They said there was no chance of a C&D. They obviously knew - for a fact - that there was a chance, and a good one at that.
Fair enough. I guess they didn't think someone would C&D without a sound legal claim. Moon Design, after all, have no compulsions about shipping their Heroquest to Spain (or elsewhere in the world) either, despite only holding a US license.
There's no such thing as a non-US Kickstarter. Sure, there are Kickstarters in $other_country_money but since KS is US based, so are all the Kickstarters.
That is MD's claim. They might be right, but I wouldn't yet claim that as a fact (unless you want to side with MD no matter what). Kickstarer is fishy territory any way you go at it. Nobody is "buying" anything on Kickstarter after all, just giving away "free money" to fund an idea (with possibly rewards as incentives). I'd love to see things go to court, just to help clarify that Kickstarter - for all intends and purposes - is a fancy version of E-commerce these days, but that's not proven yet.
But keep hating MD - obviously GZ could do no wrong, despite trying their best to skirt the law at every opportunity.
IP is a tricky issue. Your black-and-white vilification of GZ and white-knighting of MD is as one-sided and unreasonable as the inverse.
I doubt (though I could be wrong) that MD has a legit case before court, just like inversely GZ wouldn't have a legit case against MD's online shop sending Heroquest RPGs to Spain.
Unfortunately, the actual legal positions hardly matter, because the dynamic currently rides on MD blocking the Kickstarter, which may well be (but doesn't have to be) a form of blackmailing themselves into a better deal, they know they'd never get in a courtroom.
Did GZ play an angle? Sure. But it appears to me they thought to be within the law. Frankly, I think (though I am no legal expert) that they are within the law (just as MD is within the law sending Heroquest RPGs to Spain). Just that the law doesn't matter in the fickle Kickstarter-environment, something that MD is exploiting.
Ian Sturrock wrote: I'm a bit disappointed (but not entirely surprised) at all the hate for Moon Designs.
This is a tiny company, producing one of the greatest tabletop RPGs of all time (HeroQuest), for one of the oldest and most revered fantasy worlds ever created (Glorantha; it's right there in the top three most consistent, plausible, complex, deep and fascinating fantasy settings, along with Tekumel and Middle-Earth), working as a labour of love, like most niche gaming businesses.
They're defending the right to a name that's been associated with Gloranthan gaming for more than 30 years. And, as far as we can tell, they've been honest about the whole thing from the start... whereas it sure looks like GZ have been lying from the start.
But of course, everyone wants their anniversary dungeon bash game, so let's hate the company we've never heard of...
There certainly have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions. But it is obvious now that GZ wasn't being entirely honest with their backers- such as mentioning they'd asked for permission from MD and been told flatly "no"!
Also interesting that MD views remaking Hasbro's HeroQuest game as too risky. Any company would love to license out such a valuable property, but not at the risk of being sued into oblivion (since MD is in the US). The risk may or may not happen, but the risk of it is seemingly to much for a small US-based company like Moon Designs. Which honestly makes sense to me, but ymmv. They're not the devil, though- they were upfront with GZ, and GZ was not upfront with their prospective backers regarding this.
Another IP parasite seeking to profit off other people's work exposed. Stealing, excuse me, INCORPORATING and PAYING HOMAGE to other designers' work without their consent, or the current copyright holders' for non-rule assets, is low. Very, very low. Worse still is that the guys claim to be die-hard fans of the original and mean to show the appreciation for it by... making a bootleg version of it.
And some of the users on here have the audacity to bash a company for going to lengths to protect its property... Apalling.
There's no such thing as a non-US Kickstarter. Sure, there are Kickstarters in $other_country_money but since KS is US based, so are all the Kickstarters.
That is MD's claim. They might be right, but I wouldn't yet claim that as a fact (unless you want to side with MD no matter what). Kickstarer is fishy territory any way you go at it. Nobody is "buying" anything on Kickstarter after all, just giving away "free money" to fund an idea (with possibly rewards as incentives). I'd love to see things go to court, just to help clarify that Kickstarter - for all intends and purposes - is a fancy version of E-commerce these days, but that's not proven yet.
I agree - it'd be great to see it decided in court but I doubt it will in this case.
And I think boiling it down to "a fancy version of E-commerce" is a little much.
And LARPs and tabletop gaming are different enough to not cause dilution (just like I could have Ford Pencil Company and be safe from lawyers).
An RPG and a LARPG are different enough, but a board-game and an RPG are not? Don't think that'll hold in any court.
You'd be amazed, possibly literally. Out of the three, which do you play at a table, with dice? For example.
IP is a tricky issue. Your black-and-white vilification of GZ and white-knighting of MD is as one-sided and unreasonable as the inverse.
I'm not white-knighting. GZ demonstrably lied in their communications to backers. After the Chapterhouse case I sincerely believe this would go poorly for GZ in a courtroom.
Did GZ play an angle? Sure. But it appears to me they thought to be within the law. Frankly, I think (though I am no legal expert) that they are within the law (just as MD is within the law sending Heroquest RPGs to Spain). Just that the law doesn't matter in the fickle Kickstarter-environment, something that MD is exploiting.
If they thought they were in the law, why not, I dunno, communicate with the people who told them on Aug 26 that there wouldn't be an agreement?
That's what lawyers are for, see - to hash all this out before the Kickstarter.
Would it cost money? Sure. Would it be done right? It'd at least be done above the table. Something that cannot be said for the way this currently went down.
Ian Sturrock wrote: I'm a bit disappointed (but not entirely surprised) at all the hate for Moon Designs.
This is a tiny company, producing one of the greatest tabletop RPGs of all time (HeroQuest), for one of the oldest and most revered fantasy worlds ever created (Glorantha; it's right there in the top three most consistent, plausible, complex, deep and fascinating fantasy settings, along with Tekumel and Middle-Earth), working as a labour of love, like most niche gaming businesses.
They're defending the right to a name that's been associated with Gloranthan gaming for more than 30 years. And, as far as we can tell, they've been honest about the whole thing from the start... whereas it sure looks like GZ have been lying from the start.
But of course, everyone wants their anniversary dungeon bash game, so let's hate the company we've never heard of...
Yes you are right of course, having had some time to calm down and think about this (and got over the hissy-fit of being denied my anniversary dungeon base game ) obviously there was a breakdown in communication at some point that has lead to this. Having spent a lot of time travelling between asia and the UK and seeing some of the (sometimes hilarious) mistranslations, miscommunications and "I thought you would.. " type comments that happen even between quite large businesses, I can easily understand how something like this could happen. Is it likely that GZ would spend so much time and effort on something that they thought would end up being still-born? No, of course not, and I would say that it is far more likely that this is down to mis-comprehension than malice.
I do think though that had this KS dribbled past $30,000 that it probably would have made it to people's doorsteps without any kind of challenge.. such is the way of the world unfortunately; the downshot of it is, regardless of who you think has the 'right' of it, that the fans lose.
Another IP parasite seeking to profit off other people's work exposed. Stealing, excuse me, INCORPORATING and PAYING HOMAGE to other designers' work without their consent, or the current copyright holders' for non-rule assets, is low. Very, very low. Worse still is that the guys claim to be die-hard fans of the original and mean to show the appreciation for it by... making a bootleg version of it.
And some of the users on here have the audacity to bash a company for going to lengths to protect its property... Apalling.
Your failure to read and understand the thread is appalling.
Hasbro owns the rights the the Heroquest board game.
Moon Design owns the trademark Heroquest name (for their RPG).
Hasbro has said nothing about the kickstarter.
MD was contacted prior to the kickstarter and said "No, don't do this." And GZ backers were shocked - Shocked! - to discover MD issued a C&D.
At this point, wouldn't it just be easier to say "screw it" and go to a Spanish Bank in Spain to ask for a Spanish Loan for a product using a Spanish trademark?
I would be more sympathetic to the GZ position if they'd only been producing the game in Spanish, after all they have the rights to sell in Spain.
Since they were producing the game in English, on a crowdfunding platform that is largely US based, it is incredibly naive to say that they weren't trying to sell the game in an area in which they didn't have a license to do so.
Compel wrote: At this point, wouldn't it just be easier to say "screw it" and go to a Spanish Bank in Spain to ask for a Spanish Loan for a product using a Spanish trademark?
Pretty much, though without the international exposure of a Kickstarter, they're going to have the Devil's own time of selling enough copies to make that worthwhile. HQ25 would not be a cheap game to make, and Spanish gamers alone probably can't form a consumer base broad enough to support it.
Another IP parasite seeking to profit off other people's work exposed. Stealing, excuse me, INCORPORATING and PAYING HOMAGE to other designers' work without their consent, or the current copyright holders' for non-rule assets, is low. Very, very low. Worse still is that the guys claim to be die-hard fans of the original and mean to show the appreciation for it by... making a bootleg version of it.
And some of the users on here have the audacity to bash a company for going to lengths to protect its property... Apalling.
Your failure to read and understand the thread is appalling.
Hasbro owns the rights the the Heroquest board game.
Moon Design owns the trademark Heroquest name (for their RPG).
Hasbro has said nothing about the kickstarter.
MD was contacted prior to the kickstarter and said "No, don't do this." And GZ backers were shocked - Shocked! - to discover MD issued a C&D.
Except in my post I touched on none of these points. GZ has no right to the name - fact, no right to any of the original assets - fact, GZ intends to re-use HQ rules without the original author's consent - fact. Although by doing the last thing they're breaking no laws, it's still morally questionable. They're essentially making a knockoff, or a bootleg. Either way, it has nothing to do with HQ, it's just a way to feed off a popular IP without spending a dime on relevant licenses.
That's the smoking gun, imo. They approached the trademark holder, were told "no", and went ahead anyway. And didn't tell backers anything regarding that. If MD was trying to pull a fast one, they'd have waited for KS to take the money, then challenged for a lot of it. They shut it down because even they don't think even they can produce Hasbro's game, and will only license the name if GZ gets that permission. There is almost nothing legitimate about GZ's approach to this, and they have paid no one for the rights to make this game. It's just amateur hour here, or at best a bootleg / knockoff.
Another IP parasite seeking to profit off other people's work exposed. Stealing, excuse me, INCORPORATING and PAYING HOMAGE to other designers' work without their consent, or the current copyright holders' for non-rule assets, is low. Very, very low. Worse still is that the guys claim to be die-hard fans of the original and mean to show the appreciation for it by... making a bootleg version of it.
And some of the users on here have the audacity to bash a company for going to lengths to protect its property... Apalling.
