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.
2012/08/28 09:25:55
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
Okay, that's enough digression. Unless there's new news, or you have something new to observe in the existing filings, it's time for the thread to quiet down again.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
2012/09/04 10:00:29
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
Sean_OBrian wrote:Recap has some new documents which were filed by CHS in support of their request which address the various claims made by GW in their complaint table. Each complaint is addressed with the evidence that GW provided and the actual item which they claim infringes (either via Copyright or Trademark).
Seems, that GW finally dropped a hint, what they are accusing Chapterhouse of, but still no evidence that GW owns any of those copyrights or trademarks, as required in such a lawsuit. They even admitted in court to NOT own some (or most that were examined) of them.
Charax wrote:oh some of those filings are just stupid - protesting CHS's Rhino doors with skulls because the Administratum has skulls on it?
more concerning is the apparent obfuscation in some of the filings - stating that they "sell" items that are almost identical to Chapterhouse's products, but neglecting to mention that Chapterhouse got to market first.
Also interesting to note that DakkaDakka and Warseer postings are used to support the case, specifically in cases of things like the Tervigon and Doomseer. We'll probably see bits makers discussing their creations a lot less if they're aware that saying that they were inspired by GW artwork could land them in court.
There are an awful, awful lot of cases of GW presenting artwork as a counter to an actual physical model. Apparently the concept of a transformative work is lost on them.
GW is claiming that a whole bunch of different CH products are infringing on a single GW source. They provide an illustration of a marine with a particular type of shoulderpad, and then state that four or so different CH shoulderpads infringe on the picture. I understand that several things can infringe on a single source. However, in this case, I do not think that the CH pads are different from one another, and have different sources of inspiration. I wonder what the judge or jury will think of GWs claim.
2012/09/04 20:16:35
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
Firstoff, the 224.4 seems hilarious to me. "They stole our hammer design, as evidenced in no source they've provided or can be found." I'm not sure if repeating exhibit images is commonplace for trademark disputes is common practice, but it struck me as funny nonetheless, as if CHS's lawyers were slowly explaining the point to the crying child (GW) .
The landspeeder infringement being compared to the studded shoulder pad seems ridiculous to me; Is GW honestly trying to claim the landspeeder itself is infringed because one of the models riding it has a similar style of shoulderpad? I can't wait to see them try to defend an assortment of studs (Half-spheres) on their rimmed quarter-sphere "shoulder pads."
The closest contention they might have would be Exhibit 3-A-2 for 224.5, but even then it might only be considered inspired by and not a direct copy. Heck, in the case of the Blood Raven pads, it's a clearly unique take on "Bird with blood drop" design that, imo, looks far superior to anything GW produced for them.
224.6 is funny because apparently GW thinks they can copyright the god-knows-how-old heraldry of a lion rampant (iirc), which I'm pretty sure is probably public domain by now. The "Trademark issues only" for the gothic cathedral shoulderpads is confusing and smacks a bit of "Wah wah wah, it looks a bit like our art and not at all like building styles of medieval Europe."
Ditto the above argument for Blood Ravens with the Dark Angel pads. 10-A might have a case, except I'm pretty sure "Human skull with Ram Horns" has been around long enough to be public domain, or is comprised of non-protectible public domain elements and is thus unprotectable (Not a lawyer here, just a layman's observations and assumptions ).
224.7 12-A-1 and 13-A seems a bit like GW is throwing gak at the wall to see what sticks, and failing in this case (I can't even see a single example of that logo on the scanned page). It's more obvious with 12-A-2, but still a blood drop and saw blade seem like public domain unprotectable elements to me, ditto for 14-B and the "Lion Rampant" issue again (Next thing you know they'll copyright chevrons and checkerboards...). 20-B may actually be protectible and infringing,as I don't know if a skull on fire is unique or considered to be made from unprotectible elements.
224.8 is hilarious that they claim a scaled power claw is infringing on general salamander aesthetics (Apparently), and that they can't even provide a working link to a page representing their infringed works. The flesh tearer vehicle icons in 33-B are not evidently sold by GW at any point (They keep using the Dark Angel picture that I still can't find any pics of a flesh tearer in...), and again there's the question of public unprotectible elements.
