Chapterhouse Studios finds legal representation

By tgn_admin
In News
Feb 3rd, 2011
65 Comments
445 Views

Chapterhouse Studios has found a legal firm to represent them in their legal fight with Games Workshop.

From their announcement:

My company, Chapterhouse Studios LLC, has been very fortunate to locate pro-bono council with the help and tips of a few of our customers. Those customers have intensive legal background as well as leads that helped us find a firm that believes in our case enough to support us.

Thanks to some friends good advice and experience we have a legal agreement for Winston & Strawn LLP to represent us in our case.

I consider myself very lucky to have three attorneys from the firm willing to be our representatives during the case and any other negotiations with Games Workshop. The lead on the case Jennifer Golinveaux has some major experience behind her, and I am confident that with her teams’ help we will come out of this experience in great shape.

I think if the attorneys thought this was a slam-dunk case for Games Workshop and we had no legal ground to stand on that there would be little chance for us to find such an outstanding firm to help us.

For everyone who has given their support, I really do appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Nick Villacci
Chapterhouse Studios LLC

  • Interesting. I look forward to the outcome and will follow along with any published information about the case.

  • Tommygun

    I’m interested in seeing how this comes out as well.
    After market part markers are a big industry in 1/35 scale armor models.
    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Chapterhouse isn’t doing anything different than the armor scale people are doing.
    Maybe they Should rename some of their items though?

    • Demonetrigan

      Slight difference in that in the plastic model kit market the producer of the model kit – dragon, Tamiya, etc DOES NOT own the original IP. There was a big legal discussion several years ago where the various countries stated that they were going to go after the manufacturers to get fees owed for use of their IPs.

      Never went anywhere as i recall it was decided that the images, etc had been in the public domain for long enough that there was no basis.

      The difference here is that the original manufacturer DOES own all the IP and has been very determined in their efforts to protect this at a global level.

      • TylerT

        i’m typically opinionated and outspoken, but I have no idea who is right or wrong here. it looks like Chapterhouse have got some pro bono help? that’s an interesting twist.

      • Zac

        Slight difference in that in the plastic model kit market the producer of the model kit – dragon, Tamiya, etc DOES NOT own the original IP.

        I am not sure if that is actually correct. While Tamiya might not have any overall copyrights to the Tiger 1 they do, I think, have a copyright to their specific physical representation of that in the form of a plastic model kit,

        • AKE

          The difference is that aftermarket armor companies are not “copying” Tamiya. They are making more accurate parts based off of a Tiger I, so they are doing the exact same thing Tamiya does. On the other hand Chapterhouse ( to me) is clearly basing their products off of GW imagery.

          • Zac

            The difference is that aftermarket armor companies are not “copying” Tamiya

            If I build a part to work with a specific Tamiya model then how is that any different than building a door to fit on a GW vehicle kit?

            On the other hand Chapterhouse ( to me) is clearly basing their products off of GW imagery.

            THe legal issues surrounding this sort of thing aren’t as cut and dry as you might think.

          • GW OWN the rights to their IP. Tamiya does not.

            Anyway, when you buy a model form GW are you not entering into an end user licence agreement? Basically, its IP infringement to do a conversion, so selling parts intended for conversion is total violation of the conditions of sale.

          • Zac

            GW OWN the rights to their IP. Tamiya does not.

            As I mentioned earlier on, I think Tamiya does. Do you have a specific reference to a precedent or case that suggests that Tamiya doesn’t have a copyright to the models and art they produce?

          • PanzerKraken

            No one owns an IP over WWII vehicles, hence any model maker can do anything they want with it.

            It’s different from say modern firearm brands such as Colt rifle, as a license needs to be obtained to use the name and such in a product, but old tanks and wwII vehicles have no IP owner, and a person can not claim ownership over them.

          • AKE

            If I build a part to work with a specific Tamiya model then how is that any different than building a door to fit on a GW vehicle kit?

            It’s completely different. You are trying to compare a model based off a 60 year old vehicle that is no longer trademarked, to a recently made model that was designed and produced by GW and legally protected. However I do not think that is the issue here. The issue is using GW imagery on those aftermarket parts. Yes, you likely can make an aftermarket door to fit a Land Raider. However you CAN’T stick a Space Wolf symbol on it. You also can’t sculpt Mickey Mouse, an Apple logo, or a Packers logo, or anything else that is a trademark from another company.

