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.

So to sum up what has already been excluded as daft claims of ownership on GW's part:-

Chapterhouse Products
-(Masked Marine Heads),
-(SCAR and Sniper Rifle 28 mm Pack)
-(SCAR Drum Magazine Autoguns Resin 28mm
-(Death Angel Storm Shield)
-(Abbithan Banshees Guardswoman 28 mm figures)
-(Thunderstrike Missile Rack)
-(Large Ammo Belts for Heavy Weapons)
-(Hellhound)

General Claimed GW Trademarks

-Plasma Cannon
-Heavy Weapon
-Dark Elf
-Chaplain
-Empire
-Hellhound
-Howling Banshee

Claimed GW Trademark Iconography

-Black Templars Icon



-Blood Ravens Icon



-Celestial Lions Icon



-Dark Angels Winged Sword Icon



-Chaos Space Marines Eight-Pointed Star Icon



-Ultramarine Icon



-Adeptus Mechanicus Cog Icon



-Thousand Sons Icon



-Mantis Warrior Icon

Some of those, like the Mechanicus cog, are pretty significant losses to have knocked out so early without question. That means any company can now put the Mechanicus cog on their models. It also means GW have finally lost supposed ownership of the Chaos Star.

 Ketara wrote:
So to sum up what has already been excluded as daft claims of ownership on GW's part:-

Claimed GW Trademark Iconography

-Adeptus Mechanicus Cog Icon





Some of those, like the Mechanicus cog, are pretty significant losses to have knocked out so early without question. That means any company can now put the Mechanicus cog on their models. It also means GW have finally lost supposed ownership of the Chaos Star.

I'm not sure that's what was meant by the mechanicus cog icon. They might be referring to this (from chapterhouse):

Which is a far more generic icon.

More than likely. Suitably amended.

It's not surprising that common words and symbols such as "heavy weapon" or a cog wheel would fail to be found admissible of copyright.

The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.

I wonder when they will take all those from the page-long list of stuff in the TM&(R) section of each Codex...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It's not surprising that common words and symbols such as "heavy weapon" or a cog wheel would fail to be found admissible of copyright.

They were found not to be sufficient to Trademark, not Copyright - it's an important difference. Copyright would mean they were designs made by GW, Trademark means they were designs used and recognized as official GW products in their field.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.

Not really, I'm not even sure most of them were Registered Trademarks, and anyone can claim an unregistered trademark if you've been using it. It's only "challenged" when GW decides it is being infringed upon.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.

They were found not to be sufficient to Trademark, not Copyright - it's an important difference. Copyright would mean they were designs made by GW, Trademark means they were designs used and recognized as official GW products in their field.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.

Not really, I'm not even sure most of them were Registered Trademarks, and anyone can claim an unregistered trademark if you've been using it. It's only "challenged" when GW decides it is being infringed upon.

Can't decide if defending GW...or trolling. Please hold whilst I gather the cult.

He is just commenting on my point.

It isn't defending GW to explain the reasons why they do things, nor is it trolling.

Something also to note, is that they agreed to dismiss the claims without prejudice. Which means that GW can come back and sue for them again if they want.

 AustonT wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.

They were found not to be sufficient to Trademark, not Copyright - it's an important difference. Copyright would mean they were designs made by GW, Trademark means they were designs used and recognized as official GW products in their field.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The surprising thing is how long GW's claimed ownership has gone unchallenged.

Not really, I'm not even sure most of them were Registered Trademarks, and anyone can claim an unregistered trademark if you've been using it. It's only "challenged" when GW decides it is being infringed upon.

Can't decide if defending GW...or trolling. Please hold whilst I gather the cult.

Wait, what? Hold on... *rereads comments..." it seems like I screwed up the posts, which was meant to be Killlkrazy's quote divided in two, not the last half of his quote copied twice. Fixed, but seriously, even then it wasn't more than a factual statement over the difference between copyright and trademarks... so basically, cool your jets, right?