Your failure to read and understand the thread is appalling.
Hasbro owns the rights the the Heroquest board game.
Moon Design owns the trademark Heroquest name (for their RPG).
Hasbro has said nothing about the kickstarter.
MD was contacted prior to the kickstarter and said "No, don't do this." And GZ backers were shocked - Shocked! - to discover MD issued a C&D.
Except in my post I touched on none of these points. GZ has no right to the name - fact, no right to any of the original assets - fact, GZ intends to re-use HQ rules without the original author's consent - fact. Although by doing the last thing they're breaking no laws, it's still morally questionable. They're essentially making a knockoff, or a bootleg. Either way, it has nothing to do with HQ, it's just a way to feed off a popular IP without spending a dime on relevant licenses.
Why is MDs trademark more valid than GZs trademark.
The issue is MD isn't looking out for the legality of GZ, they wanted some of that cash and wanted to guarantee getting it. GZ has a trademark and is allowed to make it within its own country.
I suspect there are going to be piles of people trying to figure out how to make heroquest25th now because to make it is nothing more than some graphic design work. No play testing, no development or R&D. Now it is who can get to market the fastest to get the captive market.
Ian Sturrock wrote: A LARP is massively different because you're not selling any physical copies of the game, so it has no real global implications.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (You sell tickets for your LARP events, and make your money that way.)
Your not selling physical copies of anything on Kickstarter either. You're raising funds for a worthy cause.
That's more than a little disengenuous and you know that's not the case.
In fact, Kickstarter itself disagrees with that statement, and a court case or two does as well.
Disengenuous? No. Hyperbole? Yes.
If you can (legally) draw the line between "selling copies of" a game and "selling tickets for" a game, than you'd have a precedent for a similar distinction between "selling copies of" a game and "funding the creation of" a game. No judge in his right mind would want to go their. The implications for IP law would basically ... well ... render it pointless.
The point is, the reason MD doesn't go after the Heroquest LARP, but does go after the Heroquest Kickstarter, is that the former (a) has less money and (b) isn't susceptible to time-sensitive blockades (e.g. it would actually mean MD had to go to court).
nkelsch wrote: Why is MDs trademark more valid than GZs trademark.
Because GZ wanted to use Kickstarter, a US company, to collect money.
Exactly. IndieGoGo is also US-based. They can make their own pre-order website for "Spanish HeroQuest" if they like. Folks should go buy the "Russian Alien vs Predator" game linked to earlier in this thread while they're at it
I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details: Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013. Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013. Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
RiTides wrote: That's the smoking gun, imo. They approached the trademark holder, were told "no", and went ahead anyway. And didn't tell backers anything regarding that. If MD was trying to pull a fast one, they'd have waited for KS to take the money, then challenged for a lot of it. They shut it down because even they don't think even they can produce Hasbro's game, and will only license the name if GZ gets that permission. There is almost nothing legitimate about GZ's approach to this, and they have paid no one for the rights to make this game. It's just amateur hour here, or at best a bootleg / knockoff.
You seem to be neglecting that GZ doesn't actually need MD's permission to make the game, since GZ owns the trademarks in their own country. They would like to have MD on board because it'd mean they could sell it from within the US at retail, but without MD's approval they can still make the game in Spain, and ship it to the US, just like MD make their "Heroquest" game in the US and ship it to Spain, where they don't own a trademark.
It's a pretty major grey area, but it looks as if GZ has done nothing wrong, and MD doesn't need to be in the right to pull the Kickstarter. With the KS pulled, MD has put them in a better position to extort money out of GZ in order to get permission to sell them from within the US. I wonder if their royalty percentage is based off the KS total, or off the sales made within the US. If it's the latter then they are perfectly justified, if it's the former then they are clearly just trying it on.
As a UK customer, I can buy Heroquest from GZ and have it shipped to me 100% legally.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
But doing this presumably puts them in a better negotiating position; now the company has ownership of the trademark rather than the MD. If it's just a normal transaction, why did it happen 12 days after GZ made contact, when they've had an exclusive license for at least 10 years prior?
Ian Sturrock wrote: A LARP is massively different because you're not selling any physical copies of the game, so it has no real global implications.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (You sell tickets for your LARP events, and make your money that way.)
Your not selling physical copies of anything on Kickstarter either. You're raising funds for a worthy cause.
That's more than a little disengenuous and you know that's not the case.
In fact, Kickstarter itself disagrees with that statement, and a court case or two does as well.
Disengenuous? No. Hyperbole? Yes.
Nah, I'm going to stick with disingenuous.
The Dictionary wrote:not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Because, as we've all learned:
Kickstarter wrote:Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
Of course, there are no guarantees, but to state that we're all just 'happily donating to a cause' is incorrect and rather incendiary, and doesn't often lead to rational discussion.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
But doing this presumably puts them in a better negotiating position; now the company has ownership of the trademark rather than the MD. If it's just a normal transaction, why did it happen 12 days after GZ made contact, when they've had an exclusive license for at least 10 years prior?
I love how that "seems normal". It also "seems normal" that MD waited to ask KS to halt it after the KS had made like a half million bucks, right?
The stupid icing on the cashgrab cake was MD's odd statement that they wanted to maybe make their own Heroquest board game in the future. But their defense was GZ needs Hasbro's permission to use the trademark MD claims to own. But obviously for their own Heroquest game they wouldn't need Hasbro's permission.
Cashgrab. They want a bunch of money and, unfortunately, Gamezone will have to relent if they want the KS to continue.
Too bad, those figures that they had shown were the cats meow!
Wonder if they could just up and sell the figures in battle packs, or something to the effect of "Hero Sets" "Villian sets with a couple of map sections and some scenery and call it a day.
Grot 6 wrote: So I guess its to Feebey for the stuff.
Too bad, those figures that they had shown were the cats meow!
Wonder if they could just up and sell the figures in battle packs, or something to the effect of "Hero Sets" "Villian sets with a couple of map sections and some scenery and call it a day.
Games looking R.I.P.
Nah. The only similarity GZ HQ to MD HQ is the name. Keep it named HeroQuest in Spain, as they own the trademark; retitle it to "The Quest of Heroes 25th Anniversary Edition" for the US market and offer it to trade in the US market with that branding. All contents in the box set are still labeled HeroQuest.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
But doing this presumably puts them in a better negotiating position; now the company has ownership of the trademark rather than the MD. If it's just a normal transaction, why did it happen 12 days after GZ made contact, when they've had an exclusive license for at least 10 years prior?
I love how that "seems normal". It also "seems normal" that MD waited to ask KS to halt it after the KS had made like a half million bucks, right?
The stupid icing on the cashgrab cake was MD's odd statement that they wanted to maybe make their own Heroquest board game in the future. But their defense was GZ needs Hasbro's permission to use the trademark MD claims to own. But obviously for their own Heroquest game they wouldn't need Hasbro's permission.
Cashgrab. They want a bunch of money and, unfortunately, Gamezone will have to relent if they want the KS to continue.
In fairness to MD (and I actually agree that GZ should have the right to produce this game) but the last piece of contact that they have both confirmed is in august when MD told GZ that they do not approve of the use of Heroquest, we are not aware of any other contact, and we do know that GZ have at least bended the truth by implying that all parties are on board, when that isn't the cause. Now if MD have had no more contact from GZ it's possible that they did not even know this was going to happen until after the KS began, afterall whilst we all read Dakka Dakka and other wargaming sites MD do not produce boardgames/tabletop games (from what I can tell) so it's possible that they had no idea this was happening and put a C/D up as soon as they did.
My point basically is that the timing of the C/D might well have been the earliest that MD knew that GZ were going ahead with the game despite them informing GZ that theydid not agree.
Now again, my very basic understanding of the law says that GZ have the right to make this, but I can also see why MD filed a C/D notice, and I can also see why they did this now and not before.
Grot 6 wrote: So I guess its to Feebey for the stuff.
Too bad, those figures that they had shown were the cats meow!
Wonder if they could just up and sell the figures in battle packs, or something to the effect of "Hero Sets" "Villian sets with a couple of map sections and some scenery and call it a day.
Games looking R.I.P.
Nah. The only similarity GZ HQ to MD HQ is the name. Keep it named HeroQuest in Spain, as they own the trademark; retitle it to "The Quest of Heroes 25th Anniversary Edition" for the US market and offer it to trade in the US market with that branding. All contents in the box set are still labeled HeroQuest.
The stupid icing on the cashgrab cake was MD's odd statement that they wanted to maybe make their own Heroquest board game in the future. But their defense was GZ needs Hasbro's permission to use the trademark MD claims to own. But obviously for their own Heroquest game they wouldn't need Hasbro's permission.
[Devil's Advocate]
MD Wants to create a Boardgame based on their Rune/Heroquest IP, this does not mean that the game would be a HeroQuest (MB) clone like the GameZone one is. If the license out their name and IP to GZ to for this Kickstarter game, they could be worried that since its a copy of the MB HeroQuest the game could still be shut down as via Copyright violation.. meaning MD is now not getting royalties and could be stuck in a non-compete licensing contract with GZ that prevents them from making the Boardgame they were planning on. This is one reason why they would want an Official word from Hasbro.
The stupid icing on the cashgrab cake was MD's odd statement that they wanted to maybe make their own Heroquest board game in the future. But their defense was GZ needs Hasbro's permission to use the trademark MD claims to own. But obviously for their own Heroquest game they wouldn't need Hasbro's permission.
[Devil's Advocate]
MD Wants to create a Boardgame based on their Rune/Heroquest IP, this does not mean that the game would be a HeroQuest (MB) clone like the GameZone one is. If the license out their name and IP to GZ to for this Kickstarter game, they could be worried that since its a copy of the MB HeroQuest the game could still be shut down as via Copyright violation.. meaning MD is now not getting royalties and could be stuck in a non-compete licensing contract with GZ that prevents them from making the Boardgame they were planning on. This is one reason why they would want an Official word from Hasbro.
[/Devil's Advocate]
There's nothing in it that benefits from Copyright protection though; game elements aren't protectable. All of the artwork is new, the rulebook is new, the only figures in it are generic tropes. Yes it's compatible with and a homage to the old Heroquest, and timed to come out on it's 25th anniversary, but there's nothing in it that violates copyright.
And this is a response from Hasbro, when inquired about it (also pinched from BGG):
Hi *,
Thank you for contacting Hasbro
regarding Hero Quest.
I’m pleased to reply and advise that
Hero Quest is a Hasbro property.
