Donations for Chapterhouse Legal Defense and third-party parts

[chapterhousestudios]

OK how do I go about this..

I was not lying when I said Chapterhouse Studios has been expecting this to happen (but hoping it did not). GW has too much of a reputation for using its size and legal muscle to shut out any threat to the market they are in.


If this goes to trial, there will be a high cost involved in it that Chapterhouse Studios will likely be shouldering alone. If the outcome is favorable it can only add to the experience and hobby (or so I believe). Saying that, I would like to ask for donations to fund this defense. I hate asking for a handout so if we do come out of this in working order, I intend to give full credits in exchange for those donations given and I am keeping track.

If you feel you can contribute, that is great, if not, well we have received too many emails to count giving good wishes.

If you feel like donating (any amount helps honestly even $5.00). Click on the button below.

https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donate_LG.gif (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=WAFV9AUDDQG7G)

Sincerely,
Nick Villacci
Chapterhousestudios.com

[Aldramelech]

I have to say that Ive never bought any of your products and was only vaguely aware that your company existed, when I saw this thread I had to google you to find out what you did, hardly an earthshaking threat to the GW empire is it?

I think your providing products that complement GW's figures nicely without in any way being any kind of commercial threat to them and their legal action is petty and vindictive in the extreme. If they provided some of the items you sell that would be different but the way I see it, GW seem intent on alienating the hobby community by throwing their weight around.

Good luck to you.

[Col.Gravis]

I'm afraid it was envitable given your use of GW IP, where you could have tiptoed you went all out blatently using GW trademarks etc. Even though now you've switched to colonial guard rather then Imperial Guard, and space bugs rather then Tyranids for example, it's too little too late. As you say you knew full well that GW was likely to come knocking sooner or later yet you've done yourselves no favours.

I hope none of you guys lose out personally, but Chapterhosue as a business is probably done, and personally I don't feel thats GW's fault.

[Gotthammer]

As much as I don't want to see Chapterhouse go down, the company is trading using GW's tradmarks, and if GW doesn't take action to stop it that'll be enough to lose said trademarks in many areas.
I was very surprised the day I looked at the Chapterhouse website and everything was switched from generic 28mm mini names to using the 'real' terms.

Looking at the docs (link here (http://207.41.16.133/rfcViewFile/10cv8103.pdf)) it seems the Tau walker was the final straw for them, as well as customer complaints thinking they were linked like Forge World:


31. Upon information and belief, all of the items produced, marketed, and sold by
Chapterhouse (including the “Super-Heavy Assault Walker” designed at least in part by Paulson
Games) have been copied from (and infringe upon) Games Workshop’s copyrighted characters
and stories and sculptural works.

32. Similarly, at least 14 of the 15 items produced, marketed, and sold by Paulson
Games have been copied from (and infringe upon) Games Workshop’s copyrighted characters
and stories and sculptural works.

37. Beyond the copying of protected original elements of Games Workshop’s
copyrighted works, Chapterhouse makes extensive unauthorized use of Games Workshop’s
trademarks.

41. As a result of the foregoing, Games Workshop has received many customer
complaints and inquiries about Chapterhouse’s products, indicating that customers are confused
and will continue to be confused as to the origin and sponsorship of Chapterhouse’s products,
including whether Games Workshop has licensed Chapterhouse or otherwise given it authority to
produce the products being sold through the Website.

44. Chapterhouse’s use of the Games Workshops trademarks, including without
limitation the marks WARHAMMER, WARHAMMER 40,000, 40K, SPACE MARINE,
CHAOS SPACE MARINES, ELDAR, ELDAR FARSEER, ELDAR JETBIKE, ELDAR
WARLOCK, ELDAR SEER COUNCIL, TYRANID, ADEPTUS MECHANICUS, BLOOD
ANGELS, DARK ANGELS, BLOOD RAVENS MARINES, IMPERIAL GUARD, BLACK
TEMPLARS, ALPHA LEGION, BONESWORD, CARNIFLEX, CRIMSON FISTS, FLESH
TEARERS, GENESTEALER, GAUNT, HERESY ARMOUR, HORUS HERESY, HOWLING
GRIFFONS, IRON HANDS, IMPERIAL FISTS, LASHWHIP, LEGION OF THE DAMNED,
LIGHTNING CLAW, LIONS RAMPANT, LUNA WOLVES, MANTIS WARRIORS, MK
ARMOUR, MYCETIC SPORE, RHINO, SALAMANDER, SONS OF RUSS, SOUL
DRINKER, SPACE WOLVES, STAR FOX, SWARMLORD, TECHMARINES, TAU,
THUNDER ARMOUR, THUNDER HAMMER, TERMAGANTS, TERVIGON, and YMGARL
(among others) are likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.


[Trademark Infringement by Chapterhouse Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)]

54. Chapterhouse’s use in commerce of the WARHAMMER Registered Marks is
likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
55. The foregoing conduct of Chapterhouse constitutes trademark infringement in
violation of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1).


[Violation by Chapterhouse of the Illinois Anti-Dilution Statute, 765 ILCS 1036/65]

70. Chapterhouse’s use in commerce of the WARHAMMER Marks causes dilution of
the distinctive quality of Plaintiff’s WARHAMMER Marks.

A lot of it ('unfair competition' - really GW?) is stupid, but that's lawyers everywhere - the rest looks cut and dried to me, unfortunately.

[Denzark]

"Oi Mister Chapter house, give me some resin goodness for free?"
"Free? Surely not Mr Denzark?"
"Yes free, gratis, and for nothing my friend"
"Well I couldn't possibly do that."
"Why not Mr CHS fella?"
"Well, I have created said resiny goodness by the sweat from my brow. The designs are mine, and I should be rewarded at profit for my imagination. Why, you can't possibly think I'll be out of pocket just to suit you, do you?"
"OK, never mind thanks anyhoo."

Now substitute CHS for GW and CHS for Denzark, you might get some perspective...

[Lockark]

I'm afraid it was envitable given your use of GW IP, where you could have tiptoed you went all out blatently using GW trademarks etc. Even though now you've switched to colonial guard rather then Imperial Guard, and space bugs rather then Tyranids for example, it's too little too late. As you say you knew full well that GW was likely to come knocking sooner or later yet you've done yourselves no favours.

I hope none of you guys lose out personally, but Chapterhosue as a business is probably done, and personally I don't feel thats GW's fault.

I have to kinda agree with Gravis here. You guys kinda shot your selves in the foot on that one.

=/

Personally I find that a huge shame. I wish there were more 3rd part/After Market Conversion Parts for models out there. Seeing you guys go will be a shame.

[Spider-pope]

You knowingly infringed on GW's intellectual property, the only surprising thing is that it took them this long to take legal action against you.
In this instance GW is hardly petty or vindictive. They have no choice but to defend their IP when it's infringed, otherwise it sets up a precedent that would allow any tom dick or harry to infringe it too without consequence. So while Chapterhouse is arguably a benign infringement, GW Legal still have to crack down on you because the next company to try may not be doing so out of a genuine fondness for the hobby.

[chapterhousestudios]

*

[Spider-pope]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) it is all not as clear cut as many of you think. There is a right for other entities to refer to trademarks in regard to their products. It is called "nominal use". It is the same way companies refer to Ipod accessories and certain model car parts.

I wont bore you all with the details in any case, you either agree or disagree with GW or Chapterhouse Studios. I wish the fans would educate themselves regarding the laws though.

I'm well aware of the nominal use clause, but you are not simply "referring" to GW trademarks, as anyone who has seen your Tau walker can attest.
I don't wish you to suffer any monetary loss nor legal troubles, but surely you must have realised it was only a matter of time before GW's legal team came knocking.

