterhouses' motion for Summary Judgement.

A few things

Per the deposition of the Head of Sales of GW Retail (North America) Sandra Casey:
1. GW is broken up into separate companies that operate under the management group but are separate Legal entities:
2. Games Workshop Group PLC (Corporate Management)
3. GW United limited (UK, this included design studio etc..)
4. GW Retail (North America)
<Insert other branches here>

Just one comment i have to make after seeing this:

Q. And briefly describe what your main duties are.
A. I have overall responsibility for all of the operations in North America.

Q. And when you say all of the operations, can you please describe what these operations are?
A. That includes our manufacturing and distribution, as well as our hobby centers, which are our whole our company-owned stores, as well as the sales that we make through independent retailers, and all the support functions for those.

Q. Who do you currently report to?
A. I report to Mark Wells.

Q. And did you have knowledge of the overall corporate structure of Games Workshop before your preparations for the -- this deposition?
A. No.

I am dumbfounded as to how she has a direct line to Mark Wells but does not understand how the corporate structure is laid out. She's gotta be either lying under oath, completely ignorant to her situation or the CEO's above her have no faith in their managers abilities to comprehend overall company org charts.

Here is part of the deposition that i think is really damaging to GW:

Q. Does any Games Workshop Retail employees create any artwork used for the Games Workshop related products?
A. No.

Q. No sculptures?
A. No.

Q. No graphics?
A. No.

Q. Illustrations?
A. No.

Q. So as far as you know, Games Workshop Retail is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Games Workshop Limited?
A. I don't know the corporate structure, the legal entity structure.

This goes on for a while then we are treated to this nugget:

Q. Is Games Workshop Retail an its own legal entity?
A. Games Workshop Retail is a legal entity, yes.

Q. And employees of Games Workshop Retail are employees of Games Workshop Retail, meaning they're not also employees of Games Workshop Limited?
A. That's correct.

And then some more about Trademarks and how GW staff access art stored on their internal servers.

Q. Outside of the internal portal, is there a policy or procedure in Games Workshop Retail related to copyrights or trademarks?
A. There is no written policy.

Q. Is there an unwritten policy?
A. Our internal -- there is an internal procedure.

Q. Can you describe that internal procedure?
A. For us to use any copyrighted or trademarked material, we have to get approval from the U.K. team.

Q. And can you give an example of what you mean by what type of materials you would seek approval for?
A. Sure. We wanted to do a limited edition poster that we would give to the first 500 people that bought a Games Day ticket. We wanted to use some of Games Workshop's imagery to do that, so we had to get approval from the U.K. team in order to use that, that image.

Q. And who do you seek this approval from?
A. I'm not sure of the person's name. It's whoever happens to be in charge of the studio team; that changes.

Q. So the -- so this inquiry's directed to head of the studio team?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that an inhouse attorney?
A. I'm not sure if they're an attorney or not, no.

Q. And so this internal relates to both trademark and copyright?
A. Yes.

What i think Chapterhouse is trying to get at is GW Retail by their own admission may be infringing on GW's overall UK trademarks in America? Due to the fact they are separate legal entities, Games Workshop Limited is not licensing anything out to GW retail or even legally drafting anything stating they are allowed access these trademarked items under fair use etc to sell product? Can Weeble or Tad comment on this one?

*edited to make it easier to read.

**Kroothawk**

Sandra Casey is an extreme case of GW preferring yes-men over competence. She is basically a strawman for Mark Wells, that's why she can't answer even basic questions about the company she is supposed to lead.

**mechanicalhorizon**

Can someone please post a link to the PDF where Sandra Casey gives her testimony? I've been trying to find it but can't.

I'd like to read what B/S is coming out of her.

**Howard A Treesong**

What's the point of the deposition if they can't seeming answer the most straight forward of questions, it'll just annoy the court surely?

**don_mondo**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
What's the point of the deposition if they can't seeming answer the most straight forward of questions, it'll just annoy the court surely?

Hehehehyhe, probably why CH called on them.

**Warboss Gubbinz**

mechanicalhorizon wrote:
Can someone please post a link to the PDF where Sandra Casey gives her testimony? I've been trying to find it but can't.

I worked with her at GW Memphis for 5 years, I'd like to read what B/S is coming out of her.

If what I've read so far in the above post about her testimony, I'd agree that's indicative of GW management's behavior.

I'd been asked to do many things at GW that were against company policy by the management there so I'd like to read what else she said.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.33.pdf

Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
What's the point of the deposition if they can't seeming answer the most straight forward of questions, it'll just annoy the court surely?

Hehehehyhe, probably why CH called on them.

According to the subpeona Sandra Casey was appointed by GW to answer the questions in the deposition.

edit* Grammar

**ironicsilence**

GW takes compartmentalization to the extreme. They always have. I'm not shocked at all by her answers as its in line with how most people are in the company

**Janthkin**

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I am dumbfounded as to how she has a direct line to Mark Wells but does not understand how the corporate structure is laid out. She's gotta be either lying under oath, completely ignorant to her situation or the CEO's above her have no faith in their managers abilities to comprehend overall company org charts.

To be fair, I'm an attorney, and I'm not 100% on the corporate structure of my company; outside of tax and complicated litigation, it's just not a factor in how most employees interact with the company on a day-to-day basis.

What i think Chapterhouse is trying to get at is GW Retail by their own admission may be infringing on GW's overall UK trademarks in America? Due to the fact they are separate legal entities, Games Workshop Limited is not licensing anything out to GW retail or even legally drafting anything stating they are allowed access these trademarked items under fair use etc to sell product? Can Weeble or Tad comment on this one?

Non-issue. It's okay to put limits on how employees use a company's IP (in fact, there should be such limits), without implicating an (implied) license TO that IP from one business entity to a related entity.

**Alpharius**

Janthkin wrote:
Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I am dumbfounded as to how she has a direct line to Mark Wells but does not understand how the corporate structure is laid out. She's gotta be either lying under oath, completely ignorant to her situation or the CEO's above her have no faith in their managers abilities to comprehend overall company org charts.
To be fair, I'm an attorney, and I'm not 100% on the corporate structure of my company; outside of tax and complicated litigation, it's just not a factor in how most employees interact with the company on a day-to-day basis.

I'd be willing to bet you're at least somewhat aware of the "overall corporate structure" for your firm/company though.

I've been in 3 large companies in my career, and I could always give a general org chart/responsibilities response if someone asked, and I wasn't at the top of the food chain either, like, presumably, the Head of GW Retail (North America) Sandra Casey!

**aka_mythos**

...Maybe its more of what was going on before, CH's attorney emphasizing the distinctions of GW's operations, to show their Copyright and Trademarks are limited to what is covered by UK law, since none of that's generated in the US.

**AgeOfEgos**

Janthkin wrote:
Non-issue. It's okay to put limits on how employees use a company's IP (in fact, there should be such limits), without implicating an (implied) license TO that IP from one business entity to a related entity.

Do you mind commenting on why the GW attorney made the statement "This doesn't matter anyways--this is good for pestering witnesses and that's about it" (Not verbatim but along those lines).

How important are the depositions really? Was the GW attorney correct--or just aggravated? Judging from my VERY non-attorney eyes--I don't see why the questions would be out of line--or why the witnesses would not be better prepared to answer the queries. Is that your feeling as well?

/If you feel comfortable answering, if not--no worries.