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.

 d-usa wrote:
Seems like from the packaging and from looking at the website, the aquila = Games Workshop , just like the Swoosh = Nike.

One of the Imperial Aquilae on GW corporate headquarters is actually larger than the eagle that Goebbels had placed in the Reichstag. I hear that in Nottingham if you ask local taxi drivers for the "Reichstag" they will know to drive you to GW HQ. It's a landmark used as directions to get to other parts of the industrial estate. I love the irony.

I just had an idea, and I promise this will be my only off-topic post about it...

Build a scale replica of GW HQ Nottingham for a W40K table...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440130a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k

Not a single Aquila on that page(barring the rotating product ads).

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat920001a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landingArmy.jsp?catId=cat440173a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k

In fact, the only place that readily shows the Aquila is the default page before choosing a country, and that aquila doesn't show the registered mark.

There is absolutely nothing about the aquila that denotes GW product. 40k has it's identifying mark, as does WFB and LotR.

From that, even if they put it on the back of a box, it's nowhere on the site. I'd say it falls as copyright if anything, and the copyright office probably wouldn't pass it.

 Orlanth wrote:

One of the Imperial Aquilae on GW corporate headquarters is actually larger than the eagle that Goebbels had placed in the Reichstag. I hear that in Nottingham if you ask local taxi drivers for the "Reichstag" they will know to drive you to GW HQ. It's a landmark used as directions to get to other parts of the industrial estate. I love the irony.

Assuming that the grid above the GW front doors is 3' x 3' and that the doors are around 6'-8" tall, those GW eagles are about 21' wide. If the grid and door width are based on a full meter, them they are about 23' wide. The Reichstag eagle looks wider than that to me. I'm guessing at least 25', but probably more like 30 - 35'.

So is GW in danger of losing the Aquila then?

I mean if they hadn't included it on the suit against CPH somebody would have to contest it but as they claimed it as a trademark now if the jury sides with CPH and strucks GW's claims as not valid the Aquila could end up as free game for 3rd party companies that want to sculpt stuff for IG and marines.

M.

doubtful, what is more likely in my brain is that the best that will happen is that these double headed eagles will be proved not to be aquilla and therefore exempt, as should all double headed eagles that are clearly not the aquilla.

for example it is clear from earlier discussion that one of the key symbolisms in the Aquilla is that one head is blinded and the other is able to see, likewise you could argue whether a double headed eagle with no feet could be included in the definition of an aquilla as the feet obviously symbolise something else... etc,

The Aquila is the Romanov doubleheaded eagle...just google it. It's not trademarkable as it belongs to history.

the only real difference other than stylistic is the blinded or blindfolded bird on one side, you can put stylised Romanov eagles on your figures all day and night just don't give them one eye, it's no eyes or two

For whats it worth, here is the Trademark entry for the aquila:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4008:aedpy.5.7

Did CHS even use anything resembling an Aquilla?

 aka_mythos wrote:
Did CHS even use anything resembling an Aquilla?

That I honestly don't know.

I don't even know it GW actually included the Aquilla on stuff they are suing over or if this discussion got sidetracked over some "GW thinks they own all two-headed eagles" comment.

 Miguelsan wrote:
So is GW in danger of losing the Aquila then?

I mean if they hadn't included it on the suit against CPH somebody would have to contest it but as they claimed it as a trademark now if the jury sides with CPH and strucks GW's claims as not valid the Aquila could end up as free game for 3rd party companies that want to sculpt stuff for IG and marines.

M.

Not too sure if that will be the outcome of this case. CHS doesn't actually want GW to loose any of their trademarks. It is important for companies like CHS (and Summit Racing, iSkinz...) for companies to have trademarks which they can then use to identify the products that they sell with. Doing so does not harm nor run the risk of dilluting a trademark (in many ways it makes the mark more powerful as it increases its known usage). It merely allows a company which sells compatible items to identify what their products are compatible with.

If someone were to actually challenge the mark though, I do feel that a good case could be made for GW loosing it because of the manner in which they use it. You would be hard pressed to actually figure out what it identifies - as it isn't used in any regular manner througout a single product line (or across all product lines if you would like to assume that aquila device = GW).

mullet_steve wrote:
doubtful, what is more likely in my brain is that the best that will happen is that these double headed eagles will be proved not to be aquilla and therefore exempt, as should all double headed eagles that are clearly not the aquilla.

for example it is clear from earlier discussion that one of the key symbolisms in the Aquilla is that one head is blinded and the other is able to see, likewise you could argue whether a double headed eagle with no feet could be included in the definition of an aquilla as the feet obviously symbolise something else... etc,

Important point of order. All eagle icons are aquila. Some aquila are double headed. GW makes a claim to one specific style of a double headed aquila. They did not invent the term, the term goes back to Roman era, though the icon is even older than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)

 d-usa wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Did CHS even use anything resembling an Aquilla?

