GW up to their old tricks again...

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.

**Wayniac**

Spikey Bits, I know but still, looks like GW forgot that the Chapterhouse case showed having "similar to but not identical" 40k things is perfectly legit as long as you don't try to claim they are GW products. This company is one of the worst I've ever seen with their anti-consumer tactics, worse than EA or Blizzard

https://spikeybits.com/warhammer-40k/games-workshop-freezes-assets-amid-world-wide-seller-takedown/

**Gert**

Explain to me how a company targeting counterfeit goods is somehow bad.

**Wayniac**

They are targeting much more than counterfeit goods.

**Gert**

Indeed, sellers using Warhammer branding to promote their stores and products. Oh wait, that's using a copyrighted IP that they don't own to promote a non-GW product which could give the impression these are GW sanctioned products.

Why would a company want to stop those I wonder?

Big deal over nothing. Don't use branding that isn't yours, don't get lawsuits. Seems pretty easy to me and SpikeyBitz is farming the Internet rage because it hasn't been relevant since 2010.

**Lathe Biosas**

It's coming out of the Southern District of Florida.

Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.

**Overread**

I'm into 3D printing enough that I've seen a good few challenges and so far GW has honestly been pretty tame.

Their claims typically come with specific infringing elements which can be reworked to remove them.

Often when you see things vanish its because they were either a carbon copy of a GW model anyway or the infringing parts were so integral that reworking isn't worth the cost/time. Or they loaded up something totally safe with a whole host of GW copyright terms/names/logos

Suffice it to say many of these firms know what they are doing. Using GW logos/symbols/phrases/terms - heck I even saw one doing chibi-style models using full GW brand colouring and lettering.

This is GW's bread and butter earning sector. If you copy it be prepared for the legal. It doesn't mean GW is in the right every single time; they can overstretch or there are situations where you can push back ;but in general many of these claims are legitimate.

And yeah Spiky has been trolling for articles for ages. They are well into the "hate on GW for the clicks" sector of marketing.

**Wayniac**

Lathe Biosas wrote:
It's coming out of the Southern District of Florida.

Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.

Chapterhouse lawsuit was filed in Texas, so it's not uncommon for them. Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.

**Overread**

Wayniac wrote:
Lathe Biosas wrote:
It's coming out of the Southern District of Florida.

Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.
Chapterhouse lawsuit was filed in Texas, so it's not uncommon for them. Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.

Actually "please print this STL I bought" firms won't get hit at all because that's a service where they don't have to display the model that was printed anywhere. The customer comes with a file; the printer prints it and sends over the model - done.

The ones GW are hitting are those who ARE advertising models directly for sale themselves. And honestly yes I do expect a store selling products in a niche market to be aware of what they are selling and its potential legality. This isn't rocket science this is basic copyright.

**Gert**

So in not doing due diligence as a business they are facilitating IP theft.

Seems like they should do better due diligence in their business dealings tbh.

**Wayniac**

No, according to a friend he has a friend who prints and was hit in it, so looks like GW is throwing a wide net.

and besides, feth GW. Imagine simping for a garbage company that is anti-consumer. fething pathetic.

**Gert**

Wow I didn't know we were dealing with "friend of a friend" levels of insider knowledge here.

This might be really serious team. My dad's uncle said GW kicked his dog on Wednesday as well!

**Overread**

Wayniac wrote:

and besides, feth GW. Imagine simping for a garbage company that is anti-consumer. fething pathetic.

I mean it seems like you just want to be angry at GW for the sake of it.

This isn't anti-consumer this is basic copyright/trademark protection that any firm would be expected to undertake. If people were ripping off Infinity, Warmachine or other smaller wargame brands to the same extent as is happening to GW you'd expect those firms to also take appropriate action as well.

**insaniak**

Wayniac wrote:
Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.

"I didn't check if the thing I made for you was a copyright infringement" is unlikely to be an effective legal defence. Back when I worked in a photo development lab, we were legally not allowed to reprint professional photographs if they were still in copyright. It was up to us as the service provider to not provide that service if the end product would have been an infringement.

I'm not surprised if garage printing services haven't thought about the potential ramifications before now, but if I were in that business I would absolutely refuse to print anything that looks like a GW mini.

