Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**davou**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Skinnereal wrote:
The problem there is it was not GW's ad, but Hasbro's, IIRC.
Still no GW ads on TV.

Then whose ad would this be exactly?

Like I mentioned before GW's ad attempts were never really that good.

I especally like the part where the redshirt was showing the slaneshi tits to the 12 year old boy and his mother.

**Kroothawk**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Skinnereal wrote:
The problem there is it was not GW's ad, but Hasbro's, IIRC.
Still no GW ads on TV.

Then whose ad would this be exactly?

Like I mentioned before GW's ad attempts were never really that good.

The address in Virginia, not Nottingham, might give a clue

**cerbrus2**

davou wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Skinnereal wrote:
The problem there is it was not GW's ad, but Hasbro's, IIRC.
Still no GW ads on TV.

Then whose ad would this be exactly?

Like I mentioned before GW's ad attempts were never really that good.

I especally like the part where the redshirt was showing the slaneshi tits to the 12 year old boy and his mother.

I feel sorry for the young lads walking out of there. "man this is false advertising, The advert had girls there"

**Kilkrazy**

Girls are icky.

Anyway, GW adverts of the mid-90s have little relevance to an IP court case in 2013, so kindly get back on topic.

**judgedoug**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Girls are icky.

Anyway, GW adverts of the mid-90s have little relevance to an IP court case in 2013, so kindly get back on topic.

dude... that was from like 5 years ago. It does kinda remind you of an old Nintendo ad from 1989, though, huh?

**Dysartes**

Dysartes wrote:
I don't suppose anyone has heard who has been testifying over the last four days, have they? If I'm not mistaken, shouldn't this be CHS Defence Week in the courtroom?

I'll ask the above again, to try to get the thread back on track.

**Saldiven**

I don't believe that any of the Dakka community was able to attend the trial proceedings. There was some discussion of some people trying to make the time to go, but it doesn't appear to have panned out. As such, we're more than likely stuck not getting any meaningful updates until the week after next, at the earliest.

**Alfndrate**

Saldiven wrote:
I don't believe that any of the Dakka community was able to attend the trial proceedings. There was some discussion of some people trying to make the time to go, but it doesn't appear to have panned out. As such, we're more than likely stuck not getting any meaningful updates until the week after next, at the earliest.

Originally it was supposed to have gone on during AdeptiCon, but then it got moved probably for smart reasons... THe 40k championships might have had some missing people

**czakk**

There have been some filings we can look at:

**agnosto**

czakk wrote:
There have been some filings we can look at:

So they received the letter from the copyright office on June 7 and it was dated January 31? This letter's been discussed at length in this thread and has been around since January, are they seriously trying to pass it off as being received on June 7? And they wait until June 9 to send the copyright office general counsel a letter? That's some serious lag time...

**Janthkin**

Q So the designers of the Tau race did not draw inspiration
from the look -- for the look of the Tau from within Games
Workshop?
A That's correct. They looked for it inside their own
imaginations.
Q You also testified that you wanted to look very sci-fi,
correct?
A Yes, probably.
Q And by sci-fi you were referring to science fiction?
A As popularly understood, yes.
Q And specifically science fiction created by third parties?
A No, I didn't say that.
Q It was not any science fiction that existed within the Tau
universe -- or within the Warhammer 40K universe, you've
already testified, correct?
A Yes. It is perfectly possible for us to invent something
from scratch, you know. That's our stock in trade.

Uh-huh. Tau are completely novel.

Q. And that's in a sentence that says, "Assault squads are
equipped with close combat weapons, such as bolt pistols and
chainswords. Their jump packs enable them to strike hard and
fast, leaping over difficult terrain to quickly engage the
enemy." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you contend that jump pack is a trademark of Games
Workshop; is that right?

In a nutshell, this has always been my problem with GW's TM claims.

**Aerethan**

Grumble.

First doc is the Copyright Office's official declination of copyright for the Tactical Shoulder Pad.

Moskin says basically that he's going to ignore it, on account of he doesn't understand what they mean by "no".

**czakk**

agnosto wrote:
czakk wrote:
There have been some filings we can look at:

So they received the letter from the copyright office on June 7 and it was dated January 31? This letter's been discussed at length in this thread and has been around since January, are they seriously trying to pass it off as being received on June 7? And they wait until June 9 to send the copyright office general counsel a letter? That's some serious lag time...