I'm saying that they're possibly not registered trademarks, and that anyone could claim them, which is why they don't get "challenged" as trademarks except where there is a dispute over their use (In other words, when GW thinks they're being "infringed"). I'm not making any claims about the strength or legitimacy of their claims, and I think some of them are ridiculous.

My jets are sufficiently cool as my comment was niether particularly verbose or laden with mildly censored obscenities.
When you answer the same thing twice with different words mongo is naturally suspicious of your intentions.
So imagine the image macro of Fry I'm not allowed to solely post even when it's all that's required...so basically put the lime in the coconut.

 Maddermax wrote:

I'm rather sure GWs argument has always been both, that they are toy soldiers, but that they are also artistic collectable models. I know some have said that if they were to call them "toy soldiers" that they wouldn't be allowed protection by copyright (but only fall under design rights), but I'm not sure that's an accurate legal position. At any rate, one assumes that from a legal standpoint they figure it doesn't matter, as GW has described the minis as toy soldiers before anyhow.

You're quite right, GWs' arguement has always been for both, but it's a bit kind of Schrodingers Cat here. The product has to be one thing or the other, and while their claims had never been challenged legally, they could continue to maintain that stance. People could never know what the state of the 'cat' until it was looked at. This case has forced the box open and so the legal status of the items in question must now be determined. And GW, in testimony, appears to have went for the lesser (worse?) option.

While it may be that there is no such provision in US law for design rights, if the court holds that they are toys, could we see an increase in home casting businesses producing the older oop models? for example, could someone in the UK start legally producing their own line of squats?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

I'm rather sure GWs argument has always been both, that they are toy soldiers, but that they are also artistic collectable models. I know some have said that if they were to call them "toy soldiers" that they wouldn't be allowed protection by copyright (but only fall under design rights), but I'm not sure that's an accurate legal position. At any rate, one assumes that from a legal standpoint they figure it doesn't matter, as GW has described the minis as toy soldiers before anyhow.

You're quite right, GWs' arguement has always been for both, but it's a bit kind of Schrodingers Cat here. The product has to be one thing or the other, and while their claims had never been challenged legally, they could continue to maintain that stance. People could never know what the state of the 'cat' until it was looked at. This case has forced the box open and so the legal status of the items in question must now be determined. And GW, in testimony, appears to have went for the lesser (worse?) option.

While it may be that there is no such provision in US law for design rights, if the court holds that they are toys, could we see an increase in home casting businesses producing the older oop models? for example, could someone in the UK start legally producing their own line of squats?

Cheers

Andrew

It would be interesting to see if it could be challenged in the UK, but since GW already describe their products as "toy soldiers" in official advertising to retailers, it seems that GW doesn't feel the "toys" description will hurt them, for what ever reason, and I doubt saying it in court is any worse for them than saying it in official advertising for years.

So assuming that the overactive IP department of a hundred million pound company aren't a bunch of complete ninnies, the "toy" moniker probably doesn't matter... but, of course, that might a big assumption to make considering their showing so far in this trial

if covered before sorry.

what gets me confused is this:

buy a car or truck. do you have to buy OEM parts for it?? nope. It may kill any warrenty you have but you can do it. Does Ford, GM or Dodge go after Bill's Auto parts for making things that fit their car/truck and go after them more when Bill takes out an add in the paper saying 'this fits Ford F150s dating 99-04?? If Bill was to make a complete car and sell it perhaps the OEM would sue but not for parts. CHS sells parts. Period.

GW's ego getting in the way.

 jason1977 wrote:
if covered before sorry.

what gets me confused is this:

buy a car or truck. do you have to buy OEM parts for it?? nope. It may kill any warrenty you have but you can do it. Does Ford, GM or Dodge go after Bill's Auto parts for making things that fit their car/truck and go after them more when Bill takes out an add in the paper saying 'this fits Ford F150s dating 99-04?? If Bill was to make a complete car and sell it perhaps the OEM would sue but not for parts. CHS sells parts. Period.

