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.

I can see you are pretty new to the forum and have not followed the case which to be fair is over 30 months old and has produced about 500 pages of documentation so far.

Chapter House took legal advice before launching their business, and believed they were not infringing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Chapter House took legal advice before launching their business, and believed they were not infringing.

I've been following along pretty well, but I wasn't aware of this point. Was it ever mentioned if this a viable defense for them?

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:

And, lets be real here... CHS KNEW what they were infringing. If nothing else, us common people were telling them, "Dude! At least change the name to "Lizzard sect armored warriors" like Scribor does.... The continued use of (claimed*) copyrighted names was a poke in the eye of GW and forced them to bring suit.

*The court has sifted that list of copyrighted terms for actual copyrights and has come up with some answers... I do not mean to re-hash that bit....

What is your legal background, that you are able to know it was an infringement? CLAIMED infringement does not equal infringement.
Why should they change the name of something, if it is legally named, to something different, just to keep the big bad wolf from blowing? Let him see that your house is made of bricks, I say!

Eric

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Chapter House took legal advice before launching their business, and believed they were not infringing.

I've been following along pretty well, but I wasn't aware of this point. Was it ever mentioned if this a viable defense for them?

Of course it's a viable defense. That's why there's a trial right now, isn't it?

We will find out before too long just *how* viable it is, kind you...

Valete,

JohnS

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:


And, lets be real here... CHS KNEW what they were infringing. If nothing else, us common people were telling them, "Dude! At least change the name to "Lizzard sect armored warriors" like Scribor does.... The continued use of (claimed*) copyrighted names was a poke in the eye of GW and forced them to bring suit.

*The court has sifted that list of copyrighted terms for actual copyrights and has come up with some answers... I do not mean to re-hash that bit....

That is an interpretation... The law allows for the fair use of trademarks for describing the application of a product. Infringement is that line that when crossed ceases to be CHS selling a CHS product and becomes CHS selling something as a GW product or something intended to impose such confusion. Initially GW asserted everything was infringing and since abandoned that assertion over about 1/3 of products... This only to say GWs position by their own admission was overreaching. CHS is following the general practices of a variety of industries. If CHS is wrong in its understanding of the law it will only go on to show that other industries have catastrophic lapses.

Realize GW is arguing that they have ownership over a general set of aesthetics... If they win that decision it won't matter if you say "Lizzard sect armored warriors" or dinosaur man or anything else remotely GW sounding.

Gah.... long, thought out post using logic.

appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...

I give....


Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:
Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please...

It was the content of the post, not the number next to it that did it for me.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Chapter House took legal advice before launching their business, and believed they were not infringing.

I've been following along pretty well, but I wasn't aware of this point. Was it ever mentioned if this a viable defense for them?

Actually, it was posted as a declaration on their website way before GW started the lawsuit on 22nd December 2010 (is it really that long?)

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:
Gah.... long, thought out post using logic.

appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...

I give....


Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.

I apologise if you are a long time lurker who registered fairly recently.

Welcome to the forum!

So having gone through all the stuff I could find last night from the start of the month through the 9th, I think I know what each side is trying to argue based on the evidence they chose in the depositions. I'm going to attempt to summarize the arguments, but mind you I'm no legal expert, just someone who has been watching this on and off in interest:

GW's approach seems to be to outline a history of intentional choices to mimic, or otherwise borrow large collections of elements form Games Workshop art and models. Through deposition based testimony they seem to be focused on showing that CHS chose to try and copy GW's existing models (through emails, and the artist's interpretations of the instructions they were given as provided in the depositions) and art as an attempt to appeal to the existing hobby community, and that they did so with making as few changes as possible as to not alienate the customer base their were trying to tap into. From everything it looks like they're trying to establish means, intent and opportunity for this to be done.

CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.

Granted right now we're talking about a trial that is front of a jury though, so it's really down to the lawyers and their ability to really pitch their arguments well to the jury that counts at this point. Either side could walk away with a bloody nose from this just because the jury likes the other side's argument better, so I think it's fair to expect anything ranging from CHS winning to GW winning to both sides being legally smacked about from this with no winner. I know we all have our opinions, but right now this is not longer a case about all the facts, but how the jury interprets the facts they're given.

I have come up with a small theory on the side regarding GWs rumoured release schedule and this case. GW isn't releasing the Space Marine codex until October, that's 3.5 months after the verdict. Just enough time to order and print all the packaging and books I bet. Anyone else willing to guess if GW loses the Space Marine trademark from this trial we'll be seeing Adeptus Astartes in October?