Not sure what's going on there... did they get another rejection letter for another set of shoulder pads? Or have we seen this before.

**Janthkin**

Another tidbit:

A. Yeah. I mean, the jury have heard quite a lot about the
forums that people who are fans of Warhammer 40,000 look at and
post on, and actually -- I know you're not allowed to look at
the Internet, but if you were allowed to look at the Internet,
what you would see is an awful lot of speculation about this
case, and actually our customers, our staff, and even just
people who are interested all know about this case and have
for a very long time. So, the likelihood of there being any
confusion where there's such a publicly well known case, it's
just not really very likely because people know.
Q. But, Ms. Stevenson, you haven't presented any evidence of
confusion as to the products added in the second phase of the
case, have you?
A. No.
Q. And Games Workshop's not aware of any complaints about the
quality of those products, either, is it?
A. Not from people who buy the products directly, but --
THE COURT: That's the answer. Thanks. Next question.

Can we turn to PX-1022, please? And let's start at
page 2.
Now, Ms. Stevenson, as you recall, you testified that
this chart was put together at your direction by Games
Workshop's hobby team, and they painted and posed the Games
Workshop figures on the right column to look like the colors
and poses of the Chapterhouse products, is that right?
A Almost. The hobby team didn't put the chart together, but
they did build and paint the model.
Q And you said that you found this confusing when you see
them side by side like this?
A I find it compelling.
Q You said you found it confusing, correct?
A I said customers could find it confusing.
Q But you haven't offered any evidence that customers have
ever been confused by these two products, have you?
A Well, they haven't seen these two images side by side, so
they couldn't be.
Q So that's a no?
A Um --
Q Have you offered any evidence that any customers have
found these two products confusing?
A I said that I thought it was obvious that they would be
confusing.
Q But that's not my question.

(Emphasis added.)

And finally, the nefarious "customer confusion" emails:

Q. "Dear sir/madam, I have recently come across this
website and it provides the URL for a ChapterhouseStudios.com
page selling conversion bits for Games Workshop kits."
Do you see that part?
A I do see that.
Q And looking at the last sentence of that paragraph, it
says:
"I'm looking at their Space Marine shoulder pads
here, Salamander, Luna Wolves, et cetera, which look
reasonable enough, but perhaps lack the sharpness and detail
of, quote, unquote, official Games Workshop products."
Do you see that?
A It says "GW," but, yes.
Q In that last sentence, the person's distinguishing the
Chapterhouse products that he saw from, quote, unquote,
official GW products, isn't he?

Q Okay. And this email, if we could blow up the email
portion of the bottom third of the first page, this one is
also sent to legal U.K.
I assume that's Games Workshop legal, is that right?
A That's right.
Q Okay. And, again, it provides a URL for a
ChapterhouseStudios.com web page, is that right?
A That's right.
Q And the text says:
"Hi. I've just found this website, and they are
offering their own resin cast conversion kits for Space Marine
Rhino and Land Raider."
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And looking back up to the email header, do you see
the address where it says the email address is at an
@Yahoo.co.uk?
A I do.
Q And I believe a moment ago you indicated that that would
indicate a U.K. email address, is that right?

**Morpheus**

think it's the same we have seen before. I like that both parties are now asking for the judge to rule that they are right and the opposing party is wrong before decision by jury.

**Ketara**

Games Workshop believes that the term jetbike is a valid
2 trademark it owns, and no other miniatures company can use that
3 term; is that correct?
4 A. In tabletop -- in terms of tabletop hobby war games?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. That's our belief, yes.
7 Q. But jetbike is not Games Workshop's registered trademark,
8 right?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And you know that other companies besides Games Workshop do
11 use the term jetbike in their miniatures products?
12 A. Yeah. You kindly brought that to my attention during my
13 deposition.

Games Workshop claims to own the trademark for the word 'jetbike'.

Mr Keener more or less demolishes GW's case for potential confusion in the market, which is interesting.

**czakk**

Mr Keener did?

**Magc8Ball**

Wow... that was testimony? I didn't think that real life cross-examinations were actually that dramatically slam-dunk. I thought they only were that embarrassing for the witness on bad TV courtroom drama.