Now, finally in 224.9 I'm a bity annoyed at CHS's pictures of the combi-weapons, since shooting them upside down on an undetailed side obscures the weapon that seems a lot more similar to GW's product in the website picture. Not sure if the judge/GW will call them on that and ask for better pics. 35-A will have a hard time trying to defend the entire Eldar aesthetic, as they could have actually had a good chance on defending the smaller eldar sigils instead.
Exhibit 37 might have a bit of an argument with the back carapace, but given that GW is trying to defend the tervigon itself with pictures, that could undermine the support they'd otherwise gain from the carapace similarities. Exhibit 42 made me laugh, especially given the very striking resemblance of GW's own 2nd edition Hormagaunts to a certain sci-fi movie monster. GW is definitely not the right company to litigate against CHS for those.
Exhibit 44 is flat-out hilarious ("You can't make girls for our models, even though we don't!"), and ditto for the superheavy not-Tau walker that they are trying to claim borrows the Tau's aesthetics (Next they'll be coming after IKEA...).
224.10, Exhibit 50: Oh, right, GW did try to copyright chevrons. This would be more funny if it wasn't a bit pathetic imo. Exhibits 63 and 64 seem to be complaints that CHS made better stuff inspired by GW salamanders than GW had themselves, since none of it is even a direct copy from what I can tell (Unlike the possibly infringing Flesh Tearer symbols).
224.11, Exhibit 67 is just grasping at nonexistent straws, Exhibits 68, 73 and 74 will probably be tossed once the judge has a look at historical armor designs, Exhibit 69 is trying to claim copyright on a gear (Not even with a skull inside! ), and Exhibit 77 keeps ignoring that they have spherical filters that make them look substantially different (And akin to every other gas mask in modern history. Isn't there some leglaese about function dictating form means you can't infringe a sword or hammer for looking like a sword or hammer or something like that?).
224.12 Exhibit 79-B might be able to have Lucasfilm give CHS a run for their money over the far left head, but the rest could easily be compared to historical helm designs and so probably won't be an issue. Exhibit 82 has no connection besides "Hey look, they're both related to wolves" since I think a full wolf head and a wolf skull adorned with feathers and such will be distinctly different. Looking through Exhibit 83 I get the feeling GW thinks since they copyrighted a wolf head, anything else with any form of wolf heads, fleshy or not, are infringing apparently...
224.13 Exhibit 95 is hilarious, as the picture GW showed doesn't even clearly show the spore that they're supposedly infringing (There's a carnifex in the way).
224.14 Exhibit 105 I can only summarize must be GW copyrighting piles of skulls. I think numerous warlords throughout history might contend with them for the title of "First" in that regard. Exhibit 110 is hilarious ("You're going to steal our idea! In the future!").
224.15 Exhibit 114 appears to be GW claiming copyright on multibarrelled machine guns that they totally invented before the US Civil War. Exhibits 115-119 appears to be GW claiming that US military weapons closely resemble their products, and Exhibit 124 appears to be GW being afraid of girls again.
224.16 Exhibits 125, 127 appears to be simply lazy GW lawyers, and I hope the judge bawls them out on it. Exhibit 126 seems to be a legitimate issue, and CHS may get burned on it since they seemingly copied a lot from GW there.
In short, I think they only have a case for maaaaybe the icons in Exhibits 10, 12, 20, the combi-weapons, and possibly the tervigon back in 37. The rest is silly nonsense that I suspect the judge will be peeved about having to comb through.
Imagine the feeling when you position your tanks, engines idling, landing gear deployed for a low profile, with firing solutions along a key bottleneck. Then some fether lands a dreadnought behind them in a giant heat shielded coke can.
Does anyone else find it odd that the pictures in the legal documents look better than the pictures offered on chapterhouse's own website?
This isn't a knock on CHS, but some of the parts look really good in those pics where the website pics are much less flattering. If you upgrade your camera work a bit you would probably get even more orders.
Based on the webstore pics I wasn't too keen on the assault rifles or the clawed powerfist, but in the legal pics they actually look tons better and went from a "no way" to "I think I should get some of those".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/05 04:51:49
Paulson Games parts are now at:
www.RedDogMinis.com
2012/09/05 04:51:59
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
paulson games wrote: My guess is that they are trying to show how the structure of the company is broken down so that they can determine what theoretical damages are or aren't being done to the various branches.