I won't continue any arguement, i'll just wish you and your associates good luck and hope you dont come out of this too out of pocket.

[Denzark]

I wont bore you all with the details in any case, you either agree or disagree with GW or Chapterhouse Studios. I wish the fans would educate themselves regarding the laws though.

Well this is quite sharp for someone asking for help. I'm sorry us poor thickos don't understand your point, and need to educate ourselves.

A reasoned response would be, seeing as you are so clear that what you were doing is legal, why don't you try fighting your legal position without any donations?

As you will surely be able to get someone to lend you any amount of money based on your 100% guarantee you were acting legally - you can pay them back when the courts award you costs the other side.

[navajas]

I've got pedals on my 3 that were not made by Mazda.

I've got a collapsible stock for my Mini-30 not made by Ruger.

I've got grips on my 232 not made by Sig.

I've got Estes rockets that I fly with Quest motors.

I've got an MSR filter hooked up to a Playtpus water bag.

I've got laces in my boots that were not made by Timberland.

I've got tires on my mountain bike that sure as hell were not made by Trek.

What I haven't got for you, Chapterhouse, is anything but wishes of good luck and advice you don't need: Never again do anything as stupid as releasing that Tau tank.

[Yriel_The_Angelic]

"44. Chapterhouse’s use of the Games Workshops trademarks, including without
limitation the marks WARHAMMER, WARHAMMER 40,000, 40K, SPACE MARINE,
CHAOS SPACE MARINES, ELDAR, ELDAR FARSEER, ELDAR JETBIKE, ELDAR
WARLOCK, ELDAR SEER COUNCIL, TYRANID, ADEPTUS MECHANICUS, BLOOD
ANGELS, DARK ANGELS, BLOOD RAVENS MARINES, IMPERIAL GUARD, BLACK
TEMPLARS, ALPHA LEGION, BONESWORD, CARNIFLEX, CRIMSON FISTS, FLESH
TEARERS, GENESTEALER, GAUNT, HERESY ARMOUR, HORUS HERESY, HOWLING
GRIFFONS, IRON HANDS, IMPERIAL FISTS, LASHWHIP, LEGION OF THE DAMNED,
LIGHTNING CLAW, LIONS RAMPANT, LUNA WOLVES, MANTIS WARRIORS, MK
ARMOUR, MYCETIC SPORE, RHINO, SALAMANDER, SONS OF RUSS, SOUL
DRINKER, SPACE WOLVES, STAR FOX, SWARMLORD, TECHMARINES, TAU,
THUNDER ARMOUR, THUNDER HAMMER, TERMAGANTS, TERVIGON, and YMGARL
(among others) are likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive."

-Read after Space Wolves, GW OWNS STAR FOX!?!?!?!?!?!

[Limey El'Jonson]

Ssshhhh! There's a mistake in the filing. Star Fox was a name I believe that CH put to the SW line. It's not a trademark of GW, registered or non-registered afaik

Nick? Get on it!

[Grimnar42]

I have been in this hobby for a long long time now and this is not the first time and wont be the last that GW has come down on someone. Personally I don't give a rats about the legal crap not like CHS is any threat is it morally I think GW is way over the line I mean not like they are squeaky clean about pilfering someone else's ideas is it. I hope you at least reach an agreement Jon because I for one want your products available to customize my gw models.

[Melissia]

I'm eking laong, even if I did have a desire to support you I couldn't. As it is... well, you shot yourself in the foot. Good luck with the procedings...

[Lockark]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) it is all not as clear cut as many of you think. There is a right for other entities to refer to trademarks in regard to their products. It is called "nominal use". It is the same way companies refer to Ipod accessories and certain model car parts.

I wont bore you all with the details in any case, you either agree or disagree with GW or Chapterhouse Studios. I wish the fans would educate themselves regarding the laws though.

It's one thing to make a accessory that's compatible with a device. (Like your vheclie conversion kits.)

But it's also another thing to make a Knock off hand bag.....


GW's Flesh Tearers Shoulder Pad:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440197a&prodId=prod550012a

CHS's "Sawblade Shoulder Pad & seperate Jewel - great for Fleshtearers" :
http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.browse&category_id=31



If I am uneducated on the subject, I'm more then happy to be educated/corrected! I really want to see you guys come threw in the end.

[Lane]

Well this is quite sharp for someone asking for help. I'm sorry us poor thickos don't understand your point, and need to educate ourselves.

Legal definition can be incredibly complicated yet still vague, posting the pertinent material would not necessarily improve our comprehension of the situation.

People also tend to make judgments based on opinion, hearsay and what they think the law means rather than the letter of the law.



A reasoned response would be, seeing as you are so clear that what you were doing is legal, why don't you try fighting your legal position without any donations?

Being in the right does not guarantee they will not loose the lawsuit. Jurrys can be swayed by exaggerations, persuasive speakers and outright falsehoods. Defense lawyers can also make mistakes that cost them the case.

A good example is the spilled coffee case against McDonalds. The plaintiff had an expert witness who claimed the coffee was at 270 degrees F.

[Duke]

I just wanted to remind everyone that BoLS does not take any position on this topic. The comments in this thread in no way reflect the ideas or opinions of BoLS or the lounge. Our only view is to allow community news to be reported. Thank you

Duke

[Col.Gravis]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) it is all not as clear cut as many of you think. There is a right for other entities to refer to trademarks in regard to their products. It is called "nominal use". It is the same way companies refer to Ipod accessories and certain model car parts.

I wont bore you all with the details in any case, you either agree or disagree with GW or Chapterhouse Studios. I wish the fans would educate themselves regarding the laws though.

Nominal use is fine, you'd most likely have not drawn this response from GW if you'd produced generic bits components as many other companies have done, but you did'nt go generic, you've blatently used GW IP to identify your product without until now in a panic I would imagine any form of disclaimer. More then that you've blatently used GW IP within your product, with some artistic flair certainly, but it is clearly identifiable none the less, such as the example that Lockark posted.

Put it this way, you might find a third party producing and selling an iPod cover, but you would'nt find it with the Apple logo on.

It may not be as clear cut as that, but it would never have come to this if CH had been careful rather then acting as they have. I'm sorry you stand to lose something you've worked hard for here, and I restate that I hope you don't lose out personally, but this is how things go down.

[Denzark]

Legal definition can be incredibly complicated yet still vague, posting the pertinent material would not necessarily improve our comprehension of the situation.

People also tend to make judgments based on opinion, hearsay and what they think the law means rather than the letter of the law.



Being in the right does not guarantee they will not loose the lawsuit. Jurrys can be swayed by exaggerations, persuasive speakers and outright falsehoods. Defense lawyers can also make mistakes that cost them the case.

A good example is the spilled coffee case against McDonalds. The plaintiff had an expert witness who claimed the coffee was at 270 degrees F.


Lane you have not understood a single thing I said. If these boys are whtier than white, why has the names of their products changed, ie 'imperial guard heads' to 'colonial heads'?

[Denzark]

I have been in this hobby for a long long time now and this is not the first time and wont be the last that GW has come down on someone. Personally I don't give a rats about the legal crap not like CHS is any threat is it morally I think GW is way over the line I mean not like they are squeaky clean about pilfering someone else's ideas is it. I hope you at least reach an agreement Jon because I for one want your products available to customize my gw models.

Morally, I think GW are spot on. As the whole purpose of a business is to make money for its shareholders.

Look, back in the day, GW were the cottage industry. They fought off Ral partha, TSR, FASA, whoever, and carved a niche. Then the scale of the thing meant they had to not have geeks in charge, and got in true corporate business types. Rules streamlined, target audience got younger.

