GW vs CHS legality for the layman (or Laywoman)

[DrLove42]

You say Chapterhouse copied GW, prove it. Make a logical proof of it.

Challenge Accepted.

Games Workshop. Flesh Tearer Shoulder Pads.


Have been on sale on GW.com for a long time, and named for a chapter they created and designed a long time ago

CHS

Flesh tearer Shoulder pads



They have used;

a) the name of GW chapter, and its not something that is common.
b) They have used the exact same design.
c) Their copy is actuall more expensive than the GW ones, and are lower quality

They also have shoulder pads advertised as "Heresy Era" pads. The heresy is a GW thing! You cna't say it for something else in wargaming terms! They have pads for "Scythes of the Emperor". THE EMPEROR? Very clearly stolen.

And this is before we get into their stuff being copy and pasted from the Heresy artwork book

[lattd]

A name is not a model however, so your logic fails. Furthermore, Salamanders are old english creatures and often used in regalia, Space marines well, we've already shown how GW has no claim on them, so basically your argument breaks down to GW having hold over shoulderpads. You might have some kind of argument however, if they had named them "genetically altered, god emperor worshiping, Space marines". But that still fails to satisfy the previous falsity, that a name is not a physical object, and you were asked to logically state how chapterhouse has copied GW's product.

But in the context of a 28mm game with space marines in that style with a chapter called salamanders they do have copyright, the design of their shoulder pads in such a convex shape with a symbol directly in the middle with a raised bar on the outside edge and indents on the inside, thats GW's design if chapterhouse had produced a cube shaped shoulder pad with a dragon and said these fit space marine's from gamesworkshops range, rather than saying salamander shoulder pads then this wouldn't be an argument. This case is being tried under English law (please everyone note their is no such thing as UK law) where design law states that a product sold must be significantly different and not just enlarged and differently coloured.

[Gotthammer]

But she's got a new hat! - I mean - the sawblade goes in the other direction - totally unique and new!

[Wolfshade]

I believe this point has been made previously, also, it is the copying of the distincitve elements which is an issue, otherwise people would not be able to copyright/ip/trademark football designs afterall, they are all spheres, and you can't copyright a shape (well unless you are apple in a court ruling against samsung...)

[Psychosplodge]

you can't copyright a shape (well unless you are apple in a court ruling against samsung...)

Only in the third court though after two others threw it out...

[Deadlift]

Bollocks to this debate, I want an army of Mr Mysterys "Space Daves"

[Psychosplodge]

Don't worry, we'll do an add-on for warmace 400c

[gendoikari87]

But she's got a new hat! - I mean - the sawblade goes in the other direction - totally unique and new!

legally for copyright yes the opposite direction does make it legally unique, but more importantly is the number of teeth. So no, CH's flesh tearers shoulderpads are not a copy of GW's, they might borrow heavily, immorally so, but they are not copies.

[gendoikari87]

where design law states that a product sold must be significantly different

Now here this is a problem, who defines "significatly different" Significant without a mathematical base is subjective so is GW significantly distinct from D&D is D&D significantly distinct from Lord of the rings? If so Why is Chapterhouses Unique designs considered not significant and GW's are?

You're letting your brain fool you into thinking there is logic here that just isn't there beyond subjectivity.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

After going around the same argument 500 times I think it's time to be rid of these silly CHS vs GW debates.
Thread closed.