Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234!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.

**Koppo**

Kanluwen wrote:
Koppo wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

It's been mentioned before, but the Chaos Star is not exclusively Michael Moorcock's creation. The eight pointed star existed in the tarot long before Moorcock ever dreamed of the Eternal Champion.

Really? It's not an item of imagery that I'm aware of in any of the common decks of tarot that I can think of. I'd be surprised if it were in the Rider Waite depictions.

EDIT: the only thing that comes to mind is "The wheel of Fortune", which I cannot remember being commonly depicted as a star. At best an eight spoked wheel, but not a star.

The "Thoth tarot" from Crowley.

There's actually a whole Wikipedia entry devoted to the concept of a "Chaos star".

Edit note:
This isn't me trying to start some kind of huge argument about "is Moorcock copying Crowley's tarot?" or "did Moorcock come up with the eight pointed star exist before Moorcock claims he came up with it all on his own?".

So Aleister Crowley used it 30 years before Moorcock then, still I'd not consider it a mainstream Tarot deck but it would be a precedent.

**Howard A Treesong**

The fact that it had been created prior to Moorcock using it is probably why he didn't try to claim it as his property. The point I was making is that he used it first, specifically as a fantasy chaos symbol, and that GW know this because they published the RPG based on those stories. Yet they claim it. Suuuuure.

It's no wonder that other people don't take them at their word when it comes to their supposed copyrights.

**Kroothawk**

1.) There are different settings much older when such a star was used, e.g. as a compass dial on old maps.
2.) Fun fact: CHS has the explicit permit by Moorcock to use the star.

**Kanluwen**

If Moorcock does not own the chaos star, how does he grant permission to use it?

**AndrewC**

Which is all fine and good Kan, but answer me this, if you are perfectly happy that the eight sided star existed before Moorcock, how can you support the idea that GW own the rights to it?

Cheers

Andrew

**Kanluwen**

AndrewC wrote:
Which is all fine and good Kan, but answer me this, if you are perfectly happy that the eight sided star existed before Moorcock, how can you support the idea that GW own the rights to it?

Cheers

Andrew

I'm not supporting that, at least not in any recent statements though.

It's one thing to say that "Michael Moorcock used the most recent iteration of the Chaos Star, and Games Workshop then copied the idea from him" but it's another thing entirely to say "Chapterhouse Studios is the only entity given permission to use the Chaos Star by Michael Moorcock" when Moorcock himself states that the idea is not a new one and that it was used long before he ever showed his interpretation of it.

**sourclams**

Sounds like redundant permissions. If the 8 pointed chaos star is a common enough symbol that anybody can use it in any capacity, or this fellow Moorcock came up with the most common iteration and we've got his permission to use it if indeed it's not common enough to warrant requiring permission.

**AndrewC**

However, it is one peg on which to hang a hat in this discussion.

GW has a huge page of trademarks, registered and unregistered, in which it claims supremacy. And put the two together you get a whole lot of uncertainty in peoples minds.

Prior to the carry on with Moorcock, I would guess that you were happy to accept GWs assertion thet they developed and owned all rights to that star,

Just look at some of the quotes given in the CHS statement, and, yes they are slanted in CHS favour by their use and light, but these are GWs own words in court. Two attempts at concealing evidence relevant to the case.

How many other items out there are being claimed by GW that doesn't belong to them.

Everybody loves a conspiracy, and I want to see the final verdict!

Cheers

Andrew

**ClockworkZion**

Howard A Treesong wrote:The fact that it had been created prior to Moorcock using it is probably why he didn't try to claim it as his property. The point I was making is that he used it first, specifically as a fantasy chaos symbol, and that GW know this because they published the RPG based on those stories. Yet they claim it. Suuuuure.

It's no wonder that other people don't take them at their word when it comes to their supposed copyrights.

From what I gathered from reading as much as I could on the non-legalese sources on trademark law (namely Wikipedia), you don't have to be the first to use something, just the first to register in your field that your registering it for. People can still use the same thing in different fields though.

To put some names on this to make it simpler: Moorcock could have registered the symbol as a trademark for his book series, then GW could have still registered it for their miniatures games. Neither trademark would have conflicted with the other as they were established in different fields.

Frankly this is one of the things GW did right, did well and while people can be mad at them for it, frankly they registered it first, thus have rights on it.