Some of the oldies felt left out in the cold. Well unlucky - you want GW fluff, you want the firm to stand on its own 2 feet in a recession, thats what you've got. US gamers have US aspirations - read bill Bryson - you get 87 different types of vanilla ice cream. You want tourneys with prize support. You weren't happy with a plastic rhino and LR back in the day - you got Armorcast. You want little niche third party parts companies, you got 'em. But you can't expect you to have your cake and eat it - GW are a business first and foremost.

CHS is not a symbiotic relationship with GW like a bird stood picking tics out of rhino's ear. GW get nothing from them. You could argue 'why not make a seer council kit - GW aren't' Well GW are well within their rights not to license CHS to do this. This may be because to do it from GW parts it will bring them in an extra £100 - that is what GW is about. At the end of the day, you, the customer, can vote with your feet.

I seriously wonder if this was a US giant slogging it to a tiny Brit company, whether or not the attitude would be different here - this isn't some David and Goliath fairy tale, why did CHS not do what Pig iron does and just advertise as generic 28mm? Answer: they went for the quick buck. They may feel they are entitled to the scraps from under GWs table, but they are GW scraps - GW is entitled to dish them out or bin them willy nilly as they see fit.

I am not a GW nazzy. Most of my glues, paints, milliput etc are not GW. Some of my favourite miniatures are other companies with a bolter stuck on, or GW with a third company weapon. I was hoping to use some CHS parts myself.

But, this vexes me that people are trying to paint this as some morality tale - simply CHS flew too close to the candle and got their wings burned. The reason CHS weren't giving their product away was because they wanted profit. Not unreasonable either - their designs and materials cost. However this makes them a business, and what GW is doing is business, not good versus evil. After all, GW are entitled to their pound of flesh, particularly when kits like the Seer council quite simply only exist to fit exisitng GW designs.

[Old_Paladin]

After reading all the comments, and the full litigation papers, I just have to say a few things.

First, it isn't something GW commonly does. They tend to use C&D's, went they want to protect their IP, but know that they are likely stepping beyond their means.
They are fully within their rights in this case. They aren't trying to frighten people away from discussing their IP; they are attempting to stop another company from exploiting their IP.

The 'nominal use'/similar parts references. This is not the case here.
You can put tire/pedals/carrying cases/etc. on brand name objects is because 'tires' 'pedals' etc. are non-copy-righted objects.
Armourcast, Pigiron and Maximini are all examples of proper 'nominal use' because they just make 28mm heroic scale. They sometimes show examples of it on GW things, but they are made for anything in that scale.
Chapterhouse didn't do that. You don't make unique, but generalized, pieces. You made IP and image copied works.

Here an example of a case like yours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Sport_Guns_GSG-5

[chapterhousestudios]

*

[Old_Paladin]

You really don't understand your current situation at all, do you?
You've just proved it with that last statement.

We ARE comparing apples to apples.

I was just on your website and you actually have the nerve to call a new release the "chapterhouse studio's Doom of Malantai" (that's what it says when you high-light the image.)

Your 'space elf' Farseer, looks EXACTLY (to use your own phrase) like a GW Farseer, both a coverted model and images from the Codex.

I'm personally shocked that you think you can defend your actions (or worse, you try to brush it aside), that you think you are completely and uderly in the right, that GW are out to get you for no reason (that they are completely off the mark); absolutely shocked.
You have no remorse for this situation, your actions and attitudes prove that (both here and on your own site).

[miteyheroes]

I like mixing GW & Non-GW parts. My AdMech marines have West Wind's Wierd War 2 gasmasks on, for example. And Chapterhouse Studios make absolutely beautiful parts, I was very tempted by their Exorcist pads (it's bloody inconvenient that GW doesn't make Exorcist pads!) And the nid bits? Gorgeous. The Pre-Heresy Jump Packs were very tempting as well...

But it was pretty obvious that what Chapterhouse was doing was very different to what every other company except GW/ForgeWorld was doing. Compare it to http://sciborminiatures.com, for example. Scibor sell "Templar Shoulder Pads" and "Egyptian Shoulder Pads" (generic names), whilst Chapterhouse claimed to be selling "Blood Raven Shoulder Pads" and "Black Templar Shoulder Pads" (specific GW trademarks). That's crossing a line.

Chapterhouse were not just making iPod covers or watch straps. They were making iPod covers with apples on them and advertising them as Apple iPod covers. Or watch straps with crowns on and advertising them as Rolex watch straps.

Chapterhouse were basically making pirated goods, and now they're asking for donations to fight a courtcase against the company whose IP they've been ripping off. Lol. Good luck with that. Also, you've surely known that such a courtcase might occur? Look at your post on the 19th February, where you deliberate antagonise GW? Surely you should have either been saving up for this possibility, or taken the route taken by all the other bits manufacturers?

[miteyheroes]

I dont guess it matters if I point out that airsoft gun looks EXACTLY like the HK Submachine gun.

You are comparing a case of exact external appearances to the current issue.

We make doors that fit on a Rhino that have a wolf head on it.
GW makes doors that fit on a Rhino that have a different wolf head on it.

Compare apples to apples not to oranges.

Could you make stickers with big-eared green ogres, smiling donkeys and overweight dragons on them, and advertise them as ideal for use with Shrek picture books?

[Aldramelech]

IMO GW have an unhealthy monopoly in this area of the hobby and protect it with strong arm bully boy tactics. Look at the hobby as a whole, other manufacturers don't enjoy this kind of advantage, you cant copyright a Sherman tank for example, its a Sherman Tank and anyone can make one (unless your a GW wannabe like Battle Front who seem to think they invented the 2nd World War, Good luck with that).

The crux of the matter appears to be that unlike everybody else Chapterhouse have been upfront about what their products are for and so are getting punished, how the hell do you justify that? "We're not going to take that person to court because they were sneaky and underhanded enough to call their stuff something else"

This is not GW's Hobby, they do not own the Hobby. They do own the products they make, and if someone copied them directly and sold them in direct competition them GW would be justified in their action, but that is not whats happened.

This unhealthy monopoly is NOT good for the hobby, its not good for gamers, its only good for GW shareholders, and many of them are not involved in the hobby. They do not care about the hobby, gamers or choice, they care about money.

Go over to a Company like Grind House Games website to see how the hobby should really be, Games for Gamers, run by Gamers who say things like "Hey, its your game, no one here is going to tell you how to play with your soldiers"

F*&%ing A!

Somewhere along the line GW became the "MAN", and I don't take orders from the "MAN" or their lawyers. This hobby is MY hobby, its yours too and I'll spend my money where I want, not where Kissass, Suckup and Creep, lawyers to the great and good, tell me I can.

[miteyheroes]

IMO GW have an unhealthy monopoly in this area of the hobby and protect it with strong arm bully boy tactics. Look at the hobby as a whole, other manufacturers don't enjoy this kind of advantage, you cant copyright a Sherman tank for example, its a Sherman Tank and anyone can make one (unless your a GW wannabe like Battle Front who seem to think they invented the 2nd World War, Good luck with that).

True, but GW invented the Rhino and the Land Raider and so on. Saying GW has an unhealthy monopoly on Rhino doors is like saying Lucasarts has an unhealthy monopoly over Star Wars vehicle parts...

[Old_Paladin]

This is not GW's Hobby, they do not own the Hobby.

This unhealthy monopoly is NOT good for the hobby, its not good for gamers, its only good for GW shareholders, and many of them are not involved in the hobby. They do not care about the hobby, gamers or choice, they care about money.

What I don't understand is how people can actually talk like this.

They don't own the hobby; the fact that we talk about both other table-top miniature gaming companies and generic third-party bitz producers proves that.
Battle-tech, hoards/warmachine, D&D/Starwars minis, Flame of War, Manic, etc; and Pig-iron, Armourcat, Maximini, etc.

