GW vs Chapterhouse

[Nocturne]

I'm struggling to imagine anyone's reaction on finding out they'd bought something Chapterhouse instead of GW being anything other "oh... ok".

 

I could see how someone might be confused if they were buying something second hand and it was mis-identified, I just don't think they'd care.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Nocturne

[Dan Goodchild]

I'm struggling to imagine anyone's reaction on finding out they'd bought something Chapterhouse instead of GW being anything other "oh... ok".

 

I could see how someone might be confused if they were buying something second hand and it was mis-identified, I just don't think they'd care.

 

Unless they misidentified it as something rare and valuable; otherwise I'm in total agreement.

[Lars Porsenna]

While WE might not be confused between an actual GW product and a Chapterhouse product, we are (for the most part) very knowledgeable about the product ranges (even if it is just GW's product range, with less than perfect knowledge of Chapterhouse's range), but this is aimed at those that are not. People like parents buying gifts for their kids. My grandmother (when she was alive) used to think all my figures looked the same. THIS was aimed at people like her, that might not be able to pick up on product differentiation.

 

Damon.

[ShadowRaven]

because those people are likely to buy minis for someone online?

[Nocturne]

Haven't found a document on the ruling but this is the court document from November which covers why some aspects went to trial and others not, there were a few copyright claims upheld (the Space Wolves symbol) and others denied (the Flesh Tearers symbol) before it went to jury.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/114815358/Games-Workshop-Ltd-v-Chapterhouse-Studios

 

Anyone who's ever read or heard about any of Marvel's legal wranglings will be familiar with the part on copyright and freelance work.

[psyberwolfe1]

 

That's an excellent point and one I'm embarrassed I didn't consider. It could easily be two conflated statements, and I have likely been unjust to GW.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

I have a law degree so I tend to be extra cautious (and anal if I'm honest) about the way things like this get reported, it's very common for people to abbreviate or paraphrase and not realise that doing so completely changes the tone or meaning of what was actually stated, or just plain mis-remember or misinterpret.. It could also have been completely accurate, but I'd be a bit surprised.

 

It could be inaccurate. I will concede that possibility, but as written is is so shocking/ridiculous that the meme makes itself. I write contracts and other important documents for my job and people really don't get how misused and improperly placed punctuation completely changes meaning in written English. The Oatmeal has some of the funniest cartoons on this.

[Unruly]

EDIT: self-censoring despite the fact that this is in off-topic already.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Unruly

[Creeper]

I'm struggling to imagine anyone's reaction on finding out they'd bought something Chapterhouse instead of GW being anything other "oh... ok".

 

I could see how someone might be confused if they were buying something second hand and it was mis-identified, I just don't think they'd care.

No actual evidence of consumer confusion needs is needed to prove trademark infringement. There just needs to be a likelihood of confusion or a reasonably prudent customer. Here's a pretty goo write-up on it : http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm

 

From my memories of the case law, a "reasonably prudent" customer can oftentimes be construed as an idiot.

[Doug Sundseth]

From my memories of the case law, a "reasonably prudent" customer can oftentimes be construed as an idiot.

 

 

But usually an idiot who reads every word presented to him, so long as it isn't in small type, if I understand correctly. (I.e.: disclaimers count, usually, unless they're made intentionally obscure.) Perhaps an autistic idiot?

 

 

It all depends on the judge (who generally seems to be assumed to be psychic, "No reasonably prudent customer could possibly.... So as a matter of law....") or jury though.

[Creeper]

I like that. I'm going to use "autistic idiot" in the future.

[kristof65]

I'm really glad this went to trial and turned out the way it did.

 

It sets some very clear precedents on exactly what is and isn't acceptable, which will give other companies and individuals (who pay attention) a better idea of what they can/can't do. And even more importantly, if they're smart, they can reply to any bullying cease and desist letters they may get referring back to the Chapter house suit precedents.

 

I see a burgeoning after market of Space Marine shoulder pads coming out of this.