Kroothawk wrote:1.) There are different settings much older when such a star was used, e.g. as a compass dial on old maps.
2.) Fun fact: CHS has the explicit permit by Moorcock to use the star.

It was also used as a Christian religious symbol.

Moorcock never registered the trademark, nor tried to use it as an unregistered one. From my understanding in fact it's only appeared on one of his books, and even if it is a concept in his books that doesn't prevent GW from using it.

And as I said in the reply above, Trademarks are very specific. Even if Moorcock registered it for his books, GW could have still owned it for their miniatures and CHS still couldn't use it regardless of Moorcock's permission or not (actually I'm sure there are ways around this, but generally speaking GW owns it for miniatures regardless) because it was already registered.

At least that's what I got out of the whole "Spots" fiasco.

**AndrewC**

Clockwork, while in a perfect world it would appear to be as straightforward as you put it, but it kind of throws a spanner in the works when GW allowed/had that part of their allegations to be thrown out with prejudice?

Also, and I'm quite happy to be corrected here, but didn't the 8 sided star not become a staple of GW until after they produced MMs Eternal Champion series as licenced figures?

Kind of hard to say that they weren't influenced by it?

Cheers

Andrew

**Trasvi**

@ Chaos Star discussion.

The concept of 'limited to particular industries' applies to trademarks, in most cases (product names definitely, though business names can 'traverse the boundaries'). The Chaos Star is not a trademark it is a copyright (at best) which are not limited to industries.

**ClockworkZion**

AndrewC wrote:
Clockwork, while in a perfect world it would appear to be as straightforward as you put it, but it kind of throws a spanner in the works when GW allowed/had that part of their allegations to be thrown out with prejudice?

Also, and I'm quite happy to be corrected here, but didn't the 8 sided star not become a staple of GW until after they produced MMs Eternal Champion series as licenced figures?

Kind of hard to say that they weren't influenced by it?

Cheers

Andrew

The Eternal Champion series were licensed, but not everything about them were protected. High Elves came from slightly modified masters of models made for that as well as the deal apparently fell apart.

Taking influence from something though is not the same as just taking something. GW took core concepts (8 point star, extra-dimensional gods, and champions of the gods) and put their own spin on them. Now how different they are from Moorcock's work I don't know. I'm not familiar with his books, but let's be honest here, GW was a lot less creative when it was a lot younger, and they're embarrassed about that now (and in some cases have taken steps to correct it) so there is a strong chance that originally there was more related to his books than there is now.

Trasvi wrote:
@ Chaos Star discussion.

The concept of 'limited to particular industries' applies to trademarks, in most cases (product names definitely, though business names can 'traverse the boundaries'). The Chaos Star is not a trademark it is a copyright (at best) which are not limited to industries.

You are correct, my mistake. However, the rule of "first to file" still rings true here as well if I'm remembering correctly.

**AndrewC**

ClockworkZion wrote:

Taking influence from something though is not the same as just taking something. GW took core concepts (8 point star, extra-dimensional gods, and champions of the gods) and put their own spin on them. Now how different they are from Moorcock's work I don't know. I'm not familiar with his books, but let's be honest here, GW was a lot less creative when it was a lot younger, and they're embarrassed about that now (and in some cases have taken steps to correct it) so there is a strong chance that originally there was more related to his books than there is now.

And this perhaps is the crux of the problem, GW can't look at anything without saying "it's ours, we thought of it first" despite there being evidence out there to the contrary. eg 8 pointed star or the Llamasu head

While GW is perfectly happy to pretend that their past doesn't exist, most gamers are still there to remind them of it.

Cheers

Andrew

**ClockworkZion**

AndrewC wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Taking influence from something though is not the same as just taking something. GW took core concepts (8 point star, extra-dimensional gods, and champions of the gods) and put their own spin on them. Now how different they are from Moorcock's work I don't know. I'm not familiar with his books, but let's be honest here, GW was a lot less creative when it was a lot younger, and they're embarrassed about that now (and in some cases have taken steps to correct it) so there is a strong chance that originally there was more related to his books than there is now.

And this perhaps is the crux of the problem, GW can't look at anything without saying "it's ours, we thought of it first" despite there being evidence out there to the contrary. eg 8 pointed star or the Llamasu head

While GW is perfectly happy to pretend that their past doesn't exist, most gamers are still there to remind them of it.