All they own is Warhammer and 40K. They only have a 'monopoly' because we all choose to play that a lot more then we play any of the other games. It's because of us, not because of them.

They aren't a Walmart, able to underbid, buy-out or strong arm all the mom-and-pop operations in town, until they become the only choice.
They are the McDonalds. We can go to 'Dan's Burger World' or the 'Eat it Now Grill' but we choose to go to them instead (but sometimes go to other places once in awhile). However, if another burger places opens up, calls themselves 'MacRonalds', their logo is a big yellow M and their mascot is a clown; that place it going to be sued!
Chapterhouse pulled a 'MacRonalds' and is asking for people that like any kind of burger to bail them out (with the threat that if they lose, then no one can ever buy burgers from anyplace else, ever again!)

[Aldramelech]

I disagree strongly. I don't think CH has ever tried to pass themselves off as GW. Their Website makes it quite clear that they are not GW or connected to GW. Anybody that has that impression after looking at the website (the so called complaints that GW have received) is quite frankly an idiot.

[Grailkeeper]

Its worth bearing in mind that Passing off and copy right and trademark infringement are different legal causes of action. GW seems to be suing under american trademark law of which I know nothing about, but in English (and Irish) law the test for passing off is

1. A misrepresentation
2. made by a trader in the course of trade
2. To customers or prospective customers or ultimate consumers of the good made by him
4.which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader, and
5.which causes actual damage to the business or goodwill of the trader bringing the action.

this has been reduced to
1) Goodwill owned by a trader

2) Misrepresentation

3) Damage to goodwill


but either test can apply here.

[Old_Paladin]

I disagree strongly. I don't think CH has ever tried to pass themselves off as GW. Their Website makes it quite clear that they are not GW or connected to GW. Anybody that has that impression after looking at the website (the so called complaints that GW have received) is quite frankly an idiot.

Well, they say their is a fool born every minute (and clearly, some of them have bought from Chapterhouse, then tried to have questions answered by GW)...

The facts are that many words have many meanings, in this case namely the term "for"
GW is right when they paraphase and say "We make bitz for GW." or "We make replacement part for GW Carnifexes." Can be taken as 'we work for this company.'
What Chapterhouse means is 'we make a product that can be fitted to that companies product'
But they don't actually have a disclaimer page, or full acknowledgement page (Even Dave Taylor has a Disclaimer in regards to his non-assosiations).
So it becomes a matter of context.
And they do use copy-righted logos across the whole site (just go the the shoulder pads page to see a dozen stolen images of Space Marine banners). So the context can be that "if they openly use images that are owned and only allowed by a single company, they should have been in some way assosiated with that company." [and 'fair use' does not apply in this situation]

The problem isn't that they 'tried' to make themselves seem as part of the company [I agree that that was never their intent].
The problem is that they never tried to distance themselves and outright state they have nothing to do with GW (it's the lack of attempt that is the legal wrong; as it allows clients to make an honest mistake.)

You also need to look past the dedicated hobbiests, to the general business structure. Hobbiest like most of us here aren't going to make the mistake of thinking they are a linked company. But if younger players are telling their parents to get them things off this website, in assosiation with their 'GW toy soldiers' those parents can make a simple and understandable mistake of contacting GW with any followups.

[Grimnar42]

At the end of the day and all the legal arguments aside and only the courts judges and whatever are going to decide that I want to be able to buy bits for my models that I like and if GW doesn't supply them I will look elsewhere and what bugs me is GW jumping all over a company that is making those bits I want. OK they have a legal and/or business case but for crying out loud let some old fashioned common sense come to the fore and work out some sort of arrangement and let me spend my money where I WANT.

Their business model is good for them and it makes them money but it never has and never will be good for the dedicated hobbyist leaving us waiting years for model releases and changing rules every 3 or 4 or 5 years to boost sales of new models then taking like forever to revamp codex's to suit.

I hope by donating to CHS fund and I don't really care if they are right or wrong or in between that GW will take some notice of the number supporting them and maybe change their attitude a bit. At the very least make White Dwarf something more than a huge Advertisement and worth buying again and put the accessory sprue back in the leman russ kits having to buy it separate is ridiculous.

[cheesyfluff]

I don't think any ammount of support for CHS will make GW change thier minds to be honest. That said, if you belive in the cause, by all means back it.

Personally, i think CHS are in the wrong. They obviously dont think they are. Judging by the original post on their site a few months back and how they are talking now. The vast majority of legal opinion and a fair few everyday hobbyists think they are wrong too.

The thing that bothers me most about CHS response to all this is their almost arrogant, were right so screw everyone mentallity. The fact they are still of that opinion to me says they probably havent had much in the way of legal advice yet. Unless their plan is to stand up in court, shrug their shoulders and say it's fair usage and hope the judge agrees.

Eitherway asking people to donate to their legal case is a bit wrong. I mean i am a gambling man but i wouldn't bet on a dodgy looking horse with a 20st jockey on the back.

Or to put it another way, if i walk into a bar and hit the biggest dude there, he then will procede to kick my ***. Should i really have any right to ask the other paitients at the hospital to pay for the medical fees?

[chapterhousestudios]

*

[Rain]

I'm guessing that GW has copyright or trademark protection over some of the logos that have been used on the various custom pads and that that fact combined with the use of the "real" names of the affiliated factions has sent CHS up the creek without a paddle. The cynic in me wonders if this fund is even an actual legal defense fund or a last minute golden parachute as I would guess that GW will drop the hammer pretty badly.

[cheesyfluff]

There seems to be a few on Dakka. Eitherway i guess we will all see soon enough eh?

As a side note, i actually like the stuff you guys produce. I just think you have gone about it all wrong.

[cheesyfluff]

I'm guessing that GW has copyright or trademark protection over some of the logos that have been used on the various custom pads and that that fact combined with the use of the "real" names of the affiliated factions has sent CHS up the creek without a paddle. The cynic in me wonders if this fund is even an actual legal defense fund or a last minute golden parachute as I would guess that GW will drop the hammer pretty badly.

Sorry for the double post but this popped up as i was replying. From what i have read and i am no expert, this seems to be the general opinion. I think the simple fact GW has actually forced it to a court as apposed to a nasty letter they usually issue means they probably feel they have a good case.

Another thought, if it is a jury deciding i am sure that won't bode too well for Chapter house either as it will be 12? everyday, un educated (legally) people deciding and given the auguments the majority of us equally legally uneducated folk seem to favour GW.

As for the defence fund, that thought had crossed my mind too!

[chapterhousestudios]

I take great offense to the golden parachute BS. Obviously you have never dealt with me as a customer or face to face.

[Aldramelech]

Yeah, that golden parachute comment is bang out of order! Rain you might not agree with the guy, thats fine don't donate, but to come on and basically call the guy a thief? Thats not cool at all.............

[eldargal]

GW have every right to defend their IP, as does any companyor individual. Any company or individual whose income derives solely from their IP will defend it to the hilt, I strongly doubt any of us would act differently in the same situation, even if we say we would.:rolleyes:

CHS probably were unwise in using GW terms on their website, thats been changed now. Fortunately, CHS has every right to sell 'Space Elves' and whatnot, so long as they survive the lawsuit. I'm a big fan of CHS (as I'm sure they are aware, given how mant times I've pestered them over when their female Seer is due out.:rolleyes:) and I wish them all the best in their defense.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
I like the stuff Chapter House produced.
However , every time I visited thier site I cringed at the blatent use of GW descriptions.

If they used NON GW terms in this web site they could fight and win.And may not have been sued by GW in the first place!

Lots of companies make stuff you can use with games of 40k/WHFB if you want.
Alternative heads arms weapons minatures etc.

