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.

Reading through CHS' exhibits list:

"236 Ku Klux Klan Symbol and Screenshot

(Exhibit 2 to 8/14/12 CHS Mot for Judicial
Notice)

Exhibit not produced
during discovery; FRE 402, 802, 901"

"298 Nationalist Movement Symbol and
Screenshot (Exhibit 1 to 8/14/12 CHS Mot for Judicial Notice)
Exhibit not produced during discovery; FRE 402, 802, 901"

Wonder where that is going.

Nationalist Movement Symbol:



Look familiar?

As for the KKK symbol, I think they're going for the whole "Iron Cross" thing. That's just a guess, though.


Eric

KKK symnol:



Probably just going for a list of symbols that GW somehow claims they invented.

Lots of "assault troops" in those hate groups.

It is an interesting thought, I would find it as an interesting legal defense...

Headlines now: Games Workshop settles case out court after secret ties to KKK and Nationalist Movement are brought out during trial. Parents baffled as to why children are turning into xenophobic cretins that spout "FOR THE EMPRAH" as they proceed to attack the local immigrant population.

czakk wrote:
Reading through CHS' exhibits list:

"236 Ku Klux Klan Symbol and Screenshot

(Exhibit 2 to 8/14/12 CHS Mot for Judicial
Notice)

Exhibit not produced
during discovery; FRE 402, 802, 901"

"298 Nationalist Movement Symbol and
Screenshot (Exhibit 1 to 8/14/12 CHS Mot for Judicial Notice)
Exhibit not produced during discovery; FRE 402, 802, 901"

Wonder where that is going.

Others have linked to the symbols - but I will elaborate some on the actual words (or abbreviations). Each side presents the evidence that they wish to enter in during the actual trial. The opposition can than object to the evidence. In the case of those two items, they were not entered in through normal discovery (though they were addressed in expert testimony IIRC) and were submitted for judicial consideration. The judge will deal with the various points of contention prior to the actual trial.

In most cases, both sides will object to anything that the other side enters in after discovery closes. Some might not be allowed - though in most cases, the burden during discovery is much more strict on the plaintiff (as they determine when they want to bring suit) than for the defense. For example, GW objects to the Chalk testimony and related evidence - however because he was not found till rather late in discovery and his response wasn't until after the discovery period officially closed it is likely the court will allow his statement to enter into evidence. In large part because of the significance to the testimony (in completely refutes GW's claim of having a standing policy to transfer all rights to GW) and also because GW didn't provide his name and the related correspondence with CHS prior to the close of discovery. Because of this - it wouldn't be entirely surprising if the Judge were not too terribly happy with GW in general (and if it is found that GW's counsel had access to the information they may well be sanctioned).

GW: We acknowledge that there have been geographical shapes for many centuries, but we are the first to add arrows to crosses and make assault marine markings:



Chapter House: Why are you racist!



Considering that GW made that argument in their filings, I can see where CH lawyers are going with this.

Jeez. Look at that picture of squad markings. Imagine you're John Q Public. They look pretty much like when John Q Public was writing an email to Granny Q Public and accidentally chose Wingdings as his font. This jury trial is not going to go well for GW.

 Alfndrate wrote:
It is an interesting thought, I would find it as an interesting legal defense...

Headlines now: Games Workshop settles case out court after secret ties to KKK and Nationalist Movement are brought out during trial. Parents baffled as to why children are turning into xenophobic cretins that spout "FOR THE EMPRAH" as they proceed to attack the local immigrant population.

Secret? It's hard to be secretive after producing nazi orks storm troo.. I mean boyz for a decade. I do find it endlessly entertaining that a symbol GW is claiming as their own has such a sordid secondary meaning outside of the minis gaming world.

GW apparently will also be suing Black Widows for using their copyright on the red hourglass design shown above, as well as Egypt for using yellow triangles in their building designs.

Blue Cross, Red Cross, and damn near every medical service company on the planet will also be sued for using Veteran symbols without license.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

czakk wrote:
Reading through CHS' exhibits list:

"236 Ku Klux Klan Symbol and Screenshot

(Exhibit 2 to 8/14/12 CHS Mot for Judicial
Notice)

Exhibit not produced
during discovery; FRE 402, 802, 901"

"298 Nationalist Movement Symbol and
Screenshot (Exhibit 1 to 8/14/12 CHS Mot for Judicial Notice)
Exhibit not produced during discovery; FRE 402, 802, 901"

Wonder where that is going.