Cheers

Andrew

I think it's more that a good part of their history is their Secret Shame (that we all know about and they don't want to talk about it).

The thing is that even if the company isn't wholly original in it's ideas or concepts what it does with those things is the important part, and for the most part I think GW has done a pretty decent job setting their use of things away from the things that existed (at least at the time, as some things, like Trans-human Genetically Engineered Super Soldiers in Power Armour have become new tropes thanks to them doing it with the older idea).

EDIT: I just want to point out before I get beaten down by 12 or so posts how I'm an idiot, I said for the MOST part GW has done a decent job doing something different with those ideas.

**Anvildude**

From my own understanding of US copyright and Trademark law, "First to File" is actually incorrect- both copyright and trademark laws have clauses (or whatever the term is) for "First Use" ownership- basically, if you use it first, you own it. Patents are "First to File", however.

Filing, for tm and copyright, gives you a sort of 'suit of armour' that lets you essentially ignore the smaller threats, and gives you a big boost to defending against and attacking larger threats- Susie Q's Lemonade Stand would be Trademarked as soon as the sign went up, but if someone else in the neighborhood sold lemonade under the "Susie Q" label (without permission) it would be a difficult task to convince the courts of which was around longer or had more right to the Mark. A huge, well known corp like McDonalsd wouldn't need a formally recognized TM, however, because they're well known enough to be able to win legal battles on common knowledge alone. They have registered their Trademark, however, because it lets them do what GW was essentially trying to do here- see someone that is diluting their brand, and stomp them out with a quick "We have the paperwork, they don't. Shut them down" lawsuit.

**ClockworkZion**

Anvildude wrote:
From my own understanding of US copyright and Trademark law, "First to File" is actually incorrect- both copyright and trademark laws have clauses (or whatever the term is) for "First Use" ownership- basically, if you use it first, you own it. Patents are "First to File", however.

Filing, for tm and copyright, gives you a sort of 'suit of armour' that lets you essentially ignore the smaller threats, and gives you a big boost to defending against and attacking larger threats- Susie Q's Lemonade Stand would be Trademarked as soon as the sign went up, but if someone else in the neighborhood sold lemonade under the "Susie Q" label (without permission) it would be a difficult task to convince the courts of which was around longer or had more right to the Mark. A huge, well known corp like McDonalsd wouldn't need a formally recognized TM, however, because they're well known enough to be able to win legal battles on common knowledge alone. They have registered their Trademark, however, because it lets them do what GW was essentially trying to do here- see someone that is diluting their brand, and stomp them out with a quick "We have the paperwork, they don't. Shut them down" lawsuit.

From Wikipedia (Trademark, Registration):

The law considers a trademark to be a form of property. Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, trademark rights can be established through either or both means. Certain jurisdictions generally do not recognize trademarks rights arising through use. If trademark owners do not hold registrations for their marks in such jurisdictions, the extent to which they will be able to enforce their rights through trademark infringement proceedings will therefore be limited. In cases of dispute, this disparity of rights is often referred to as "first to file" as opposed to "first to use." Other countries such as Germany offer a limited amount of common law rights for unregistered marks where to gain protection, the goods or services must occupy a highly significant position in the marketplace — where this could be 40% or more market share for sales in the particular class of goods or services.

Well that's where I got it from, so it looks like I was only partially correct: it depends where you are and where you register as first-use means more in some places than others. That said it seems registering is a damned important thing to do if you want to hang onto that trademark (even if it's just a precautionary thing).

**AndrewC**

ClockworkZion wrote:

I think it's more that a good part of their history is their Secret Shame (that we all know about and they don't want to talk about it).

The thing is that even if the company isn't wholly original in it's ideas or concepts what it does with those things is the important part, and for the most part I think GW has done a pretty decent job setting their use of things away from the things that existed (at least at the time, as some things, like Trans-human Genetically Engineered Super Soldiers in Power Armour have become new tropes thanks to them doing it with the older idea).

EDIT: I just want to point out before I get beaten down by 12 or so posts how I'm an idiot, I said for the MOST part GW has done a decent job doing something different with those ideas.

Yes, but I think their legal department should sit back and ask first, 'Could they have thought this up for themselves from another source?', before issuing suit?

Cheers

PS I don't think you are an idiot, it's just some of us old timers, I dont know, some of us would call it naivete on your part, and others would call it cynicism on our part.