However most of them have enough savvy , NOT to use GW descriptions.

Did Chapter House get any warning letters from GW?

Usualy they issue a dissist order first.'...please stop using OUR IP descriptions on you web site...' type notifications.

If Chapter House ignored these . I have little pity for them...

TTFN.

[Col.Gravis]

It is up to the jury to use the law to make the decision, and then based on the law that is explained to them in court by the lawyers, to make that decision as a collective. This is quite different from a group of forum members making uneducated guesses mainly based off of other uneducated opinions.

Then you better hope you've got some good lawyers, because obviously the majority of 'uneducated' people (such as the Jury will be) don't seem to think you have much of a case.

[Denzark]

Since the (April or February) 19th post when CHS told the world it thought it was acting completely within the law, they have subsequently changed 'Imperial Guard' heads to 'Colonial Guard' heads. They have changed 'Eldar' to 'Space Elves'.

If their assertion back then was they are scot free and innocent, why the change, hmmm? And how will a jury take that, if law suits actually have juries?

Too little, too late.

[Rain]

I'm not calling him a thief per se, it just seems strange how little he seems to be concerned over something that looks pretty bad, especially to all of us plebeians.

As has been repeated several times in this thread, GW is a publicly traded firm, and as such would not risk the money in taking something to trial unless it not only thought it could win, but also thought that it could make enough of a mess of things to make an example to others that might try to do something similar.

My point is that it would have been cheaper for them to just send a C&D and threaten action to force compliance in a way similar to maxmini et al (which has already happened) but instead they don't bother to rattle the saber and just draw it, an act that telegraphs that they aren't kidding around, and going for punitive measures rather than just forcing compliance to the rather convoluted fair use laws.

[chapterhousestudios]

Since the (April or February) 19th post when CHS told the world it thought it was acting completely within the law, they have subsequently changed 'Imperial Guard' heads to 'Colonial Guard' heads. They have changed 'Eldar' to 'Space Elves'.

If their assertion back then was they are scot free and innocent, why the change, hmmm? And how will a jury take that, if law suits actually have juries?

Too little, too late.

It is called showing that a compromise is not out of the question on our end. Seeing as you have already ruled us guilty, with very little actual study of the laws at hand, why do you insist on repeating yourself?

I think most of you think this is in trial already. That is not the case, in fact at this point there is still allot of chances for the parties to reach a mutual agreement. GW has not spent the money for a trial yet, and I dont think Paulson or I have had a need for any legal spending as well yet.

It is the internet so everything is blown out of proportion of course.

[Denzark]

It is called showing that a compromise is not out of the question on our end. Seeing as you have already ruled us guilty, with very little actual study of the laws at hand, why do you insist on repeating yourself?

I think most of you think this is in trial already. That is not the case, in fact at this point there is still allot of chances for the parties to reach a mutual agreement. GW has not spent the money for a trial yet, and I dont think Paulson or I have had a need for any legal spending as well yet.

It is the internet so everything is blown out of proportion of course.

If you were in the clear, you had no need to compromise. And as I believe has already been pointed out, if you can't convince a layman quickly on the web, how the hell is a jury going to be convinced? I do respect your evident passion for the games, but the speed with which you take the arse with people here, and drop patronizing comments, is not doing you any favours in increasing your support base.

PS I don't think GW are going for compromise - what with treble damages, smash up the moulds etc.

[Calgar 2.0]

I dont guess it matters if I point out that airsoft gun looks EXACTLY like the HK Submachine gun.

You are comparing a case of exact external appearances to the current issue.

We make doors that fit on a Rhino that have a wolf head on it.
GW makes doors that fit on a Rhino that have a different wolf head on it.

Compare apples to apples not to oranges.

Lawsuit

In 2009, Heckler & Koch instituted a lawsuit against German Sport Guns and American Tactical Imports, Inc. over "trade dress infringements." The suit was settled on October 16, 2009, the outcome being that GSG will stop manufacturing the guns and ATI, Inc., will stop importing them. Existing stocks will be permitted to be sold until January 31, 2010, at which time all sales will cease. Support will continue for all previously sold rifles. (Heckler and Koch has instituted a spate of lawsuits lately against anyone copying any of the weapons they developed from the CETME, which is itself an outgrowth of the StG 45 assault rifle developed by the Wehrmacht in World War II.)

You seem to have missed that part.

[eldargal]

Actually it is in no way as simple as people are making out. While CHS could have avoided this by using generic names, both US and UK copyright law allow the use of trademarks when describing the intended use for a product. With a half decent lawyer it wouldn't be hard to defend themselves on trade rights infringement, while the copyright infringement is a notoriosuly convoluted area and could go either way.

The H&K case isn't particularly relevent as it was a physical copy of a product, GW has not chosen to sue CHS on design grounds.

[chapterhousestudios]

Eldargirl,

Spot on.

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
Eldargal is right about using trademarks for description of intended use.

Speed- sports make body kits suitable for , a range of cars listed in the kit description.
Eg
These are OUR body kits made by us NOT the car manufacturer.
But these kits will fit on the following cars...

So for example.
Items listed as ...

28mm Power Armour Shoulder Pads.
With the following designs,
(Suitable for the following minature ranges ....including GWs space marines and chaos space marines.)

Is a reasonable use of trademark to show intended use.

Where as items listed as ..

Warhammer 40k(c) Space Marine(tm) Shoulder Pads.
Could be construed as indorced, licened or otherwise approved (OR EVEN MADE BY !) by the manufacturer of Warhammer 40k Space Marines .(ie GW.)

Can you see the difference?

As lots of manufactureres make 'suplimentary ' items and products , and are not regularly sued by the companies thier products are used with.
I assume there is a right and wrong way to go about things.I am assuming the basic difference I outlined above MAY be something to do with this?

TTFN

[Grimnar42]

For sanity's sake unless you actually know the law that will be involved and been involved in similar cases can we PLEASE stop the speculation. Who evers side you want to support let us wait and see the outcome and stop the stupid armchair amateur lawer crap.
First rule of any legal problem "never admit you are wrong" so trying to get CHS to say maybe you have a point is never going to happen. Give it a rest.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Grimnar42.
As the first page of this thread shows the core issue as using 'GWs trade marks' to 'advertise' Chapterhouse products, and thus cause GW problems.

And Chapterhouse are using the defence of using trade marks to show 'intended use'.

I simply used a basic example to show the difference between the two.

I am not a IP lawyer.However, I have an opinion and a right to express my ideas.

Based on lots of companies NOT being sued for manufacturing ancillery-suplimentary product to be used with other companies systems -products.

I simply tried to illustrated where the 'difference of opinion' was.I do not expect Chapterhouse OR GW PLC to comment on my posts.

It was my attempt to clarify what the situation was.
If that caused anyone offence , it was not intended.

TTFN

[Aldramelech]

Hi Grimnar42.
As the first page of this thread shows the core issue as using 'GWs trade marks' to 'advertise' Chapterhouse products, and thus cause GW problems.

And Chapterhouse are using the defence of using trade marks to show 'intended use'.

I simply used a basic example to show the difference between the two.

I am not a IP lawyer.However, I have an opinion and a right to express my ideas.

Based on lots of companies NOT being sued for manufacturing ancillery-suplimentary product to be used with other companies systems -products.

I simply tried to illustrated where the 'difference of opinion' was.I do not expect Chapterhouse OR GW PLC to comment on my posts.

It was my attempt to clarify what the situation was.
If that caused anyone offence , it was not intended.

