Oh lord, we finally got some released testimony from the epic GW v. CH case. The case looks more and moreĀ  groundbreaking and will determine exactly where our hobby will be heading. Regardless of who wins this is the one we will be talking about for years.

The trial ends tomorrow 6-14-2013.

In the meantime, we can chew on a few bits that some one decided to share with us. Get ready to dig in deep because there are some amazing testimony by the heads of GW’s IP department that will drop your mouth to the floor.




Those three documents illustrate the judgements each side is seeking.

This main document is hundred pages of transcript and evidence taken from 6-4 to 6-6 2013.

As a warning it is an incomplete testimony as well and seems designed to only show off the worst GW IP department has to offer.

GW v. CH Trial Testimony PDF

Some of my favorite quotes I have found so far.

Q: You can’t state — you can’t testify as to what
materials the designers looked at for any of these products,
to design any of the products that are allegedly infringed
here today?
A: I can testify that I know what they’re expected to do and
how they’re expected to do that and what instructions they are
expected to follow, and I can testify that those instructions
involve generating original ideas and using Games Workshop
original ideas as the wellspring and source of all the design
work they do.

Q It was not any science fiction that existed within the Tau
universe — or within the Warhammer 40K universe, you’ve
already testified, correct?
A Yes. It is perfectly possible for us to invent something
from scratch, you know. That’s our stock in trade.

Q. Now, you understand you don’t get a trademark on a word just
because you use it first, right?
A. You get — sorry. Could you rephrase that?
Q. Yes. There’s some terms that you have on this list that you
are claiming are your trademarks, right?
A. Yes. Most of the ones on the list are marks that both
parties have agreed are our trademarks with Games Workshop
having prior use. So, it’s not just us asserting that.
Q. But you understand that just because you use a word first in
commerce, that doesn’t mean you automatically get a trademark.
You understand that, right?
A. No, actually. If I’ve got — I don’t quite understand what
you’re saying. If I sell a product which has a title on it and
I’m using that as market trade for several years and
establishing prior use, then that’s a trademark.
Q. Let me give you an example that will probably help. If you have a product and it’s a desk, and you sell your desk, and you say this is a desk, that doesn’t mean that you automatically get a trademark on the term desk. You understand that, right?

Q. And we talked about how the word Mycetic Spore is not on the
cover of the book, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You showed us earlier that it shows up on Page 54 inside the
book, correct?
A. Yes. Quite prominently so.
Q. But you’re not saying that customers are buying — if we go
back to the cover, you’re not saying that customers are buying
this Tyranids book because the term Mycetic Spore appears inside
of it. You’re not saying that, correct?
A. Sorry. I don’t understand your question. Say that again.
Q. So, when customers see this book, they see the title
Tyranids, right?
A. Yes.
Q. They see Warhammer 40,000 on the top?
A. Yes.
Q. You’re not saying that customers are buying this book
because the word Mycetic Spore is used somewhere inside it.
You’re not saying that, correct?
A. Well, how can I say why our customers are buying things.
They buy our products for a whole range of reasons.

Q. Games Workshop believes that the term jetbike is a valid
trademark it owns, and no other miniatures company can use that
term; is that correct?
A. In tabletop — in terms of tabletop hobby war games?
Q. Yes.
A. That’s our belief, yes.
Q. But jetbike is not Games Workshop’s registered trademark,
A. No.
Q. And you know that other companies besides Games Workshop do
use the term jetbike in their miniatures products?
A. Yeah. You kindly brought that to my attention during my

By far the best and grestest snippet comes from the Chapterhouse lawyers great use of words taking a dig at GW hate of the Internet.

A. Yeah. I mean, the jury have heard quite a lot about the
forums that people who are fans of Warhammer 40,000 look at and
post on, and actually — I know you’re not allowed to look at
the Internet, but if you were allowed to look at the Internet,
what you would see is an awful lot of speculation about this
case, and actually our customers, our staff, and even just
people who are interested all know about this case and have
for a very long time. So, the likelihood of there being any
confusion where there’s such a publicly well known case, it’s
just not really very likely because people know.
Q. But, Ms. Stevenson, you haven’t presented any evidence of
confusion as to the products added in the second phase of the
case, have you?
A. No.
Q. And Games Workshop’s not aware of any complaints about the
quality of those products, either, is it?
A. Not from people who buy the products directly, but —

There is plenty more where that came from. Have dig through and tell me what you think on Facebook!

Also, check out the epic DakkaDakka thread about the case for some great insight into how the legal system works and everything else!

BoK Rumor & News Group



You can also get updates on all new posts by liking Blood of Kittens on Facebook at…



Like on Facebook



You can also follow BoK on Twitter at…



Follow BoK Twitter



Don’t forget to visit the Church of Kelly for all your Phil Kelly praising needs.



If you have questions or comments your always welcome to email me though Blood of Kittens contact form.



Email Blood of Kittens




Rumor Has It is rated: mongering for spreading pseudo truthieness through leaks and rumors about Warhammer 40k