**ClockworkZion**

AndrewC wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

I think it's more that a good part of their history is their Secret Shame (that we all know about and they don't want to talk about it).

The thing is that even if the company isn't wholly original in it's ideas or concepts what it does with those things is the important part, and for the most part I think GW has done a pretty decent job setting their use of things away from the things that existed (at least at the time, as some things, like Trans-human Genetically Engineered Super Soldiers in Power Armour have become new tropes thanks to them doing it with the older idea).

EDIT: I just want to point out before I get beaten down by 12 or so posts how I'm an idiot, I said for the MOST part GW has done a decent job doing something different with those ideas.

Yes, but I think their legal department should sit back and ask first, 'Could they have thought this up for themselves from another source?', before issuing suit?

Cheers

I think to a point, perhaps, but the issue with IP law is that if you don't pursue it you basically shoot yourself in the foot. While a lot of us like to point at GW and laugh at them for being stupid the Spots thing taught me that they have to pursue things or they will lose their IP. That said, yes, jumping to a lawsuit (especially without properly preparing your own company for it) was bad move.

That said, could have the whole CHS thing been handled better? Frankly on both sides it could have been. CHS could have been less aggressive in their use of GW IP in attempting to go after things that GW had (Iron Hand Shoulder Pads come to mind as the most obvious because that's in the depositions), and tried to offer new and different things to us instead of rehashing GW's works.

GW on the otherhand could have done a better job about releasing everything in the codex at launch (even if it meant less releases) and then supplementing the book with new stuff later (hi White Dwarf!) or saved it for the next codex update and did the updates on a shorter interval than 5+ years. GW could have also drawn better lines in the sand on what they would and would not go after in terms of IP, this would have made it a lot easier for everyone honestly.

Maybe I'm the odd man out on this but I frankly don't feel anyone was really 100% innocent in this case and everything could have been handled better on both sides.

AndrewC wrote:
PS I don't think you are an idiot, it's just some of us old timers, I dont know, some of us would call it naivete on your part, and others would call it cynicism on our part.

Well my army of choice is Sisters so I argue an insanity defence in any case.

**weeble1000**

ClockworkZion wrote:
AndrewC wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Taking influence from something though is not the same as just taking something. GW took core concepts (8 point star, extra-dimensional gods, and champions of the gods) and put their own spin on them. Now how different they are from Moorcock's work I don't know. I'm not familiar with his books, but let's be honest here, GW was a lot less creative when it was a lot younger, and they're embarrassed about that now (and in some cases have taken steps to correct it) so there is a strong chance that originally there was more related to his books than there is now.

And this perhaps is the crux of the problem, GW can't look at anything without saying "it's ours, we thought of it first" despite there being evidence out there to the contrary. eg 8 pointed star or the Llamasu head

While GW is perfectly happy to pretend that their past doesn't exist, most gamers are still there to remind them of it.

Cheers

Andrew

I think it's more that a good part of their history is their Secret Shame (that we all know about and they don't want to talk about it).

The thing is that even if the company isn't wholly original in it's ideas or concepts what it does with those things is the important part, and for the most part I think GW has done a pretty decent job setting their use of things away from the things that existed (at least at the time, as some things, like Trans-human Genetically Engineered Super Soldiers in Power Armour have become new tropes thanks to them doing it with the older idea).

EDIT: I just want to point out before I get beaten down by 12 or so posts how I'm an idiot, I said for the MOST part GW has done a decent job doing something different with those ideas.

Absolutely. GW has done things that are unique, and GW is entitled to protect those unique artistic contributions, and only those unique artistic contributions. That is not what GW was trying to do.

You express an idea one way, and I express it another way. That's fine. But you don't get to say I am not entitled to my own unique artistic contributions just because we used the same idea, or even if I used your idea. The CHS lizard ogre is an excellent example.

GW looked at a bipedal lizard man holding an Aztec weapon and said "Whoa now. That's MY thing," but when you look at the two expressions they are in reality two very different expressions of the same general idea. Nevertheless, GW dragged CHS through years of costly litigation over that product.

**Janthkin**

Enough with the Chaos Star, thanks. Useful as an example, not worth spending another page on the specifics of.

**Morpheus**

To try and get back on topic, When can we expect the final verdict to be announced? When will we know on Dakka the details?