TTFN

Seemed reasonable to me, I think someone may need a hug? :rolleyes:

[Denzark]

"15 guineas says the whore whips her cream first..."*





*Plunkett and Maclean

[cheesyfluff]

If you were in the clear, you had no need to compromise. And as I believe has already been pointed out, if you can't convince a layman quickly on the web, how the hell is a jury going to be convinced? I do respect your evident passion for the games, but the speed with which you take the arse with people here, and drop patronizing comments, is not doing you any favours in increasing your support base.

PS I don't think GW are going for compromise - what with treble damages, smash up the moulds etc.

Thank you!
That's what I was trying to say about the layman jurors. Also he does seem to 'take the arse' an awful lot which like you said is hardly endearing the community as a whole to the cause.

[eldargal]

Well community opinion tends to be 'CHS is getting what it deserved for not pandering to GWs poor understanding of trademark law'. Is it anyone wonder they get a bit annoyed.
The point about layman jurors is a good one, the amount of people who don't realise that you can use other trademarks to show intent of a product under both US and UK law os astounding.:rolleyes:

The comrpomise is sensible actually, easy to depict it as an attempt to show that CHS never intended to utilise GWs trademarks in an illegal fashion, so have changed their website to clarify the situation. Never the intention to antagonise GW etc. etc.

[Denzark]

EG

you have shown a bit of a problem when you mention intent. I can't talk about US or even IP law, but in UK pure criminal law, intent is not necessary if you are reckless about the consequences of your actions - ie:

"M'lud, I never meant to kill him, merely scare him'
'Well scrotebag, you were clearly reckless by hitting him with that axe - any reasonable minded person would have known his head might have been caved in so its still murder'.

'I never meant to kill the old lady when I broke into her house to steal her life savings - I only shouted at her'
'Well her heart problems meant the heart attack was attributable to you - send him down...'

Talking about the fact that what they did never intended to infringe on something still shows they actually did something never intended to infringe in the first place.

Personally I think the reason why this whole thing draws interest is because it looks like a big easy kill. Unlike C&D sent to some one like boardgame geek (which I would call corporate bullying) this looks fair enough to all the laymen out there who can't understand the assertion that it is legal to create models that only work with existing GW kits, without any license. Its a typical geek fascination just like at school that when teach drops the detention hammer on somebody, you all want to watch the drama.

I don't know why BoLS trumped out the caca about not expressing an opinion, when news organs often comment on a situation one one side or another.

I predict:

1. This will go GWs way.
2. People will claim it is nothing to do with actual law and everything to do with how much you can spend on lawyers.
3. Other 3rd party mini manufacturers will avoid this by keeping generic titles on product.

I have nothing personal against CHS but far from maintaining the morale high ground with a dignified silence, they have rammed into people saying how ignorant they are about the law. I cannot see a David Goliath morality tale here, merely business being conducted, with the aim of making more money - a duty to ones shareholders. Seeing as CHS were about making profit they will understand doing whatever is within your means to make money.

Duke, seeing as this causes bad blood and BoLS doesn't want to take sides I really think you should lockhammer this subject until after the legal dust settles - I will happily eat my words and congratualte CHS if they come through unscathed.

[Denzark]

PS EG what the hell were you doing up at 0659 on a bank holiday???

[Aldramelech]

I dont know how it works in the US, but in the UK the Judge "Instructs" the Jury as to what is what so they can make an informed opinion, they are not just left with two arguments, go sort out who you think is right, it dont work that way.

[Old_Paladin]

As a civil case, it will probably depend on the actual state the trial is held in.
Some States want an 'unbiased' as possible jury, who screen out any potential 'experts' that could influence the jury; and the jury could be given little to no legal instructions.
There was a criminal trial a few months ago that was declared a mistrial because one of the jury brought a Dictionary so everyone could look up the actual meanings of several key terms of the trial.

[weeble1000]

I think Chapterhouse Studios deserves a chance to defend itself, right or wrong.

Ultimately it doesn't matter which party is right. What matters is that a large company has filed a suit that the defendant may not be able to answer simply because it does not have the means to do so.

There are no public defenders in civil suits. Without the ability to fund a defense, any company faced with a similar lawsuit would be forced to capitulate regardless of whether or not the plaintiff was right, especially in a copyright infringement case. Because copyrights aren't registered, there's little that limits what a party can claim as copyright infringement. The legal system functions on the basis that the defendant has the ability to respond to the allegations.

Chapterhouse Studios deserves the chance to respond. Games-Workshop wants Chapterhouse Studios to stop selling all products and to destroy its molds. Faced with those claims, Chapterhouse Studios deserves a chance to respond.

If Chapterhouse is right and it isn't doing anything wrong, it would be a tragic failure of the legal system to allow the company to die simply because it never had a chance to defend itself.

If Games-Workshop is right it will win its case and its intellectual property will be much stronger because of it.

[Col.Gravis]

Would it be unfortunate if they can't defend themselves, yes - purely because they deserve the right too, but thats the laws fault, not GWs who are using the system as it is set out, as would any individual, firm or other entity who believe themself wronged.

To be clear that is a completely seperate issue from the case specifically though.

As is I'll be damned if I'm paying for there representation, when they are the ones who flew so flagrantly close to the sun. They brought this on themselves at the end of the day and I share the view that they are were and continue to do something they should not have been.

[weeble1000]

As is I'll be damned if I'm paying for there representation, when they are the ones who flew so flagrantly close to the sun. They brought this on themselves at the end of the day and I share the view that they are were and continue to do something they should not have been.

The sun you are talking about Col. Gravis is Games-Workshop's imaginary line of what is acceptable to them and what is not. That line has little to do with the law and everything to do with Games-Workshop's position in the marketplace. Games-Workshop is not using the law to defend themselves, it is using the law to attack what it believes are defenseless competitors. It attacks defenseless competitors so that its claims will not have to withstand the rigor of a defendant's response.

The system is not designed to allow Games-Workshop to file suits that it does not intend to pursue which make claims that it has every reason to believe are overly broad and unenforcible. That is why there are anti-trust laws; because without them the system would be ill-equipped to prevent this type of injustice.

Even if Chapterhouse Studios is wrong, Games-Workshop should not be allowed to threaten litigation without the intention to follow through with it. Even if Chapterhouse Studios is wrong, it deserves the chance to confront Games-Workshop's claims in open court.

If Games-Workshop's claims are valid and enforcible it can only gain in the long run from receiving judgement in open court. But consider this: You believe that Chapterhouse deserves the right to defend itself but don't want to help support them because you believe that the company is in the wrong. What if Games-Workshop files a similar suit against a company that you believe hasn't done anything wrong?

You might say that the day this happens you will support that company. But what if that company does not have the means or the will to even consider a defense? How are you going to help then? With a few swapped paragraphs the Chapterhouse complaint could be filed against any third party bits company.

Chapterhouse Studios is prepared for a lawsuit but it needs additional support to go all of the way. Because Chpaterhouse Studios is in a unique position to even try to put up a fight it is in the interest of the entire community to see that this defendant gets its day in court.

[Col.Gravis]

My first reply just got eaten - so this is somewhat briefer, and probably a bit more brisk for which I apologiese.

1 - If CH has the right to a defence, and GW has just as much right to prosecute for what it believes to be infringement - whether that infringement falls within the law is for the courts to decide.

2 - It is not GWs fault if CH can not afford a defence, they have the right to prosecute afterall. It is the fault of the system. Further it is a very cynical OPINION to assume that the fact that CH may not be able to afford a defence is a primary motivator in the case, and even more so that GW are initiating the proceadings with no intent in following them through.

3 - If it were another manufacturer or third party parts such as Micro-art I would consider supporting them yes, because in that assumed case I don't believe there is a case to answer or legal bases for a challenge. Funnily enough such a case has'nt come about, yet CH's, who have blatently been using GW imagery, trademarks etc, has. Further I don't believe that if CH ceases trading as a result of this we will see GW following up on other third party bits manufactuers (unless of course they start to follow CH's model).