Please be assured the link you
provided will be shared with the
appropriate department.
Again, I’d like to thank you for
taking the time to reach out to us.
I hope you have a fun day!
Kind regards, Stephanie
In short; Hasbro seems unaware of this ‘HeroQuest 25th Anniversary Edition’.
Moon Design was asked, and then ignored. They told GZ they could not allow it, in particular without seeing an agreement with Hasbro.
Which means that even their talk about there being no legal problems was false.
What they have is the right to the name in Spain (where it was not registered before).
Herzlos wrote: You seem to be neglecting that GZ doesn't actually need MD's permission to make the game, since GZ owns the trademarks in their own country. They would like to have MD on board because it'd mean they could sell it from within the US at retail, but without MD's approval they can still make the game in Spain, and ship it to the US, just like MD make their "Heroquest" game in the US and ship it to Spain, where they don't own a trademark.
I suspect it wouldn't be an issue if they simply sold it on their own Spain-based website with a default (but changeable) language of spanish... but then they wouldn't have made even 1/10 the money in all likelihood. Once you involve a US based company like kickstarter and try to unofficially sell a direct successor revamp of a game that was published in the US by a US company but whose actual name in the US is owned by another third party, you're knowingly charging your Andalusian stallion through a clearly marked minefield and stepping on the rights of other companies with the same trademark in different regions. They tried and failed to get permission (which they obviously suspected would cause an issue yet kept secret from pledgers) and decided to go ahead anyways despite acknowledging the issue by going to MD in the first place. MD is simply protected their legitimate TM in the US and trying not to get caught up in someone else's mess in case the big guy in the room (Hasbro) takes notice. Big companies don't really care who they sue as they have legal departments paid whether or not suits get filed and including MD just because they were in negotiations over a brazen continuation of Hasbro's game is a real possibility. From what people have posted here, GZ simply owns the name "Heroquest" in Spain... that in my decidedly not-IP-lawyer opinion doesn't give them the right to sell a continuation/reboot/successor/whatever to the milton bradley game on a US website in the official differing (at least for now) language of the US and directed to English speaking customers (like those in the US). If anyone doesn't think it's a stretch, I've got a great idea for Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader, a scifi skirmish minis game set in a grim dark future with marines in space. You can paypal me money to fund it in time for the 30th anniversary of the original once I get the trademark in Slovenia as that will apparently not give GW the right to stop it according to that trainwreck of thought.
The stupid icing on the cashgrab cake was MD's odd statement that they wanted to maybe make their own Heroquest board game in the future. But their defense was GZ needs Hasbro's permission to use the trademark MD claims to own. But obviously for their own Heroquest game they wouldn't need Hasbro's permission.
[Devil's Advocate]
MD Wants to create a Boardgame based on their Rune/Heroquest IP, this does not mean that the game would be a HeroQuest (MB) clone like the GameZone one is. If the license out their name and IP to GZ to for this Kickstarter game, they could be worried that since its a copy of the MB HeroQuest the game could still be shut down as via Copyright violation.. meaning MD is now not getting royalties and could be stuck in a non-compete licensing contract with GZ that prevents them from making the Boardgame they were planning on. This is one reason why they would want an Official word from Hasbro.
[/Devil's Advocate]
What part of GZ's game is a copy? We know you can't patent rules design (just specific mechanics, and rarely). We know you can copyright written word (to prevent plaigarism). We know Hasbro doesn't own HeroQuest tm anymore (edit: though, apparently, they think they do... this will be interesting for Moon Design). That's what the loose term "Intellectual Property" is - a combination of (c), commercial trademarks, and design patents.
With the broad definition that one must give to an adventure game on a board with figures and dice, then Dark World and Dragon Strike fall under the same category, So does Descent. Mice and Mystics. Runebound. Dungeon!. Dungeon Quest. Talisman. Wiz-War. Super Dungeon Explore. Warcraft board game. Gears of War board game. Doom board game. Warhammer Quest.
As it stands, Gamezone removed any protected items (such as Fimir) and used those not protected (Elf, Dwarf, Wizard, etc), effectively making a generic fantasy board game set in a generic fantasy world.
Now, if Gamezone whole-cloth lifted actual text from the original Heroquest rulebook and quest packs, then yes, they'd be violating copyright. As it stands, we know they said it will be all-new quests and refined mechanics... so not precisely the same rules and definitely not the same quests.
The stupid icing on the cashgrab cake was MD's odd statement that they wanted to maybe make their own Heroquest board game in the future. But their defense was GZ needs Hasbro's permission to use the trademark MD claims to own. But obviously for their own Heroquest game they wouldn't need Hasbro's permission.
[Devil's Advocate]
MD Wants to create a Boardgame based on their Rune/Heroquest IP, this does not mean that the game would be a HeroQuest (MB) clone like the GameZone one is. If the license out their name and IP to GZ to for this Kickstarter game, they could be worried that since its a copy of the MB HeroQuest the game could still be shut down as via Copyright violation.. meaning MD is now not getting royalties and could be stuck in a non-compete licensing contract with GZ that prevents them from making the Boardgame they were planning on. This is one reason why they would want an Official word from Hasbro.
[/Devil's Advocate]
What part of GZ's game is a copy? We know you can't patent rules design (just specific mechanics, and rarely). We know you can copyright written word (to prevent plaigarism). We know Hasbro doesn't own HeroQuest tm anymore. That's what the loose term "Intellectual Property" is - a combination of (c), commercial trademarks, and design patents.
With the broad definition that one must give to an adventure game on a board with figures and dice, then Dark World and Dragon Strike fall under the same category, So does Descent. Mice and Mystics. Runebound. Dungeon!. Dungeon Quest. Talisman. Wiz-War. Super Dungeon Explore. Warcraft board game. Gears of War board game. Doom board game. Warhammer Quest.
As it stands, Gamezone removed any protected items (such as Fimir) and used those not protected (Elf, Dwarf, Wizard, etc), effectively making a generic fantasy board game set in a generic fantasy world.
Now, if Gamezone whole-cloth lifted actual text from the original Heroquest rulebook and quest packs, then yes, they'd be violating copyright. As it stands, we know they said it will be all-new quests and refined mechanics... so not precisely the same rules and definitely not the same quests.
We also know that companies don't have to be correct about what they own to bring out the lawyers and tie up smaller entities in a stupid court case for years.
And this is a response from Hasbro, when inquired about it (also pinched from BGG):
Hi *,
Thank you for contacting Hasbro
regarding Hero Quest.
I’m pleased to reply and advise that
Hero Quest is a Hasbro property.
Please be assured the link you
provided will be shared with the
appropriate department.
Again, I’d like to thank you for
taking the time to reach out to us.
I hope you have a fun day!
Kind regards, Stephanie
In short; Hasbro seems unaware of this ‘HeroQuest 25th Anniversary Edition’.
Moon Design was asked, and then ignored. They told GZ they could not allow it, in particular without seeing an agreement with Hasbro.
Which means that even their talk about there being no legal problems was false.
What they have is the right to the name in Spain (where it was not registered before).
Interesting. After my umpteenth search through the United States Patent and Trademark Office, I still can't find any evidence of Hasbro USA owning anything related to HeroQuest any longer. I wonder if Hasbro's legal team will take Moon Design to court and attempt to get the trademark back by bleeding the company to death.
Did you guys not watch the Kickstarter video where they included IN FULL the commercial for the Milton Bradley game? As far as I can tell Gamezone has done nothing to secure any rights beyond acquiring the trademark in Spain and have implied throughout the process they have more legal standing than they do. Hasbro was going to sue them into oblivion and backers should be thankful that Moon Design issued their cease and desist before anyone turned over any money.
Wow, this discussion seems to be going in the same way as BGG. Everyone seems to be internet-lawyers and know every half-truth, partial-lie, and semi-fact. Welcome to the internet I guess
Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what comes out when the real lawyers go back to work after the long weekend.
gravitywell wrote: Wow, this discussion seems to be going in the same way as BGG. Everyone seems to be internet-lawyers and know every half-truth, partial-lie, and semi-fact. Welcome to the internet I guess
Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what comes out when the real lawyers go back to work after the long weekend.
I would expect the real lawyers, if they get involved, to do basically one thing. Schedule a court date for... dunno.. late April 2014 or something like that.
Moon Design's big trump is that the clock is ticking against GZ, the hype fading, the next Kickstarters rolling around, etc.. .
Reigniting the campaign after everyone has their Christmas/NewYear money with the confidence of purely owning the IP would be a good thing... if it happens...
Zweischneid wrote: The point is, the reason MD doesn't go after the Heroquest LARP, but does go after the Heroquest Kickstarter, is that the former (a) has less money and (b) isn't susceptible to time-sensitive blockades (e.g. it would actually mean MD had to go to court).
HQ the LARP has plenty of money. It's been a viable commercial concern, and the owner's full-time job, for several decades.
The reason MD doesn't go after HQ the LARP is that HQ the LARP isn't diluting their trademark, because very few people outside the UK had heard of it till now, and those who had, were unlikely to be confused. HQ the LARP is not selling anything outside the UK, and is never likely to be. That makes a huge difference. The other issue, of course, is that because HQ the LARP has been going for decades, they have what amounts to an unregistered trademark for that name in the UK. MD could probably still try to trademark the name in the UK, but it'd be expensive, and might cause a dispute with HQ the LARP, and so overall probably isn't worthwhile, because again, why worry, when HQ the LARP has no intention of (for example) creating a spinoff tabletop game of the same name, and selling it globally.
And this is a response from Hasbro, when inquired about it (also pinched from BGG):
Hi *,
Thank you for contacting Hasbro
regarding Hero Quest.
I’m pleased to reply and advise that
Hero Quest is a Hasbro property.
Please be assured the link you
provided will be shared with the
appropriate department.
Again, I’d like to thank you for
taking the time to reach out to us.
I hope you have a fun day!
Kind regards, Stephanie
In short; Hasbro seems unaware of this ‘HeroQuest 25th Anniversary Edition’.
Moon Design was asked, and then ignored. They told GZ they could not allow it, in particular without seeing an agreement with Hasbro.
Which means that even their talk about there being no legal problems was false.
What they have is the right to the name in Spain (where it was not registered before).
I am curious, what makes anyone think that hasbro is going to have a heart to heart discussion with random people of the public being nosey about what essentially is none of their business?
They are lucky to even get a form letter like that.
Further, how that form letter-like response even implies hasbro not knowing about the project, or implying anything other than a courteous "Thanks for your concern, but its nunya bizniss", I'm just not seeing it.