If they show that it's only the UK branch that controls the marketing, branding, websales, and product registration, then GW can't claim that the seperate US based retail branch is being hurt by CH sales inside the US. If anything is being "damaged" they'd only be able to claim their international sales numbers. (Reducing the scope of their claimed sales by several million a year)
Also it illustrates that GW in essence is using un-liscenssed 3rd party to supply the all of the US and Canadian based stores and web orders. I'm by no means a legal eagle but if I go to a 3rd party vendor to have stuff spin cast it always requires a signed piece of paper granting them authorization to produce those pieces. It sounds like there's not even a formal contract held between GWUK and US retail that makes the stuff. I don't know all the implications of that but it may be something that creates a lot of legal fall out.
If the wrong branch of their company filed suit and that branch doesn't hold the copyright then the case would be dismissed. (as each branch is a wholely sepeprate entity) I'd assume that GW isn't that blindly stupid, but nothing surprises me with them anymore.
As I've been out of this case for some time I have no clue on this aspect, it's merely personal speculation.
I agree with what you are saying. If you notice there were a lot of questions about if GW tracks sales by sku or model and if/how they retain records. I think that is to show later that GW does not keep track of sales of individual models (at least according to the witness as far as she knows - maybe they do somewhere that she isn't aware of). So if GW tries to say that Chapterhouse alleged violoation of IP by selling model X has cost GW Y amount of dollars but GW has no proof of how much lost sales they have because they dont track sales by model. Therefore GW's alleged damages are just some number pulled out of their ***.
I am no lawyer but every time I read one of these documents it seems like Chapterhouse's lawyers have their act together and GW is being represented by a bunch of clowns.
2012/09/05 07:46:58
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
MisterMoon wrote: This has likely be discussed but I'm not searching through 80+ pages to find it, but would Chapterhouse be doing itself a favor if they used more dubious language in their products? Like instead of using Space Marine, they could call it Space Soldier or something. Instead of Melta-Gun, say "Heat Ray."
Using the definition of porn as "I know it when I see it" approach, just looking at CH product line, it does seem that CH is overstepping it's bounds on some stuff, others less so. But the language seems like it'd be an easy way to side step a good deal of the heat from GW.
i think the gist of the pages was that while they might call it something similar, it would not stop the lawsuit as there are still many things that are taken more or less directly from GW's IP. Take for instance the iconographic pauldrons, or the combi-weapon attachment designs. CHS has started changing some of its products' names, but that's probably got more to do with the suggestion of their attorneys than any effort to eschew the wrath of the almighty GW.
Also, this just in:
looks like GW may now also be pursuing a claim against Lucasfilm et al. for copying htier chaos cultists:
I would like to draw your attention to bottom left corner, bottom right corner and the three middle in the first two rows. Clearly, the tusken sand raiders are ripped off of GW's IP /sarcasm
Nice catch, totally wouldn't have given them a second look, Star Wars is so second nature to me I often take it for granted =P
I wouldn't put it past them, but be careful Lucasfilms might end up trying to see GW first.
2012/09/05 07:50:20
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
If they are, it's something that wouldn't really surprise me at all.
One of the problems with having a 'yes men' culture, of having people working within an organisation who simply brown-nose and with no ability for critical ability and decision making, is that ultimately it is counter-intuitive to the success of the business. Speaking personally it was something I saw start to happen many years ago (after having a couple of really eye-opening conversations), and as far as I could see even back then looked like it was at all levels of the company. At times like this it can cause real problems.
I know this is different, but I was wondering how this could happen. And does it tell us anything about GW? I mean, its just a color on a shoe.....not even a certain material. Any of the lawyers make sense out of this one for us?
Oh do not tempt Lucas Arts, from talking with the people I know in Hollywood, they are even more protective of their IP than GW.
Admiral Chester W Nimitz wrote:The war with Japan had been re-enacted in the game rooms here by so many people and in so many different ways, that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise.
Shoes don't apply here mate, there's completely different things at stake here.
If CHS painted up their things, using GW's color schemes to sell it's stuff, there'd be an issue. As it stands, by and large, CHS has not painted things up according to GW's color schemes. In any case, I don't think GW would want to hunt down and harpoon anyone earning profit off of GW's color schemes, as this would well night slaughter the third party retaillers specialising in commision work. If these comissioners couldn't use GW's colors and designs to sell the painted GW armies, then GW wouldn't be selling their product or paint to these parites, and would overall reach a smaller audience as there are a fair number of people who want a salamanders or blood angels army, but don't want the claptrap of having to paint it themselves.