Their sales of Space Marines will still be huge whether they are called Space Marines™, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines™ or Adaptes Astartes™ anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Their sales of Space Marines will still be huge whether they are called Space Marines™, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines™ or Adaptes Astartes™ anyway.

No doubt, but it was a thought they would want to use a protectable trademark over one that isn't to sell them by.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Their sales of Space Marines will still be huge whether they are called Space Marines™, Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines™ or Adaptes Astartes™ anyway.

No doubt, but it was a thought they would want to use a protectable trademark over one that isn't to sell them by.

Imperial Guard.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Its my understanding one of the rather nice custom tables from the chicago battle bunker was packed up and sent in as evidence for the trial, its a shame because now the store only has realm of battle boards (on every table). They used to have some pretty awesome and varied tables but they can't sell those so everything was switched out for the pre-made terrain. :(

How is sending a custom made table into the court going to help there case.

Likely it was requested to be sent in in order to help the jury visualize what the games are played on and it used a huge amount of GW parts in it's construction. They do in theory make and sell the appropriate parts that customers could build a simular table with. (If they have about $1,500 to blow) It may or may not have been shown, but it was packed up sent downtown at the request of the legal team. What they will do with it I have no clue. When we asked about it's sudden removal from the store we were only told that it was sent in for the court case, beyond that the manager was not privy to any deeper info. ::shrug:: I hope it comes back to the store as it was an awesome table.

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:
Gah.... long, thought out post using logic.

appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...

I give....


Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.

It was not just the number of posts - your post in question seemed to be missing some salient and important points.

If you have been reading the thread then your post was less justifiable.

In particular - after market parts are legal. so in that regard GW has no legitimate complaint.
Halberds, jetbikes, horned skulls (or skulls, skulls, skulls, everywhere), Roman numerals, the letter X, Empire, etc., etc., etc. do not belong to GW! Many of these have already been shut down.

So.... there is a very real question as to whether Chapterhouse was infringing. And, on a fair number of items already... it has been determined that they were not, in fact, infringing.

Just because GW claims to own the letter X does not mean that they do.... Or halberds, fur, horned skulls, grenade launchers.....

The Auld Grump, and after Spots the Space Marine... there may be a lack of surprise....

*EDIT* In regards to the double post thing... it seems the thing to do is ignore it - it goes away....

I think you put that succinctly.


A couple things I've noticed:

CHS has going against it the fact that one of its designers and owners isn't a native english speaker which through his limited diction make some of his statements out of context sound really bad and GW's lawyers are exploiting that by taking his emails and statements out of context and trying to emphasize them as directives.

GW's lawyers are painting CHS designers' personal experience with other sci-fi and fantasy as hearsay.

GW, they are trying to spin the extensive knowledge of GW's products on the part of CHS employees as purely predatory in nature.

GW is really afraid of losing on "Space Marine."

BOLS summary of the case this week.

UPDATE: END OF WEEK 1 Summary
Andy Jones Testimony:

Jones laid out many GW points points involving both licensing and financials under questioning:

-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"

If this is correct doesn't it contradict a lot of what GW has been all pissy about? A large part of their arguement has been if it's shown on a GW model or even hinted at being used alongside a GW model then it's a "derivative work" as it's trying to fit into the GW univrse. Now in court Jones is saying the opposite, aftermarket is ok if it's in this format which acknowledges it's intended for 40k. Color me confused...

ClockworkZion wrote:

CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.

[opinion] That does seem to be CHS's objective right from the start, even from before the papers were filed. In my (quite possibly biased) eyes CHS set out to infringe a very discrete and defined product. [/opinion]

And from reactions on most forums, the consensus of quite a few hobbyists is that bringing down GW will be a good thing. Why is that? There are other mini companies, the loss of this IP may see GW go the way of FASA. GW is not a monopoly any more than Ford is and does not need to be broken.


Longtime, occasional lurker. Even longer poster on Portent/Warseer/B&C

 paulson games wrote:
BOLS summary of the case this week.