But then again, judging by many posters input on this subject in a myriad of forums (especially BGG) fantastic assumptions abound based on few, if any, bona fide facts.
overtyrant wrote: For some reason I don't trust anything about this that TGN puts out!
I've seen the source post on BGG that TGN got it from, but assuming the response from Hasbro is absolutely true..... its still says nothing other than "Thanks for your concern, but its nunya bizniss".
This is just a big Gak storm. Sounds like GZ tried to get US rights, but couldn't so this explains why they went the CAD route for KS. Guess their interpretation that they were in the clear did not jibe with MDs interpretation. I don't put any malice on anyone or think there was any lieing going on, although to me it seems like MD is exerting more pressure than they need to considering the actual execution of the trademark will not be the US. This is something they could ignore and it wouldn't hurt their Glorantha IP.
The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
For all intents and purposes, GZ is trying to be faithful in their recreation. They're not introducing any unwanted changes and all the original stuff is promised to be there.
There is no piggybacking when the original game has is beloved yet been out of production for 25 years. If a bunch of people have the trademark all over the place, I'm happy that someone is actually doing something with it rather than just sitting on it forever.
Also, it's been said many times before. GZ's problem is with Moon Design, not Hasbro. Stop bringing it up as if Hasbro has any authority in Spain.
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
For all intents and purposes, GZ is trying to be faithful in their recreation. They're not introducing any unwanted changes and all the original stuff is promised to be there.
That's the problem. All the original stuff is somebody else's work, so the more of that they put in and the less of their own work they put in, the less justifiable their position is.
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
For all intents and purposes, GZ is trying to be faithful in their recreation. They're not introducing any unwanted changes and all the original stuff is promised to be there.
That's the problem. All the original stuff is somebody else's work, so the more of that they put in and the less of their own work they put in, the less justifiable their position is.
But it's far easier to simply turn the company with the US trademark into the mustache twirling villain than look at the details like earlier in this thread. You'd think that the most important thing in the world is for people to get little plastic bookshelves at the expense of both a small business with the legal right to sell/use the TM in the US and the large company that created what this KS is trying to just piggyback onto.
warboss wrote: But it's far easier to simply turn the company with the US trademark into the mustache twirling villain than look at the details like earlier in this thread. You'd think that the most important thing in the world is for people to get little plastic bookshelves at the expense of both a small business with the legal right to sell/use the TM in the US and the large company that created what this KS is trying to just piggyback onto.
If Milton Bradley's trademark has expired, the term should have entered the public domain. It should be untrademarkable at this point, just as Games Workshop should not be able to swoop in and seize "Space Marine" for themselves just because they're the first to have the gall to try to make a common term exclusively theirs.
If Milton Bradley's trademark has expired MD should have the legal right to call their game "Heroquest", but so should everyone else.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
This rubs me the wrong way... MD made an offer to the Trademark holder to basically 'buy it out' knowing that there was potentially a project coming along which could make it super valuable again. So having information from GZ contacting them they said, "Look, Heroquest is a tired treademark, why don't you just sell it to us and be done with it? Probably the best deal you will get."
Now they want part of the half a million...
The other thing that rubs me the wrong way is now this sets a negative precedent. US law now reigns supreme on 100% of kickstarters and Indegogos even if they are international and have nothing to do with the US. So basically other countries don't have the right to exercise kickstarters which are legal within their own country simply because the website is a US company.
The only people who have a legitimate claim would be Hasbro Spain right now. Sure MD can prevent GZ from kickstarting, but their trademark claim has no reach.
I have no problem with Hasbro 'getting theirs'. I hope GZ can work something out with Hasbro Spain. I am also interested to hear how the trademark went from the previous owner to MD. I wonder if he is upset or if there was some trickery there.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
This rubs me the wrong way... MD made an offer to the Trademark holder to basically 'buy it out' knowing that there was potentially a project coming along which could make it super valuable again. So having information from GZ contacting them they said, "Look, Heroquest is a tired treademark, why don't you just sell it to us and be done with it? Probably the best deal you will get."
Now they want part of the half a million...
The other thing that rubs me the wrong way is now this sets a negative precedent. US law now reigns supreme on 100% of kickstarters and Indegogos even if they are international and have nothing to do with the US. So basically other countries don't have the right to exercise kickstarters which are legal within their own country simply because the website is a US company.
The only people who have a legitimate claim would be Hasbro Spain right now. Sure MD can prevent GZ from kickstarting, but their trademark claim has no reach.
I have no problem with Hasbro 'getting theirs'. I hope GZ can work something out with Hasbro Spain. I am also interested to hear how the trademark went from the previous owner to MD. I wonder if he is upset or if there was some trickery there.
Where does kickstarter operate? I thought I read they were a us company. If so, it's in the us's jurisdiction because kickstarter is performing the crowd funding. Also, the location of the servers can make a difference too. I know the us has jurisdiction over fcpa cases between non us companies if your funds or communication pass through a server located within the us or territory.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I note that nobody else had remarked on three interesting details:
Per MD's own statement, GZ contacted them on July 31, 2013.
Per MD's own website, the company only acquired all the trademarks on August 12, 2013.
Per MD's statement, they then refused GZ on August 26, 2013.
And now they want a significant slice of the pie to let GZ produce the game.
Prior to acquiring them they had an exclusive license to use them. I don't see any issue here - instead of continuing to pay licensing fees they just bought the IP outright.
Seems normal.
This rubs me the wrong way... MD made an offer to the Trademark holder to basically 'buy it out' knowing that there was potentially a project coming along which could make it super valuable again. So having information from GZ contacting them they said, "Look, Heroquest is a tired treademark, why don't you just sell it to us and be done with it? Probably the best deal you will get."
Now they want part of the half a million...
The other thing that rubs me the wrong way is now this sets a negative precedent. US law now reigns supreme on 100% of kickstarters and Indegogos even if they are international and have nothing to do with the US. So basically other countries don't have the right to exercise kickstarters which are legal within their own country simply because the website is a US company.
The only people who have a legitimate claim would be Hasbro Spain right now. Sure MD can prevent GZ from kickstarting, but their trademark claim has no reach.
I have no problem with Hasbro 'getting theirs'. I hope GZ can work something out with Hasbro Spain. I am also interested to hear how the trademark went from the previous owner to MD. I wonder if he is upset or if there was some trickery there.
Again, MD already had the rights to HQ, what they aquired was the rights to the golgatha (and ione day I'll learn to spell that) universe.
When you think about it this makes sense, as otherwise why would GZ have contacted MD in the first place? If someone else held the rights they would surely have gone to them first
By the way....if anyone feels like starting court proceedings, Hasbro's trademark could be pretty easily quashed for non-use in the UK at least. You can't just sit on trademarks indefinitely without using them (eg, selling something).
"Revocation on grounds of non-use is the legal procedure for removing a registered trade mark from the UK register because the trade mark has not been used in the five years since the trade mark was registered, or for any uninterrupted period of five years and there are no proper reasons for non-use. It is possible to apply to remove the entire registration or just the registration of the mark for some of the goods and/or services. "
Erasoketa wrote: That's why Sony Pictures rebooted the Spiderman movies. They were in the verge of losing their rights of the character.
I think that had to do with the specific license with Marvel (Disney). Disney has been working to take back all the Marvel IP and make their own movies after the success of the Avengers.
You can still buy new copies of the previous incarnation of Spiderman movies on DVD or Bluray, so the trademark is still in use. Heroquest hasn't been produced for about 20 years. No use has been made of the IP at all.
decker_cky wrote: By the way....if anyone feels like starting court proceedings, Hasbro's trademark could be pretty easily quashed for non-use in the UK at least. You can't just sit on trademarks indefinitely without using them (eg, selling something).
If Hasbro was going after MD, they'd have to rely on trademark law, because the extent of their claim would be that making a new game called Heroquest would confuse people who know about Hasbro's game Heroquest.
Hasbro does not need a trademark to go after GZ. GZ isn't making a game called Heroquest, they're making a game that is Heroquest. Copyright law is sufficient in that situation.
Hasbro does not need a trademark to go after GZ. GZ isn't making a game called Heroquest, they're making a game that is Heroquest. Copyright law is sufficient in that situation.
Hasbro totally has ultimate control, but it would have to be done via Hasbro Spain. Otherwise the only avenue for non-spain entities are basically roadblocking US/UK entities like KS.
The only issue is if Hasbro Spain magically says 'ok' GZ won't have the capital, customerbase or infrastructure to produce it and I don't think there are Spain-centric crowdfunding which could succeed. (or at all)
The best thing really would be for Hasbro to decide there is value in 25th anniversary release and maybe buy GZ out and run with it, which is hopefully the ultimate outcome.
decker_cky wrote: By the way....if anyone feels like starting court proceedings, Hasbro's trademark could be pretty easily quashed for non-use in the UK at least. You can't just sit on trademarks indefinitely without using them (eg, selling something).
If Hasbro was going after MD, they'd have to rely on trademark law, because the extent of their claim would be that making a new game called Heroquest would confuse people who know about Hasbro's game Heroquest.
Hasbro does not need a trademark to go after GZ. GZ isn't making a game called Heroquest, they're making a game that is Heroquest. Copyright law is sufficient in that situation.
What's copyrighted? You seem to have a very broad idea of what it's protecting.
The best thing really would be for Hasbro to decide there is value in 25th anniversary release and maybe buy GZ out and run with it, which is hopefully the ultimate outcome.
Yes right.. hopefully Hasbro will (if they haven't already) be shown to have some business nous, see what a potential gold mine a re-launch of Heroquest is, and get involved in some form. Or, just let GZ get on with it..
Looking forward to an update and reply to Moon Design's letter from GZ at this point, hopefully we will have something early next week..
Hasbro does not need a trademark to go after GZ. GZ isn't making a game called Heroquest, they're making a game that is Heroquest. Copyright law is sufficient in that situation.
Hasbro totally has ultimate control, but it would have to be done via Hasbro Spain. Otherwise the only avenue for non-spain entities are basically roadblocking US/UK entities like KS.
The only issue is if Hasbro Spain magically says 'ok' GZ won't have the capital, customerbase or infrastructure to produce it and I don't think there are Spain-centric crowdfunding which could succeed. (or at all)
The best thing really would be for Hasbro to decide there is value in 25th anniversary release and maybe buy GZ out and run with it, which is hopefully the ultimate outcome.
Actually - no, Hasbro has let the copyright lapse in Spain. So in Spain they have no control.