No, the only parallel issue here is that if CHS or any other company created their own line of products, and painted them up like Ultramarines as a way of selling their product. Essentially, you are altering the aesthetic appearance of the model to make it appear like it was in fact something else in order to sell it. Hence why we have the color-on-shoe upheld in court. The color is a distinctive feature of the brand, which has built up a reputation. Copying that color misdirects consumers into believing that shoe B is in fact shoe A..... specifically, Brand B is mistaken for Brand A, and Brand A's hard work and effort is being ridden by Brand B. Brand B taps into the image of Brand A, and eliminates it's own effort in brand building or brand identification. In this sense.... we ahve a parallel.
Otherwise, while I am no moderator, I can only kindly ask you to please keep all non-gaming related stuff to the OT portion of the forum, as many of us get frustrated flying back into this thread hoping for new information. Try to keep everything here relevant to the topic at hand. I know it's cumbersome to plow through the 85 pages, but, really, everything has been said--at least until the next CHS v. GW development arises.
Edited by AgeOfEgos
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/06 03:01:56
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
2012/09/06 01:26:03
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
I think it does go to show that the US courts can come up with any decision, regardless of what the books say the law is.
They just agreed that a certain colour is legally protectable. If they're going to decide that, then anything is possible.
Thankfully up here in Canada things are a bit saner. You can have pink insulation that isn't made by Owens Corning.
I also don't think we'll see cases like this in the EU. There are tons of Polish bitz sites that likely will never see GW suing them because the EU doesn't allow for the same degree of bullying through litigation as the US does.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/06 04:27:48
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
2012/09/06 01:39:37
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
frozenwastes wrote: I think it does go to show that the US courts can come up with any decision, regardless of what the books say the law is.
They just agreed that a certain colour is legally protectable. If they're going to decide that, then anything is possible.
This comment reveals a tremendous ignorance of trademark/trade dress law, in just about every jurisdiction. If you want more information, search for case law on "Pink Panther" insulation, or Sweet 'n Low.
Yes, a color can serve as a trademark. The color identifies the source of a product, which is what a trademark is supposed to do.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
2012/09/06 01:42:15
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
@poda_t - Sorry if this bothered you. But I was just trying to figure how that one could happen because it flies contrary to several of the things the "lawyer" types have said on here before. I'll refrain from OT again, it just struck me as completely weird. And it was a recent trademark case that GW could bring up in a trial (if it does get that far). It actually struck me like some of the EU cases for wine and cheese and "regional" type protections.
@frozenwastes - that was my point. If a simple color on a shoe can have a limited trademark, what else that we don't think of as possible to trademark "is"?
@ Janthkin - AH, thank you. Sorry to bother everyone....I thought colors could be...but I did not know a certain color on one part could be......
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/06 01:44:12
2012/09/06 04:16:44
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
@Louboutins: I applaud the judge's decision there. fashion shoes with red soles scream to me 'louboutin' (after a few years of education from my girlfriend). The shoes are identifiable from a distance to be Louboutins. However the judge said that it doesn't extend to the case where the entire shoe is that colour - which is imminently sensible. The company has distinguished itself over time by using this distinctive branding on all its products. They don't own the colour - just the right to use a combination of colour and form as the trademark on their products. It is not an obvious or even sensible colour to use in that place,
The difference here is that GW is trying to say that 'skulls' and 'chevrons' etc are part of their image or trademark, when those images are either sensible, used for those specific meanings throughout history, or inseparable from the basic idea which both CHS and GW are using.
2012/09/08 06:10:34
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
Most of those undisputed facts are not quite as undisputed as originally presented.
Why couldn't Matt Wilson get a drink from the vending machine?
Because he had No Quarters.
http://www.dadsarmies.blogspot.com Father and son wargaming blog
2012/09/08 07:47:03
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
Holy hell reading 151 pages of response will take me a while. A few things in the first 40 or so pages I found interesting:
Spoiler:
To the extent GW implies that “the collection and painting of miniatures” by fans implies that such miniatures are protectable by copyright, that is disputed: even assuming arguendo that painted toy soldiers would be protectable under English copyright law, GW concedes (indeed, it insists) that such paintings are the artistic creations of third parties, not GW.
So for all those people saying that the GW legal page says they can't post pics, this. That snippet on the legal notice is referring to GW's stock photos or those posted on their site as their own work. GW can't sue you for posting pics of your own models online.