            Those aftermarket armor company make parts that work with Tamiya models. They are not taking Tamiya’s double star logo and sticking it on their products.

          • TylerT

            If I draw a picture of a tank I own the copyright to that unique expression of a tank*

            So when someone makes unique plastic model of a tank they have copyright over it, they can also trade mark the name of a specific kit. Tamiya could sue if you simply recast their model tanks.

            You have plenty of companies that produce parts for specific Tamiya kits, the tamiya kit it’s sel has a unique copyright.

            *unless the subject of the work is already owned. I don’t have full rights if I draw or make models of Micky Mouse.

          • I think part of the issue is that Tamiya do not want to stifle the after market products. Their strategy includes the after market products.

            On the other hand, GW do not want their product to be compromised in this way.

            Just because Tamiya do not attempt to prosecute against IP infringement does not mean they could not do it.

          • TylerT

            tamiya is just one small example, plenty companies make accessories that are not licensed from the original IP holder. i’m reminded of many unofficial Pokemon card game guides from back in the day, the law allows for a measure of fair use

            at best the case against chapter house is a grey area.

  • ScoutII

    Maybe they Should rename some of their items though?

    No more so than after market makers of iPod accessories should rename theirs – and Apples’ lawyers are meaner than GWs

    • AKE

      Actually Apple charges companies that make aftermarket iPod parts. Whenever you see “works with iPod” on a product then you’re paying an extra 20% that goes straight into Apple’s pocket.

      • Zac

        Apple charges people to a) get access to details of their products to create accurate accessories and b) to be allowed to put that logo on their products.

        Apple doesn’t charge everyone who builds aftermarket parts but those people that don’t pay typically don’t use Apple branding on their products and also don’t say they are made for the iPad, iPod or whatever.

        And the last time I checked it wasn’t a 20% surcharge.

        • Also, again, an Ipod had a primary function separate from its carry case. You can buy any carry case to put your GW models into, it would even be OK to suggest that your carry case would fit GW models in.

          However, a model’s primary function is to look like something. If you specifically produce parts to alter the primary function of the model and cash in using the IP owned and developed at great cost by another company then you are liable for prosecution.

          • Zac

            However, a model’s primary function is to look like something

            The issue we were discussing was use of trademarks not form. Shapes are AFAIK only really protected in the UK. Certainly not in the US where Chapterhouse operates form.

          • PanzerKraken

            Shapes are not really the issue, but iconography is. Various components they made from what I saw used icons and such that is protected under IP. GW’s claims no doubt don’t cover everything Chapterhouse put out, but when they put out products with a protected logo on it, then they are basically screwed and is where they are going to have a really tough time going up against GW.

          • Zac

            Shapes are not really the issue, but iconography is.

            Icons are shapes 🙂

            Unless they have a trademark for a design then it isn’t protected.

            GW has a list of trademarks so you can check it against the designs that have appeared on CH products.

        • AKE

          My only point was that in the case of Apple and aftermarket parts is that it’s a good example of properly using another company’s trademark. Companies use Apple’s branding and Apple get a percentage. That’s how it should work doing it the legal way.

          I was rounding up. I believe it’s around 17%.

  • Kane

    Be interesting to see if this actually goes to court or is settled out of court …..

  • Veritas

    I am VERY interested to see if this makes it to court. I’ve seen GW hand out legal notices like candy, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard of one bringing about a court date. GW has always had the advantage. They have the cash to support a proper legal team so the small businesses/websites they go after pretty much have to capitulate.

    • PanzerKraken

      To note, GW generally sends out Cease and Desist letters, which are not legal notices at all, they are simply letters. People just put a whole lot of stock into a C&D letter and think it means something, when in reality it doesn’t. It’s a warning letter written with no real legal grounds behind it for the purpose of simply scaring a person.

  • Kaine

    Their screwed, i doubt the lawyers they’ve got have looked into all the angles GW will use, yes most of GW’s arguments will be thrown out, ala the its just the same as making accessories.

    However, Chapterhouse dug their own grave when they produced this (the doom of Malantai), using the GW name for it, the GW concept art to style it. The accessory argument wont stand up here, you cant make a crappy mp3 player and call it an ipod.

