Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234!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

**Alpharius**

Alfndrate wrote:
Certainly if you type in Games Workshop Social Media you won't get anything from them

There is that!

Some...interesting characterizations of their core group of fans in there...

**czakk**

We already knew this, but I think this is different testimony to that effect:

This is Ms. Stevenson

Q. Now, in your role at Games Workshop, have you done anything
6 to demonstrate potential confusion between the Games Workshop
7 and Chapterhouse products?
8 A. Yes, I have. So, I gave some images from the Chapterhouse
9 website off their products to our hobby team, who are the very
10 talented painters who painted the models on the board at the
11 front, and I asked them to take an equivalent Games Workshop kit
12 and to pose it in the same pose as the Chapterhouse product and
13 paint it using their color scheme to give a very visual
14 representation of whether people could be confused.

15 Q. Let's look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 1022 at Page 2. What are
16 we looking at here?
17 A. This is a chart that I had put together. As I said, the
18 images on the left-hand side are the Chapterhouse images from
19 their website, and on the right-hand is a Games Workshop model
20 that has been prepared using an Eldar Farseer kit, as you can
21 see, it says. And it has been posed and painted using entirely
22 Games Workshop parts, and that is all one kit, painted in their
23 color scheme to show how easy it would be to be confused once
24 you've got a final finished product.

Q So, Ms. Stevenson, what you are telling us that in the
five years that you have been aware of Mr. Villacci and
Chapterhouse Studios, that you have received these three
emails that you think are evidence of confusion, is that
right?
A Yes, and they're all prior to his issuing the court
proceedings.
Q And what is the relevance of that?
A Well, the public knowledge afterwards would mean that
people wouldn't be confused.
Q So the litigation itself has mitigated any likelihood of
confusion; is that fair to say?

Ouch. Heh.

**Ian Sturrock**

Yeah, I love that.

"This is how easy it would be for the ordinary person to be confused... if we go out of our way to make things as confusing as possible for them! See? SEE?!?"

**czakk**

Interesting little tidbit, don't think it went anywhere, but interesting:

Q. Turning to the next page of the same exhibit, PX435, what's
7 at the bottom of the web page?
8 A. A disclaimer.
9 Q. And what's the first line say?
10 A. "This website is completely unofficial and in no way
11 endorsed by Games Workshop Limited."
12 Q. Why did you put that on there?
13 A. We didn't want to get in legal trouble with Games Workshop.
14 So, besides going to an attorney and finding out what he told
15 us, we went to the Games Workshop --
16 MR. MOSKIN: Objection, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Basis?
18 MR. MOSKIN: There's been no defense in this case of --
19 THE COURT: I'll tell you what. Here's what we're
20 going to do. We're going to need to discuss this a little bit...

Mr Brewster's testimony around page 45 ish is interesting. Seems like they got an expert in us military heraldry to testify.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q Mr. Brewster, we've reviewed a number of symbols from
various resource books. Are these symbols that you used in
forming your opinion in this case?
A Yes.
Q And can you recap for the jury what your main conclusion
is?
A Well, I again reviewed the materials presented and found
that particular symbols that are used by Games Workshop to
create insignia are also symbols that are found in use by the United States military for their insignias and heraldic unit
designators.
MS. GOLINVEAUX: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Keener.
CROSS EXAMINATION

Automatically Appended Next Post:

From the Goodwin cross:

A. The Imperium is a civilization or the remnants of one.
2 Q. Fine. And so, the Imperium, the civilization, that's the
3 setting in which this game is to take place; is that right?
4 A. Yep.
5 Q. And that game is an amalgamation of so many ideas that were
6 floating around, taken from sources like 2000 AD, right? Isn't
7 that true?
8 A. That just doesn't finish off the sentence, does it?
9 Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from
10 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put
11 into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?
14 A. That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.
15 Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. ALY: No further questions

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh, I wonder what this was about (well something to do with an ebay seller in france, but...):

THE COURT: Have you lived in France?
MR. MOSKIN: I'm sorry. No, I haven't. So maybe --
THE COURT: I have.
MR. MOSKIN: -- that's why I made such a naive
comment.

**weeble1000**

Merrett Direct:

[Mr. Merrett] So, we don't mass market advertise anything. We rely on what we call word of mouth...

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth spreads?

[Mr. Merrett] the Internet is probably the biggest single way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate with each other...

Q. Can you describe some of these forums, the names of them?

[Mr. Merrett] Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka Dakka...

So, Games Workshop does no mass marketing, and in fact relies on word of mouth in which the internet is "the biggest single way" that Games Workshop's customers communicate, such as on sites like Dakka Dakka, which is on the "top of [Merrett's] list."

Games Workshop allows its customers to control the image of Games Workshop, with threads like this one on Dakka Dakka being a prime example of Games Workshop's 'nerdy, geeky customers goobering about its products'.

