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.

Also, if I remember correctly the FW shoulder pads were released after the CHS ones... According to the TTGN entry on it, the posted date of the article was May 6th, 2011.

And the Chapterhouse shoulder pads were released July 20th, 2010, almost a full year before the Forgeworld pads.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I did find it amusing reading the transcripts where both sides are trying to bar certain things from being heard by the jury because the facts might be damaging to their cases.

Where can one access these transcripts? I need some procrastinating material

 azreal13 wrote:

 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?

Found the source. They're recasts of Chapterhouse products found on eBay:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/249111.page#853868
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/223949.page#846742

As far as I udnerstand, those backpacks are not Chapterhouse products. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://darkfuturegaming.blogspot.com/2009/05/check-this-chaplain-out-and-of-course.html

Can't see where you're getting confused?

This is a link to a review of some Salamander upgrade parts made by CHS in 2009. I cannot see how they can be construed as recasts?

A quick question, the eight sided star has been dismissed with prejudice, which document is that information contained in?

Cheers

Andrew

 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...

Reposting again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenzer_%26_Company

PRODUCT NAME: "compatible with 28mm science fiction miniatures"
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: "compatable with Games Workshop [insert exact GW kit title]"

Nominative use. That is what the quote above sounds to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use


The more I hear how this case is going the more right I am on not investing in into a company that does not know what they are doing.

Though I will still stand on my previous statement that GW will win on certain things and will lose on certain things.

All of this should have never gone to the courts. Millions of dollars are lost because of the lost revenue of cross licensing to 3rd tier companies over the years.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Except for the part where GW designers and writers have confirmed that units only get rules written for them once a model has been designed to some degree. Iirc that was a quote from a Q&A done at some GW event last year or the year before. They straight out said "designers come up with a new model that they like, and then we write rules for it into the new book".

Yes, it sounds like the future I am worried about is indeed already here.

You guys shouldn't really talk as if that was always the case.
Had I the patience I could look through my old (but not that old) WDs where JJ expresses exactly the opposite - that they, in order to avoid the blandness of codexes like Codex Eldar and Codex Dark Angels (old ones obviously), would happily produce units without models, and that they expected people to convert those.
But this was all pre-Chapterhouse vs. GW...

Except that Dark Angels (old ones) was one of the sets where they made the model then made up rules - which led to DA units that just did not work.... (Why, yes, I am looking at the 3rd edition Dark Angels character on Land Speeder....)

The Auld Grump

 AndrewC wrote:
A quick question, the eight sided star has been dismissed with prejudice, which document is that information contained in?

Cheers

Andrew

It's a little deeper than that. GW won't be able to sue because CHS agreed that GW had priority in those trademarks and thus can't use them. At least that's what it looks like here: http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.375.0.pdf

Six of these marks (Chaplain, Blood Ravens
Icon, Celestial Lions Icon, Dark Angels Winged Sword Icon, and Chaos Space Marines Eight-
Pointed Star Icon) are now subject to the parties’ Proposed Partial Consent Judgment to be filed
with the Court, so will not be tried.

That is the exact quote from the filing. That doesn't say CHS can't use it, it says that it's being removed from the trial. It was not one of the marks in which CHS agreed on GW's priority.

Chapterhouse will not dispute Games Workshop’s priority of use as a trademark for: (1) Flesh Tearers, (2) Heresy Armour, (3) Horus Heresy, (4) Soul
Drinker, and (5) Storm Shield. Thus, the 19 marks as to which Games Workshop must establish a priority of use as a
trademark are:
(1) Assault Cannon, (2) Heavy Flamer, (3) Iconoclast, (4) Lascannon, (5) Powerclaw, (6)
Blood Ravens, (7) Exorcist, (8) Jetbike, (9) Jump Pack, (10) Lightning Claw, (11) Mycetic
Spore, (12) Tervigon, (13) Tyranid Bonesword, (14) Tyranid Lashwhip, (15) Ymgarl, (16)
Exorcist Skull Icon, (17) Howling Griffons Icon, (18) Iron Snakes Icon, and (19) Soul Drinkers
Icon.

I don't imagine "Exorcist" will pass as a trademark, nor will most of the icons.

Does Jump Pack refer to just the words or does it include GW's model of a Jump Pack?

edit: I'll also ask again because I'm really keen on reading them; Where can one access these transcripts? I need some procrastinating material

 Aerethan wrote:
That is the exact quote from the filing. That doesn't say CHS can't use it, it says that it's being removed from the trial. It was not one of the marks in which CHS agreed on GW's priority.

So where did I get the impression that that claim, among several, had been dismissed with prejudice?

Cheers

Andrew

 Aerethan wrote:

Six of these marks (Chaplain, Blood Ravens
Icon, Celestial Lions Icon, Dark Angels Winged Sword Icon, and Chaos Space Marines Eight-
Pointed Star Icon) are now subject to the parties’ Proposed Partial Consent Judgment to be filed
with the Court, so will not be tried.

That is the exact quote from the filing. That doesn't say CHS can't use it, it says that it's being removed from the trial. It was not one of the marks in which CHS agreed on GW's priority.

