Games Workshop Lawsuit Wave: Sellers, Ghamak, and $10M Win

Games Workshop, the UK company behind Warhammer, launched a sweeping intellectual property enforcement campaign in 2025 that produced a Games Workshop lawsuit in Florida naming roughly 280 online sellers, a default judgment topping $10 million against 170 of them, and a separate suit in Italy against 3D miniatures designer Ghamak. The Florida case froze accounts on Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish, and Etsy before defendants knew they had been sued, and it swept in legitimate accessory makers and small creators alongside actual counterfeiters.

The Mass Seller Case in Florida

Games Workshop filed Games Workshop Limited v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on April 16, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case number 1:25-cv-21746, before Judge Roy K. Altman.¹ The complaint named around 280 defendants, most of them China-based storefronts on the major e-commerce platforms, and alleged they were selling counterfeit miniatures, using trademarks like “Citadel” in listings, and reproducing Games Workshop logos and box art. Some sellers were flagged for lighter conduct, such as using a trademarked term in a listing for accessories like brush holders.²

The case was filed under seal. A week later, the court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order that froze the defendants’ marketplace accounts and PayPal balances before any of them were notified, authorized service by email and Dropbox links, and directed the platforms to hand over seller identity information through expedited discovery.¹ In late May, the TRO became a preliminary injunction ordering continued asset freezes, the deletion of infringing listings, and the transfer of associated domains. The case was unsealed the day after. Games Workshop had to post a $10,000 bond per seller to cover damages if the enforcement was later judged an overreach, putting up to $2.8 million at risk for the original defendant group.²

The $10 Million Default Judgment

Most of the named sellers never appeared. By the time Games Workshop moved for default judgment, 170 defendants had failed to respond, and the court awarded $60,000 in statutory damages per defaulting seller, producing a total judgment exceeding $10 million.² Games Workshop also asked for treble profits from sellers with more than $20,000 in infringing sales. The case was formally terminated on July 8, 2025, though filings continued into October and the docket was last updated in February 2026.¹ Whether Games Workshop actually collects meaningful sums from overseas sellers who never appeared is a separate question that dogs mass IP litigation generally.

Legitimate Businesses Swept Into the Case

The lawsuit’s breadth caught businesses that had nothing to do with counterfeiting. Games Workshop filed a stream of voluntary dismissals as individual defendants were identified as wrongly named and sent what reporting described as generic apology emails, though by that point many of the affected sellers had already seen their accounts frozen and their operations halted.³

One of the more visible misfires was No Guts No Galaxy, a YouTube channel and small retailer focused on the BattleTech franchise. The channel was pulled in for using the word “Warhammer” in a magnet listing, referring to the BattleTech mech of that name rather than anything from Games Workshop. The creator hired a Florida attorney experienced with this type of litigation and eventually got dismissed, but only after significant legal costs and a period with PayPal funds frozen and operations shut down.⁴

In a separate case in the Western District of Texas, Games Workshop used the same Schedule A approach against Amazon sellers including ZenART (fine art tools), WetNDri (painting palettes), and Rhand (fantasy tabletop dice). None of them sold counterfeit Games Workshop products or used its logos. Their alleged offense was using descriptive phrases like “Compatible with Warhammer” or “For fantasy tabletop games” in listings. Their defense argued this was textbook nominative fair use. The night before a scheduled preliminary injunction hearing, Games Workshop voluntarily dismissed all claims against the three sellers, whose attorneys then asked the court to keep jurisdiction so they could pursue attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act and Rule 11 sanctions. At a June 3, 2025 hearing, the judge indicated willingness to consider the motion and set a follow-up for June 20.⁵ The available record does not confirm whether fees or sanctions were ultimately awarded.

Forum reporting identified sellers of gaming mats, neodymium magnets, movement trays, paint racks, cosplay props, and gaming controllers as also being named as defendants.⁶ Some independent creators reported closing their businesses entirely after receiving IP strikes on platforms like eBay and Etsy.⁷

The Ghamak Case in Italy

Running alongside the U.S. marketplace litigation is a separate case against Italian 3D miniatures designer Ghamak. The dispute began in early 2023, when Games Workshop contacted Ghamak demanding removal of “almost all” models in its catalog on copyright grounds. Ghamak says the company never provided a specific list of infringing models or explained how they violated its IP.⁷