**Aerethan**

weeble1000 wrote:
Merrett Direct:

[Mr. Merrett] So, we don't mass market advertise anything. We rely on what we call word of mouth...

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth spreads?

[Mr. Merrett] the Internet is probably the biggest single way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate with each other...

Q. Can you describe some of these forums, the names of them?

[Mr. Merrett] Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka Dakka...

So, Games Workshop does no mass marketing, and in fact relies on word of mouth in which the internet is "the biggest single way" that Games Workshop's customers communicate, such as on sites like Dakka Dakka.

We allow our customers to control the image of Games Workshop, with threads like this one on Dakka Dakka being a prime example of out 'nerdy, geeky customers goobering about our products'.

That picture just made my day.

Also, can someone recap which side was asking for a retrial? I assume GW.

**weeble1000**

Merrett Cross:

[Ms. Hartzell] But do you have knowledge what they referred to?

[Mr. Merrett] Well, they didn't refer to anything. What we did is we
generated concept drawings, and the guys that were working on
the project brainstormed concepts of -- for the Tau idea.

[Ms. Hartzell] And none of them had ever seen a robot?

[Mr. Merrett] Well, that's preposterous to suggest, isn't it?

[Ms. Hartzell] It is.

[Mr. Merrett] Yeah, of course it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Merrett:

But that's not the way that we work at Games Workshop. We don't expect our designers to use sources. We expect them to use Games Workshop's resources to generate all that work.

Mr. Naismith (designer of the original Space Marine)

...that came from us having our background in making historical models, because the historical war gaming market and sculpting for that meant that we had a depth of knowledge on military costume across all these different periods that I referred to earlier, and we were able to draw on that resource of knowledge of military history and apply it to the models

Mr. Blanche

Q. And so, is heraldry also a point of reference for the Warhammer 40K work?

[Mr. Blanche] Yes.

Q. And can you describe how?

[Mr. Blanche] Particularly Space Marines and their color schemes and their symbols on their shoulder pads, et cetera, that would be a strong part of their specific chapter heraldry.

Mr. Goodwin

Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?

[Mr. Goodwin] Yes.

Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?

[Mr. Goodwin] That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.

Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?

[Mr. Goodwin] Yes.

**czakk**

Aerethan wrote:

That picture just made my day.

Also, can someone recap which side was asking for a retrial? I assume GW.

CHS, new trial on certain aspects. I've attached the memorandum to this post. They want either a JMOL (change the jury's verdict) or a new trial on the issues they identify.

GW same story, still reading their document.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

If the Court decides not to enter judgment as a matter of law for Chapterhouse, a new trial
is warranted on the issues above. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). When the Court addresses a request for a new trial, it may “get a general sense of the weight of the evidence, assessing the credibility
of the witnesses and the comparative strength of the facts put forth at trial.” Mejia v. Cook
County, Ill., 650 F.3d 631, 633 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court may also consider “anything else
which justice requires” when it assesses whether to grant a new trial. Whitehead v. Bond, 782 F.
Supp.2d 685, 691 (N.D. Ill. 2011). A new trial should be granted if the verdict is against the
“manifest weight of the evidence.” Mejia, 650 F.3d at 633.
Here, the jury’s verdict—to the extent it was against Chapterhouse—is against the weight
of the proffered evidence for the reasons stated above. And “a motion for a new trial may be
granted even if a motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied.” Id. at 634.
Because a court may grant a new trial on “all or some of the issues” at hand (see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e)) (emphasis added), the scope of the new trial should be limited to the issues raised
in this motion and those claims identified in the Appendix.

**Howard A Treesong**

The jury's decisions just don't have logic or consistency. Whether the decision goes in the favour of GW or CHS, that some generic stuff on shoulder pads infringed and some did not, just doesn't make sense. The jury should show consistency, the result of the jury was that they gave wins to both sides somewhat arbitrarily rather than following a pattern.

**fullheadofhair**

In reading those documents you can see two distinct styles of writing which I find quite interesting. The CHS is broken down into easily readable points with immediate support and is very clear and concise in the logical path it is trying to take its reader. Not so much the other one which turns in a wall of text.

I have a feeling that the judge isn't going to waste time with a new trial but make corrections to the anomolies the jury came out with. I think that GW are in for one horrendous spanking - especially bring up Grindley yet again.

**Kilkrazy**

I agree. It's impossible to read the evidence and make any sense of the overall balance of the verdicts.

**weeble1000**

Merrett Cross:

[Ms. Hartzell] Do you recall testifying about this product?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

[Ms. Hartzell] And you testified that it was a wholly original Games Workshop design?

[Mr. Merrett] Wholly original Games Workshop idea, and therefore that's a copy of a Games Workshop idea, and the expression of the idea is illustrated opposite.

[Ms. Hartzell] On the right-hand side?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

In other words, Mr. Merrett knows that an idea is different from an expression. He identified the Games Workshop work as an expression of the idea, and rather than state that the accused product was a copy of the expression, he said it was a copy of the idea.