    Their blog link to Doom
    http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/news/29-dooms-day-is-near

    And unfortunately for them all this last minute name changing of items wont help them, GW will have already taken a copy of their site and they’ll just use the name changes to further prove that Chapterhouse were in the wrong and knew it.

    Unfortunately they just werent very smart of their naming of models/components.

    They may get lucky and get a settlement of some sort limiting what they can produce, what they can call it, etc.

  • maestro

    we have a lawyer, so we must be in the right…

  • TylerT

    so much drama in miniatures games these days.

  • KampfgruppeCottrell

    Good luck.

    Brian

  • antenociti

    This is a case that needs to go to court for the benefit of many people.

    • ScoutII

      I agree fully antenociti. Their is a long history of intimidation and skirting of issues within the miniatures/wargaming/RPG hobby – and it very rarely goes the distance to have a court make a decision. A decision from a jury on this matter would settle a lot of issues and I think it could only be a good thing.

      • macman

        I agree this should be a precedent for all IP cases, but there is no intimidation by Games Workshop. They are following the law, and Chaperthouse are clearly breaking the law. If the courts side with thieves like Chapterhouse, that would create a free pass to all IP thieves no matter what industry it happens in.

        • antenociti

          They are following the law, and Chaperthouse are clearly breaking the law.

          I think that it would be fairer to say that Chapterhouse are possibly breaking some Laws on IPR. They are also quite possibly not breaking some others.

          Which is why this would benefit from going to court.

          It is, in the meantime, impossible for anybody to say that Chapterhouse are breaking the Law, only the courts can decide that and in this case there is more than one issue being raised.

          A Carte Blanche statement of “they’re guilty” rather misses the importance of having each of those different legal elements examined in court and decided upon individually.

          People who say “they’re guilty” are missing a lot of points I’m afraid. I dont say that to be snarky, but there a lot of issues raised in this case, far beyond the simple one of “that’s a ripoff”: marketing and free-trade restrictions, use of non-trademark materials, fair-use of trademark materials, IPR infringement or fair-trade, anti-monopoly laws…a host of issue.

          Many of those issue are very far from being at all clear or obvious, even to IP lawyers.

          For us to say “They’re obviously guilty” is dissmissing not just their presumption of innocence, but also ignoring the significance of such a case for the entire industry, far beyond anything that either Chapterhouse or GW could ever manage on their own.

          It would be THAT significant in laying down a precedent for all past, ongong and future work within the industry for every single wargames company out there.

        • Zac

          I agree this should be a precedent for all IP cases, but there is no intimidation by Games Workshop.

          I have to disagree. They have been watching this company since they started business and then they file a lawsuit just before Xmas and use a non-existance association with a third party to try to get the trial set in Illinois instead of Texas where Chapterhouse is situated.

          I think it is clear intimidation. They are using the threat of extensive legal and travel costs to try to get them to settle.

          • I think this is really interesting and I think it will provide guidance to a lot of other folks selling bits that are compatible with GW and other manaufacturers product lines.

            I do agree that it was rather poor form for GW to try and push the trial from Texas to Illinois. It stinks of intimidation and they were probably expecting Chapterhouse to capitulate.

            Very curious to see what the court system judgement turns out to be…

  • macman

    I am sorry, but Chapterhouse does not have much of a chance at this lawsuit. Did they contact Games Workshop and talk to their legal department before stealing the IP? Did they stop making product when they received the cease and desist order? It is obvious that they did not. Is Chapterhouse arrogant that they can steal IP from another company and manufacture and sell the pieces without any ramifications? Yes, they are. It really does not matter that they have hired lawyers. US and international copyright law is very clear, and this case is no different. Chapterhouse deserves to be shut down and pay the penalty. They can whine and cry about the little guy being attacked by the larger guy, but honestly Chapterhouse are a bunch of thieves. They could have done it the smart way by advertising that they are “suitable for sci-fi gaming” instead of stealing the IP. This lawsuit will benefit companies that copyright and protect their IP and it should deter IP thieves like Chapterhouse from being arrogant and not abiding by the law.

    • Zac

      Did they contact Games Workshop and talk to their legal department before stealing the IP?

      IP is a term used to describe the various copyrights and trademarks that a company has. They are legal protections for ideas or physical representations of those artworks.

      You can’t steal IP.