That I honestly don't know.

I don't even know it GW actually included the Aquilla on stuff they are suing over or if this discussion got sidetracked over some "GW thinks they own all two-headed eagles" comment.

Not sure if their products have one on it - though a fair amount of hay was made in one of the depositions by a GW legal team member that the CHS website at the time used an aquila in there header, which they said would cause confusion.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090607231914/http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/

It was half of an aquila though, and a different style entirely...but what the heck, the straws people grasp for.

As far as the suit goes...GW brought it up a few times, in addition to the basic complaint found here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.261.0.pdf (about half way through they list the various registered trademarks that are at issue).

YakManDoo wrote:
The Aquila is the Romanov doubleheaded eagle...just google it. It's not trademarkable as it belongs to history.

Be fair please. GW doesnt use the Romanov eagle, or the French, or he Third Reich, or the one from the US Seal. They use their own, trademarking their aquilla is fine, they cant claim trademark on all aquilae, nor have they tried.

 Orlanth wrote:

YakManDoo wrote:
The Aquila is the Romanov doubleheaded eagle...just google it. It's not trademarkable as it belongs to history.

Be fair please. GW doesnt use the Romanov eagle, or the French, or he Third Reich, or the one from the US Seal. They use their own, trademarking their aquilla is fine, they cant claim trademark on all aquilae, nor have they tried.

As explained however, their claim to it as a trademark is insanely weak. As is their claim to most other symbols that are not the main 5: GamesWorkshop logo, Citadel Miniatures logo, WFB logo, 40k logo and the LotR logo.

Most symbols that GW claims trademark over are actually matters of copyright, and those claims would also be very weak.

The biggest thing here is that GW feels that anyone using these things somehow diminishes their value when really it does the opposite. For every CHS shoulder set sold, 99% of the time it's going on a GW space marine.

I could understand these concerns more if GW still offered bits like they did in the past, but the handed the bits business over to smaller companies with less overhead(which makes complete financial sense) but then they complained about people filling a market void that GW itself helped create.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Did CHS even use anything resembling an Aquilla?

That I honestly don't know.

I don't even know it GW actually included the Aquilla on stuff they are suing over or if this discussion got sidetracked over some "GW thinks they own all two-headed eagles" comment.

Not sure if their products have one on it - though a fair amount of hay was made in one of the depositions by a GW legal team member that the CHS website at the time used an aquila in there header, which they said would cause confusion.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090607231914/http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/

It was half of an aquila though, and a different style entirely...but what the heck, the straws people grasp for.

As far as the suit goes...GW brought it up a few times, in addition to the basic complaint found here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.261.0.pdf (about half way through they list the various registered trademarks that are at issue).

Thanks for that info, I had not seen the previous one, only the current one.

 Orlanth wrote:

YakManDoo wrote:
The Aquila is the Romanov doubleheaded eagle...just google it. It's not trademarkable as it belongs to history.

Be fair please. GW doesnt use the Romanov eagle, or the French, or he Third Reich, or the one from the US Seal. They use their own, trademarking their aquilla is fine, they cant claim trademark on all aquilae, nor have they tried.

Be fair...they are attempting to claim all usage rights to the following:

Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation:
Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation: Adeptus Mechanicus, Space Marine Assault Squad, Alpha Legion, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Bolter, Tyranid Bonesword, Cadian, Carnifex, Chaos Space Marines, Chaplain, Chimera, Crimson Fists, Dark Angel, Dark Elf, Deathwatch, Demolisher, Space Marine Devastators, Dreadnought, Drop Pod, Eldar, Elder Farseer, Eldar Jetbike, Eldar Warlock, Seer Council, Empire, Exorcist, Flesh Tearers, Gaunts, Genestealer, Gunship, Haemonculus, Heavy bolter, Hellhound, High Elf, Hive Tyrant, Horus Heresy, Howling Banshee, Imperial Fists, Imperial Guard, Insignium Astartes, Iron Hands, Jetbike, Jump Pack, Kroxigor, Land Raider, Land Speeder, Tyranid Lash Whip, Legion of the Damned, Leman Russ, Librarian, Lightning Claw, Lizardmen, Melta, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Striking Scorpion, Soul Drinker, Space Wolves, Stormraven, Storm Shield, Stormtrooper, Space Marine Tactical Squad, Techmarine, Termagants, Terminator, Tervigon, Thousand Sons, Thunder Hammer, Tyrant, Tyranid, Tyranid Warrior, Urien Rakarth.

And lets not forget their registered mark...SPACE MARINE.

