Slashdot Mirror


Games Workshop Sues Warhammer Online Fansite

chalkyj writes "WarhammerAlliance.com (run for the last five years as one of the leading fansites for the MMORPG Warhammer Online) is being sued by Games Workshop for the use of the 'Warhammer' name, 'cybersquatting' and 'unfair competition.' This lawsuit is yet another in Games Workshop's disturbing pattern of suing their fans and hobbyists, this time going after a legitimate fansite for their MMORPG franchise. The full complaint (PDF) has been posted online."

43 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Trademark is a tricky thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you don't defend it, you potentially lose it. If you do defend it, you look like a jerk. What they need to do is come up with a $0 license for the site to use the name for specific purposes.

    1. Re:Trademark is a tricky thing by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there is also no reason to defend your copyright against someone who is encouraging others to buy and use your copyrighted product.

      There are a lot of stupid copyright suits, but these type are the ones that absolutely astonish me the most. They aren't suing someone who makes them lose money or even a use that does nothing for the bottom line, they are suing people that are helping them make money by giving out free positive promotion and rallying their customer base. They ought to be sending them a thank you a "Warhammer approved!" website badge. When companies that I patronize do this it makes me reconsider being their customer in the future... especially when it's a "want" product like a game rather than a need.

    2. Re:Trademark is a tricky thing by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's true, but otoh, if you, even retroactively, give someone your blessing to use your trademark, you are doing enough to protect it. You only lose it if you allow someone to use it out of context or as a generic term. If they allowed "Warhammer game" to become the term for any kind of tabletop game, they certainly would be in trouble.

      To defend their trademark, all they would have had to do, in this case, is basically nothing. Their content was not used out of context (it was used in the Warhammer context, to promote a Warhammer franchise game).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Trademark is a tricky thing by logjon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      27. The domain name warhammeralliance.com and the mark WARHAMMER ALLIANCE itself literally states and implies that defendants and their business are in an "alliance" with Plaintiff and its products and services offered under the WARHAMMER Marks. Stupid indeed. It would be funny if it weren't so illustrative of bogus IP action that takes place every day. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait for ACTA.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    4. Re:Trademark is a tricky thing by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there is also no reason to defend your copyright against someone who is encouraging others to buy and use your copyrighted product.

      You just jumped from trademark to copyright; two sometimes related but entirely different things.

    5. Re:Trademark is a tricky thing by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Woops. Replied to fast.
      This fansite is operated by a commercial company for commercial purposes. That is most definitely NOT fair use.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  2. Wow by deep9x · · Score: 4, Funny

    Getting sued by GW must be frightening. You can never be sure when they're going to declare Exterminatus on your offices.

    1. Re:Wow by mathias_thulmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      We all know that lawyers are servants of the Chaos gods... Sigmar save us all...

  3. You always hurt... by masmullin · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the ones you love

    another in Games Workshop's disturbing pattern of suing their fans and hobbyists,

  4. Way to kill your business by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't imagine anything worse for their PR. No amount of advertisement can fix that.

    1. Re:Way to kill your business by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They took down a bunch of stuff from BoardGameGeek too: They are doing their best to commit PR Suicide.

    2. Re:Way to kill your business by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They took it down because the reviews stunk. I don't know anyone who plays GW stuff anymore, even though they have a store in town. A decade ago, I know a dozen or more who played regularly.

    3. Re:Way to kill your business by Jer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Games Workshop is a strange beast. They've been like this for a long time. They treat their fans fairly poorly all around in general, and the fans generally put up with it.

      From what I understand, it's mostly a social network thing. There's a critical mass of gamers in a local area and while they might all at any point in time be severely pissed off at GW over something, it's not enough for them to dump their expensive investment in GW games and start doing something else. They'll complain about it, but it doesn't impact them directly enough to do more than that. Warhammer - and moreso Warhammer 40k - has been around long enough and people have enough of a financial and emotional investment in the game that GW seems to think that they don't need to worry about what the fans think of their business actions. Which at least for the moment seems to be true. Longer term GW might piss off fans enough that this bites them in the ass, but there seems to be something fairly compelling about the Warhammer 40k property (that I don't see myself, I guess) that keeps even the most angry 40k gamer coming back for more.

