Chavet B210 Reproduction

In my set the rook's floor is very deep too. The queens are little different. The rest pieces are ok.

Interesting. My original Chavet sets have 11 and 14 cuts in the Q crown respectively. I think from a video I watched this part was done by hand holding the piece against a spinning wheel so tended to vary. The rooks floor and walls are quite deep and thick on the two sets you guys show but not on the one I bought. I don't know which is latest?

Thx. I think, 11 or 12 cuts in the Queen crown are perfect. My set comes from the first part of the production for sale in their store. In my opinion, the pieces could be a bit lighter, for the best play.

For the high price of this fake copy of Henry Chavet chess set with disproportionate pieces one can actually buy an original set nowadays. 

Where would you find it... B210?

Interesting point of view. I have two questions really:

1. Where would you find a Chavet B210 for $169? The last one I saw for sale was priced at £599 and sold at that price. They only seem to come up for sale once or twice a year.
2. I have included a picture of the repro next to an original B210 in the OP. Which pieces in particular do you think are "disproportionate"? Pointing them out for us would be of genuine interest to the manufacturer I'm sure and he could incorporate any suggestions into future production.

This is exactly why I bought this Chess Empire set.  It is the best Chavet style set readily available to buy at this time.

By the way, I also bought and own the Chess Bazaar Chavet as well.  Of course I got the CB version when it first came out.

Let’s face it.  Chess Empire and Staunton Castle were providing sets for Official Staunton and especially The House of Staunton. A good number of the sets they sell are the same sets the two high quality retailers have sold.

Yes, my Chess Empire Chavet set is nicer than my Chess Bazaar version.  But in all fairness Chess Bazaar has always made reproductions for direct sale from India.  My CB Chavet is a nice set, and some young guy in my local chess club will be very happy with it when I gift it to him after we get back together.  My Chess Empire Chavet is just nicer, that’s all.

Gifting it to a fellow club member.....That's very nice of you!

Can I ask a stupid question? How can it be legal for these companies to reproduce a specific set (B210) when Chavet still manufactures chess sets? Have they shown any proof that they have been given a licence by Chavet to make reproductions of their sets? 

This is an interesting question.

First, where would Chavet take this legal charge, what court in what country?

Second, how much would the legal fees be for them?  And would it be worth the cost, time and trouble to sue them?

Frank Camaratta of The House of Staunton did have contracts signed and such about 20 years ago.  And he did get a company to stop producing and selling their copies.  But in the last 10 - 12 years even they have not tried this suing thing.

Also the current Chavet sets are different than the older ones.

Yeah that is an interesting question. Copying the set itself is unlikely to result in any problems (?) given that almost all vintage/antique sets have been reproduced. Although I'm not certain about this. Using the name Chavet B210, however, may cause issues. As @Eyechess says the process of trying to seek redress for any potential wrongs is difficult and lengthy. Personally, I would not have named this set after a current maufacturer but  all 3 manufacturers of these repros have done so. I wonder if the fact that the ChessEmpire version actually looks like the original would make any difference? Chavet was contacted by a few people on this forum about reintroducing the B210 but they didn't seem interested.

The question is not whether manufacturers do it or whether they get away with it but whether it contravenes international intellectual property rights or not - and therefore whether somebody buying from them is guilty of buying something illegal. It is simply prohibited to copy the products of a company without their permission. Chavet is an existing company and they manufacture chess sets still. It is irrelevant whether they have discontinued certain versions, or whether the reproducer adjusts things like colour, type of wood or size. They hold the rights to manufacture that product and to decide what to continue and discontinue, in what materials to produce it and what price to sell it at, and the only legal way to make reproductions is to obtain a licence from that company to do so. 

The fact that the chess empire can openly market a reproduction of a CHAVET B210 shows how brazen they are! Can you imagine Toyota marketing a cheap VW Beetle! It is absurd!

And if that is not clear cut than take the reproduction of the FIDE WC designed by Daniel Weil. Nothing stopped those intellectual property thugs churning out the set as if they owned the design themselves when it was still new and exclusively marketed by FIDE. 

And one more point: the onus is on the manufacturer of the reproduction to prove with due diligence that they are free to make that reproduction - not the other way round.

I would be more cautious in my judgments than my predecessor. First of all, we dont know whether the design of Chavet B210 has been registered as an industrial design (registered designs act). And if so, in which countries and for what period.