      Is Chapterhouse arrogant that they can steal IP from another company and manufacture and sell the pieces without any ramifications?

      This is a presumption. Is building parts for a company and attributing it to a “faction” in a game that they make actionable?

      That is for the courts to decide and I am quite happy that it appears that this will go to trail so we can determine once and for all if making parts and accessories for GW models is legal.

      US and international copyright law is very clear…

      I think perhaps that you and I have been reading different precedents. I don’t think that this is clear at all

      They could have done it the smart way by advertising that they are “suitable for sci-fi gaming” instead of stealing the IP.

      AFAIK it is not illegal for one company to use the trademarks of a second firm as long as they are not using them to deceive the consumer. Trademark protections aren’t actually as wide-ranging as people think they are.

      • antenociti

        AFAIK it is not illegal for one company to use the trademarks of a second firm as long as they are not using them to deceive the consumer.

        Pretty much so. I can, and do, use GW trademarks to say that certain items are ideal for use with XYZ, lets say “Ideal for use with GW Warhammer”. I just have to make it clear that they are not GW items and i dont have anything to do with GW.

        It does not stop me using their trademark term and logo though.

      • psyberwyche

        IP is a term used to describe the various copyrights and trademarks that a company has. They are legal protections for ideas or physical representations of those artworks.

        You can’t steal IP.

        Yes you can. And I reckon they have.

        • Zac

          Yes you can. And I reckon they have.

          Using the term “steal” in relation to IP is sloppy language. IP are legal protections and aren’t anything actually physical so there is noting to take.

          One can misuse trademarks or use copyright material but there is not “stealing” involved.

          Using the word “steal” in this context is a value judgement and presumes guilt. If company A doesn’t want company B to use their trademarks they can certainly prosecute the company but lets be clear that just because Company A sues someone it doesn’t mean that they are in the right.

          We also need to remember that people can’t copyright ideas. You can’t accuse a company of stealing ideas because short of a select type of business patent that is only available in the US you can’t copyright ideas either.

          Just because the US Patent Office wants to use clearly sloppy and incorrect language in their website isn’t any reason for us to follow their example.

          • psyberwyche

            Well, it’s their language being used in the court case I’ll wager, so in this particular instance I’ll bow to them rather than your good self (sorry Zac). And in this case it’s more likely imagery and designs that they’ll be fighting over, rather than ‘ideas’.

          • Zac

            Well, it’s their language being used in the court case

            The same document that tries to tie Chapterhouse with a third party they didn’t work with 🙂

      • PanzerKraken

        You can’t steal IP.

        Technically you can’t steal the IP itself, but making money off another company’s IP is the problem.

  • What murky waters have they dived into?

  • ScoutII

    Yeppers – I tried to lay it out as clearly as I could the first time this came around…but some people didn’t quite understand the distinction (even though they probably see fair use of trademarked properties every day – from accessories at the local electronics store to TV commercials stating how Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi).

    I also addressed the “Doom” miniature – which at face value might appear to be more problematic for them, however the saving grace being that it never actually went into production – and GW’s stated position that they encourage gamers to create their own version of miniatures that they do not produce.

    That creates an interesting situation as well. Since GW has not fixed the Doom figure to physical form, the CH miniature could be considered a derivative work of the written and artistic interpretations by GW. However if in the future GW releases a Doom miniature – CH might be able to file suit for infringing on the copyright that was granted upon the fixing of that to a physical form.

  • I look forward to a case being decided on its merits.

    My opinion is that GW has used the legal system here in the US as a tool for their business practices rather than a venue to decide actual cases.

  • IM really interested in how this turn out. If chapterhouse lose Im going to gloat horrible (joke!) .

    If they win, well Im going to market storm trooper add ons for space marines. $$$$KACHING$$$$!

  • PanzerKraken

    They are going to have a tough fight. Lot of people are giving single examples that in many cases do favor Chapterhouse, but the problem is basically the sheer amount of stuff Chapterhouse has done is going to have them trying to defend a large assortment of legal angles. While one miniature or product might be fine, many others are going to be on a slippery slope legally that can be contested, and for chapterhouse to defend themselves against all of it, is going to be a miracle. Many items they did put out really could be considered crossing a line that is going to be hard to defend.

