Chavet B210 Reproduction

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.

Agreed. The sets coming out of India now are as good or better than anything made before in terms of manufacturing capability/skill. I do still think there is a gap between what they might consider an attractive set and what western customers seem to prefer in terms of simplicity v complex patterns etc.

And what do we do with the businesses that make the reproductions without licenses from the originating company?

The originating company could sue the reproducer.  In what jurisdiction would this lawsuit be appropriate?  And if financial damages were awarded, would it be enough to cover the costs of suing?  
If the originating company does not nor will not make and sell that specific design, as is the case with Chavet, then winning the lawsuit is unlikely, as they cannot show damages as loss of income from selling that design.

There also is not a good argument  that the reproducers are doing anything morally wrong as they are not competing with Chavet to sell that specific design.

The Chess Bazaar reproduction is also pretty good and has been available for quite awhile.  If Chavet or anyone like that wanted to take legal actions they should have done so then, at least 1 year ago.  
Another thing that can be done is to boycott the company that reproduced the set.  Of course that is something each consumer can choose to do or not to do.  And I don’t see that happening in any high number of people.

Also, Chess Empire and Staunton Castle used to make sets for Frank Camaratta and then Shawn, of The House of Staunton.  I know Frank and assure you that if he could or should take legal action for these guys selling his designs direct instead of through HoS, he would pursue it.  He certainly did many years ago.

So, while I understand being unhappy with a direct company selling reproductions that compete with the originator’s product, it does not seem called for in this instance.  And I assure you that I have intentionally boycotted companies for doing just this.

Good points! The official FIDE World Championship set is available from a number of outlets. A copy is also available both direct from India and on reseller websites. I don't like the design and would never buy it, but if I did want it, I would purchase the original precisely because it is the original/official set. The same goes for a few distinctive sets designed by FC. They are current production sets available at HOS so that is where I would go. But for unavailable, out of production items I would buy from whoever makes the best copy.

 I suppose I'm referring to some of the more ornate and intricate carvings in the Indian designed sets (not reproductions), particularly the knights. The western style of set seems to be a lot simpler e.g. Lardy, Chavet etc. Which you prefer is obviously a matter of taste but you don't tend to see many simple sets designed in India. I could be wrong on this, just an Impression.

@Audioq I would rephrase "The official FIDE World Championship set is available from a number of outlets. A copy is also available both direct from India and on reseller websites." to

"The official FIDE World Championship set is available from a number of outlets. A pirated copy is also available both direct from India and on reseller websites." Because that is the truth. And it is consequently as illegal to buy such a copy as it is illegal to buy pirated videos or CDs from China. Does that stop people buying them? Of course not. Will the Indian companies get away with it? Probably yes. But  call a spade a spade. 

If some people on this forum don't care about the law and SPIRIT of intellectual property that is fine. If they just care about cheap prices and affordability, and define "right" by what they can get away with, that is also fine. I can't dictate to people what to think and how to behave. But labelling these (WC copies) sets by any name other than "pirated goods'" is just deceitful. Cheap copies of FIDE set is a clear-cut case of IP infringement. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong!

I remember this thread https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/house-of-staunton-the-world-championship-series-chess-pieces. I even contributed to it, assuming at the time that HoS, who have supplied chess sets to FIDE in the past, would have gotten the necessary permissions. HoS have subsequently removed that item from their sales site - which can only mean that they did not and were possibly (pure conjecture on my part) threatened with legal action. If they were still selling it today they would not be spared the same accusation: of infringing IP laws and subsequently selling pirated goods. One law for all.

I agree with you about this.  The real, Official WC set is still being produced and sold.  I bought one from an outlet, Chess Baron.  I certainly disagree with the copies.

The original Chavet set in this discussion is no longer being made by or for Chavet for a number of years.  I see no conflict with Chess Empire or Chess Bazaar making and selling their version of this set.  Chavet, the company, is not affected by this.

What do you think of Chess Empire and Staunton Chess selling direct sets they originally made exclusively for retailers like The House of Staunton and Official Staunton?  Look at The Mechanics Institute set and the Piatigorsky sets, for 2 examples.

Chavet still exists and they still manufacture sets. I believe ownership has swapped hands in recent years. I bought a brand new #4 Chavet from a French retailer about a year ago. Even if Chavet have discontinued a particular line, like the B210, @Eyechess, I still can't see the difference. Chavet (whoever currently owns them) still owns the rights to the manufacturing of that line, and only they are entitled to give it or sell it to another company (like those you mention). Chess Empire and Staunton Chess have to show us their licence. 

Who knows, maybe the new owners of Chavet will decide to start making #6s again? That's a privilege that only they have.

@coffehouse_chess_1The fact that any collector can see a Chavet and identify it immediately as a Chavet shows that it is unique. And CE and SC definitely COPIED their sets (photographs or real pieces) - they certainly did not suck it out of their heads.