I'm not going to argue detailed legal issues on a forum. I'm not an IP legal expert and judging from your comments, neither are you. You state that "It is simply prohibited to copy the products of a company without their permission." and "They hold the rights to manufacture that product and to decide what to continue and discontinue, in what materials to produce it and what price to sell it at, and the only legal way to make reproductions is to obtain a licence from that company to do so". These statements are not necessarily true. In order to prevent others from copying something you need to have a valid, enforceable Trade Mark, Copyright, Patent or registered design (leaving aside the simple tort of "passing off"). This is a very complex area of law and I doubt if it could be resolved to any degree in a forum like this. If it were actionable the action would generally be for damages from the copier, so the product itself would not be illegal, per say, but the seller would be accountable for damages and given a cease and desist order on further violations. I accept that using the "Chavet" name may be an issue if it is a registered trade mark (which it may well be?). I don't think it's a good idea to name the set "Chavet" on this basis.

I do wonder why this is being raised as an issue just in relation to this set when Chavet reproductions have been available and clearly named "Chavet" for a number of years by CB and SC. The Jaques set used in the Fischer-Spassky match was manufactured up to at least 1988 by (for) Jaques and sold under the Jaques name (I know because I bought one in 1988). That's only 32 years ago (only a few years longer than when Chavet last manufactured the B210) and Jaques is still in existence. But no one has raised the issue of this set being copied by almost all indian manufacturers and I think some even use Jaques name (?) or at least did up to a short while ago.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong and that could only be determined by IP experts in a court case. But I am puzzled as to why this is being brought up as an issue against only one set and one manufacturer?

By the way I have no financial or other interest in this set. I made some comments on the prototype and was glad to see it being made available to fans of the set since it is fairly much unavailable today. I have 3 original Chavet B210 (two of which are in as new condition) so I don't necessarily need a repro, but I posted about this one because I felt it captured the original very well.  

Isn't there a limit to the exclusivity of a filed patent? Only Coca-Cola cheated with perpetual exclusivity.

I think it varies by country. In many jurisdictions it was 17-20 years but depended upon when the patent was granted, protection began etc. I'm not sure if a chess set design is even patentable or if it relies on industrial design or other form of IP. It's a legal minefield. My point is more that it is ok to ask questions on this area. I'm not too sure on all the subtleties either. But to imply that a manufacturers products may be "illegal" is a step too far unless you are fairly sure of your facts and the law surrounding them, particularly when these issues apply to many other sets/producers.

This is what I meant by my last post: the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that they have the right to reproduce a set. It may be it may be not. But you can't just say "oh, Chavet probably did this or did that", or "it's complicated and we don't know what the law is in France so it shouldn't be a problem." It is a problem to copy a set if you are not 100% sure that you are allowed to! And the case of the FIDE set PROVES that IP theft is rife and everybody here knows that because these are not isolated incidents.

I am a graphic designer. The onus is on ME to prove that any image I lift off the internet is not copyrighted. And yes it is a bloody hassle to trace the original and get permission etc but one cannot call oneself a professional if one doesn't do that.

And why does one have to be an expert in IP law to raise the question (which is all I did)? What is so difficult in expecting a manufacturer to show the licence they have to make copies of this set or that set? I have two modern sets: Man Ray and Bauhaus and in both cases the documentation accompanying the set provides the necessary licensing information, enough to reassure me that all is in order with these reproductions. 

The fact that nobody so far has conclusively proved that Chavet designs can be copied and sold, is sufficient ground NOT to buy reproductions of them. 

You stated above:

"But you can't just say "oh, Chavet probably did this or did that", or "it's complicated and we don't know what the law is in France so it shouldn't be a problem.""

I can't find the source of these quotes and unless I have missed them, I don't think anyone in this thread said that or anything like it. I admitted that while I have good knowledge of certain areas of commercial law, I am not an expert in IP law and that it is a complex area in which a lot of experience would be required to come to any conclusion on these issues.

It may be that there are legal issues related to reproducing vintage sets. If so, then it is up to the original manufacturer to assert their rights (if they exist) in a court of law. While it is reasonable to argue that a manufacturer should take heed of any existing rights and the potential for infringement (or at least be prepared to provide redress if found to have infringed), it is not reasonable to ask consumers to do the same in regard to purchasing items. These are sets which are purchased openly from well known manufacturers, properly invoiced, tax and duty paid etc. There have been reproductions of many vintage sets on the market now for a number of years from all the indian manufacturers. Many of them have been reviewed in depth on this site and some on various facebook groups. Why is this set any different to any of the others? By your logic consumers should never buy a reproduction of any set since you can never really tell if it's infringing on IP or not?

Very true. But even leaving aside the legal argument, in my mind there is a huge ethical difference between copying a set where the original is still produced and available and copying a set which has not been produced in 25 years (?), will likely never be produced again and is, in reality, unavailable to purchase.

I'm also a bit uneasy with the fact that such criticism tends to be levelled at manufacturers who sell direct from India but when the repro is introduced by a US or European reseller (even though you know it is made by the exact same manufacturers) there is no such backlash.