  5. Im going to open a fan site by masmullin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Im going to open a fan site for corporations that sue their fans.

  6. Questionable claims by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two points:

    1. It's not cybersquatting when the domain name is used for legitimate purposes.
    2. I don't know about trademark law, but a non-legal, average person interpretation of the term "unfair competition" suggests that you'd have to be competing against the trademark holder rather than expressing support for their product.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Questionable claims by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about trademark law, but a non-legal, average person interpretation of the term "unfair competition" suggests that you'd have to be competing against the trademark holder rather than expressing support for their product.

      Perhaps the "unfair competition" comes from having a more popular fan site than the company's own Internet properties? They are both "embarrassed" and "irritated" that they are not leveraging those fans to the fullest financial extent on their own site... Idiots. Typical MBAs.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Questionable claims by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2, Informative

      The registration is through domain by proxy. The contact information is not false, it's just information for an intermediary. If using intermediaries was illegal GW's lawyers would be out of work.

    3. Re:Questionable claims by Unoti · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a troll, it's informative-- from the perspective of explaining how trademark law works. The mod who marked it troll may not like it, but this is what the trademark law is about.

  7. Looks like they by toxygen01 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    chose the very opposite path that CCP hf. (EVE-Online) decided to go. They are doing whatever they can to prevent their fans to create some fan platform.
    CCP is helping fans with:
    • making videos
    • writing and publishing books about eve
    • reporting on events from eve universe
    • writing howto's and publishing them online
    • reporting on events from within CCP
    • providing API's for fan's servers and custom programs

    creators of warhammer seem to take the exactly opposite way...
    let's see how long it'll last

  8. Re:How stupid must one be? by SpeedyDX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear fans,

    Please be advised that usage of the Warhammer(TM)®© name on third party websites is not legally authorized. However, we really do value our beloved fans. To show our sincerity, we have come up with a few example names that you may wish to use* to set up your fan site for your favourite online game, Warhammer(TM)®© Online. Instead of Warhammer(TM)®© Alliance, please consider another name similar to the following:

    - Battlesmasher Alliance
    - Fightmace Alliance
    - Pewpewbangbang Friends

    Now it's your turn! Try making up some names to refer to the Warhammer(TM)®© franchise without actually using the word Warhammer(TM)®©. It's more fun than you think! More fun than Warhammer(TM)®© Online anyway.

    Thanks for your support of the Warhammer(TM)®© franchise.

    Sincerely,
    Games Workshop.

    * No matter how much you wish to use them, Battlesmasher Alliance, Fightmace Alliance, and Pewpewbangbang Friends are registered trademark copyright properties of Games Workshop and may not be used for any reason whatsoever in any third party materials.

  9. "legitimate fansite" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Owned and operated by a commercial company (Curse).

    Misleading news items? In my Slashdot?

  10. Even their lawsuit is inaccurate... by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 2, Informative

    The domain warhammeralliance.com was registered in 2005. But the lawsuit claims it happened in 2009. What's worse, GW even provided promotional materials (such as interviews) over the past five years.

  11. Re:Cost them one paying customer by MicktheMech · · Score: 4, Informative

    As someone who's played GW games in the past I can tell you that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the past year they've been sending C&Ds to lots of the tabletop fan sites. Lots of gamers have been moving towards Privateer Press who's attitude towards their customers compares like night and day to GW.

  12. Re:Damm lawyers by bconway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your subject shares nothing with your post. Lawyers didn't decide to a sue a Warhammer fan site.

    --
    Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  13. Typical GW by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is pretty typical GW stupidities.

    The one I like is how you can't sell Games Workshop games online -- they use the same theory to block that, too. See, Games Workshop sells their own miniatures on their own online store. GW prices are, to be charitable, completely fucking nuts. We're talking $35+ bucks for a single miniature, most armies using hundreds of miniatures. What people were doing were buying bulk orders from GW and GW's resellers, then reselling them online for 40-50% discounts.

    Well, can't have that, can we? So GW now prohibits anyone from selling their product for more than 20% off, and prohibits the use of online stores to sell their product. How is that legal? Rule of first sale and the like?

    Hell if I know.