For the rest of it, it's difficult to say if any of the examples that SB listed of potential over-reach actually are or not without details. The paint rack slapped for using the word 'citadel' for example... it's the difference between them selling a rack that can hold Citadel paint pots, and selling it as a Citadel paint rack. The Chapterhouse suit clarified that the former is fine, the latter is an infringement.

**Hanskrampf**

I'm affected in this lawsuit, and it's not just "GW copies" that are targeted here.

In Germany, there's the §23 MarkenG (and similar stuff in other EU countries), which specifically allows you to use a third party trademark to mark your product compatible with said third party trademark. So lots of these listings on the
lawsuit have used something along the lines of "compatible with Warhammer", "compatible with Citadel paint pots" etc.
If the use of a third party trademark is indeed allowed or not, is decided on a case to case basis, but it most certainly should not be lumped into a single lawsuit in the USA of all places. GW states in their court documents, that the defendants are at risk of ditching their online identiy and adapting a new one (because we're all classified as Chinese recasters it seems, not registered businesses with attached business adresses), so it was filed in secret until stores were locked down and assets frozen.

This may be the right course of action for recasters, but on the list are also
-proxy models
-gaming mats
-neodym magnets
-movement trays
-paint accessories
-cosplay props
-individualised gaming controllers

**Slipspace**

Overread wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

and besides, feth GW. Imagine simping for a garbage company that is anti-consumer. fething pathetic.

I mean it seems like you just want to be angry at GW for the sake of it.

This isn't anti-consumer this is basic copyright/trademark protection that any firm would be expected to undertake. If people were ripping off Infinity, Warmachine or other smaller wargame brands to the same extent as is happening to GW you'd expect those firms to also take appropriate action as well.

Pretty much this. I'm no fan of companies throwing their weight around and filing frivolous lawsuits but I'm also generally in favour of the right to protect your IP. This is early stages by the looks of it. Assuming this was a lawsuit filed to obtain a temporary injunction it will have been looked at by a judge, which will prevent most of the more egregious abuses of the legal system (not all, sadly). If it's more a case of going straight to Etsy, web hosts etc then that's a problem with how the law works in these cases and the default reaction for hosts being to remove the allegedly offending content.

If pointing out that there may be many legitimate reasons why GW have filed this suit is "simping" then I think your worldview might be too skewed to make any rational judgements here.

**Lathe Biosas**

Enforcement will be an issue. Unless this is an attempt to beat down Etsy and Shopify stores, I can't see how this will affect Russian and Chinese storefronts.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Multinational Market Leader Moves To Protect Its IP. Internet Feigns Shock.

More at coco time in Dectober.

**Quixote**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Multinational Market Leader Moves To Protect Its IP. Internet Feigns Shock.

More at coco time in Dectober.

Hmm... I sense... sarcasm

.

**beast_gts**

From Reddit - UK Etsy Seller Named in US Lawsuit – Need Advice

Hi all, I’m a UK England resident and recently received an email from a US law firm (Brickell IP Group) saying I’ve been named as a defendant in a US trademark lawsuit (Games Workshop Ltd. v. Schedule A, Case No. 25-cv-21746, filed in Florida). The claim is based on a handful of AI-generated t-shirt designs I sold on Etsy last year. The designs were inspired by Warhammer/Doom themes but were original and created in good faith. I made only 14 sales, with total revenue under £300 and an estimated profit of about £100, which I donated the majority to small local animal charities.

My Etsy account has since been permanently deleted, and I’ve had no involvement in anything related to this since January. I’ve contacted their attorney twice asking to be removed from the claim, with no response. I’ve also spoken with a US lawyer who’s helping me draft a letter asking for dismissal.

My questions are:

Has anyone seen a US IP judgment ever enforced in the UK under these circumstances?

Is there any real legal risk in just ignoring this entirely, given the scale and my location?

Can a US company even pursue me for damages like this in the UK if I’ve never done business there?

Would love to hear from anyone with experience or insight. Thanks in advance.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I’d suggest “talk to a solicitor”

On account when it comes to law, t’internet is the worst place you could go to solicit random advice.

Second worst being that old steadfast “The Man In The Pub”.

