Games Workshop Sues (Part II)
Well, actually, it’s a new lawsuit. There are numerous internet sites reporting Games Workshop suing Curse (runs Website Warhammer Alliance).
The report from the prolific blog Massively… my favorite quote, “a litany of allegations including cybersquatting, unfair competition, dilution (of the IP), and more”. They link to the complaint here.
Warhammer Alliance response here, or you can find it on their site at Warhammeralliance. More on this after the jump…
As of now, I cannot find an OFFICIAL NOTICE from Games Workshop regarding this complaint. Their policy on their IP rights is publicly available. [Editor's note - if you find an official statement of a Games Workshop representative, please note it in a comment and I will link to it]
Now for links to a couple of other blogs with thoughtful points of view.
A commentary at Game by Night; Going Progaming blog has a point of view.
____________________________________________________________________
Personal commentary: you know I am very loathe to comment upon ongoing lawsuits, especially ones that have not had an official response as yet. (People know where to find me, I’m paid to talk/write). But this one should be especially interesting, as the Web site makes no claim to be purely a fan site, or non-commercial. In fact it admits in their response that ad revenue was expected and needed. The timeline claimed in the response is part of their defense, and as I linked to it above it at least deserves a read. Recapping, I’ll be interested in seeing how a site that claims no defense of non-commercialism will fare in the courts.
Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.
Tags: Games Workshop, Games Workshop sues, Games Workshop v Curse, Games Workshop v Warhammer Alliance, intellectual property, lawsuits
I was very much saddened by this.
I can see the arguments about commercialisation and protecting the trademark and so on but Warhammer Alliance was a labour of love by fans who picked up the slack after Mark Jacobs announced in 2008 that WAR would launch with no official forums.
Some of the complaints seem weak:
- cybersquatting is surely the deliberate squatting of an IP address with no intention but to sell it to the logical owner (as if I managed to get Walmart.com and then offer it to the company for a large sum). That clearly didn’t happen here.
- dilution is incredible. GW licenced their IP to a MMO developer and now they’re cease and desisting fans for using the Warhammer IP in a MMO game context, not a tabletop minature wargaming context? That’s ridiculous. If they wanted their IP to remain undiluted they should not have agreed to the licence.
On the other hand I’m not sure Garthilk’s claim that Warhammer Alliance is any defence. While there is no copyright on news there is still a trademark. I don’t think the “it’s ok to copy this because it’s news” will extend as far as trademarks.
Still it’s an interesting point of law – I just went to a games news site I’d never seen before because they have an Eve Online article. Is that using the Eve brand for commercial purposes or is that news reporting? Would Warhammer Alliance be ok simply if they changed the title of their site to carry on reporting Warhammer news and operating as a Warhammer fan site? Is it only the branding that infringes, not talking about the game per se?
jaymoffitt Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I agree with the concept of your argument but disagree with some of your points. As I noted in the post I’m not ready to point out particulars until the parties have their official position set. But I’ll quickly cover your bullet points.
Cybersquatting might be the weakest point, as you pointed out. However the concept has been widened from that original definition (and legislation) and they might be able to prove it.
Dilution – I don’t think when you “sell” the rights to one party in a transaction that prohibits or impedes your right to sue another party which “takes” IP rights (name/likeness, etc.) without your permission. In fact it strengthens your claim because if you don’t fight it, what about the party you “sold” the rights too…. were they swindled? That’s all the comment for now because I’m a little fuzzy on the sale, I’ll wait for the statements from the two parties.
I’m still of the belief “commercialism” is the key point this case is different than others. Who knows whether one or the other approaches it like that, but if it continues forward as it has begun the case might make new law.
Sorry for the delay in replying; but didn’t want to be baited into a full-blown discussion of this case. I’ll file a full update (probably on both the Games Workshop cases) when any material decision or substantial new information hits. Believe me, your step-by-step on this has made me think a little harder about my position on this.
*Garthilk’s claim that Warhammer Alliance is a news site is any defence
One of these days someone will invent editing, sigh.