Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[DF3CT]

They did gut their company across the globe around that 2008 mark so they could report a profit and stop the bleeding somehow.

A necessary move to close so many stores and slash positions, but that's hardly the behaviour of a healthy company safe from danger. More like a survival move, entering survival mode. Tightening the belt.

[Sean_OBrien]

They did gut their company across the globe around that 2008 mark so they could report a profit and stop the bleeding somehow.

A necessary move to close so many stores and slash positions, but that's hardly the behaviour of a healthy company safe from danger. More like a survival move, entering survival mode. Tightening the belt.

And more now with the cuts in hours across the board for game stores as well as continual price increases above the cost of inflation (without corresponding revenue increases...). That all is a topic for a different thread though, pretty sure there are five or six around here which deal with that.

Regarding GW's knowledge of their own market though, read the depositions by GW staffers. They have no knowledge of their market outside the sales which they make. They don't even claim to know how large the total market is and how the CHS activities may have impacted their sales figures. I think a lot of people give GW more credit then they are due in that regard. The best argument that they have come up with is that they control the market because THQ was willing to pay them a lot of money in order to license the 40K setting.

[Deadlift]

I think GW are successful because they are pro-active in giving the product exposure to customers at a greater level than their competition. They are clearly the most popular table top war gaming brand at the moment. If this were not the case then CHS would not copying its IP ?

I just don't see that changing in the near future. As for GW not having knowledge of their market outside of their sales, maybe they don't feel they need to because their so confident with the product ? Or just arrogant

As for cutting store opening times, as far as I know most GW stores close 2 days a week and have done since I started playing the game. Maybe the other global stores are just being brought inline with that policy.

Anyhow, I guess its a case of watch this space and we will all see what happens

[Renegade]

Actually, the way the treaty is written - if you have protection in your country (for the trademark) than when your IP is contested in another country...you are treated as the other country treats that particular type of IP. In the US, that would mean unregistered trademarks for the vast majority of the contested marks

I would suggest you look that up again. Remember that as GW start 40K in 1986, the Trade Marks Act 1938 also applies.

Regarding the drawings - also wrong, and dealt with by your High Court in the LucasFilm case. A drawing, for the sake of being a drawing or a painting for the sake of being a painting - is a work of art and is treated by copyright law. Drawings which are intended to be used to create a manufactured good (which is what the majority of GW artwork is) are considered design documents and do not receive the same level of protection as a drawing which is created to hang on a wall (Section 51, Part I, Chapter III of the 1988 Designs and Patents Act).

[url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/51[/url]

This point was affirmed regarding a similar claim made by LucasFilm that although the Storm Trooper items in that case might be designs, they were based on artwork and drawings which would be copyrighted - therefore the physical items created from those drawings should have a copyright protection as well. The court ruled that not to be the case.

[url]http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0015_Judgment.pdf[/url]

Unusable, as each case has to be judged on its own merits if English law is being applied as is actually stated in the 1988 act. You will also need to reed up on the act as it stood pre-1988 as that will cover the original release and subsequent Trade mark laws of both 1938 and 1994.

Regarding running around the edges...that is exactly what this portion of the case is actually about. Find a technicality to get a portion, or all of the GW case dismissed upon. The actual meat wouldn't happen until the case actually went to court.

Any infringement would result in the prosecution of CHS, and any doubt has to be ruled in GW's favour if the 1988 act is being used. This means that running around the edges gets CHS nowhere, it has to actual prove that it has not crossed the line in anyway shape of form.

[Sean_OBrien]

I would suggest you look that up again. Remember that as GW start 40K in 1986, the Trade Marks Act 1938 also applies.

And Star Wars was filmed in 1977...so what is your point?

Unusable, as each case has to be judged on its own merits if English law is being applied as is actually stated in the 1988 act. You will also need to reed up on the act as it stood pre-1988 as that will cover the original release and subsequent Trade mark laws of both 1938 and 1994.

The UK Supreme Court affirmed the "test" which was implemented by the appellate judge to determine if something would be a sculpture (and copyrighted) or a design and not. In the actual appeal case, where the original Justice Mann laid out his test (which was affirmed) he sets out a number of different criteria to use as guidelines. In the US - those criteria would become part of the legal precedence when evaluating future cases...I assume the same would hold true over there.