And I say this as someone with a now 13 year long career in a legal adjacent role.

**Quixote**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d suggest “talk to a solicitor”

On account when it comes to law, t’internet is the worst place you could go to solicit random advice.

Second worst being that old steadfast “The Man In The Pub”.

And I say this as someone with a now 13 year long career in a legal adjacent role.

That defeats my Family Law Paralegal degree.

In all seriousness, the person in question needs a specialist in Federal Civil Law. Because in the US we have the evil (post 9/11) Commerce Clause, where most of (all of - in Puerto Rico) crimes/torts can be easily construed as federal crimes/torts and selling products on the internet are equal to showing up on that person's doorstep and selling the item in person... even if you've never been there personally.

*This is not legal advice. Non-lawyers in the US cannot give legal advice (unless incarcerated - thanks Jailhouse Lawyers Act!).

**Lord Damocles**

I'm immediately suspicious of 'I never did nothing wrong. In fact I hardly sold anything. And if I did sell things infringing GW's IP, I didn't make a profit. And if I did make a profit I gave it all to charity' as a story.

**kodos**

people try to make quick money with Warhammer because GW is too expensive and doesn't provide everything to everyone regarding the hobby
some do it more professional than others, and some just do it because everyone is doing it and making a Warhammer AI art to sell T-shirts is an easy way to get some money without bad intentions
and simply mentioning "warhammer" instead of "wargaming" will increase sales for a generic product because GW themselves pushed the term "warhammer hobby" in a way that it replaced to more generic terms long time ago.

so nothing new here, but it gets a little more interesting with GW as they have usually have something going on behind the scenes if they are going big with this (and it is not just this lawsuit but also copyright strikes on Youtube)

so my guess would be that this is related to their Amazon deal going forward and they are just cleaning things up before it goes public
or one if their upcoming releases is something bigger and close to stuff one of those people is selling (and it is easier to get out a broad copyright claim against everyone instead of going after a specific small business)

**lord_blackfang**

We all know only British garage firms like Heresy and Hasslefree are allowed to blatantly steal IP all over the place.

**Snord**

Lathe Biosas wrote:
It's coming out of the Southern District of Florida.

Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.

I'm not a US attorney, but I am a lawyer. I understand that GW are making use of a procedural mechanism available in US federal district courts. This enables an IP owner to target a wide range of online IP infringers cost-effectively, by short-circuiting a lot of the procedural steps normally required when suing someone. They can then go after targets even though they don't know their true identities or locations - so it's particularly useful for pursing people in China. The allegations can be quite broadly framed, and it is all done 'ex parte', so that the first the defendants know about it is when their business is frozen. That's how GW got restraining orders and was able to freeze funds. The online marketplaces that facilitate the infringers will normally comply with these orders, and thus effectively shut down the infringers. However, a side effect of this procedure is that there is collateral damage, because it sweeps up innocent people as well as actual infringers. It's a kind of 'shoot first and ask questions later' approach.

**Dysartes**

lord_blackfang wrote:
We all know only British garage firms like Heresy and Hasslefree are allowed to blatantly steal IP all over the place.

Not to mention the biggest garage firm of the lot - Games Workshop.

**Hanskrampf**

Here's an article that breaks down these kind of class action lawsuits:
https://columbialawreview.org/content/a-sad-scheme-of-abusive-intellectual-property-litigation/

The article basically calls it a legal extortion scheme.

**insaniak**

lord_blackfang wrote:
We all know only British garage firms like Heresy and Hasslefree are allowed to blatantly steal IP all over the place.

Not at all. Anyone can do what Heresy and Hasslefree do. Producing a figure that looks like a character from a tv show is not an infringement. Producing a figure that looks like a character and calling it that character's name is more problematic, as is producing figures that look like someone else's figures.

**Mr. Burning**

GW HAS to protect its IP.
It has a legal obligation to do so.
The professionals that GW instruct have an obligation to their client to pursue such claims.

**Tabletop_Magpie**

"AI Generated images for T-shirts" - good, I hope you get thoroughly clapped you unoriginal parasite.

edit - ah reading the reddit comments it's essentially a scam and there is unlikely to be anything coming back to bite matey on the bum.