GW's ego getting in the way.

About 30 pages of this 150 page thread are dedicate to that discussion. Go back to the start and don't drag this off topic, please.

 jason1977 wrote:
if covered before sorry.

what gets me confused is this:

buy a car or truck. do you have to buy OEM parts for it?? nope. It may kill any warrenty you have but you can do it. Does Ford, GM or Dodge go after Bill's Auto parts for making things that fit their car/truck and go after them more when Bill takes out an add in the paper saying 'this fits Ford F150s dating 99-04?? If Bill was to make a complete car and sell it perhaps the OEM would sue but not for parts. CHS sells parts. Period.

GW's ego getting in the way.

It's been covered quite a bit, and yeah, that's basically what we're dealing with. That's probably why the jury questions included the "do you own a smartphone" question, as everyone who's got an iPhone will have a case manufactured FOR the iPhone but not manufactured BY apple. That's the parts angle. The other part was "hey you can't use our trademarks like Halberd or Roman Numerals or Empire even though they aren't really ours".

As I understand it After Market parts are legal where they replace parts that wear out over time.

Therefore replacement parts for cars etc are ok.

GW's argument is that they produce all you need to assemble their models and play the game and your figures in theory don't deteriorate after use.

Therefore in their eyes there is no need for After market Parts.

 Ketara wrote:
Some of those, like the Mechanicus cog, are pretty significant losses to have knocked out so early without question. That means any company can now put the Mechanicus cog on their models. It also means GW have finally lost supposed ownership of the Chaos Star.

It doesn't really mean that. All this means is that GW & CH were able to agree that CH's products do not infringe GW's claimed trademarks (for the list of trademarks appearing on the list); it doesn't mean that GW has somehow lost those claimed trademarks, or the ability to pursue trademark claims against other people for those marks in the future.

Separately:
Seriously - we're NOT revisiting the OEM/aftermarket car discussion again. There is plenty of discussion on that in this thread already.

StraightSilver wrote:
As I understand it After Market parts are legal where they replace parts that wear out over time.

Or look better.

Or work better.

Or are cheaper.

Or you want your VW Bug to look like a Bugatti.

Or a sun roof would be nice.

Or you want your four cylinder putt-putt to sound more like a V8.

Or....

Aftermarket parts are pretty much legal period - been taken to court many, many times....

The Auld Grump - there used to be a whole small industry for making the old VW bug look like a Corvette, a Bugatti, or a Colby - all through the magic of fiberglass....

 skyth wrote:
Something also to note, is that they agreed to dismiss the claims without prejudice. Which means that GW can come back and sue for them again if they want.

So all these 2.5 years of lawsuit for nothing? Because they are not in the mood to decide on it?

 Dysartes wrote:

czakk wrote:
Yes, Grindley is in, subject to some restrictions on what he can talk about. See the attached file for the order.

One more question for you, czakk, then I'll leave the matter be - having read that judgement, how much of an issue compared to Dr Grindley's previous testimony will those restrictions be?

Shouldn't be much of an issue at all.

Since GW just called them toys, I guess we're going to have to remove this quote, right?

In Britain a "miniature" is the one serving size of spirits bottle they give you in long haul airplanes.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Something also to note, is that they agreed to dismiss the claims without prejudice. Which means that GW can come back and sue for them again if they want.

So all these 2.5 years of lawsuit for nothing? Because they are not in the mood to decide on it?

No. The ONLY claim dismissed without prejudice is as regards "Hell Hound/Hellhound," which Chapterhouse never actually produced. All the rest are settled; GW cannot bring suit against CH on those claims against the existing products again.

