Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.

To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.

Trademarks as opposed to use of a word in prose or everyday language are two very different things. Games Workshop is always vigilant in protecting the former, but never makes any claim to owning the latter.

USPTO wrote:The title, or a portion of a title, of a single creative work must be refused registration under Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act unless the title has been used on a series of creative works. 3 The title of a single creative work is not registrable on either the Principal or Supplemental Register. Herbko Inter'l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc ., 308 F.3d 1156, 1162, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("the title of a single book cannot serve as a source identifier"); In re Cooper, 254 F.2d 611, 615-16, 117 USPQ 396, 400 (C.C.P.A. 1958), cert. denied , 358 U.S. 840, 119 USPQ 501 (1958) ("A book title ... identifies a specific literary work ... and is not associated in the public mind with the publisher, printer or bookseller...."); In re Posthuma , 45 USPQ2d 2011 (TTAB 1998) (title of a live theater production held unregistrable); In re Hal Leonard Publishing Corp ., 15 USPQ2d 1574 (TTAB 1990) (INSTANT KEYBOARD, as used on music instruction books, found unregistrable as the title of a single work); In re Appleby , 159 USPQ 126 (TTAB 1968) (title of single phonograph record, as distinguished from series, does not function as mark).

 agnosto wrote:
On the MCA Hogarth thing; she beat GW with the help of EFF apparently.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/mca-hogarth-trademark-bullying-and-free-speech

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.. what are the odds this will completely blow up in GWs face and 3 years from now there will be a 120 page thread about the GW vs Hogarth case?

 Kroothawk wrote:
Even if this causes prices for Codices go up to 100 US-$.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
Most likely the cost is still in the 6 figure range.

If GW win's its not really the cost of counsel, GW considers this an investment in protecting their IP. I would be curious to see if this is mentioned in the investment report coming up.

As long as we keep buying GW can afford to keep this up forever.

 skyth wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
Most likely the cost is still in the 6 figure range.

If GW win's its not really the cost of counsel, GW considers this an investment in protecting their IP. I would be curious to see if this is mentioned in the investment report coming up.

As long as we keep buying GW can afford to keep this up forever.

If they thought they had a chance of winning, the costs would have been capitalized and included as an intangible asset as copyright/trademark. Last year's report (Where the trial was ongoing) had no such asset associated with the trial. Thus, they had to expense it.

pitboy2710 wrote:
Will there come a point that GW cannot afford to keep it going with CH having free representation.

knightdrake wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
Most likely the cost is still in the 6 figure range.

If GW win's its not really the cost of counsel, GW considers this an investment in protecting their IP. I would be curious to see if this is mentioned in the investment report coming up.

As long as we keep buying GW can afford to keep this up forever.

If they thought they had a chance of winning, the costs would have been capitalized and included as an intangible asset as copyright/trademark. Last year's report (Where the trial was ongoing) had no such asset associated with the trial. Thus, they had to expense it.

That could occur under GAAP but we are talking about the UK which would likely be using IFRS standards. Could be slightly different accounting treat than US standards.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
So for the layman what is the status? Who's winning? Where is CH's cheering section?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
.

A saner course might have been to officially license CH, but that has its own perils.

SeanDrake wrote:

As such gw now appear to be hoping to get the required copyrights during the procedings they started against ch for breaking there copyrights.

Chapterhouse Studios LLC (“Chapterhouse”) writes to complete the record regarding a recent Games Workshop Limited (“GW”) submission. On January 31, 2013, GW submitted a “Notice of Filing” (Dkt. No. 275) to inform the Court that it had filed a letter with the U.S. Copyright Office responding to a refusal to register its Assault Squad Shoulder Pad because it “lack[ed] the authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” Although GW attached its own letter to its Notice of Filing (“Games Workshop’s January 31 Letter”), it omitted the Copyright Office’s letter refusing registration (“Refusal Letter”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Refusal Letter is dated January 4, 2013 and addressed to GW’s trial counsel in this action, Jonathan Moskin. At the January 14, 2013 hearing on Chapterhouse’s Motion for Reconsideration, Mr. Moskin represented that all correspondence with the Copyright Office had been produced, although ten days had passed since the Refusal Letter was sent. Moreover, although Chapterhouse’s counsel requested that it immediately be provided with the refusal letter once GW’s attorney received it, GW’s counsel refused to provide it until, as he put it, GW decided how to respond, and it was withheld from Chapterhouse’s counsel until January 31, 2013

We carmot register this work because it lacks the authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.

Copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in some physical form. See 17 U.S.C. §102(a). As used in the copyright context, the term “original” means that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least a minimal degree of creativity. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

To satisfy these requirements, a work of the visual arts must contain a thinimum amount of pictorial, graphic or sculptural authorship. Copyright does not protect familiar symbols or designs; basic geometric shapes; words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; or mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring. See 37 C.F.R. §202.1. Further, copyright does not extend to any idea, concept, system, or process which may be embodied in a work. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Neither the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work, nor the amount of time and effort expended to create a work are factors that are considered under the copyright law. See Bleistein v. Donaldson, 188 U.S. 239 (1903); Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). The question is whether there is sufficient creative authorship within the meaning of the copyright statute and settled case law.
After careful consideration, we have determined that this particular work will not support a claim to copyright for 2-Dimensional artwork or sculpture under the standards described above.

Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited (“Games Workshop”) respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its motion to clarify now, while there may be time to remedy the matter during discovery, the consequences of Chapterhouse’s failure to comply with two prior Court orders in this case regarding discovery and its admitted failure to preserve documents. For the sake of brevity, Games Workshop has not included with this motion all correspondence seeking to resolve these matters without Court intervention.