**Aerethan**

weeble1000 wrote:
Merrett Cross:

[Ms. Hartzell] Do you recall testifying about this product?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

[Ms. Hartzell] And you testified that it was a wholly original Games Workshop design?

[Mr. Merrett] Wholly original Games Workshop idea, and therefore that's a copy of a Games Workshop idea, and the expression of the idea is illustrated opposite.

[Ms. Hartzell] On the right-hand side?

[Mr. Merrett] Yes.

In other words, Mr. Merrett knows that an idea is different from an expression. He identified the Games Workshop work as an expression of the idea, and rather than state that the accused product was a copy of the expression, he said it was a copy of the idea.

That is quite damning against the relevant copyright claims.

**Janthkin**

The judge must have a strictly-enforced page limit on such motions; CH's attorneys had to pack a lot of law into 15 pages, and I think their arguments suffer a bit on some of the points they apparently deemed less important/less likely to succeed.

But they fit them all in, so they're all available for appellate consideration; that's the important thing!

**czakk**

Local rules have briefs limited to 15 pages.

LR 7.1. Briefs: Page Limit

Neither a brief in support of or in opposition to any motion nor objections to a report and recommendation or order of a magistrate judge or special master shall exceed 15 pages without prior approval of the court. Briefs that exceed the 15 page limit must have a table of contents with the pages noted and a table of cases. Any brief or objection that does not comply with this rule shall be filed subject to being stricken by the court.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Are we heading back to Judge Gilbert for another settlement conference? Should go smoothly

07/16/2013 411 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference on post judgment matters.(pjg, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 07/16/2013)

**AndrewC**

I guess somebody rolled a 6 to see if the game continued.

On Topic though, did the Jurors throw darts at the verdict sheets?

I cannot follow through any pattern or 'logic tree' on their awards of infringement/non-infringement decisions. Also, I thought they had to show how they came to the conclusion of the damage award? I'm sure I saw that in the instructions.

Cheers

Andrew

**rigeld2**

Is it just me or does the GW brief seem like its reaching?

**SeanDrake**

rigeld2 wrote:
Is it just me or does the GW brief seem like its reaching?

Lets be honest gw's entire case could be described as reaching.

**Trasvi**

Most of the time, I assume the judge is going to uphold the jury verdict. To claim that 'no reasonable jury could believe x', I think precedent is that you need pretty clear evidence that the jury is not being reasonable rather than you just made your case poorly.

However, I see CHS 'no evidence of actual confusion' to be a pretty strong argument. If GW's only witness on that issue affirmed there was no likelihood of confusion and the jury did not take that part of the law into consideration, that would be very strong grounds for overturning and consistent with the few other times I have heard of jury verdicts being overturned.

**Howard A Treesong**

I think both parties have reason to appeal on the basis of the jury being inconsistent and illogical. It helps no one to not lay down where GW's rights end. I think GW were lucky to win what they did but GW seem to expect to always get their way so CHS fighting back and winning anything must really stick in their craw.

**RiTides**

weeble1000 wrote:
[Mr. Merrett] So, we don't mass market advertise anything. We rely on what we call word of mouth...

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth spreads?

[Mr. Merrett] the Internet is probably the biggest single way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate with each other...

Q. Can you describe some of these forums, the names of them?

[Mr. Merrett] Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka Dakka...

Fantastic

If they're relying on word of mouth via independent forums, particularly this one, they're in for a rude awaking on what that word of mouth actually says, though

**insaniak**

It's particularly amusing given their long-running crusade against the internet... or at least those parts of it that involve themselves with GW's IP.

So their primary source of advertising is word of mouth on the internet... but they do everything they can to quash that.

That's got to be good for business.

**PsychoticStorm**

lets also not forget how grateful they are to all these sites advertising them for free with their occasional C&D letters, or complains to Google.

**spaceelf**

I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

**Kilkrazy**

It seems unlikely that things would go GW's way on appeal, but that should merely encourage the pro bono defence team to increase the size of their victory.

**Lt.Soundwave**

Does anyone have a link of grindleys testimony during the trial?

**Noir**

spaceelf wrote:
I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

**Adam LongWalker**

Noir wrote:
spaceelf wrote:
I would assume that the chances of appeal on either side are rather slim. There is not enough money involved in the case to take more time in court. Further, the pro bono legal team already made a big announcement on their win. You do not think that they would make such a press release if they thought that it would be overruled on appeal. Lastly, the case went just as predicted by the original judge, both sides will get some wins and some losses and both companies will survive and continue to produce miniatures.

It will be interesting to see GW's legal strategy after this case is settled. I suspect that they will be much more hesitant to go to court.

It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

Heh heh heh. I am so enjoying all of this.

**RiTides**

Noir wrote:
It has been confirmed other legal firm are willing to take on the appeal pro-bono, do to the far reaching impact this case will have.

Whoa! Which firm?

**Kroothawk**

There is a queue