“None of the designs for the characters, races and armies have any known antecedents.”
This made me laugh. Then GW goes and admits the exact opposite in their depositions. iirc the below answers are from Jes Goodwin, but I could be wrong, it was many pages ago that I read it.
Q And what's the design on the shoulder pad? A It's for -- indicates that he is part of a Devastator squad. Q Does that design have a name? A What, that particular chevron thing? It's a chevron, I guess. It doesn't have a specific name. Q Is the chevron a historical heraldry symbol? A I guess it could be, yes. Q It could be? A Just about every geometric shape you can possibly give me has been used on heraldry somewhere. That's another huge open-ended place to go to, yeah?
Q Is there a standard shape for a Space Marine skull? A It's a skull. No, I don't think it's that -- it's just a skull.
Q I'll rephrase. Before you mentioned a fleur-de-lis? A Fleur-de-lis. Q Can you explain what that is? A It's an ancient symbol. It's a three -- It's a central spike with two curved spikes coming off of it that's been used in heraldry for hundreds of years. Q Are there other symbols you can think of that are like that? A Pick a shape, it's been used. Q Lions? A Yes. Q Griffins? A Yes. Q Crosses? A Yes. Q Skulls? A Yes. Q Circles? A Yes. Q Triangles? A Yes. Q Roman numerals? A Yes. Q And use of all these symbols dates back to the ancient form of heraldry? A Yes. Q Dragons? A Yes.
Q Okay. And so do you remember what was depicted on that shoulder pad? A Yes, it's a rampant griffin. Q What's a rampant griffin? A It goes back to heraldry of depending on what the creature is doing depends on what kind of -- what title it's given. So stood upright with claws out is rampant.
GW admits that “the only work thus far identified by it in this action that is registered in the United States is Registration No. TX0006541286, ‘Games Workshop Complete Catalog & Hobby Reference 2006-2007.’”
Really? The only registered US copyright identified in this entire suit is a catalog? Does GW think that items printed in said catalog would automatically be copyrighted as sculptural works?
GW only began filing for copyright registrations for the works-in-suit more than a year after bringing suit, and after the close of fact discovery, thus denying CHS the opportunity to conduct discovery or depositions concerning any of the alleged applications or registrations. GW MSJ Ex. 11; GW MSJ Ex. 12.
lmfao. Sue someone for copyright infringement, THEN get copyrights. Fire, ready, aim!
No foundation (FRE 602). GW has no evidence of use in U.S. commerce of any of the alleged marks, and offers no evidence of CHS’s trademark use of the marks. There is no evidence that products bearing GW’s alleged Marks At Issue were ever sold in U.S. commerce.
I thought this was interesting. Basically GW has to prove that the marks were used in commerce in the US, which requires them to provide product proof. LEGO has an entire vault of every product they've ever sold for just such an occasion. Every box in first run mint condition. GW may have to start doing this if they intend to push IP weight around in the future.
GW has no evidence to support its contention that any of the alleged symbols is well-known in the United States or anywhere else. Jones Decl. ¶ 7 lacks foundation (FRE 602), and does not allege that the listed symbols are well-known in the U.S., nor that they are famous or recognized in the U.S.
If you show an omega symbol to 100 truly random people in the US, how many of them do you think would recognize it as an Ultramarines symbol? What about a Maltese Cross? Wolf head? Red teardrop? The marks(which GW can't prove they own) are only recognized in the context of 40k by those who are fluent in GW products. 40k in general isn't "well known". An easy 95% of the people I know have zero clue what 40k or GW are.
GW's Statement of Fact No. 17. Games Workshop first discovered Chapterhouse in 2008, when it was selling its products on eBay (Ex 14, GW002525-27, 002530-32, 002535-37, 0002540-42) and a similar auction site called Barterhouse (Ex 15, GW002512-24). The products were sold simply under Games Workshop’s trademarks (e.g. “Iron Snakes; Salamanders and Soul Drinker Shoulder Pads” on Bartertown and on eBay “Space Marine 40K Terminator Squad Bits for Salamanders”; “Space Marine 40K 10 squad bit kit Salamanders Dragon”; “Rhino Armor Kit Salamanders Warhammer 40K Space Marines” and “Resin Drop Pod for 40K Warhammer 40000 Space Marines”). (Exs. 14-15, Ex. 2 at ¶ 8) Games Workshop has received emails evidencing this customer confusion. (Ex. 122).
http://www.thebarterhouse.com/ ???? GW's lawyers are winos? I just thought that this little freudian slip was funny.