**AduroT**

Who is Ms Stevenson?

**BryllCream**

The first quote accounted to 'finecast sucks lol' . The others didn't prove much out of context, especially given that they were selected specifically by someone to make gw look bad. now I'm not saying that gw didn't fail epically but to judge that from a few lines of text is grossly presumptuous

**Agamemnon2**

I'm curious how this will turn out. I won't put money on either party, though I've a feeling GW might carry this home in the end.

**d-usa**

BryllCream wrote:
The first quote accounted to 'finecast sucks lol' . The others didn't prove much out of context, especially given that they were selected specifically by someone to make gw look bad. now I'm not saying that gw didn't fail epically but to judge that from a few lines of text is grossly presumptuous

This made me lol...

**Aerethan**

The other quotes prove that GW has no evidence of brand confusion. There's no other context needed.

We've known this for years now, but it's finally being shown to the jury which is good.

**BryllCream**

Aerethan wrote:
The other quotes prove that GW has no evidence of brand confusion. There's no other context needed.

Yes there is.

Poster A - "Hey, does anyone know w here I can get some shoulder pads for my space marines? I can't see any on the GW website"
Poster B - "Sure, there's some here [chapterhouse link]"

Bam, Chapterhouse just got £20 from someone who assumed they were a GW outfit.

**Aerethan**

BryllCream wrote:
Aerethan wrote:
The other quotes prove that GW has no evidence of brand confusion. There's no other context needed.

Yes there is.

Poster A - "Hey, does anyone know w here I can get some shoulder pads for my space marines? I can't see any on the GW website"
Poster B - "Sure, there's some here [chapterhouse link]"

Bam, Chapterhouse just got £20 from someone who assumed they were a GW outfit.

That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.

Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.

**BryllCream**

Aerethan wrote:

That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.

And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.

Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.

Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.

**czakk**

AduroT wrote:
Who is Ms Stevenson?

GWs in house lawyer.

**Anvildude**

BryllCream wrote:
Aerethan wrote:

That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.

And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.

Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.

Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.

However, if you were to be all 'Hey, you know where I can get some new rims for my Ford? The dealership said they didn't have any' and someone else said "Check out this website- they got some rims that'll work", well, there's no product confusion. Also, there's no lost revenue there- if GW did in fact make and sell those shoulderpad kits, then there might be a leg for them to stand on- as it is, it's a different company selling a different product that happens to fit the first company's stuff.

**Aerethan**

Anvildude wrote:
BryllCream wrote:
Aerethan wrote:

That is not at all brand confusion. That is Poster B misleading A, furthermore, the CHS site is very obviously not GW.

And is it very obviously not a licensed reseller? A casual browser could assume so.

Lastly, GW has no evidence of this happening. Potential is all theory.

Wouldn't it be enough to explain how it could happen? If I open a burger bar stealing McDonald's imagery, do they have to actually record customers going in saying "Gosh this must be a McDonald's", or could they just show a court the obvious similarities between their restaurant and the newcomer? That is what GW are doing, or trying to do. The alternative is to email everyone who's ever shopped there saying "Hi, did you think you were buying actually GW stuff?", which is clearly unfeasable. So you're demanding evidence that's impossible to produce.

However, if you were to be all 'Hey, you know where I can get some new rims for my Ford? The dealership said they didn't have any' and someone else said "Check out this website- they got some rims that'll work", well, there's no product confusion. Also, there's no lost revenue there- if GW did in fact make and sell those shoulderpad kits, then there might be a leg for them to stand on- as it is, it's a different company selling a different product that happens to fit the first company's stuff.

This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.

GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.

**BryllCream**

A better allegory would be passing off a counterfit car as a Ford, having it modelled and painted as a Ford but without the actual logo.

It's like those Chinese cars with names like "Hunda" and "Bercedes Menz".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aerethan wrote:

This. GW lost out zero sales on shoulder pads. Unless they think that people will buy a tactical box just for the 11 pads in it, which would be a stretch in logic.

GW does not offer competing products with 99% of the CHS line.

So it's okay for CHS to make money off them? Common sense is not legality. Ethically yes, I don't have a problem with it. But they're still piggybacking on GW's IP.