Folks have very odd ideas as to how IP laws work - and forget that different nations have very different laws governing Intellectual Property.
In this instance, Moon Design (or Issarries... or whatever name is being used this week...) has a claim of Trademark in the US - which is where Kickstarter is headquartered, but not in Spain, where Gamezone is headquartered.
Stafford is claiming that he is protecting himself from action by Hasbro - but he is no way threatened by Hasbro. Hasbro let the Trademark lapse in the US - they are not interested. GW let the Advanced HeroQuest trademark lapse - they were more interested in a game that was more tightly connected to the Warhammer setting.
What Stafford is really doing is using a fictional threat to justify making a pecuniary demand upon Gamezone.
He is using this as an excuse to extort money.
And I am certain that the fact that the KS brought in more money than Issarries or Moon Design has seen in any three years has something to do with it as well - he needs to shore up the financials of Moon Design, in the hopes that it does not follow Issarries down the drain. (I am fairly certain that Issarries made more money through the license to Mongoose Publishing's editions of RuneQuest than they did through sales of their own game system.)
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
For all intents and purposes, GZ is trying to be faithful in their recreation. They're not introducing any unwanted changes and all the original stuff is promised to be there.
That's the problem. All the original stuff is somebody else's work, so the more of that they put in and the less of their own work they put in, the less justifiable their position is.
There is nothing illegal in making a fully compatible product.
That is why you can buy third party mufflers for your car and Kenzer & Co was able to do a fully compatible 4e product without using the GSL.
It would be illegal to copy the words directly - but making a 100% compatible product is well established as a legal precedent.
It is why most PCs aren't made by IBM, for that matter.... So if you are typing on a Windows machine of any variety then you are dismantling your own case.
People seem to be putting words in Hasbro's mouth. They have not released a statement and you're just speculating about what you think they'll do.
Regarding Moon Design, they're within their rights, too. Call it something else and use Kickstarter, or keep it as-is and don't use Kickstarter, it's that simple.
But no matter what they do this is a "knock off" type release, with none of the original parties involved, so calling it something else would be even appropriate. Maybe they won't recycle Hasbro's old videos then, to boot.
I have to say, that as much as I'd like to get hold of a copy of this, I was sufficiently cautious to not back it immediately.
Given the events of the last few days, I'm now sufficiently spooked enough to skip the KS (or IGG, etc) entirely and (maybe) pick one up from retail, if it ever happens.
In the absence of any meaningful possible action, all I can say at the moment is 'silly spoilsports', throw my toys out of the pram and cry!!
But no matter what they do this is a "knock off" type release, with none of the original parties involved, so calling it something else would be even appropriate. Maybe they won't recycle Hasbro's old videos then, to boot.
I suppose it depends what you regard as being a knock-off. The guy who designed the games mechanics disappeared off to the US 20 years ago, and the industry hasn't heard anything from him since. How many of the original sculptors, designers etc. still work for MB and GW? In my own, layman's conception of 'rights' they should surely be the only people with ownership of anything. Rather than a company that hasn't used the name for 25 years, and another company that probably sounds like it could have benefitted from GZ making an unrelated (in terms of format) release.
I agree in one sense that GZ should perhaps have gone with 'BravepersonMission' as their title, just to stop all of the ensuing BS that has come along, and could have made the contents of the box and game style exactly the same. But, I can kind of see their point of having the '25 years' as a focus for the release, and that so many people would remember the experience of that game fondly and would want to repeat it. And stopping the release on the basis that the company used to market it is based in the US seems kind of like a triviality to me.
Given the events of the last few days, I'm now sufficiently spooked enough to skip the KS (or IGG, etc) entirely and (maybe) pick one up from retail, if it ever happens.
You realise that it doesn't count if you say that about a KS that isn't actively running?
Hasbro does not need a trademark to go after GZ. GZ isn't making a game called Heroquest, they're making a game that is Heroquest. Copyright law is sufficient in that situation.
Hasbro totally has ultimate control, but it would have to be done via Hasbro Spain. Otherwise the only avenue for non-spain entities are basically roadblocking US/UK entities like KS.
The only issue is if Hasbro Spain magically says 'ok' GZ won't have the capital, customerbase or infrastructure to produce it and I don't think there are Spain-centric crowdfunding which could succeed. (or at all)
The best thing really would be for Hasbro to decide there is value in 25th anniversary release and maybe buy GZ out and run with it, which is hopefully the ultimate outcome.
Actually - no, Hasbro has let the copyright lapse in Spain. So in Spain they have no control.
Folks have very odd ideas as to how IP laws work - and forget that different nations have very different laws governing Intellectual Property.
In this instance, Moon Design (or Issarries... or whatever name is being used this week...) has a claim of Trademark in the US - which is where Kickstarter is headquartered, but not in Spain, where Gamezone is headquartered.
Stafford is claiming that he is protecting himself from action by Hasbro - but he is no way threatened by Hasbro. Hasbro let the Trademark lapse in the US - they are not interested. GW let the Advanced HeroQuest trademark lapse - they were more interested in a game that was more tightly connected to the Warhammer setting.
What Stafford is really doing is using a fictional threat to justify making a pecuniary demand upon Gamezone.
He is using this as an excuse to extort money.
And I am certain that the fact that the KS brought in more money than Issarries or Moon Design has seen in any three years has something to do with it as well - he needs to shore up the financials of Moon Design, in the hopes that it does not follow Issarries down the drain. (I am fairly certain that Issarries made more money through the license to Mongoose Publishing's editions of RuneQuest than they did through sales of their own game system.)
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
For all intents and purposes, GZ is trying to be faithful in their recreation. They're not introducing any unwanted changes and all the original stuff is promised to be there.
That's the problem. All the original stuff is somebody else's work, so the more of that they put in and the less of their own work they put in, the less justifiable their position is.
There is nothing illegal in making a fully compatible product.
That is why you can buy third party mufflers for your car and Kenzer & Co was able to do a fully compatible 4e product without using the GSL.
It would be illegal to copy the words directly - but making a 100% compatible product is well established as a legal precedent.
It is why most PCs aren't made by IBM, for that matter.... So if you are typing on a Windows machine of any variety then you are dismantling your own case.
The Auld Grump
Auld Gump – whilst you are correct that it is OK to produce compatible parts there is a line drawn when you copy an entire thing!
What GZ is doing here (to keep the car analogy going) is not producing a compatible muffler, they are producing a fully functioning Ford and calling it the Ford 25th anniversary edition, they even state themselves that this is a rerelease of the MB product, with some updates to it.
Now I agree that, on my limited knowledge of IP law, it looks like GZ have the right to do this in Spain. My legal knowledge is insufficient to tell me the legal implications of getting funding from a company in a country where the production of the product in that country would be a breech of trademark laws but my guess will be the KS will say no as it seems fairly sketchy so why take the risk? But if GZ produced this on their own then I see no problems at all.
That said lets call a spade a spade and to imply that this is just a compatible part to the original game is just wrong
Pacific wrote: In the absence of any meaningful possible action, all I can say at the moment is 'silly spoilsports', throw my toys out of the pram and cry!!
But no matter what they do this is a "knock off" type release, with none of the original parties involved, so calling it something else would be even appropriate. Maybe they won't recycle Hasbro's old videos then, to boot.
I suppose it depends what you regard as being a knock-off. The guy who designed the games mechanics disappeared off to the US 20 years ago, and the industry hasn't heard anything from him since. How many of the original sculptors, designers etc. still work for MB and GW? In my own, layman's conception of 'rights' they should surely be the only people with ownership of anything. Rather than a company that hasn't used the name for 25 years, and another company that probably sounds like it could have benefitted from GZ making an unrelated (in terms of format) release.
I agree in one sense that GZ should perhaps have gone with 'BravepersonMission' as their title, just to stop all of the ensuing BS that has come along, and could have made the contents of the box and game style exactly the same. But, I can kind of see their point of having the '25 years' as a focus for the release, and that so many people would remember the experience of that game fondly and would want to repeat it. And stopping the release on the basis that the company used to market it is based in the US seems kind of like a triviality to me.
Given the events of the last few days, I'm now sufficiently spooked enough to skip the KS (or IGG, etc) entirely and (maybe) pick one up from retail, if it ever happens.
You realise that it doesn't count if you say that about a KS that isn't actively running?
The problem is that if this wasn't called Hero Quest then it most likely wouldn't have gathered so much attention on KS...
Hero Quest was a great game 20 years ago and I still fondly play my copy every once and awhile, being one of the first games I ever really played as a kid it's got the nestolgia factor going for it. Unfortunatly as a ruleset it hasn't really aged well and any attempt to truely update the ruleset would make it no longer Heroquest.
Heh! Get this. Its rich. Now we have four entities claiming rights.
Rights is loose, since there are many (trademark, copyright, IP), but now GW apparently claims to "hold all licenses for hero quest". IMNSHO, is likely a load of BS.
"Many thanks for your email. Games Workshop do still hold all the licenses to the Hero Quest game and this is not an official release supported by Games Workshop. We will pass this down to our legal team to investigate further.
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Kind regards,
Scott Edwards."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would love to see GWcrushed beneath the jack boot heels of Hasbro legal. One of the few times I would think it merited.
Good luck, GW with that claim. You're gonna need it.
I have no idea how high up the food chain "Scott Edwards" is at GW, and whether or not his claims have any weight at all. If so, things will get even muddier.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have no idea how high up the food chain "Scott Edwards" is at GW, and whether or not his claims have any weight at all. If so, things will get even muddier.
To be fair, that's probably just an automatically generated email that gets sent by a mailbox minder, key word 'rights' - in that GW owns the rights to anything ever conceived.
I bet if I sent an email saying "I'm hoping to release my own product, fire" or "the wheel" I'd receive exactly the same reply.
More interesting. Are both Hasbro and GW unaware that they let the trademark lapse? That Moon Design now owns it? Will one of them attempt to outpay Moon Design in court?
Totally speculation but I'm wondering if Moon Design will get crushed with legal fees (despite owning the HQtm in the USA) whilst Gamezone restarts their HeroQuest in Spain as more of a boutique game.
You're right, that is complete speculation . I think MD likely are fine given that they're not trying to make a 25th anniversary set of GW / Hasbro's board game and have specifically stated they will not allow their trademark to be used for such in the US without written approval from Hasbro to proceed. Likely to avoid the exact scenario you describe. What devils
Heroquest 25th Anniversary edition- Legalquest. A fast paced, flux style card game where 4 companies compete for rights to an antique game in the courts of several countries, each with varying victory conditions!