    I myself have rumbled with the big dumb collective -- their website had a simplistic naming scheme, so I guessed the URL of the Necromunda website (Necromunda is one of GW's "flavor of the year" games, wherein they release a rulebook with slightly tweaked rules, a new miniature set or 3, then promptly stop supporting after the early adopters give up some cash -- see also: Mordheim, Inquisitor, Bloodbowl, Battlefleet Gothic, Epic...) and posted screenshots of the incomplete page. I got a nastygram in my email pretty quickly. They were cordial enough about it, but they still had a "do this now or else" vibe going on.

    The local gaming store told me why he didn't like carrying GW products, either -- I was buying a Tyranid Hive Tyrant, and he flat out told me that GW would require he buy 2-4 Hive Tyrants to replace that single one. This is despite my purchase of said Hive Tyrant being the only HT purchase that year. GW requires minimum orders, GW requires minimum shelving space, GW requires X number of GW dedicated gaming tables, the works, in order to work with them instead of a re-reseller. And god forbid if you want to host official GW tournaments -- in order to be an official GW store you basically have to dedicate their entire store to them, and get used to buying the "new release of the week" and swapping it out, even if the existing stuff hasn't sold yet.

    Did I mention that GW also runs their own dedicated retail store network -- the "Rogue Traders", which means that even if you ARE dancing to the GW tune, you're still a dirty little competitor, and thus they hate you and want to see you suffer?

    There's no wonder Warhammer Online is an utter failure, why their wargames aren't selling anywhere near the levels they used to, the works. GW is, to be frank, toxic as hell to work with, and it is finally catching up to them.

    1. Re:Typical GW by jonwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here in Australia I see a bunch of "Games Workshop" stores around that I assume are owned by GW themselves

      Other than that, I havent seen any GW stuff around (not that there are that many places around that sell tabletop fantasy and sci-fi war gaming bits)

      Games Workshop needs to realize that the whole "screw the customers, fans and resellers" crap isn't a good way to make money. (Wizards Of The Coast, another big player in gaming owning both Magic The Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons seems to be doing a lot of the same crap Games Workshop is doing)

    2. Re:Typical GW by Bieeanda · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I was in a local gaming store, when the owner was explaining why he stopped carrying Warhammer stuff. They tried to twist his arm over minimum purchases, and he told them that if he wanted to be a Warhammer store he would have opened one. This was at least ten years ago, and the actual Warhammer store in town that opened at about the same time lasted all of three months.

      Warhammer Online's faults should be laid at Mythic's feet, though. Their earlier Realm-vs-Realm game, Dark Ages of Camelot, was plagued with a similar variety of design flaws and bugs.

    3. Re:Typical GW by makomk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, there was an interesting post on this in the last thread on the topic. Of note is that their anti-reseller antics only apply in the US and not in the UK - not because Games Workshop is any more ethical in the UK, but because the Competition Commission here came down on them like a ton of bricks and forced them to cease their anti-competitive practices forthwith. Unfortunately, the US is kinda lacking in the consumer protection department and there's a lot of political opposition to correcting this.

    4. Re:Typical GW by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      So GW now prohibits anyone from selling their product for more than 20% off, and prohibits the use of online stores to sell their product. How is that legal?

      Well, apparently it just became legal. Supreme Court decision in June 2007 nullified the anti-trust law that made it illegal for manufacturers/wholesalers to mandate minimum retail prices. Surprised the heck out of me when I started googling the matter.

    5. Re:Typical GW by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not on nearly the same scale. You can still sell your MtG cards on ebay. WotC also are not abusing their resellers to anything near the same degrees.

      What you could say they have in common is that they are ripping off their customers. And WotC used to be a lot better (open gaming license, selling PDF versions), so they are moving in the wrong direction. But they are still a long, long way away from GW.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    6. Re:Typical GW by kalirion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Anti-competitive practices"? What are you talking about? Suing your own fans is the ultimate "pro-competitive" practice since it drives your fans to the competition!

  14. Re:Cost them one paying customer by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep. They make life incredibly difficult on game store owners also. GW is basically the Apple of the tabletop gaming world.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  15. Seems reasonable to me. by NPerez · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rather than hopping on the 'Screw GW!' bandwagon, I actually decided to rtfa and look into the situation.

    The site was originally a fan-site, and it was welcomed by GW. Then it was bought out by a corporation called Curse. Curse is running it with intent to make profit. It's common sense that a for-profit site with 'Warhammer' in the name is not exactly fair business.