4 - Personally I think you may as well throw your money away.

However if it does come to that and they somehow win, yes there will be repercussions. We will see more cheap third party components certainly, mostly CH quality or worse. However GW will be weakened in the eyes of shareholders and will probably react by returning to only releasing rules for models it can actively produce itself (i.e. we'll get less variety in units etc, though all will have released models). There is also potential for larger corporate entities to take advantage of such a ruling with further positive and negative effects.

Personally I prefer the status quo with intelligent generic third party bits manufacturers, other companies using unique IPs (such as Dysotopia and Warmachine) and GW.

[weeble1000]

I'm sorry your reply got eaten. I hate it when that happens. If I'm writing a long post I sometimes type it in Word and then paste it.

My opinions about Games-Workshop's motivations may seem cynical but they're based on a clearly established pattern of behavior. I believe it is clear that Games-Workshop wants to give the impression that it owns broadly enforcible intellectual property. And it attempts to give that impression even though it knows that its intellectual property is not enforcible in the manner in which it is claimed.

Games-Workshop has had its copyrights narrowed in the past and so it is disingenuous for it to claim ownership of all intellectual property that could exist in its fictional universes. This is, without a doubt, what Games-Workshop is doing. The theory underlying its claimed copyrights is that anything related to Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 is owned by Games-Workshop.

Games-Workshop has not limited its claimed copyrights to strictly include the material that it has actually produced in terms of images, sculptures, and the written word. The company is claiming that anything that could have a place within its fictional universes must necessarily be derivative of its intellectual property.

These broad copyright claims include the products produced by any of the many third party miniatures companies, including MicroArt Studios. The fact that MicroArt calls its Mechanicus models "Iron Brotherhood" does not vouchsafe it from Games-Workshop's copyright claims.

Games-Workshop is claiming copyright infringement and trademark infringement against Chapterhouse Studios. This is very clever on the part of Games-Workshop because of a disconnect between the law regarding trademark and copyright infringement and the public's perception of it.

Many people are condemning Chapterhouse Studios and differentiating the company from other third party miniatures companies by stressing the fact that Chapterhouse used Games-Workshop's trademarks when other companies did not. The irony is that Games-Workshop's trademark infringement claims are the weakest and lest significant part of its case. They don't matter to Games-Workshop because given the law and established precedent it will be unable to succeed in its trademark infringement claims against Chapterhouse Studios.

The meat of Games-Workshop's case is its copyright infringement claims and these can be applied to any of the extant third party companies.

We need to collectively look past Games-Workshop's obfuscation and recognize what is going on here. Again, Games-Workshop did not pick on Chapterhouse Studios because it is the one bad third party miniatures company. Games-Workshop's claims are not discriminating in this manner.

I'd like to make an additional point about why it is evident that Games-Workshop deliberately files litigation or threatens to file litigation against small or relatively independent parties. Games-Workshop has not filed suits against its significant, established competitors. This is in spite of the fact that Games-Workshop's claimed copyrights could include products produced by companies like Privateer Press. If Games-Workshop genuinely believed that it was defending property that it actually owned we would see litigation against these parties or cross licensing agreements being negotiated.

You can argue that it is not financially viable for Games-Workshop to get into legal battles with these parties or that it would have a tougher time enforcing its intellectual property against them because they have their own unique universes and game systems. But you're still left with Games-Workshop filing suits or threatening to file suits solely against the little guys because it's cheap and easy. It's cheap and easy because they cannot afford a defense and they have limited model lines that are not associated with the type of firmly established intellectual property that requires a significant market presence to produce.

If it's cynical to believe that this isn't right or fair, sign me up. If it's cynical to look at Games-Workshop's actions, read what it argues, and imagine the implications of it then I think we could all use a little dose of cynicism.

[Aldramelech]

I'm sorry your reply got eaten. I hate it when that happens. If I'm writing a long post I sometimes type it in Word and then paste it.

My opinions about Games-Workshop's motivations may seem cynical but they're based on a clearly established pattern of behavior. I believe it is clear that Games-Workshop wants to give the impression that it owns broadly enforcible intellectual property. And it attempts to give that impression even though it knows that its intellectual property is not enforcible in the manner in which it is claimed.

Games-Workshop has had its copyrights narrowed in the past and so it is disingenuous for it to claim ownership of all intellectual property that could exist in its fictional universes. This is, without a doubt, what Games-Workshop is doing. The theory underlying its claimed copyrights is that anything related to Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 is owned by Games-Workshop.

Games-Workshop has not limited its claimed copyrights to strictly include the material that it has actually produced in terms of images, sculptures, and the written word. The company is claiming that anything that could have a place within its fictional universes must necessarily be derivative of its intellectual property.

These broad copyright claims include the products produced by any of the many third party miniatures companies, including MicroArt Studios. The fact that MicroArt calls its Mechanicus models "Iron Brotherhood" does not vouchsafe it from Games-Workshop's copyright claims.

Games-Workshop is claiming copyright infringement and trademark infringement against Chapterhouse Studios. This is very clever on the part of Games-Workshop because of a disconnect between the law regarding trademark and copyright infringement and the public's perception of it.

Many people are condemning Chapterhouse Studios and differentiating the company from other third party miniatures companies by stressing the fact that Chapterhouse used Games-Workshop's trademarks when other companies did not. The irony is that Games-Workshop's trademark infringement claims are the weakest and lest significant part of its case. They don't matter to Games-Workshop because given the law and established precedent it will be unable to succeed in its trademark infringement claims against Chapterhouse Studios.

The meat of Games-Workshop's case is its copyright infringement claims and these can be applied to any of the extant third party companies.

We need to collectively look past Games-Workshop's obfuscation and recognize what is going on here. Again, Games-Workshop did not pick on Chapterhouse Studios because it is the one bad third party miniatures company. Games-Workshop's claims are not discriminating in this manner.

I'd like to make an additional point about why it is evident that Games-Workshop deliberately files litigation or threatens to file litigation against small or relatively independent parties. Games-Workshop has not filed suits against its significant, established competitors. This is in spite of the fact that Games-Workshop's claimed copyrights could include products produced by companies like Privateer Press. If Games-Workshop genuinely believed that it was defending property that it actually owned we would see litigation against these parties or cross licensing agreements being negotiated.

You can argue that it is not financially viable for Games-Workshop to get into legal battles with these parties or that it would have a tougher time enforcing its intellectual property against them because they have their own unique universes and game systems. But you're still left with Games-Workshop filing suits or threatening to file suits solely against the little guys because it's cheap and easy. It's cheap and easy because they cannot afford a defense and they have limited model lines that are not associated with the type of firmly established intellectual property that it requires significant market presence to produce.

If it's cynical to believe that this isn't right or fair, sign me up. If it's cynical to look at Games-Workshop's actions, read what it argues, and imagine the implications of it then I think we could all use a little dose of cynicism.

Agreed. This is my major problem with all this, Where does it all end? If GW were a bloke in a pub, Id be telling him to wind his neck in:D

[Lockark]

Dude. Chapter house did steal GW's IP.

http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.browse&category_id=2

All of thows banners are direct copies of the banners from GW's rule books and source materials. Not to meant at the top of the page they out right state everything they make is for Warhammer 40k/fantasy. That's there whole marketing point.



Do you understand the implications of what will happen if GW allows chapter house to continue?



If chapter house continues to make "Conversion parts meant for warhammer 40k and fantsey", what is to stop them from making "miniatures for use with Warhammer 40k and fantasy"?