Further, Justice Mann actually said this:

Next, it is necessary to consider the toy Stormtroopers, and other characters, which are taken as being reproductions of the armour and helmets for the purposes of section 52. These are, as already described, articulated models which are sold as toys and which are intended for the purposes of play. Play is their primary, if not sole, purpose. While their appearance is obviously highly important (if they did not look like the original, the child would not be so interested) they are not made for the purposes of their visual appearance as such. While there is no accounting for taste, it is highly unlikely that they would be placed on display and periodically admired as such. The child is intended to use them in a (literally) hands-on way, in a form of delegated role play, and that is doubtless how they are actually used. That means, in my view, they are not sculptures. They can be distinguished from the model in Britain which apparently had a significant element of being admirable for its own visual sake. That does not apply to the Stormtrooper, whose only real purpose is play. In reaching this conclusion I am not saying that the Britain model is better at what it portrays than the Stormtrooper model. That would be to make judgments about artistic quality, which the statute understandably forbids. It is making a judgment about whether there is anything in the model which has an artistic essence, in the sense identified above. I conclude that there is not.

That statement in and of itself would hold significant weight in future cases, especially in regards to products designed and sold by GW...Games Workshop.

Link to the Appellate court case: [url]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1878.html[/url]

Any infringement would result in the prosecution of CHS, and any doubt has to be ruled in GW's favour if the 1988 act is being used. This means that running around the edges gets CHS nowhere, it has to actual prove that it has not crossed the line in anyway shape of form.

Which is why it is nice to be in a country where the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not the accused (thought fairly well the same applied over there...and readings of court cases and legal code would seem to indicate as much).

[lattd]

May be Games workshop, but its Citadel miniatures and they class themselves as a miniature company not a toy or game company.

[Adra]

We already see the effects of this case on the product line. does anyone think its a coincidence that every new entry in the chaos space marine codex has a model ready to buy on release? nope. its so GW can protect whats new and re-release whats already out at their own pace.

I just want this case over and done with now. its dragging on.

[gendoikari87]

We already see the effects of this case on the product line. does anyone think its a coincidence that every new entry in the chaos space marine codex has a model ready to buy on release? nope. its so GW can protect whats new and re-release whats already out at their own pace.

I just want this case over and done with now. its dragging on.

I see that as a good thing. The whole waves of releases was nucking futs anyway.

[Sean_OBrien]

Another week - another set of documents.

[url]http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/[/url]

249 Series of documents - primarily dealing with the pretrial proceedings. Each side lists out their particular claims which they will be making (more or less) as well as provides the list of witnesses who they will call or who they might call.

[url]http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.249.0.pdf[/url]

Beyond just the witness lists, you can also find the list of questions which are proposed for jury selection (reprinted here for convenience as I assume that will be of more interest than other large chunks):

1. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever played any miniature war-games?
2. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever collected and/or painted figurines?
3. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever attended any gaming conventions?
4. Have you ever heard of Games Workshop, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, or Warhammer 40K?
5. Have you ever read a book published under the “Black Library” label?
6. Have you ever heard of Chapterhouse Studios?
7. Do you have any knowledge about or experience with copyrights or trademarks, including applying for a copyright registration or a trademark registration?
8. Have you ever been involved in the creation or selection of a trademark?
9. Have you ever been involved in the creation of an artistic work (book, painting, sculptor, etc) that was sold to others?
10. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever made a claim of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or patent infringement?
11. Have you ever considered filing for a copyright, trademark registration, or patent registration but decided not to?
12. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever been accused of infringing another's copyright, trademark, or patent?
13. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever worked in sales or marketing?
14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?
15. Have you, a relative or close friend worked for commission, either currently or as part of a previous job?

Other interesting points is that GW expects the trial to take 7 days, while CHS is expecting 7-15 days. Not too big of a deal on either side, but it is indicative of how much testimony each side expects to take place. Page 9 starts the jury instructions (these are a fairly blanket set and may well be adjusted before the final trial to take into account the specifics of the case). In particular you can see how the instructions may well evolve starting on page 14 where you can see a proposed instruction by GW which is opposed by CHS. Ultimately, the judge will make a decision which instruction is included (either one of the two proposed or one of his own crafting).

The jury instructions (and the proposed instructions) continue through to the end of the document from page 9. It is a good (but very dry read) as it explains a lot of the legal points which have been discussed in this thread in some detail.

The other 4 documents in the 249 series are listings of the evidence and depositions which are to be used in the court case.

[Tynskel]

nucking futs

bwahhahaha!!