I also think it's hilarious that forums can be used as admissible evidence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/08 07:48:28
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
2012/09/08 10:10:21
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
I am really somewhat amazed that one of the filings officially declares that GW owns the trademark of "putting lots of skulls on stuff".
15. Many of Games Workshop’s products incorporate a unique image of piled
skulls. Two examples of this unique image are on Games Workshop’s Basilica
Administratum (a building) and on Games$Workshop’s Realm of Battle Board, both
depicted below (Ex. 132, Suppl. Merrett Decl. ¶12):
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
That's actually a pretty interesting read.
Page 95 made me chuckle---Games Workshop's Attorneys Statement of Fact was that Chapterhouse Studios's shoulder pads have the same exact features of a Games Workshop shoulder pad. They even put a picture up to show the similarity.
Unfortunately, the shoulder pad photo they used and labeled as "ChapterHouse Power Armour Shoulder"....was actually a Games Workshop shoulder pad. I bet it did look similar
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
2012/09/08 14:26:47
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
Page 95 made me chuckle---Games Workshop's Attorneys Statement of Fact was that Chapterhouse Studios's shoulder pads have the same exact features of a Games Workshop shoulder pad. They even put a picture up to show the similarity.
Unfortunately, the shoulder pad photo they used and labeled as "ChapterHouse Power Armour Shoulder"....was actually a Games Workshop shoulder pad. I bet it did look similar
its things like that that make me shake my head, while I'm no attorney and wouldnt have the first clue on how to put together a court doc, isn't this something that should be caught? Are the rules Boyz also handling the court docs?
Page 95 made me chuckle---Games Workshop's Attorneys Statement of Fact was that Chapterhouse Studios's shoulder pads have the same exact features of a Games Workshop shoulder pad. They even put a picture up to show the similarity.
Unfortunately, the shoulder pad photo they used and labeled as "ChapterHouse Power Armour Shoulder"....was actually a Games Workshop shoulder pad. I bet it did look similar
not seeing it mate. Both pages 94 and 95 show CHS compared against GW product. I distinctly remember that golden pauldron. I was wondering why somone would ever want to buy a plain SM pauldron when it occurred to me that it would have the exact same dimensions as the other CHS pauldrons, ergo giving a symmetric look to any other pauldron purchased from CHS. Sorry mate, but both of the comparisons on page 94 and 95 are correct.
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
2012/09/08 15:27:34
Subject: Re:Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
= Epic First Post.
2012/09/08 17:05:33
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
15. Many of Games Workshop’s products incorporate a unique image of piled
skulls. Two examples of this unique image are on Games Workshop’s Basilica
Administratum (a building) and on Games$Workshop’s Realm of Battle Board, both
depicted below (Ex. 132, Suppl. Merrett Decl. ¶12):
There is that random dollar sign again in another very appropriate place.
I think it must be placed accidentally by lawyers and clerks who are thinking very hard about how much money they are making on the case without doing diligent work.
I would have fired these guys a long time ago. CHS's lawyers are ripping them to shreds.
Piled skulls are a "unique" image? Are the piled skulls on the Basilica and the Battle boards identical? If not, then they are not unique...
SickSix wrote: WOW, GW either is being sneaky or their lawyers are just incompetent.
That's really dumb... at what point do they get a slap off the court? Because what they've done is say "they've infringed on us with this product that looks just like ours" and then submitted a picture of one of their own products purporting to belong to CHS in order to demonstrate this apparent similarity. At best it looks clumsy and ignorant, at worst it looks deceptive.
2012/09/08 18:28:23
Subject: Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
SickSix wrote: WOW, GW either is being sneaky or their lawyers are just incompetent.
That's really dumb... at what point do they get a slap off the court? Because what they've done is say "they've infringed on us with this product that looks just like ours" and then submitted a picture of one of their own products purporting to belong to CHS in order to demonstrate this apparent similarity. At best it looks clumsy and ignorant, at worst it looks deceptive.
At worst I think it's perverting the course of justice, a criminal offence.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Painting and modelling blog 
.
).
That would explain a lot of things that are happening in this lawsuit...