**ClockworkZion**

Morpheus wrote:
To try and get back on topic, When can we expect the final verdict to be announced? When will we know on Dakka the details?

I've been asking that over on BoLS since the Jury Verdict went up...no answer so far.

**rigeld2**

The Judge might rule on it tomorrow - we probably won't get any more info until he does.

**Janthkin**

rigeld2 wrote:
The Judge might rule on it tomorrow - we probably won't get any more info until he does.

I expect at the end of the jury verdict, the judge sent everyone home for the weekend, and will hear post-verdict motions sometime this week. How long he takes to consider them, or how much briefing he wants, will dictate how long before a "final" judgment is entered.

**Enigwolf**

Janthkin wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
The Judge might rule on it tomorrow - we probably won't get any more info until he does.
I expect at the end of the jury verdict, the judge sent everyone home for the weekend, and will hear post-verdict motions sometime this week. How long he takes to consider them, or how much briefing he wants, will dictate how long before a "final" judgment is entered.

Isn't there a ton of paperwork from the jury ruling that the judge has to deal with before he can announce the verdict?

**czakk**

Press Release from the Pro Bono Lawyers:

http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=30&itemID=4587

June 17, 2013
Winston & Strawn Defeats Hundreds of Trademark and Copyright Infringement Claims on Behalf of Pro Bono Client

Cutting-Edge Decision Protects Industries from Litigation Blocking Add-On Products

CHICAGO, IL – In a classic David-versus-Goliath battle, Winston & Strawn LLP represented Chapterhouse Studios LLC on a pro bono basis in a cutting-edge federal trademark and copyright dispute in the Northern District of Illinois (Games Workshop Limited v. Chapterhouse Studios LLC 1:10-cv-8103). The verdict of this jury trial, held in June 2013 before Judge Matthew Kennelly, confirms that copyright and trademark law should not be used to block add-on products. Winston & Strawn has litigated the case since 2010, and co-counsel law firm Marshall Gerstein joined the matter in 2012.

“This was a classic case of trademark and copyright bullying by a much bigger Plaintiff,” said Jennifer Golinveaux, partner in Winston & Strawn’s San Francisco office. “I am proud of the investment made by the firm, and the many attorneys who devoted themselves to making sure the intellectual property laws were not misused to squash a much smaller player.”

Games Workshop manufactures Warhammer 40,000, a tabletop battle game that works with armies of miniature figures and vehicles, while Chapterhouse sells customized add-on parts for the figures and vehicles used in the game. The United Kingdom-based Games Workshop, a company with $200 million per year in revenues, alleged more than 200 claims of copyright and trademark infringement against Chapterhouse, a small business run out of an individual’s garage in Texas. Games Workshop argued that it was seeking a complete shutdown of Chapterhouse’s entire business and although Games Workshop initially sought over $400,000 in damages, by the end of the two-week jury trial, the plaintiff dropped its damages demand to only $25,000.

The jury deliberated for more than two days and found that Chapterhouse could continue to make and sell over a hundred products without fear of copyright infringement. The jury also confirmed that Chapterhouse could continue to use most of Games Workshop’s asserted trademarks when selling compatible parts, including all nine of Games Workshop’s registered trademarks. Together with the summary judgment wins, the jury’s verdict confirmed Chapterhouse can continue to make and sell 111 products that Games Workshop hoped to block using copyright laws, and can continue to use 104 words and phrases that Games Workshop said were trademarked.

Imron Aly, lead trial attorney and partner in Winston & Strawn’s Chicago office added, “It was a pleasure to represent a small entrepreneur like Nicholas Villacci of Chapterhouse, who has a passion for his work and wanted to see his business survive.”

Julianne Hartzell, partner at co-counsel law firm Marshall Gerstein added, “We are proud that we were able to help protect Chapterhouse against the overreaching claims made by Games Workshop in such a substantial trademark and copyright dispute.”

**Enigwolf**

Wow. Just, wow. I wonder if GW's stock price is going to drop because of this.

**Ketara**

Ouch. Those are some nasty figures for GW.

**czakk**

Well, it is a press release

... so grain of salt and all that.

**mattyrm**

Enigwolf wrote:
Wow. Just, wow. I wonder if GW's stock price is going to drop because of this.

Heres hoping, money talks, and it may be the only way that the seemingly blinkered dolts at the top might actually see the light.