    It's not a fan-site anymore. It's a corporate asset

  16. It's worth noting by Runefox · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you look into the forums, the second post actually explains that Games Workshop was promoting the site back in 2006 and that they had come to an agreement between the site, Games Workshop and Mythic Entertainment by way of a disclaimer. Apparently, they now allege that they had just discovered the site.

    Either there's incredibly bad miscommunication going on inside Games Workshop, or... Well, I can't really think of how anything else really sounds remotely sane about this. I'm not a fan of Warhammer Online or anything, but seriously?

    --
    Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    1. Re:It's worth noting by Sundo · · Score: 3, Informative

      As was pointed out above, it's also worth noting that the website was recently acquired by http://www.curse.com/. There is obviously a big difference in privately run fan site and a site owned by for-profit corporation like Curse. Naturally the agreements made with the previous owner do not hold after he sold the site to a corporation trying to make profit with it.

      I believe it is possible that they have recently discovered that the site is now ran to make profit. While I certainly don't like corporations suing devoted fans, I can see why they are suing the new owner of that site. It's not owned by a devoted fan anymore, it's a corporate asset. It may still be a bad move PR-wise, but it's lot more understandable than "suing a devoted fan site", which most people here seem to think is the case.

    2. Re:It's worth noting by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is obviously a big difference in privately run fan site and a site owned by for-profit corporation like Curse. Naturally the agreements made with the previous owner do not hold after he sold the site to a corporation trying to make profit with it.

      Depends on the agreement. Just acquiring something doesn't invalidate all contracts. And I'd guess the previous site was not non-profit (as setting up such things to be legal non-profit entities is harder than just running it like a pro-profit business). So if they have an existing contract with a for-profit entity that's acquired by another for-profit entity, then that contract would be 100% in effect today unless there was something specific in there limiting the agreement such that it wouldn't persist after an acquisition.

      And who the hell cares if they are trying to make a profit from it? There were banner adds before. There are banner ads now. Whether they have better integration with a for-profit fan-oriented conglomerate of sites is irrelevant to the point and purpose of that site.

      I believe it is possible that they have recently discovered that the site is now ran to make profit. While I certainly don't like corporations suing devoted fans, I can see why they are suing the new owner of that site. It's not owned by a devoted fan anymore, it's a corporate asset. It may still be a bad move PR-wise, but it's lot more understandable than "suing a devoted fan site", which most people here seem to think is the case.

      I can see them not wanting the site around. But not wanting something and having legal grounds to declare it illegal are two separate issues. You seem to be arguing that since they might not want it, that it's "understandable" that they sue it. For one, it is still a fan site, since the vast majority of content on it is by fans for fans. And for another, understandable motives do not necessarily make for an understandable court case. I can see no basis for this case, other than throwing out lies and hoping the recipient of the lies decides it's cheaper to give up the domain for free and rename the site than to fight it. I've seen nothing in the complaint which sounds like sound legal grounds. If you disagree, please point me to any specific claim you believe is sound legal grounds and that you believe to be true. Otherwise, you aren't addressing the topic at hand, but just whining about the people posting about the topic at hand.

  17. Aye by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aye, a few fans showing up with chainsaws and cries of "Blood For The Blood God!" would probabl be scary ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  18. Re:Damm lawyers by arekusu_ou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know about that....

    Money can buy you a revolving door of hot supermodel class trophy wives and mistresses.
    Money can buy you all the cars, boats, planes you want to go anywhere you want.
    Money can buy you all the pretty things to look at and fun toys to play with.
    Money can give you power and render revenge against your enemies.
    Money can let you mess with people's lives and livelihood for your own perverse amusement.
    Money can buy you a sense of charity and phony philanthropy.
    Money can make a type of people be nice to you, suck up to you, be blithering idiots and servants around you.
    Money can buy people's convincingly feigned love and adoration.

    People who say money can't buy happiness are either jealous and spiteful or the type that can't be satisfied with what they have and simply want what they can't have, creating a paradox of emotions.

  19. Not all that surprising really... by azrebb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Love the IP, hate the company... I used to work for them in the Australian arm. Back then, they had had slave wages for the drones who loved the games and filled the lower rungs, but for some reason, the upper echelons had non-gamers who seemed to be doing alright for themselves.