UPDATE: END OF WEEK 1 Summary
Andy Jones Testimony:

Jones laid out many GW points points involving both licensing and financials under questioning:

-GW considers the following naming schemes to be acceptable for the aftermarket, applying to all products that interact with their own 40K products:
PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"

If this is correct doesn't it contradict a lot of what GW has been all pissy about? A large part of their arguement has been if it's shown on a GW model or even hinted at being used alongside a GW model then it's a "derivative work" as it's trying to fit into the GW univrse. Now in court Jones is saying the opposite, aftermarket is ok if it's in this format which acknowledges it's intended for 40k. Color me confused...

This a direct consequence of this case and how it's been going. GW is being forced to acknowledge the draconian nature of its interpretation of law. Their Lawyers are very obviously telling them what they have to allow. It's important for everyone to understand GW's example is just that an example... Companies providing compatible products don't need to phrase things exactly like that as long as the retain the spirit of those comments... I have no doubt the next fight for someone else will be when GW tries to assert a mandate requiring that exact phrasing.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:
Gah.... long, thought out post using logic.

appeared to double post,
went to delete one.
now the only one showing is the edited one...

I give....


Also do not assume that because I have a low post count, I have not read everything or that I am a "newb" please... If a mod wanted to get my first post back I wouldnt mind but it's okay if you dont.

It was not just the number of posts - your post in question seemed to be missing some salient and important points.

If you have been reading the thread then your post was less justifiable.

In particular - after market parts are legal. so in that regard GW has no legitimate complaint.
Halberds, jetbikes, horned skulls (or skulls, skulls, skulls, everywhere), Roman numerals, the letter X, Empire, etc., etc., etc. do not belong to GW! Many of these have already been shut down.

So.... there is a very real question as to whether Chapterhouse was infringing. And, on a fair number of items already... it has been determined that they were not, in fact, infringing.

Just because GW claims to own the letter X does not mean that they do.... Or halberds, fur, horned skulls, grenade launchers.....

The Auld Grump, and after Spots the Space Marine... there may be a lack of surprise....

*EDIT* In regards to the double post thing... it seems the thing to do is ignore it - it goes away....

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck it is made to fit onto the duck. You are correct, none of those things are copyrightable. I am all for aftermarket parts, however.... If I take the whole of this chaplain mini:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html
which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?

If 12 thinking Jurors look at this chaplain next to a GW chaplain and do not see a direct dirivative work then there is no hope for any IP anywhere.

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.

[opinion] That does seem to be CHS's objective right from the start, even from before the papers were filed. In my (quite possibly biased) eyes CHS set out to infringe a very discrete and defined product. [/opinion]

And from reactions on most forums, the consensus of quite a few hobbyists is that bringing down GW will be a good thing. Why is that? There are other mini companies, the loss of this IP may see GW go the way of FASA. GW is not a monopoly any more than Ford is and does not need to be broken.


Longtime, occasional lurker. Even longer poster on Portent/Warseer/B&C

Well, this is off topic for this particular thread, but it doesn't seem to be slowing anyone else down....

I would submit that very few people want GW 'broken' but many people are desperate to see the Ivory Tower at least get shaken up a bit, and perhaps force a change in culture from GWHQ that means they perhaps change their approach, at least a bit, so they become more like the company that so many Warhammer fans wish they would be, so we can give them more money and see the game many of us love grow and develop, rather than languish in the lazy, cash cow, feth you vets, limbo its apparently stuck in.

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

CHS' defense is to try and paint GW's IP into a broad case of GW trying to claim protection on a broad set of things that they've taken from history (heraldry and Roman Legionnaire armour is both discussed multiple times) and from inspiration from other sources both real and fictional. I believe the aim is to get GW's IP either defined so narrowly that they can't protect it, or to weaken it in the eyes of the jury as being indefensible and public domain.

[opinion] That does seem to be CHS's objective right from the start, even from before the papers were filed. In my (quite possibly biased) eyes CHS set out to infringe a very discrete and defined product. [/opinion]

And from reactions on most forums, the consensus of quite a few hobbyists is that bringing down GW will be a good thing. Why is that? There are other mini companies, the loss of this IP may see GW go the way of FASA. GW is not a monopoly any more than Ford is and does not need to be broken.


Longtime, occasional lurker. Even longer poster on Portent/Warseer/B&C

Largely because GW is trying to claim an entire market in a monopolistic fashion, and is willing to overstate what is their IP.

In short, the reason that folks are treating them like the bad guys in this is that in no small part they are the bad guys.