Oh wait. I forgot. They already started doing that.
http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/news/29-dooms-day-is-near



If GW doesn't shut these guys down it means GW WILL lose control over there IP. Other manufactures can start coming in trying to get there cut of the GW pie. What is to stop some other manufactures making sprues of cheap plastic Space marine knock-offs to under cut GW? Chapter house is setting a president that GW can not let continue if they wish to protect there IP.



By your logic I can start this awsome new toy line. I make a action figure with a robe and light sword. I then sell these action figures as "Warrioir figure for use with Star Wars Jedi play sets". Now. Tell me if I will have goerge lucus knocking on my door with a law suit or not.

Think I'm over exaggerating? "Pre-Heresy Scarab Shoulder Pads for Thousand Sons Players"?
http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=103&category_id=26

I think not.
C_____C

[eldargal]

It is not stealing IP to use it for descriptive purposes, which is what CHS is those banners are doing, indicating the use for their product in conjunction with other (GW) products.

[chapterhousestudios]

It is not stealing IP to use it for descriptive purposes, which is what CHS is those banners are doing, indicating the use for their product in conjunction with other (GW) products.

Not to mention that none of those banners even was created by GW, they are all Fan Created Banners so GW shouldnt have any claim to them.

[TheBitzBarn]

I think the bigger issues is not the Banner it is the use of the Names.

[Lockark]

By that argument I could steel the apple logo to put on my line of computers I'm selling, as long as it was my own artwork.

[eldargal]

No, but you yould make accessories for Apple computers and use the Apple logo to indicate their intended use. In the same way CHS makes bitz comptible with GW productrs featuring a range of mythical iconography that GW don't own, and use GW trademarks to show their indicated use as they are allowed to under law.


By that argument I could steel the apple logo to put on my line of computers I'm selling, as long as it was my own artwork.

[gcsmith]

Just a quick question, can u copywrite any image u want. Or is the copyright only applied in context.
Such as the blood angels wing blood drop symbol.

Could i use it to represent a company which sells artifical blood without prosecution. but not on products intended for marines?

[weeble1000]

Just a quick question, can u copywrite any image u want. Or is the copyright only applied in context.
Such as the blood angels wing blood drop symbol.

Could i use it to represent a company which sells artifical blood without prosecution. but not on products intended for marines?

As far as I understand, you can always claim a copyright on just about anything. Because copyrights aren't registered, you have to claim a copyright to enforce it. However, claiming a copyright does not mean that you own exclusive rights to what you've claimed. The law determines what you have exclusive rights to. On a related note, there are penalties under the law for claiming copyrights when you don't have a reasonable belief of ownership. In most cases, you aren't supposed to frivolously seek remedy from the courts; it isn't in the good interests of the public.

In terms of art such as sculptures, drawings, etc. you only own rights to your specific artistic expression. You can't copyright a concept.

Because the Blood Angels wing and blood drop symbol isn't a registered trademark, it falls under the category of an artistic expression. It's an image of wings and a blood drop and Games-Workshop owns the particular expression of that concept that it has actually produced.

However, because it is just a symbol and not a depiction of a functional object, the copyright is a little bit broader than others can be. In addition to not being able to copyright a concept, you also can't copyright the functional elements of an artistic expression. As an example, all backpacks require straps. If you and I both sculpted models of backpacks, you couldn't say that my backpack copied yours just because it had straps, even if the straps were the same size and in the same configuration. A symbol has little in the way of functional elements like this.

Even so, the elements that make up the Blood Angels symbol (wings and a blood drop) are themselves very common. This necessarily limits the unique expression of the design to the specific arrangement of the elements and their specific look. As I mentioned above, you can't copyright a concept, especially a very common concept, such as a symbol involving commonly-used visual elements. You also couldn't copyright the idea of putting a skull on a uniform, or putting an arrow on a shoulder pad. This really means that the Blood Angels symbol is only enforcible if the design is copied exactly or if the arrangement of the design was virtually the same.

As far as I understand, you couldn't use the exact same Blood Angels symbol to represent a company that sells artificial blood, but you could use a similar symbol of your own design and have your own copyright. You could also register the design as a trademark. Unlike trademarks, copyrights protect your right to display or sell your unique artistic expression, so I don't think context has a lot to do with it.

Trademarks are a different story. Trademarks are used to specifically identify a product, service, company, organization, etc. Context matters a great deal in terms of trademarks because it necessarily has to do with the perception and recognition of customers. If the Blood Angles symbol was a registered trademark associated with Games-Workshop's Blood Angels model line, use of that trademark in a completely different context would cause much less harm, theoretically. Games-Workshop could claim that your use of the mark diluted it because you were associating the mark with something contrary to the values associated with the mark, thereby changing the mark's meaning in the minds of consumers. Games-Workshop could also claim that you were attempting to benefit from the goodwill that it had worked to associate with the mark, but again, that's all related to consumers and their perceptions.

[gcsmith]

Cool thanks for speedy reply. Cleared some things up as i was confused on the reason of suing based on designs, I didnt think u could just copy right a winged blood drop on a shoulder pad, simply because shoulder pad symbols are a very common idea.

As such by now all ideas would probably be copy righted by money hungry gits.
So thanks for clearing.

I just hope the just cause is reached, as much as I support GW and like CHS products, i just want the just decision to be reached, for the benefit of everyone.

So GL CHS

[Lockark]

No, but you yould make accessories for Apple computers and use the Apple logo to indicate their intended use. In the same way CHS makes bitz comptible with GW productrs featuring a range of mythical iconography that GW don't own, and use GW trademarks to show their indicated use as they are allowed to under law.

Makeing Accessories that Apple already makes, and putting apple's logo on the same item?

Good luck with that.

[eldargal]

Yes, you can make an accessory Apple already makes*, but no you can not put a trademarked image on it. You can, however, use that trademarked image to indicate your product is intended for Apple products. This is what CHS is arguing the GW imagery on their website is for.
GW are not suing CHS for copying their designs, probably because their designs are based on real world symbols.

*If you couldn't, only Microsoft and Apple would produce mice, keyboards, speakers etc for their products.

[wittdooley]

Yes, you can make an accessory Apple already makes*, but no you can not put a trademarked image on it. You can, however, use that trademarked image to indicate your product is intended for Apple products. This is what CHS is arguing the GW imagery on their website is for.
GW are not suing CHS for copying their designs, probably because their designs are based on real world symbols.

*If you couldn't, only Microsoft and Apple would produce mice, keyboards, speakers etc for their products.


Are you sure about this? I'm not sure that I've ever seen the apple logo on any 3rd party accessories. I know the companies that use, for instance, the DSI logo for Nintendo are officially licensed products.

[weeble1000]

The logo is a stickier issue. It is a trademark just like "Apple" and "ipod," but it's harder to use a logo under the constraints of fair use. It's fair to use a trademark when making a true statement such as, "The Apple ipod 4 will fit in this case" or "These doors work with the Rhino tank." It's more difficult to justify using a visual mark, like a logo, because it's more difficult to argue that you are using the mark for purely descriptive purposes and not to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the mark.

In simpler words, you don't need to use the apple logo to say that your product is compatible with an Apple product.

[eldargal]

You can't put the Apple logo on your product, but you can use it on the website and possibly on the packaging to show it is Apple compatible. The analogy is irrelevent, though, becase CHS have not put the GW logo on their models.:rolleyes:
Its the difference between trying to pass off your product as an Apple product and using the trademark to show something is compatible with an Apple product. You are allowed to do the latter, but it won't stop large companies taking smaller companies to court over it totry and use their greater resources to exaust the finances of the smaller company in defending itself. Fact is this case could go either way, it depends how competent CHS' lawyer is and how long the trial lasts.


Are you sure about this? I'm not sure that I've ever seen the apple logo on any 3rd party accessories. I know the companies that use, for instance, the DSI logo for Nintendo are officially licensed products.