I expect there to be no license by either Chess Empire or Chess Bazaar.  You are the first to mention it in regards to Chess sets that I am aware.

I understand the theory of your claim.  However, the history and practicality of this regarding Chess sets has no precedent.

Do you expect the same licensing demands with Jaques sets?  If you don’t then you should as an even applicability to all companies and sets.  Jaques still sells sets.

"What do you think of Chess Empire and Staunton Chess selling direct sets they originally made exclusively for retailers like The House of Staunton and Official Staunton?  Look at The Mechanics Institute set and the Piatigorsky sets, for 2 examples."

@Eyechess. Would that not depend on the original agreements signed between the retailers and the Indian manufacturers in question, and on whether those sets themselves are subject to copyright?

If the reproduction of the set by HoS was "kosher" in terms of IP, then it boils down to their agreement. But even if the Indian manufacturers breached their agreement I don't think that would make the copies illegal in the same sense as the Chavet and WC copies are. It would be like buying from a retailer who you know treats their employees badly : it is not illegal but a personal decision depending on your personal principles and values. That's how I see it.

There are some interesting points above but I'm afraid this discussion about IP in chess sets could go on ad infinitum without ever coming to a conclusion. It is obvious from the nature of the comments being made that none of the posters are experts in IP or indeed have any significant experience in that area (I include myself in that). There is also a number of assumptions being made that the law should follow what an individual poster believes is "right and just" (a common affliction on the internet today) and that is not necessarily the case. Many years ago IP had to proved in terms of prior art etc. to the appropriate authority before any rights would be granted. This was a difficult, lengthy process and was changed to a system where you can register IP in practically anything and the final arbiter of whether you actually had an enforceable right was the court deciding on possible infringement. It has not been conclusively established in court that IP can exist in something like a chess set design and case law has provided conflicting judgements (e.g. the famous BH Wood case and the Marcel DuChamp set case). Certainly the more unique a set is the more likely it is to be capable of attracting some kind of exclusive rights.

@utpic You stated earlier that you were only posing some questions. But in your comments above you clearly accuse, on a public forum, named manufacturers and customers of engaging in criminal activity. It seems that whilst you are very agitated about IP laws you don't have much regard for the law surrounding defamation/libel. You make several definitive statements concerning a very complex area of law, when it is obvious that you can't actually know if these are true or not. If the extent of your "research" was to google it, as opposed to seeking advice from IP experts then I'd be careful about making such statements. I do not know if Chavet, Jaques, Weil etc. have enforceable IP rights in the products they sell/sold and neither does anyone else on this forum.

 @Eyechess, @sound67, @coffeehouse_chess_1

You make valid points. I honestly don't know if Chavet are still in existence. The website "Jura Buis" seems to have disappeared. There has also been no update to their facebook page since 2018. I communicated with them about a year ago (?) and received a response but have not tried to contact them since. I hope they are still around.

There 's seem to be more repros made than the real chess sets , with some repros going at silly prices or just under cutting the other maker , As half this forum is now on how good the remake is than the real Chavet, Jaques, sets etc ? been it hos / noj / cb /ce /os ,  the list go on ?

Sure the price of the real sets have also got silly ? still can not beat the real thing .

Completely agree and if the real thing is available then a buyer should definitely go for it. The problem is that for many antique/vintage sets the set is not in production and can only be bought as a genuine antique/vintage set. These sets are rare and sell for antique/vintage prices. I'm not even sure if the presence of repros has that much effect on the price of genuine antique sets? Has the price of antique Jaques sets (typically $1k+) been adversely affected by repros? I would think they are different markets, not sure about this though. I bought some original Jaques antique sets even after copies became available. 

@Audioq. We are talking about two sets here:

1) why don't you write to Rishi from whom you bought the set, and tell him that some ignoramus and libeller  on chessdotcom has suggested that Chess Empire Chavet B210 may be an illegal copy and ask him to respond. Specifically ask him who gave him the right to manufacture a "Chavet B210" - i.e. has he had any legal council clearing the way for him (and if yes, please request a summary of the reasoning involved), and/or has he contacted Chavet for permission? Or better, ask him who owns the rights of the Chavet B210 - since he is making a reproduction he must surely know that. Please do that.  You are right, one should give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so I hold back judgement and and let's clear this up with Rishi himself.

2) Please also tell us all here in black and white whether you would buy a reproduction of the FIDE World Cup set, or is the subject still too specialised and complicated, meaning, in your case (because that is how you seem to be arguing - if one is not sure whether something is legal then one can do it) that yes, you would?

(Let's take it as a given that you would really like to have one, just like you wanted the Chavet 210, for argument's sake.)

[@Audioq I asked the question regarding Chavet B210 and passed a judgement on the WC sets calling them pirated goods - I will gladly retract that if you prove that they are legal copies]