For simplicities sake, I went ahead and marked the ones which are so common as to rediculous without being specified. Now, you might say that GW would never go after someone producing a rhinocerous miniature...but, the fact remains that they have shown little in terms of restraint or common sense in terms of who or what they go after (provided the company is small enough that they think they can squash it without a fight that is).

I am sure with a little bit of sleep, I might even recall prior works which were identified with some of the other terms as well - many of them often enough to have become generic (like plasma...really, they want to lay claim to plasma).

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

YakManDoo wrote:
The Aquila is the Romanov doubleheaded eagle...just google it. It's not trademarkable as it belongs to history.

Be fair please. GW doesnt use the Romanov eagle, or the French, or he Third Reich, or the one from the US Seal. They use their own, trademarking their aquilla is fine, they cant claim trademark on all aquilae, nor have they tried.

Be fair...they are attempting to claim all usage rights to the following:

Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation:
Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation: Adeptus Mechanicus, Space Marine Assault Squad, Alpha Legion, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Bolter, Tyranid Bonesword, Cadian, Carnifex, Chaos Space Marines, Chaplain, Chimera, Crimson Fists, Dark Angel, Dark Elf, Deathwatch, Demolisher, Space Marine Devastators, Dreadnought, Drop Pod, Eldar, Elder Farseer, Eldar Jetbike, Eldar Warlock, Seer Council, Empire, Exorcist, Flesh Tearers, Gaunts, Genestealer, Gunship, Haemonculus, Heavy bolter, Hellhound, High Elf, Hive Tyrant, Horus Heresy, Howling Banshee, Imperial Fists, Imperial Guard, Insignium Astartes, Iron Hands, Jetbike, Jump Pack, Kroxigor, Land Raider, Land Speeder, Tyranid Lash Whip, Legion of the Damned, Leman Russ, Librarian, Lightning Claw, Lizardmen, Melta, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Striking Scorpion, Soul Drinker, Space Wolves, Stormraven, Storm Shield, Stormtrooper, Space Marine Tactical Squad, Techmarine, Termagants, Terminator, Tervigon, Thousand Sons, Thunder Hammer, Tyrant, Tyranid, Tyranid Warrior, Urien Rakarth.

And lets not forget their registered mark...SPACE MARINE.

For simplicities sake, I went ahead and marked the ones which are so common as to rediculous without being specified. Now, you might say that GW would never go after someone producing a rhinocerous miniature...but, the fact remains that they have shown little in terms of restraint or common sense in terms of who or what they go after (provided the company is small enough that they think they can squash it without a fight that is).

I am sure with a little bit of sleep, I might even recall prior works which were identified with some of the other terms as well - many of them often enough to have become generic (like plasma...really, they want to lay claim to plasma).

A touch more obscure, but Carnifex and Termagant are quite open to use by other companies. The first being an executioner in ancient Rome, the second being either an idol named in various medieval plays and supposed to be part of Muslim worship, or later, a bully or shrewish, unpleasant woman.

Added: In a similar vein, Lictor is another obscure title from ancient Rome.

Sci fi wise, those obscure latin terms got used by Gene Wolfe (Carnifex, Lictor etc..) in the early 80s with his Book of the New Sun series. Hopefully the keen legal mind that went after Spots will take umbrage at The Sword of the Lictor.


But we are meandering a bit off topic now I think....

 Orlanth wrote:

YakManDoo wrote:
The Aquila is the Romanov doubleheaded eagle...just google it. It's not trademarkable as it belongs to history.

Be fair please. GW doesnt use the Romanov eagle, or the French, or he Third Reich, or the one from the US Seal. They use their own, trademarking their aquilla is fine, they cant claim trademark on all aquilae, nor have they tried.

So it is not like there is no prior art avaialable of this?

But you are right, it looks nothing like those , it looks similar to a Byzantine eagle

Why come back to those references to earlier two-headed eagles? Not even in a heraldic sense are they the same, things like open or closed wings, the crown in the middle, the keys at the bottom, the fangs holding cross and globus cruciger clearly distinguish them. To the Nazi Reichsadler it is not identical in a heraldic sense, either, for that bears only one head and holds the swastika emblem in its fangs. By the overall appearance GW clearly cited it, but they didn't copy that, nor the imperial austrian, nor any other heraldic eagle, not in a heraldic sense, not in a trademark sense, for even if you hold them confusable, none of those political entities to my knowledge ever delved into miniatures market.
Even if you consider the vast use of the Nazi emblems comparable to Merchandising (and indeed they followed a kind of marketing policy in order to establish solidarity among the populace by excessive displaying of exactly defined brands and logos) at least Germany does not seem to consider GWs Imperial Aquila too similar to the Reichsadler, otherwise it would not be allowed to be used around here, for by german law openly displaying of symbols of the Nazi era is forbidden.

Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation: (...) Lizardmen

Difficult to argue for them that they were not aware of a.o. D&D using Lizardmen, when GW started as a distributor of D&D.

BTW the Citadel brand is still in use for items used for more than one game system, like paints, tools and some terrain.

 Hruotland wrote:
Why come back to those references to earlier two-headed eagles? Not even in a heraldic sense are they the same, things like open or closed wings, the crown in the middle, the keys at the bottom, the fangs holding cross and globus cruciger clearly distinguish them. To the Nazi Reichsadler it is not identical in a heraldic sense, either, for that bears only one head and holds the swastika emblem in its fangs. By the overall appearance GW clearly cited it, but they didn't copy that, nor the imperial austrian, nor any other heraldic eagle, not in a heraldic sense, not in a trademark sense, for even if you hold them confusable, none of those political entities to my knowledge ever delved into miniatures market.
Even if you consider the vast use of the Nazi emblems comparable to Merchandising (and indeed they followed a kind of marketing policy in order to establish solidarity among the populace by excessive displaying of exactly defined brands and logos) at least Germany does not seem to consider GWs Imperial Aquila too similar to the Reichsadler, otherwise it would not be allowed to be used around here, for by german law openly displaying of symbols of the Nazi era is forbidden.

I believe the line of discussion has been asking what trademark/logo GW uses, and some have looked to the Imperial Aquila. That has in turn gone from the Citadel Minatures logo, book logo, waterstamps etc and how the aquila is on lots of IG products but not readily id'ed on the boxes the models come in. Then it was brought up that GW can't really copyright the two headed bird icon as it was used throughout history. But it can try and use it as a consistent trademark and that lead into if another company can alter it slightly and still use a two headed bird. At least that's what I gathered from reading.

 d-usa wrote:
For whats it worth, here is the Trademark entry for the aquila:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4008:aedpy.5.7

Yep, linking to the search url will not work once the session ends. However I believe this may work, from the previous page.

I think the link for the trademark is to an expired search, this link may work better http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77575293&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Koppo wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
For whats it worth, here is the Trademark entry for the aquila:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4008:aedpy.5.7

Yep, linking to the search url will not work once the session ends. However I believe this may work, from the previous page.

I think the link for the trademark is to an expired search, this link may work better http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77575293&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Well, poop on me

 Orlanth wrote:


One of the Imperial Aquilae on GW corporate headquarters is actually larger than the eagle that Goebbels had placed in the Reichstag. I hear that in Nottingham if you ask local taxi drivers for the "Reichstag" they will know to drive you to GW HQ. It's a landmark used as directions to get to other parts of the industrial estate. I love the irony.

I've tried this several times on different occasions and it has yet to elicit more than bemusement/puzzlement.

GWs motion to oppose CHS motion to Reconsider is up. I've only downloaded the motion itself, none of the exhibits.


Starting at page 8 you can see what was used from Dr. Grindley's deposition with Mr. Keener. Also pops up in page 19 in a foot note.

Looks like Dr. Grindley din't give them anything useful to use, but then I'm not a lawyer.

IANAL but I should think there is a problem registering a copyright on a scale item. If the GW shoulder pad is copyrightable as an original design because it is very large on a 28mm figure, what is to stop a company manufacturing a piece of the same physical size but designed as a normal size shoulder pad for a 40mm figure?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IANAL but I should think there is a problem registering a copyright on a scale item. If the GW shoulder pad is copyrightable as an original design because it is very large on a 28mm figure, what is to stop a company manufacturing a piece of the same physical size but designed as a normal size shoulder pad for a 40mm figure?

That is one of the reasons why copyrights generally are applicable only to complete works...not components. A SM shoulder pad is huge on a 28mm figure, slightly bulky on a 1/48 scale figure and about the same size as a Star Wars Stormtrooper shoulder pad on something like a 1/35 scale figure. The thickness of the pads remains a technical limitation of the manufacturing process as much as it is a design choice.

Also, looking at the excerpts from depositions, Bob's memory is faulty...even just going off from information publicly available. Specifically it states that he didn't work off from any real world examples when designing the armor, but clear as day, in the "Evolution of a Space Marine" article, it shows the design progression of the helmet from a moto-cross visor helmet.

I would be willing to bet that there are additional works which were used to develop the other components of the armor which GW had conveintiently lost.

Even if there isn't a prior art picture nearly identical to the current pauldron, it is still plainly obvious that GW combined a number of elements of historical and SF armour in terms of general design, size and features.

They changed the look of Space Marines as they went along. The original shoulder pads were smaller and less elaborated than the current generation.

I do not know what those factors would mean to copyright, but since the US Copyright Office refused the application I presume there isn't enough originality in the design.