  20. Re:Damm lawyers by Jer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somehow, I doubt that Games Workshop's shitty attitude towards their customers just comes from their legal department. The guys at the top at least have to sign off on it - if they aren't the ones who are pushing the policy in the first place.

    Lawyers are rarely the ultimate cause of problems from corporations. They're usually enablers, not decision makers. They get more credit than they deserve for bad decisions because part of their job is to be the designated asshole for a company, but the decisions come from the top at any company that isn't completely dysfunctional. (And in companies that are completely dysfunctional the decisions come from HR anyway, not from legal.)

  21. Re:Damm lawyers by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was the legal department that waylaid a bunch of sites last thanksgiving (2 days left to comply with most folks on vacation when the letter arrived- somehow taking 12 days to cross the sea from UK.

    They are jerks-- even sued the fan site that helped them redevelop the bloodbowl rules.

    I will not be buying their products again.

    There are too many other forms of entertainment-- more than you can consume in a lifetime-- to bother supporting jerks.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  22. Games Workshop: A Brief History by Gaian-Orlanthii · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone who's old enough to remember playing tabletop roleplaying games in the 80's and early 90's is likely already aware of Games Workshop's track record. They set boardgaming back by twenty years.

    After establishing themselves as the dominant games publisher in the U.K. and having formed a network of like-minds in the 'White Dwarf' magazine and Citadel Miniatures staff, GW merged with Citadel c1989 and White Dwarf became the house publication. Actually, I'll re-word that: It became a monthly advertisement for all things GW.

    White Dwarf was almost the only source of games news in those pre-internet days and it had the kind of persuasion and disinformation powers Rupert Murdoch could only envy. The letters page (what they had in place of forum posts in those days, kids) was first neutered (only GW fanboys got printed) then dropped altogether. Presumably because GW wanted to remove all traces of thinking from their fans. Only Games Workshop published games were reviewed - and always only every favourably - and only Games Workshop events were publicised. By 1992 it wasn't even covering anything outside of GW's current catalogue.

    Citadel Miniatures had also been co-opted. Their range of miniatures became so much a part of the GW product line that older miniatures were often renamed to suit GW's revised history.
    (E.g, a range of 1986 Elric of Melnibone characters became generic GW Elves and an early line of Lord Of The Rings characters were all dispersed to generic 'warrior' or 'wizard'. Even the White Dwarf himself was later redesignated 'Imperial Dwarf'.)
    As well as this, the style of the miniatures became ever more 'cartoon' and a lot of the earlier sexuality and violence was purged. Citadel used to have miniatures of slave-girls being roasted over open fires, nude Goblins and Ogres carrying sacks of bloody body parts. Now, every miniature is relentlessly (Christian) family-friendly.

    However Games Workshop's corporate policies are hardly 'friendly' in any sense of the word. Endlessly re-releasing the same core games as 'new' releases with (barely) altered rules, unreasonably overpricing miniatures (currently, a 5-man Space Marine squad costs £20. Twenty Pounds Sterling! for five plastic toy soldiers you're meant to paint yourself.), delaying deliveries and payments to competitors, endless recycling of illustrations and ideas, it goes on.

    A lot of gamers will point and say that GW has some great games and awesome miniatures but in fact, nothing GW does is original, their best work was pre-1993 and they don't make a single item that isn't designed specifically to shift large amounts of overpriced, crap, miniatures paint. Even the pulp fiction they churn out. There are good, cheaper miniatures made by their competitors. There are also far superior boardgames available (see http://www.boardgamegeek.com//).

    It's pretty obvious at this stage that Games Workshop have no respect for their customers or fans. Most of their fans are teenagers and although teenagers with a Games Workshop habit need pretty well off parents to pay for their fix, GW clearly expects them to 'grow out of it' at some stage and piss off. Just as long as there's another generation of saps in line, GW doesn't care.

    And that, ladies and gentlegeeks, is why Games Workshop are bastards and why should anyone be surprised at anything they do?

  23. Re:Cost them one paying customer by MicktheMech · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't say I know much about how they fare internationally, but I do believe Australia has a pretty strong wargaming community, so I'm a bit surprised you're having trouble. Did you look at Irresistible Force?