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have no idea how high up the food chain "Scott Edwards" is at GW, and whether or not his claims have any weight at all. If so, things will get even muddier.
To be fair, that's probably just an automatically generated email that gets sent by a mailbox minder, key word 'rights' - in that GW owns the rights to anything ever conceived.
I bet if I sent an email saying "I'm hoping to release my own product, fire" or "the wheel" I'd receive exactly the same reply.
Gitzbitah wrote: Heroquest 25th Anniversary edition- Legalquest. A fast paced, flux style card game where 4 companies compete for rights to an antique game in the courts of several countries, each with varying victory conditions!
------------------------------------------------------------
Legalquest (1-4 Players) ------------------------------------------------------------
Four Factions to play! *GameZone wins if the game gets published by them.
*Moon Design wins if all players are okay with it.
*Hasbro wins if they can get through the entire game without needing to take a turn.
*Games Workshop wins if they control everything by the end of the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well since GW and MB(now Hasbro) collaborated on the original there had to have been some sort of official licence/arrangement
just because the original has not been on sale doesn't mean that licence is dead or expired, it will depend on exactly what it said
(although with the GZ version loosing the Fmir and references to the warhammer world GW inerests may well have been lost)
That's the thing though. Remove all GW IP and their claims become laughable at best. Unless they do have something more than just their lent IP to the project that allows them to "hold all the licenses to the hero quest game".
That statement is pretty definitively inclusive. There is no 'had' as the qualifier.
I would pay money to see GW forced to eat legal crow since they are so happy go lucky with their fairly all encompassing claims and brass balls it takes in order to think a company could reach as far as they attempt to.
To see them battle a company that would squash them like a grape in court. A company who could describe what GW dedicate to their legal fund as "cute".
Gitzbitah wrote: Heroquest 25th Anniversary edition- Legalquest. A fast paced, flux style card game where 4 companies compete for rights to an antique game in the courts of several countries, each with varying victory conditions!
------------------------------------------------------------
Legalquest (1-4 Players) ------------------------------------------------------------
Four Factions to play! *GameZone wins if the game gets published by them.
*Moon Design wins if all players are okay with it.
*Hasbro wins if they can get through the entire game without needing to take a turn.
*Games Workshop wins if they control everything by the end of the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gitzbitah wrote: Heroquest 25th Anniversary edition- Legalquest. A fast paced, flux style card game where 4 companies compete for rights to an antique game in the courts of several countries, each with varying victory conditions!
------------------------------------------------------------
Legalquest (1-4 Players) ------------------------------------------------------------
Four Factions to play! *GameZone wins if the game gets published by them.
*Moon Design wins if all players are okay with it.
*Hasbro wins if they can get through the entire game without needing to take a turn.
*Games Workshop wins if they control everything by the end of the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Still waiting for the response of KS on our request to reopen the campaign. We maintain the position indicated in our last statement
12:13am - 3 Dec 13
Also interesting to note the project has lost 479 backers and $110,066 (currently $432,824) in funding since the suspension could be hard to regain momentum again.
Alpharius wrote: So all the crap that was speculated as possibly happening is actually happening?
What a mess!
At least it's a mess right now rather than in 6 months time after money has been paid. I've already dropped my pledge down to a dollar just to sit in for any updates that we do get via KS.
Hellfury wrote: Heh! Get this. Its rich. Now we have four entities claiming rights.
Rights is loose, since there are many (trademark, copyright, IP), but now GW apparently claims to "hold all licenses for hero quest". IMNSHO, is likely a load of BS.
"Many thanks for your email. Games Workshop do still hold all the licenses to the Hero Quest game and this is not an official release supported by Games Workshop. We will pass this down to our legal team to investigate further.
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Kind regards,
Scott Edwards."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would love to see GWcrushed beneath the jack boot heels of Hasbro legal. One of the few times I would think it merited.
Good luck, GW with that claim. You're gonna need it.
Hellfury.. can you share where that quote from "Scott Edwards" came from? I don't see a citation in this thread pointing where it was spotted...
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
Trademark, not copyright. You're talking about the product name, therefore you're talking about a trademark. And from what I have read, the trademark is lapsed to Hell and back. Trademarks don't last forever. Monopoly is still in production, for example. HeroQuest is not. I don't think Hasbro would really care about this one stitch. GW might care...but they're bonkers over there.
From what I have gathered, this Moon-whatsit registered the HeroQuest trademark in the US and asserted it against Gamezone? Is that right? And it was Kickstarter that suspended the project? I apologize, but I have not been following this until this morning. I just want to make sure I have the facts straight.
So HeroQuest is a Live US mark registered on Jan 10, 2012 to a Francis Gregory Stafford of Arcata, CA.
The Issaries Heroquest mark is dead. It was filed on May 15th 2001 and canceled on July 4th 2009. I assume that is because Issaries ceased to exist, yes?
GW abandoned the Advanced HeroQuest mark in the US back in 1990, and canceled the HeroQuest mark in 1999.
So only this Francis fellow has a live mark in the US related to HeroQuest. Is that this Moon studio business?
Copyrights last for freaking ever, sadly, so there might be a mess on that front. Though I have seen nothing of the HeroQuest 25th Anniversary game, so I have no opinion in that regard, although I played the Hell out of HeroQuest when I was knee high to a grasshopper.
Yeah, Greg Stafford is the creator of the Glorantha setting, and hence at least is associated with Moon Designs (who currently produce games and supplements for that setting).
Ian Sturrock wrote: Yeah, Greg Stafford is the creator of the Glorantha setting, and hence at least is associated with Moon Designs (who currently produce games and supplements for that setting).
Gotcha. Well his mark is not in the category appropriate for board games in any case, which would be class 28. His registration is in class 16, which is paper goods. So his mark is really only effective when it comes to books and manuals, not a board game.
rigeld2 wrote: Even if the board game contains books and manuals with the trademark?
Product categories are strange. It is about what the product is, as far as I understand. Class 28 includes games and playthings, which includes, among other things, Christmas ornaments. Monopoly is registered in class 28, for example, even though it contains written rules. IANAL, mind, and trademark classes are not something I am terribly familiar with in the grand scheme of things, but name a popular board game with books and manuals and we can see in what categories it is registered.
Class 16 is a "coordinated" class because applicants usually file in both class 28 and class 16, so you may very well have a point on that. Even so, there's also the likelihood of confusion issue. It would be absurd to think that the HeroQuest mark as registered for role-playing games is famous, so there could probably be no claims of dilution. Likelihood of confusion then becomes the main question. But again, in the US, the mark is only registered in class 16, which makes sense as the product does not contain a board, playing pieces, and so forth.
Issaries was the previous publisher of HeroQuest/RuneQuest related material and is also tied to Stafford. The trademark has essentially been Staffords since 2001.
Was taking a look at the heroquest.es forums and in looks like a "Daniel" from Mkultra Studios and Questron posted. I won't really discuss his comments much... since they could be fake or just badly translated. Anyways the poster seemed confident the project would go forward and his companies were slated to make 50% of the figures. Anyone have any experience with Mkultra/Questron or know what other projects they've done?
silent25 wrote: Issaries was the previous publisher of HeroQuest/RuneQuest related material and is also tied to Stafford. The trademark has essentially been Staffords since 2001.
I appreciate the point, but the mark belonged to Issaries, which I gather no longer exists, and was therefore canceled. The word mark was independently registered by Stafford as a category 16 good in 2012, about 2 and a half years later. It is the only live Heroquest mark in the US, and relegated strictly to printed material as it relates to a role-playing game which solely takes the form of print media. That is by and large the only area in which Stafford, and only Stafford, can enforce the mark, unless Stafford has licensed rights to the mark to Moon Base Alpha.
They have done work for Impacts! chibi line, Star Bowl, Mantic Deadzone and Mars Attacks and Total extinction amoungst others. They have actually done a lot of stuff recently you might not be aware of and are booked up for several months on advance now. I see this as very good news if they are doing the 3D sculpts.
weeble1000 wrote: [Copyrights last for freaking ever, sadly, so there might be a mess on that front. Though I have seen nothing of the HeroQuest 25th Anniversary game, so I have no opinion in that regard, although I played the Hell out of HeroQuest when I was knee high to a grasshopper.
Length of time depends for copyright, but in general in the common law, they last 50 years after the death of the creator (if created by a corporation, just plain lasts 50 years). There's some Disney exceptions, but those are pretty narrow.
Hellfury wrote: Heh! Get this. Its rich. Now we have four entities claiming rights.
Rights is loose, since there are many (trademark, copyright, IP), but now GW apparently claims to "hold all licenses for hero quest". IMNSHO, is likely a load of BS.
"Many thanks for your email. Games Workshop do still hold all the licenses to the Hero Quest game and this is not an official release supported by Games Workshop. We will pass this down to our legal team to investigate further.
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Kind regards,
Scott Edwards."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would love to see GWcrushed beneath the jack boot heels of Hasbro legal. One of the few times I would think it merited.
Good luck, GW with that claim. You're gonna need it.
Hellfury.. can you share where that quote from "Scott Edwards" came from? I don't see a citation in this thread pointing where it was spotted...
Kind of a funny situation - companies would have to prove ownership of the IP to make a claim against Gamezone. Moon has a registered trademark, so there's a presumption for them, but if GW and Hasbro can't settle who has ownership of the IP, it could turn into a pissing match not actually involving Gamezone.
Length of time depends for copyright, but in general in the common law, they last 50 years after the death of the creator (if created by a corporation, just plain lasts 50 years). There's some Disney exceptions, but those are pretty narrow.
I believe that it's death + 50 in Canada, and death + 70 in the US. But whenever a certain mouse comes close to entering the public domain the copyright terms are extended.
It seems that they should be pretty clear on Copyright claims.
What could be copyrighted in the original game:
the specific wording of the rules - they're rewriting and changing the rules so that seems fine. the rules themselves can't be copyrighted and there are no patents.
the art on the cards and box. new art for the new edition and as long as it isn't copying the old one (or trying to closely match) it's fine.
the sculpts of the figures. New figures, and a very different look from the bits we've seen (also I doubt the original pieces could be copyrighted in the UK given recent developments, but they probably could in the US).
Art/design of the board - this is the one that seems closest, but there are some differences.
So really it's down to using the name as a trademark.