 Maddermax wrote:

It would be interesting to see if it could be challenged in the UK, but since GW already describe their products as "toy soldiers" in official advertising to retailers, it seems that GW doesn't feel the "toys" description will hurt them, for what ever reason, and I doubt saying it in court is any worse for them than saying it in official advertising for years.

So assuming that the overactive IP department of a hundred million pound company aren't a bunch of complete ninnies, the "toy" moniker probably doesn't matter... but, of course, that might a big assumption to make considering their showing so far in this trial

But the toy moniker does matter, look at Lego. Lego claimed that their product wasn't a toy, but an educational/learning product (I think was the last one) but it was finally decided that, no, it was a toy and they lost exclusivity to the design shape and concept of their product. Why do you think you see so many clixblox, megablox, {insert silly block names here} across the supermarket shelves now, that are all fully compatable with lego? Did this result in Lego going bust? No, but it gave them competition. I still buy Lego (for my children honest ) in preference to third party kits because they are better overall.

I don't think that this will result in GW losing its' IP, as many people claim, but I do think that by acknowledging it is a 'toy' in a legal court will result in an inablity to challenge on the 'interfaceablity' (if that's even a word) of third party parts.

Only time will tell.

Cheers

Andrew

czakk wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

czakk wrote:
The partial consent judgment that was mentioned in the transcripts has been posted.

Also, GWs objections to testimony ruled on. 20 minutes docked from them as well, so CHS and GW are both down 20 minutes each.

Two questions, czakk - what were CHS fined 20 minutes for? And is the good Doctor clear to testify, as far as we know?

Same thing as GW, time spent ruling on their objections to bits of depositions. They are doing it ahead of time so it doesn't break the flow of the trial / distract the jury. So it's not really a 'fine' per se (although it looks a bit like one), just accounting for time spent dealing with matters.

Yes, Grindley is in, subject to some restrictions on what he can talk about. See the attached file for the order.

Please correct me if i am wrong, but this ruling even thou it excludes some testimony, seems like a huge blow to GW. I mean, everything excluded there can be left to the jury to put 2 and 2 together by simply flashing a few pictures and comparisons in front of them. Please correct me if i am wrong.

 AndrewC wrote:
... I still buy Lego (for my children honest ) in preference to third party kits because they are better overall.
...


Cheers

Andrew

And this is the crux of it, and the reason this whole lawsuit should never have happened. Competition is healthy, and Games Workshop would have lost nothing for allowing it. They might have terrible legal and PR departments, but there's not a whole lot of their lines that are really terrible (discounting finecast- and I think that's more to do with executive meddling). In point of fact, a whole lot of their models are indeed "Model" quality- people do buy their stuff just to assemble and paint and display. That is, perhaps, why they are able to get away with the "Not a toy" thing in Britain.

Trying to claim the 8 pointed star as their own?!?! Hilarious. I wonder if Michael Moorcock is aware of what's going on?

I'm sure he would be against this, and at the very least summon Elric of Melibone to come and cast the GW legal team adrift in the sea of time...

Folks - if you are just joining the thread, please do NOT jump in with comments about the claims in the case. It's been covered before. We've done a reasonable job of staying on-topic, which is current updates & discussion thereof. Discussion of the original filings is no longer topical.

 AndrewC wrote:
I don't think that this will result in GW losing its' IP, as many people claim,

It's actually looking more like GW never owned the IP to begin with. I don't think that there will suddenly open a floodgate of aftermarket bitz services, but the inability of GW to continue shooting C&D letters everywhere probably does result in greater aftermarket availability, especially in the case of CH who will be looking increasingly immune to C&D-fu.

None of this will impact GW's ability to make Space Wolf Terminators. It may result in more availability of alternative Space Wolf Terminators (who cares), or more importantly GW will be 'forced' into releasing models with codices. There won't be anymore Tervigon/Tyrannofex/Thunderwulf Cav/Daemon Chariot/Deathstrike Missile/etc droughts where everyone was forced to go to secondary suppliers for a model.