Others have linked to the symbols - but I will elaborate some on the actual words (or abbreviations). Each side presents the evidence that they wish to enter in during the actual trial. The opposition can than object to the evidence. In the case of those two items, they were not entered in through normal discovery (though they were addressed in expert testimony IIRC) and were submitted for judicial consideration. The judge will deal with the various points of contention prior to the actual trial.

In most cases, both sides will object to anything that the other side enters in after discovery closes. Some might not be allowed - though in most cases, the burden during discovery is much more strict on the plaintiff (as they determine when they want to bring suit) than for the defense. For example, GW objects to the Chalk testimony and related evidence - however because he was not found till rather late in discovery and his response wasn't until after the discovery period officially closed it is likely the court will allow his statement to enter into evidence. In large part because of the significance to the testimony (in completely refutes GW's claim of having a standing policy to transfer all rights to GW) and also because GW didn't provide his name and the related correspondence with CHS prior to the close of discovery. Because of this - it wouldn't be entirely surprising if the Judge were not too terribly happy with GW in general (and if it is found that GW's counsel had access to the information they may well be sanctioned).

I was a bit too dry in that post I think, yeah I know exactly where CHS was going with those.


Regarding objections, CHS has a whole wall of 'exhibit not produced in discovery', hearsay, etc.. objections to most of GWs evidence. Some for some pretty basic stuff which would have been a no brainer to send over - the eldar codex for example. Those charts with the rule the objection is based on is handy. I really wish our system up here had something like pacer / recap.

 Aerethan wrote:

Blue Cross, Red Cross, and damn near every medical service company on the planet will also be sued for using Veteran symbols without license.

Not in the US. We've already established in court that the Red Cross owns the, ahem, "red cross" legally in the US. It's why Ratchet from Transformers can no longer have them on him(hence why the movie version has the universal AED symbol on his side).

Thus, the Red Cross should sue GW for using THEIR property.

 Platuan4th wrote:


Not in the US. We've already established in court that the Red Cross owns the, ahem, "red cross" legally in the US.

Poor old St. George...

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Blue Cross, Red Cross, and damn near every medical service company on the planet will also be sued for using Veteran symbols without license.

Not in the US. We've already established in court that the Red Cross owns the, ahem, "red cross" legally in the US. It's why Ratchet from Transformers can no longer have them on him(hence why the movie version has the universal AED symbol on his side).

Thus, the Red Cross should sue GW for using THEIR property.

That is insanely stupid that something as generic as a symmetrical cross that is red can be copyrighted or patented.

So stupid. That said, I'd love to see GW on the receiving end of this kind of lawsuit.

 Aerethan wrote:
That is insanely stupid that something as generic as a symmetrical cross that is red can be copyrighted or patented.

Special act of Congress. Same situation as the Olympics have with the "five concentric rings", as the guys who made the L5R CCG found out.

Hmm - is it worth pointing out to the Red Cross' legal department...

Yes... The Red Cross and I guess potentially the KKK could file amicus briefs supporting CHS' position... at least on the topic of those.

I so hope GW get's their arse handed to them. I mean, it looks like they should, but with juries, you just never know.

The Red Cross is not copyrighted per se however its use as a symbol of medical aid and of the Red Cross organisation is controlled by international treaties, as is the symbol of the Red Crescent (the Arabic equivalent). In other words it is more like a trade mark.

 Aerethan wrote:



That is insanely stupid that something as generic as a symmetrical cross that is red can be copyrighted or patented.

So stupid. That said, I'd love to see GW on the receiving end of this kind of lawsuit.

(pedantic rant)



The Red Cross cannot be copyrighted or patented and it is neither.

HOWEVER it can be TRADEMARKED. A trademark is a symbol that a company or organization or individual uses to distinguish their goods and services from those of others. The Red Cross has established that their red cross (itself derived from the Swiss flag) is a recognized symbol of their group not a generic symbol meaning medicine or first aid.