The only real problem I see where they could have gotten themselves into trouble with copyright is using the old commercial in their video. That would still be under copyright (MB>Hasbro).
weeble1000 wrote: [Copyrights last for freaking ever, sadly, so there might be a mess on that front. Though I have seen nothing of the HeroQuest 25th Anniversary game, so I have no opinion in that regard, although I played the Hell out of HeroQuest when I was knee high to a grasshopper.
Length of time depends for copyright, but in general in the common law, they last 50 years after the death of the creator (if created by a corporation, just plain lasts 50 years). There's some Disney exceptions, but those are pretty narrow.
Yea, which is next to forever. And in the US it is author's lifetime +70 years, which blows the point of copyright law right out of the water. Blows it right out. HeroQuest should by now be public domain. In any case, we should probably try to avoid a discussion on this as it could easily run way off topic.
But to be clear, by "freaking forever" I meant 'much longer than they should be allowed to last or were ever intended to last'.
When it comes to a trademark, Hasbro and Games Workshop are not involved in any way, shape, or form. Neither party has any such mark, and the fact that they did have such a mark at one point in time is utterly meaningless. That is a fundamental principle of trademark law, if you don't have a product, you don't have a mark. HeroQuest has not existed as a product for too long to be a trademark, at least in the US, and the USPTO records are explicit about this. LIVE means live and DEAD means dead.
Now, when it comes to a copyright...well, then there might be something on that score. But it depends, and I have not seen the Gamezone product so I can't really make any sort of informed expression on that point. However, it is highly likely that Games Workshop has retained no records of its license or deal with Milton Bradley, and Hasbro would probably come out the winner in such a fight, if there ever was one. But when Hasbro buys GW it won't matter in any case, and I seriously doubt that Hasbro would care one lick of spit about its rights to HeroQuest. If it did, it would not have abandoned the mark.
carboncopy wrote: The fact that GZ used the old commercial of the old game and has titled their kickstarter as a 25th anniversary edition shows that they are directly piggy-backing off of the old games copyright and puts them at a legal risk. The trademark isn't going to protect them there. MD should be as cautious as they have been when entering into that kind of deal without some kind of licensing or written blessing from Hasbro.
Trademark, not copyright. You're talking about the product name, therefore you're talking about a trademark. And from what I have read, the trademark is lapsed to Hell and back. Trademarks don't last forever. Monopoly is still in production, for example. HeroQuest is not. I don't think Hasbro would really care about this one stitch. GW might care...but they're bonkers over there.
Yeah, I'm not talking about trademark, but copyright. GZ could make a game close to Heroquest, and even call it Heroquest, and wouldn't have to worry. However they take it a step further by associating it with the old game (which has a copyright), using the old commercial (which has a copyright) most likely without permission , and claiming it will be a 25th anniversary edition of "that" game - all of which gives it tremendous monetary leverage. Because of that it sounds to me that they are treading into a much more risky legal-zone without the copyright holder's permission.
Ashitaka wrote: What could be copyrighted in the original game:
the specific wording of the rules - they're rewriting and changing the rules so that seems fine. the rules themselves can't be copyrighted and there are no patents.
the art on the cards and box. new art for the new edition and as long as it isn't copying the old one (or trying to closely match) it's fine.
the sculpts of the figures. New figures, and a very different look from the bits we've seen (also I doubt the original pieces could be copyrighted in the UK given recent developments, but they probably could in the US).
Art/design of the board - this is the one that seems closest, but there are some differences.
So really it's down to using the name as a trademark.
The only real problem I see where they could have gotten themselves into trouble with copyright is using the old commercial in their video. That would still be under copyright (MB>Hasbro).
Agree on the video. That part is 100% clear and was flat out irresponsible by Gamezone. If they didn't have permission, the kickstarter should have been shut down for using that alone.
I could see a case argued based on a copyright in the composition of the above things (can have a copyright in a particular composition, even using stock elements). Each element has been changed a bit, but if the overall composition is substantially the same, then copyright could exist. Honestly have no clue how strong such a case would be, but that, if anything, is the IP lifeline for Hasbro (or is it GW?) in this situation.
Ashitaka wrote: The only real problem I see where they could have gotten themselves into trouble with copyright is using the old commercial in their video. That would still be under copyright (MB>Hasbro).
Agree on the video. That part is 100% clear and was flat out irresponsible by Gamezone. If they didn't have permission, the kickstarter should have been shut down for using that alone.
Yeah, I would imagine taking someone's commercial wholesale and advertising your own product using it would be a no no
Ashitaka wrote: The only real problem I see where they could have gotten themselves into trouble with copyright is using the old commercial in their video. That would still be under copyright (MB>Hasbro).
Agree on the video. That part is 100% clear and was flat out irresponsible by Gamezone. If they didn't have permission, the kickstarter should have been shut down for using that alone.
Yeah, I would imagine taking someone's commercial wholesale and advertising your own product using it would be a no no
Yea, but how friggin' old is that commercial anyway? In my opinion, this falls squarely in the realm of "Who gives a ?"
The game is more than 20 years old, the marks are canceled or abandoned, these guys want to do a reboot that no one else has an interest in doing. That is the essence of what copyright law was always intended to promote. This is why Disney could make billions off of stories like Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and so forth. Now, those stories are too old and do not qualify for copyright protection in the first place, so the example is not precisely on point. But copyright is intended to allow an author a reasonable amount of time to profit from a work of art, after which it becomes fair game to everyone. That reasonable period used to be 20 years. Now it is lifetime +70, thank you Mickey.
Copyright law wants to encourage authors to take something old and used up and make something new and interesting out of it. And at the end of the day, neither GW nor Hasbro has yet pitched a fit about it that we know of, right? It's just some Moon Roof publishing jerk with a narrowly registered mark, right?
I would applaud Hasbro for leaving this one alone, and do a dance if Hasbro endorsed it wholesale. "Hey, great idea, hope it works out for you. Why don't you take a nominal license to our HeroQuest game to keep off the wolves and go knock yourselves out while we make a new version of Monopoly." What a world that would be .
I'd be glad for them to leave it alone too, weeble, but that doesn't change the fact that they've already used copyrighted material.
An official license from Hasbro to remake the game (regardless of who owns the name now for whatever reason) would have been fantastic.
But just because something is old and not being made doesn't mean I can take a commercial for it to use as my own... sounds like you should petition a lawmaker to get that time period shortened
RiTides wrote: I'd be glad for them to leave it alone too, weeble, but that doesn't change the fact that they've already used copyrighted material.
An official license from Hasbro to remake the game (regardless of who owns the name now for whatever reason) would have been fantastic.
But just because something is old and not being made doesn't mean I can take a commercial for it to use as my own... sounds like you should petition a lawmaker to get that time period shortened
Oh no, I agree with you that it is wrong. And if there ends up being a hullabaloo about it, most of the fault lies with Gamezone for just doing what they darn well felt like. I just wish that these sorts of things could be resolved amiably by responsible people well in advance before it blows up, you know. They wouldn't have to be if copyright expired after 20 years...but that isn't the law at the moment. It should be, but it isn't, and that doesn't excuse violation of someone's rights.
Running off half-cocked is a great way to piss people off, and in the context of a Kickstarter for which they were raising money, for shame. On the other hand, Moon Pool making a fuss about it is rather unreasonable. So what if they snapped up the HeroQuest mark in 2012 because they made an RPG. Does that give whats-his-face rights? Sure it does, but that doesn't mean he has to be an about it when someone else wants to make a product that will have virtually no negative impact on his own.
silent25 wrote: Issaries was the previous publisher of HeroQuest/RuneQuest related material and is also tied to Stafford. The trademark has essentially been Staffords since 2001.
I appreciate the point, but the mark belonged to Issaries, which I gather no longer exists, and was therefore canceled. The word mark was independently registered by Stafford as a category 16 good in 2012, about 2 and a half years later. It is the only live Heroquest mark in the US, and relegated strictly to printed material as it relates to a role-playing game which solely takes the form of print media. That is by and large the only area in which Stafford, and only Stafford, can enforce the mark, unless Stafford has licensed rights to the mark to Moon Base Alpha.
Issaries appears to be a subsidiary of Design Moon Publishing these days. Greg Stafford was the founder and owner of Issaries. It's likely Stafford transferred the rights to himself when Design Moon took Issaries over.
silent25 wrote: Issaries was the previous publisher of HeroQuest/RuneQuest related material and is also tied to Stafford. The trademark has essentially been Staffords since 2001.
I appreciate the point, but the mark belonged to Issaries, which I gather no longer exists, and was therefore canceled. The word mark was independently registered by Stafford as a category 16 good in 2012, about 2 and a half years later. It is the only live Heroquest mark in the US, and relegated strictly to printed material as it relates to a role-playing game which solely takes the form of print media. That is by and large the only area in which Stafford, and only Stafford, can enforce the mark, unless Stafford has licensed rights to the mark to Moon Base Alpha.
Issaries appears to be a subsidiary of Design Moon Publishing these days. Greg Stafford was the founder and owner of Issaries. It's likely Stafford transferred the rights to himself when Design Moon took Issaries over.
Except for that conspicuous 2 and a half year gap. The Issaries mark was canceled two and a half years before Stafford's application for the mark. In any case, there's only one live Heroquest mark in the US, and it has to do with Moon Que's RPG, which in my book makes it a dick move to trash a Kickstarter for a 25th Anniversary Edition of HeroQuest, assuming it was Moon Roof Publishing that put the brakes on the project. I'm still not clear on the details.
Except for that conspicuous 2 and a half year gap. The Issaries mark was canceled two and a half years before Stafford's application for the mark. In any case, there's only one live Heroquest mark in the US, and it has to do with Moon Que's RPG, which in my book makes it a dick move to trash a Kickstarter for a 25th Anniversary Edition of HeroQuest, assuming it was Moon Roof Publishing that put the brakes on the project. I'm still not clear on the details.
All said and good, but then why did Gamezone seek Moon Design out and ask for permission? If their trademark wasn't even valid, why ask them for permission? By going to Moon Design, it gives the impression that the trademark is valid and applicable. Thus when Gamezone moves ahead without permission, how do you expect a company to act that is lead to believe their trademark is valid?
Oh no, I agree with you that it is wrong. And if there ends up being a hullabaloo about it, most of the fault lies with Gamezone for just doing what they darn well felt like. I just wish that these sorts of things could be resolved amiably by responsible people well in advance before it blows up, you know. They wouldn't have to be if copyright expired after 20 years...but that isn't the law at the moment. It should be, but it isn't, and that doesn't excuse violation of someone's rights.