  • wolfprophet

    Question. Why can’t GW just Shut the hell up and be happy? Look at it this way. Yes, Chapterhouse is making money off the GW IP. However….From this standpoint. In order to even make use of Chapterhouse Products, individuals need to purchase more GW products. Thus, studios like Chapterhouse are encouraging sales of GW products by offering parts to make them more unique. Hazzah! As for their full kits, perhaps Chapterhouse wouldn’t be able to cash on those if GW would pay more attention to what their customers want, rather than who they can sue next.

    I hope Chapterhouse wins this. GW has utterly forgotten how to appease the customer. They’re more focused on being the evil corporate entity that everyone loves to hate. Alternatively, GW could simply ask them if they’d be willing to act as a subsidiary studio, paying a percentage of their profits made from products using the 40K IP to the main GW corporation. Which seems a hell of a lot simpler than wasting money suing and counter-suing. Then again, apparently I see simpler ways to do things where others only see the overcomplicated route.

    • AKE

      A company has to protect its IP or they risk losing it. If GW knowingly lets Chapterhouse copy their IP and then another company starts (for example) making exact copies of a space marine and GW files suit against them, that company can point to Chapterhouse and say “You let them copy it, so why can’t we?” There is legal precedence for this situation and the company who’s IP was used lost the case.

      Chapterhouse could of approached GW and asked to licensed their tradmarks. Why solely blame GW for not doing what Chapterhouse was unwilling to do? Many companies have or had agreements with GW to product a wide variety of products, so it’s not unheard of.

  • Dragonstriker

    ramshackle_curtis wrote:
    February 4, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    Anyway, when you buy a model form GW are you not entering into an end user licence agreement? Basically, its IP infringement to do a conversion, so selling parts intended for conversion is total violation of the conditions of sale

    Um, no. When you buy a miniature you are buying the physical object. GW has no say in what you do with that object. ALL ownership rights are transferred to you when you complete the sale. No ifs, no buts.

    Reproduction of the object is different – that may be in breach of copyright, patent or trademark laws, but then again it may not.
    But I absolutely guarantee there is no EULA for miniatures, which means the statement quoted above isn’t worth the electrons it’s written on.

    • Dr Mathias

      If anyone is interested in a good (and surprisingly lengthy) read, click the ‘Legal’ link at the bottom of GW’s website. It is quite thorough, addressing almost every possible use of GW IP, including conversions, and my favorite- a statement that you can’t get a tattoo of GW imagery! Most of the legal page is wishful thinking on GW’s part, with little power… more like a ‘rules we hope you’ll follow’.

      • Well, I can legally impose any licence I like on a product. I can enforce it as a condition of sale. If I say that I will only sell you a model if you promise not to paint it blue, then its your choice as to whether you agree to this or not.

        • Dragonstriker

          You can try. And I can laugh at your attempts, because you have no standing to do so.

        • Zac

          Well, I can legally impose any licence I like on a product.

          You can impose it but enforcing it is another matter. All it takes is one party to take you to court, or you to do so, for the legality of the license to be tested.

          There are clear legal limits to what sort of terms you can make for products that you sell.

  • 4tonmantis

    The way the trial will (if it does) be held will not be Games Workshop v Chapterhouse Games in the matter of Chapterhouse ripping GW off. It’ll be a docket of charges.. each charge must be specific.. and let’s not forget in the US you are innocent at the onset of the trial.. it’s the prosecution’s job to present damages done and the defendant is allowed a rebuttal and the opportunity to show that they are in fact innocent. What bothers me is that people are buying into this crap that even printing the words Games Workshop or Space Marine on a web page or product description are automatically admissions of guilt. Why is it illegal to show a Space Marine in a picture if all you’re doing is selling an addon? Before you jump on board with this remember that the auto industry is full of aftermarket kits and the aforementioned military kits.. yeah.. why does everyone think all of the 1/35th models are of vehicles no longer being used? I have a 1/35th Centurion kit that wants to know.. nay it demands it!
    Do I think Chapterhouse are innocent? Look through their site http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.browse&category_id=4 and tell me what you find. I see carefully worded descriptions and an enormous legal disclaimer. If any of you are so quick to presume the guilt then you should do the due diligence and find proof of a clear violation that leaves absolutely no room for question. If you think that’s too specific remember that is the premise our legal system is intended to operate under.