Similarly Apple can trademark apples for their electronic gear and Games Workshop can trademark GW.

What's required is you show you've used it as an identifying mark and that no one else has been using it longer.

It's not 'insanely stupid' it how trademarks have always worked.

The Red Cross symbol is something different. It enjoys special protection in military conflicts, granted by international treaties. No private company can gain this as a trademark to paint on their houses and cars and gain that special protection.

Another case is Smokey Bear (symbol of US Anti-Forest-Fire campaign) who is not protected by copyright but by a special law.

I could only hope to see them call in some skin head witnesses to testify about their crosses. Then it'd be just like watching an episode of Geraldo.

 Kroothawk wrote:
The Red Cross symbol is something different. It enjoys special protection in military conflicts, granted by international treaties. No private company can gain this as a trademark to paint on their houses and cars and gain that special protection.

Another case is Smokey Bear (symbol of US Anti-Forest-Fire campaign) who is not protected by copyright but by a special law.

Yeah both are special cases, the Red Cross is halfway between an NGO and an international organization, recognized by treaties.

Normally the US government cannot hold copyrights and trademarks so Smokey the Bear needed special protection.

Point remains any symbol can be trademarked, so long as it the unique symbol of a brand.

So, trial.

My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.

It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.

My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.

It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

Sounds very cinematic.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.

My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.

It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

That's pretty accurate. Even if you picked a jury things can go against you in a big way.

 d-usa wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.

My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.

It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

Sounds very cinematic.

I'm excited to see what sort of narrative GW will be forging with this.

Who do you suppose is using the 12 year old outdated codex? GW?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.

My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.

It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

Sounds very cinematic.

I'm excited to see what sort of narrative GW will be forging with this.

Who do you suppose is using the 12 year old outdated codex? GW?

I think so, even though they quit supporting it years ago. Haven't been able to get updated FAQs for their book with new artists contracts.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.

My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.

It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

The summary judgements still need to be addressed - though in all likelihood, it will still have the majority of the claims left for the trial.

One thing to keep in mind is that the request for the jury trial is largely a strategic move for pretrial than an actual desire for a jury trial on the part of either party. Jury trials are many, many times more expensive than bench trials. When GW filed their original paperwork, they put in the jury demand to intimidate both CHS and any legal representation that they might find. The local lawyer from down the street probably is not well suited to deal with a jury trial...let alone a jury trial relating to IP law. Quite often, the jury demand alone is enough to put off many of the smaller law firms.

When CHS received their pro bono representation from Winston & Strawn though - they called Folley and Lardner's bluff. They were basically saying - OK, we will fight your case...but you know what? Even if you decide to back away from the jury demand at a later date, we are going to demand a jury too...so make sure your clients are prepared to pay out the nose.

Once it goes to trial though, the jury is a wild card... Selection is key, as you want to make sure that the alpha of the jury is inclined to favor your case. People tend to follow, and if a strong voice is present who is skeptical of your opponents claims, then that can be enough to return a verdict in your favor or at least prevent a unanimous decision on the part of the jury. If you can manage to get one or two seated who have strong personalities and are favorable to your case - you are in a great position, the actual law becomes somewhat less relevant.

Following the jury trial itself though, appellate courts are reluctant to overturn decisions which favor the defendant - though not so reluctant to overturn decisions which favor the plaintiff. Roughly 33% of appeals on behalf of the defendant are won, while only about 10% of plaintiff appeals win.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.
My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.
It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

Good luck for GW to find a jury that accepts that GW invented the skull and arrow and that second market is illegal per se and that GW doesn't have to prove copyright to unworthy underlings to win this case.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, trial.
My understanding of trial by jury is that it can go in any direction, and that juries often do things that make no sense to anyone, especially the law.
It just seems to me like a trial by jury is kind of like rolling the dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to determine the rules...

Good luck for GW to find a jury that accepts that GW invented the skull and arrow and that second market is illegal per se and that GW doesn't have to prove copyright to unworthy underlings to win this case.

A juror who has aftermarket parts on their truck or car could make a real difference. That's an easy narrative to sell to folks even if they don't get the little toy soldiers part. For the conversion parts at least.