Claiming wolf tails as IP? Horned skulls, grenade launchers, or even the term 'Space Marine'? Not theirs, yet they are willing to sue over it, in the hope and belief that a smaller opponent will just melt away under the threat.

They are also trying to downplay that they 'borrowed' (stole, but in a friendly way...) most of the elements that they are trying to claim as iconic. Moorcock's eight pointed chaos sign, Judge Dredd's shoulders and bikes, the Roman's standards....

Me, I miss the old GW... the one that complained about over zealous IP protection, or griped about the prices of RPG products.

I miss the thin but value filled B&W White Dwarf that I met in the early eighties.

Part of the anger is from folks watching a company that they liked and respected turning into... well... the GW of today.

The Auld Grump, from back in the days when White Dwarf had articles for using Space Orks in a Paranoia game.... Or Daleks that turned out to be suits for cute fuzzy teddy bears....

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:

which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?

Here's where you're messing up: derivative =\= infringement OR being the same thing. Infringement is using or abusing a trademark in such a way as to confuse the market that X is Y, intentionally or not.

"Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers."

Try reading the entire thread, you WILL learn about why your opinion is incorrect and uninformed and has thus been disputed.

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:
It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck it is made to fit onto the duck. You are correct, none of those things are copyrightable. I am all for aftermarket parts, however.... If I take the whole of this chaplain mini:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html
which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?

If 12 thinking Jurors look at this chaplain next to a GW chaplain and do not see a direct dirivative work then there is no hope for any IP anywhere.

"Derivative work" has a very specific legal meaning, and encompasses quite a bit more than "it looks like something GW might have made."

 Ammobunkerdean wrote:


It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck it is made to fit onto the duck. You are correct, none of those things are copyrightable. I am all for aftermarket parts, however.... If I take the whole of this chaplain mini:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html
which parts are not derivative of GW's intelectual property? I put all the parts together and got a Ford? Should Ford let this go?

It is theoretically possible to build an older fashioned variety of cars purely from 3rd party companies. For example I was watching a show on the Speed channel where the show which is about vehicle restoration was emphasizing that this company sold such an extensive collection of brand new replica parts that it was possible to build a brand new 70's corvette. While I dunno about any licensing, they also emphasized that Chevy actually endorsed the use of this company. On the show they then built a new-old Corvette in that companies warehouse. This is only to say it happens and to some it perfectly ok.

I would say that this:



is quite clearly a rip off of this:



and a variation on



Combine this with the lack of protection on Space Marine and *anyone* could make a Space Marine game, as long as they didn't use any GW logos.

 BryllCream wrote:
I would say that this:



is quite clearly a rip off of this:



and a variation on



Combine this with the lack of protection on Space Marine and *anyone* could make a Space Marine game, as long as they didn't use any GW logos.

It isn't as simple as that either. I'm pretty sure GW didn't start selling those shoulder pads until after CHS, but maybe I'm wrong.

Second there is a certain context to the product that this comparison ignores. Simply GW sells whole space marines and not so much those backpacks by themselves. GW would have to assert copyright over the "iconic" nature of those subcomponents as immediate identifiers of their models as they have over the shoulder pad to make your claim. In lue of that or GW changing the form they sell their models the law won't protect them from similar designs from other companies. Even then there would be arguements about how the CHS pieces transform the nature of the inspirational pieces.

I looked through their whole catalogue and couldn't find those metal backpacks. Are those even a Chapterhouse product?

The closest I could find is this:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/249111.page
Same image. It's about some recaster on eBay. IT's not Chapterhouse.

Also, there;'s this original source of the image:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html
There is no indication that those backpacks are Chapterhouse products.

 Absolutionis wrote:
I looked through their whole catalogue and couldn't find those metal backpacks. Are those even a Chapterhouse product?

The closest I could find is this:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/249111.page
Same image. It's about some recaster on eBay. IT's not Chapterhouse.

Also, there;'s this original source of the image:
http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html
There is no indication that those backpacks are Chapterhouse products.

Other than the second link is a review of a CHS kit and Nick from CHS comments on the article?

Those shoulderpads are from Forge World.

The Terminator shoulderpads(which are exactly the same style as the normal infantry shoulderpads that they later did) and the Rhino/Land Raider doors are in FW catalogs I have dating back to 2006, but the normal Salamander infantry shoulderpads came with one of the Badab War books(I want to say it was book two off the top of my head; I did not order much from that timeframe so do not have catalogs to refer to).