    • dienstuhr

      You’re talking about principles of criminal liability. This is a civil lawsuit. GW has to show that “on a balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not), Chapterhouse has transgressed the law. I don’t disagree that CH may not be liable in the way that GW alleges but they could have been a lot smaerter about what they were doing and how they presented it. Good for them that they have good representation and that the case will presumably be argued on the merits – as opposed to one party bludgeoning the other into submission with cubic yards of cash spent on lawyers.

      d.

  • 4tonmantis

    also.. just fyi.. you won’t actually go to jail if you remove those labels from pillows/mattresses..

  • One problem that no one has brought up yet is the possible backlash that GW may face if they pursue this. Namely relating to all the IP they have stolen from others…

    Take for instance the Chaos 8 pointed arrow symbol. They stole that directly from Michael Moorcocks’ writing dating from the 60’s to the present. In fact they stole his whole concept of Chaos. Back when they first started marketing their “Chaos IP” they just took directly from Moorcock’s writings. Even to the the point where they invented a demon based on his name.

    Just look at the whole concept and design of their Tyranids and tell me GW didn’t “aquire” they’re design from H.R. Geiger.

    GW run the risk of contradicting all the excuses they’ve used over the years when they have been brought to task when facing IP claims brought against them.

    • Zac

      Take for instance the Chaos 8 pointed arrow symbol. They stole that directly from Michael Moorcocks’ writing dating from the 60?s to the present. In fact they stole his whole concept of Chaos

      Sadly you can’t get a copyright on an idea or concept. While its clear where they got the ideas from it isn’t anything that Moorcock could sue them for.

      Just look at the whole concept and design of their Tyranids and tell me GW didn’t “aquire” they’re design from H.R. Geiger.

      And while their first Tyranid figs were very close to the concept’s from the movie they have done a lot of work to move them to a more original design. The original figs were not expanded on probably because they were too close to the work from Aliens.

      GW run the risk of contradicting all the excuses they’ve used over the years when they have been brought to task when facing IP claims brought against them.

      No-one has sued them. No-one has any legal grounds to do so as far as I can tell.

      There is a clear double-standard on their part but that isn’t going to get them into any legal trouble

  • Nicolay

    Thank you Zac! That old stance that the Nids are so based on Giger’s xenomorph design has become a bit long in the tooth. GW really has done everything to remove their designs from this and create their own, and have succeeded.

  • 4tonmantis

    hehehe.. Starship Troopers, the Terminator, Robocop, Tolkien, Secret of Nimh, Conan, Predator, various war movies, etc etc. Yeah GW is a great company.. and the fluffy huge battle novel type stuff isn’t usually a ripoff of others but the stuff they market seems to be.. by and large. But as was said.. they adhere to the general concept and are thus able to skirt around legality. What nobody says is that the reason GW models are popular is because it’s basically the most popular aspects of mainstream sci-fi made plastic.

  • wolfprophet

    Simple response. Chapterhouse and GW could work towards a merge, so that Chapterhouse’ parts can still be provided. Their price would likely remain the same, or even lower with the increased production capacity at hand since as it stands, most of Chapterhouse’ products are more expensive than GW. Particularly those shoulder pads.

    I still feel Chapterhouse should win this.

  • wolfprophet

    Missed a few more there. Tau in appearance are clearly ripped off/inspired by Neimodians from Star Wars Episode I. Their Crisis suits also heavily borrow from several anime. Including the Zaku II commander model’s antenna. I had a few more in mind, but by the time I got to typing, I totally forgot half of them. Clearly, it’s late and I’ll need to sleep before I hop back up on the “Lets hate on GW” bandwagon, and then ironically go back to painting my beautiful, beautiful massed ranks of Guardsmen.

    Which reminds me, Leman Russ. Clearly part Mark IV female tank, Landraider would be more of the Mark IV Male tank. Rhino, M113 APC. Chimera, BMP. Those vehicles all had manufacturer’s with rights to their hull designs.

    • Landraider is basically named after a Land rover I had always thought!

      As to Wolfprophet, Id say that there are what could be perceived as quality issues that stand between GW and CH. Basically, it could be argued that CHs models do not meet the quality standards that GW persue, and so on those gorunds alone GW might wish to ask CH not to produce thier models, as it could be seen to damage GWs IP.