Chapterhouse will not dispute Games Workshop’s priority of use as a trademark for: (1) Flesh Tearers, (2) Heresy Armour, (3) Horus Heresy, (4) Soul
Drinker, and (5) Storm Shield. Thus, the 19 marks as to which Games Workshop must establish a priority of use as a
trademark are:
(1) Assault Cannon, (2) Heavy Flamer, (3) Iconoclast, (4) Lascannon, (5) Powerclaw, (6)
Blood Ravens, (7) Exorcist, (8) Jetbike, (9) Jump Pack, (10) Lightning Claw, (11) Mycetic
Spore, (12) Tervigon, (13) Tyranid Bonesword, (14) Tyranid Lashwhip, (15) Ymgarl, (16)
Exorcist Skull Icon, (17) Howling Griffons Icon, (18) Iron Snakes Icon, and (19) Soul Drinkers
Icon.

I don't imagine "Exorcist" will pass as a trademark, nor will most of the icons.

By giving GW priority on those aren't they agreeing that they belong to GW though? Forgive my lack of legal knowledge but I haven't studied it and am just trying to understand what's there.

I am willing to hazard a guess that while "Exorcist" isn't on its own "Space Marine Exorcists" and "Sisters of Battle Exorcist Tank" are protectable though.

 motyak wrote:
Does Jump Pack refer to just the words or does it include GW's model of a Jump Pack?

edit: I'll also ask again because I'm really keen on reading them; Where can one access these transcripts? I need some procrastinating material

I've been reading the PDFs here: http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/

If you search for Jun 2013 you'll be able to read the most recent stuff.

It isn't listed as "Space Marine Exorcist". Those marks are being argued exactly as they appear on that transcript.

Also, CHS did not give priority for the chaos star. CHS gave ground on exactly 5 marks. That is all, and they are for the most part fairly unique names to GW. Not sure CHS ever made a "Heresy Armour", but whatever.

Furthermore, just because CHS agrees that GW owns those marks, does not mean that CHS abused them. Fair use is still a major part of this.

 Aerethan wrote:
It isn't listed as "Space Marine Exorcist". Those marks are being argued exactly as they appear on that transcript.

Oh I understand, but if GW wants to put their IP ducks in a row that'd be the best way to do it I think.

 Aerethan wrote:
Also, CHS did not give priority for the chaos star. CHS gave ground on exactly 5 marks. That is all, and they are for the most part fairly unique names to GW. Not sure CHS ever made a "Heresy Armour", but whatever.

I was only presenting what little I could. The Chaos Star did come up in April, and GW had mentioned that Moorcock didn't have an actual trademark on it (I've also seen a claim that Moorcock admitted that he never protected it). I don't know what is going on with it honestly.

 Aerethan wrote:
Furthermore, just because CHS agrees that GW owns those marks, does not mean that CHS abused them. Fair use is still a major part of this.

You are correct, and that's what the jury will be deciding this week. I'm not trying to imply anything either way as this case is all shades of gray that become increasingly shaded in the more you take sides.

So how long until we see a verdict?

The verdict won't be available until at least Friday, and possibly even up to a few weeks after that depending on what the judge decides are matters of law/fact for him to decide on.

 Empchild wrote:
So how long until we see a verdict?

The schedule has closing arguments at this Friday, so as early as that, or as late as Monday provided the schedule is kept and deliberation doesn't take long(which I can't imagine it will).

 fullheadofhair wrote:
I wonder if CHS was picked because it was the one that skirted the "rules" the most and was a bit slap dash in how it labelled stuff.

I believe the term you're looking for there is "honest", not "slap dash"...

Come to think of it, although I was saying that Chapter House took legal advice before they were attacked, actually they talked about their legal advice really early on.

As soon as they launched, people were saying GW would be on their backs, and they said they had taken legal advice and it was all right. This was about four years ago.

Tony Blair got legal advice before he started the Iraq war...

IANAL, but I believe seeking legal advice beforehand would provide CHS a solid defense against a finding of willfulness if they are found to infringe. Willful infringement vs 'accidental' can triple damages IIRC.

And yes, CHS was almost certainly picked because they were potential targets for trademark AND copyright claims, which possibly makes GW's case stronger. That, and they are one of the few add-on producers operating in the US, which makes litigation easier for GW for multiple reasons - the copyright laws seem to be much more in GW's favour in the US than many other countries, plus the benefits of being in the English language and possibly longer trade history in the US than in parts of Europe where Scibor, Kromlech and Puppetswar reside.

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.

You are right of course.

The point I want to make is that GW are not going to vanish from the SF game business if they are not able to call their soldiers Space Marines™. They can easily call it Adeptes Astertes.

Therefore it was probably stupid to try to defend the term Space Marines.

Well, GW does feel they ought to decide, not the judge

 BryllCream wrote:
Tony Blair got legal advice before he started the Iraq war...

Have you seen him in prison lately?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Tony Blair got legal advice before he started the Iraq war...

Have you seen him in prison lately?

No but, should he be there?
I think so
BACK ON TOPIC please

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Tony Blair got legal advice before he started the Iraq war...

Have you seen him in prison lately?

no but what he did was later found to be illegal

So now that GW is becoming increasingly indefensible, are you seeking to simply derail threads containing negative portrayal?

Edit: Stop it.

So over the past several years most of the posts have been good analysis by several lawyers and legal types on Dakka, and has been super informative.

Where'd they go?! :(

 judgedoug wrote:
So over the past several years most of the posts have been good analysis by several lawyers and legal types on Dakka, and has been super informative.

Where'd they go?! :(

There is not much for them to post right now. We don't have daily transcripts for them to interpret for us and I would imagine that they would not do any legal analysis based on a summary from a third party website. The information that the jury is getting now is the information we have had for months (and sometimes years), the only difference being the witnesses and their statements.

Any attempts to drag this thread off topic and/or derail it will not be looked upon favorably!