The models at issue are broadly generic fantasy and sci-fi designs: skeletons, alien bugs, futuristic tanks, dwarves, orcs, and soldiers drawing on historical Landsknecht aesthetics. Over 1,000 models are named in the lawsuit. Ghamak says it offered to remove or modify more than 30% of its catalog, but Games Workshop ignored the proposal for nearly a year. In January 2025 the matter became a formal lawsuit, and the legal theory shifted from copyright infringement to “unfair competition” under Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code. As Ghamak characterizes it, Games Workshop’s core argument is that producing miniatures compatible with Warhammer games is inherently illegal because it creates consumer confusion. Ghamak counters that its designs draw from shared fantasy and sci-fi archetypes no single company owns, and notes that some of Games Workshop’s own iconic designs are themselves derived from real-world military vehicles.⁸

Ghamak has launched a GoFundMe that raised over €45,000 to fund the defense. Games Workshop also attempted takedowns on Patreon and MyMiniFactory; MyMiniFactory reportedly refused to comply, citing a lack of evidence.⁷

How the Schedule A Tactic Works

The mechanism powering the Florida case is known as the “Schedule A Defendant” scheme, a strategy that has become common in IP enforcement against overseas online sellers over the past decade. A plaintiff bundles hundreds of defendants into a single complaint, files under seal, and obtains an ex parte temporary restraining order that freezes marketplace accounts and payment balances before the sellers know they have been sued.⁹

More than 3,200 Schedule A cases were filed between 2013 and late 2022, with the Northern District of Illinois handling over 88% of them. Roughly 70% of resolved cases end in default judgments, which is unsurprising given that many targeted sellers are based in China and lack the resources or incentive to defend themselves in U.S. courts. Because the proceedings begin ex parte, merchants often find out only when their funds are already frozen, creating strong pressure to settle regardless of the merits. Legal scholars and some judges have raised due process concerns.⁹

Courts have started pushing back. In June 2025, Judge John F. Kness in the Northern District of Illinois stayed all pending motions in a Warner Bros. Schedule A case to reexamine whether standard practices, including ex parte proceedings, sealed dockets, asset freezes without notice, and mass grouping of defendants, are appropriate.¹⁰ A September 2025 ruling from the same district went further, criticizing the model as one that “violates procedural rules and misuses legal tools.”¹¹ Games Workshop filed in the Southern District of Florida, where it encountered less judicial skepticism.

What Sellers Are Actually Paying

Settlement demands against individual creators were often around $2,500, and many chose to pay because hiring counsel to fight in Florida federal court would cost far more.¹² The economic calculus is a defining feature of Schedule A litigation: settle cheaply or spend thousands to defend, regardless of the strength of the underlying claim.

Games Workshop’s Enforcement History

The 2025 campaign is not Games Workshop’s first aggressive IP push. In 2013, the company filed a trademark complaint with Amazon against author M.C.A. Hogarth, claiming her self-published ebook Spots the Space Marine infringed its “Space Marine” trademark. Amazon pulled the book without investigating. The Electronic Frontier Foundation intervened, pointing out that “space marine” has been a science fiction staple since at least the 1930s and that Games Workshop’s trademark did not extend to literature. After public pressure from the EFF and figures like Cory Doctorow and Wil Wheaton, Amazon restored the book. The EFF called the episode “trademark bullying.”¹³ Community members and legal commentators have also pointed to the older Chapterhouse Studios case, which set precedents around designs similar to but not identical to Games Workshop’s products.

In April 2025, the same month as the mass filing, Games Workshop submitted new U.S. trademark applications for dozens of faction and unit names, including Stormcast Eternals, Space Wolves, Tyranids, and Necrons.¹⁴ The filings suggest an intent to lock down a broader range of terms across the Warhammer universe, which could shape future enforcement.

1
CourtListener. Games Workshop Limited v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
2
Spikey Bits. Games Workshop Freezes Assets Amid World Wide Seller Takedown
3
Spikey Bits. GW Dismisses Warhammer Suit Against Sellers, Says Sorry
4
Fandom Pulse. MechWarrior YouTuber NoGutsNoGalaxy Targeted by Games Workshop
5
Patent Law. They Blinked: Games Workshop Dropped Our Clients the Night Before the Hearing
6
DakkaDakka. Games Workshop Legal Action Discussion
7
Patreon. Games Workshop and Ghamak Legal Dispute
8
Spikey Bits. Games Workshop Sues Ghamak Over 3D Models
9
Columbia Law Review. A SAD Scheme of Abusive Intellectual Property Litigation
10
INIPLaw. Rethinking Schedule A: Federal Courts Reexamine Mass IP Enforcement Tactics
11
Law.com. A Reckoning for Schedule A IP Enforcement
12
Freelancer Press. Games Workshop Issues Against Warhammer Creators
13
EFF. Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online
14
USPTO. Games Workshop Trademark Filings