Running off half-cocked is a great way to piss people off, and in the context of a Kickstarter for which they were raising money, for shame. On the other hand, Moon Pool making a fuss about it is rather unreasonable. So what if they snapped up the HeroQuest mark in 2012 because they made an RPG. Does that give whats-his-face rights? Sure it does, but that doesn't mean he has to be an about it when someone else wants to make a product that will have virtually no negative impact on his own.
But the thing is, they would get into trouble if they had allowed use of the name and it turns out Gamezone are breaching copyright laws, and Hasbro go in for the kill. Both Gamezone and Moon Design would be facing the chop then. That's the whole basis of their suspension demand on the Kickstarter, and the requirements they have put on the license to their trademark IP.
The other side issue is that they had plans, announced loosely back in June (I think) to develop boardgames and other products based on their own IP of Glorantha, which includes the concept of Heroquesting (which goes back to the creation of the setting in the sixties) so have even more reason to guard their IP for their own usage.
rigeld2 wrote: Even if the board game contains books and manuals with the trademark?
Product categories are strange. It is about what the product is, as far as I understand. Class 28 includes games and playthings, which includes, among other things, Christmas ornaments. Monopoly is registered in class 28, for example, even though it contains written rules. IANAL, mind, and trademark classes are not something I am terribly familiar with in the grand scheme of things, but name a popular board game with books and manuals and we can see in what categories it is registered.
Class 16 is a "coordinated" class because applicants usually file in both class 28 and class 16, so you may very well have a point on that. Even so, there's also the likelihood of confusion issue. It would be absurd to think that the HeroQuest mark as registered for role-playing games is famous, so there could probably be no claims of dilution. Likelihood of confusion then becomes the main question. But again, in the US, the mark is only registered in class 16, which makes sense as the product does not contain a board, playing pieces, and so forth.
So... right now, nobody owns the Class 28 on HeroQuest?
Two small companies acting like dill weed teenagers over it, and one medium and one very large company both asserting that it's theirs, but none of these clowns has actually bothered to do the homework that took Weeble 2 days at most to work out?
Meaning that it's DEAD, expired, vacant, available, right now?
rigeld2 wrote: Even if the board game contains books and manuals with the trademark?
Product categories are strange. It is about what the product is, as far as I understand. Class 28 includes games and playthings, which includes, among other things, Christmas ornaments. Monopoly is registered in class 28, for example, even though it contains written rules. IANAL, mind, and trademark classes are not something I am terribly familiar with in the grand scheme of things, but name a popular board game with books and manuals and we can see in what categories it is registered.
Class 16 is a "coordinated" class because applicants usually file in both class 28 and class 16, so you may very well have a point on that. Even so, there's also the likelihood of confusion issue. It would be absurd to think that the HeroQuest mark as registered for role-playing games is famous, so there could probably be no claims of dilution. Likelihood of confusion then becomes the main question. But again, in the US, the mark is only registered in class 16, which makes sense as the product does not contain a board, playing pieces, and so forth.
So... right now, nobody owns the Class 28 on HeroQuest?
Two small companies acting like dill weed teenagers over it, and one medium and one very large company both asserting that it's theirs, but none of these clowns has actually bothered to do the homework that took Weeble 2 days at most to work out?
Meaning that it's DEAD, expired, vacant, available, right now?
Available. Right. Now.
Available.
But that's the Trademark, not the copyrights. Which is Moon Design's issue with the Gamezone release. And as I understand it, class 16 is still games, and as an rpg contains no physical components, a class 28 would not be applicable. It's still a complete game. I am no lawyer or IP expert however, so if I am mistaken, I would appreciate an explanation.
Alright, so I'm still not exactly understanding what the problem Gamezone is having:
- Hasbro and GW don't own HeroQuest (tm) anymore according to the USPTO
- Moon Design own HeroQuest (tm) class 16 for game books, not class 28
- Gamezone owns the HeroQuest (tm) in Spain
- the original copyright extends to the specific wording of the rules, the art on the cards and box, the sculpts of the figures, art/design of the board
So, Hasbro and GW are not a problem as the US Government says their trademark is DEAD. Moon Design could be a problem despite their trademark being in a different classification.
Additionally, GameZone is not _reprinting_ HeroQuest '89, they are using it as a source of inspiration but with rewritten rules, new figures, new art, basically, an entirely new game.
Other than Moon Design wanting a cut of profits...
what is actually the reason Gamezone is having troubles right now?
So... right now, nobody owns the Class 28 on HeroQuest?
Two small companies acting like dill weed teenagers over it, and one medium and one very large company both asserting that it's theirs, but none of these clowns has actually bothered to do the homework that took Weeble 2 days at most to work out?
the trademark situation has been known for a while - that GW and Hasbro's (tm)'s are listed as DEAD - and that Gamezone owns the (tm) in Spain... I referenced that info in a post at least a week or longer ago.
judgedoug wrote: Alright, so I'm still not exactly understanding what the problem Gamezone is having:
- Hasbro and GW don't own HeroQuest (tm) anymore according to the USPTO
- Moon Design own HeroQuest (tm) class 16 for game books, not class 28
- Gamezone owns the HeroQuest (tm) in Spain
- the original copyright extends to the specific wording of the rules, the art on the cards and box, the sculpts of the figures, art/design of the board
So, Hasbro and GW are not a problem as the US Government says their trademark is DEAD. Moon Design could be a problem despite their trademark being in a different classification.
Additionally, GameZone is not _reprinting_ HeroQuest '89, they are using it as a source of inspiration but with rewritten rules, new figures, new art, basically, an entirely new game.
Other than Moon Design wanting a cut of profits...
what is actually the reason Gamezone is having troubles right now?
So... right now, nobody owns the Class 28 on HeroQuest?
Two small companies acting like dill weed teenagers over it, and one medium and one very large company both asserting that it's theirs, but none of these clowns has actually bothered to do the homework that took Weeble 2 days at most to work out?
the trademark situation has been known for a while - that GW and Hasbro's (tm)'s are listed as DEAD - and that Gamezone owns the (tm) in Spain... I referenced that info in a post at least a week or longer ago.
That's my read of this as well. I would speculate that the August conversations between MD and GZ did not end amicably and now it's all about ego with KS is pretty much saying "deal with this yourselves and then come back to the table".
But that's the Trademark, not the copyrights. Which is Moon Design's issue with the Gamezone release. And as I understand it, class 16 is still games, and as an rpg contains no physical components, a class 28 would not be applicable. It's still a complete game. I am no lawyer or IP expert however, so if I am mistaken, I would appreciate an explanation.
Delurking to get this in before all the chatter shifts to the new GZ interview:
Except for that conspicuous 2 and a half year gap. The Issaries mark was canceled two and a half years before Stafford's application for the mark. In any case, there's only one live Heroquest mark in the US, and it has to do with Moon Que's RPG, which in my book makes it a dick move to trash a Kickstarter for a 25th Anniversary Edition of HeroQuest, assuming it was Moon Roof Publishing that put the brakes on the project. I'm still not clear on the details.
All said and good, but then why did Gamezone seek Moon Design out and ask for permission? If their trademark wasn't even valid, why ask them for permission? By going to Moon Design, it gives the impression that the trademark is valid and applicable. Thus when Gamezone moves ahead without permission, how do you expect a company to act that is lead to believe their trademark is valid?
I'm not saying Gamezone is not to blame here, but Moon Base is being pretty petulant about a trademark snatched up from a defunct board game used to mark an RPG no one in the world has heard of. I just think people need to be a lot more reasonable about their intellectual property in general. The biggest fault I find with GZ was for pulling this stunt while playing with other people's money. It's one thing to take a risk like that on your own head, presume you'll be in the clear with Moon Roof's mark and figure on working it out later if it comes to that. It is another thing to do that when you are in the midst of collecting money during a Kickstarter campaign.
To me it's crazy to ask "Hey, mind if we do this?" Get told "don't do it" and then go ahead and do it... while simultaneously saying "We are in the clear!"
rigeld2 wrote: To me it's crazy to ask "Hey, mind if we do this?" Get told "don't do it" and then go ahead and do it... while simultaneously saying "We are in the clear!"
Maybe that happened... but we also do know that after contact was made, Moon Design then had the trademark transferred to them (whereas they were previously licensees).
rigeld2 wrote: To me it's crazy to ask "Hey, mind if we do this?" Get told "don't do it" and then go ahead and do it... while simultaneously saying "We are in the clear!"
Maybe that happened... but we also do know that after contact was made, Moon Design then had the trademark transferred to them (whereas they were previously licensees).
Which was a technicality since the owner is already heavily involved with MD.
Which part of that only "maybe" happened? We know GZ contacted MD and asked for a go ahead. We know MD asked for Hasbro to sign off before they did. We know GZ never responded with Hasbro signing off so MD declined permission. We know GZ said there was no possibility of any issues.
But that's the Trademark, not the copyrights. Which is Moon Design's issue with the Gamezone release. And as I understand it, class 16 is still games, and as an rpg contains no physical components, a class 28 would not be applicable. It's still a complete game. I am no lawyer or IP expert however, so if I am mistaken, I would appreciate an explanation.
Delurking to get this in before all the chatter shifts to the new GZ interview:
Very interesting, thanks for linking to it! Although I could only read the "Google Translate" version, so if you have any insights from the original, please share
rigeld2 wrote: To me it's crazy to ask "Hey, mind if we do this?" Get told "don't do it" and then go ahead and do it... while simultaneously saying "We are in the clear!"
Maybe that happened... but we also do know that after contact was made, Moon Design then had the trademark transferred to them (whereas they were previously licensees).
Which was a technicality since the owner is already heavily involved with MD.
Which part of that only "maybe" happened? We know GZ contacted MD and asked for a go ahead. We know MD asked for Hasbro to sign off before they did. We know GZ never responded with Hasbro signing off so MD declined permission. We know GZ said there was no possibility of any issues.
Do you dispute any of that?
I'm sure it was a technicality, as in, it wouldn't have happened without the contact from Gamezone. That way they shore up their position and make it easier to demand more. (I would if I was in the same situation! More money hell yeah)
I can't dispute either's claims with certainty because we don't know if either side is 100% telling the truth. The only things we know for certain are the trademark registrations and what copyrights entail.
But the thing is, they would get into trouble if they had allowed use of the name and it turns out Gamezone are breaching copyright laws, and Hasbro go in for the kill. Both Gamezone and Moon Design would be facing the chop then. That's the whole basis of their suspension demand on the Kickstarter, and the requirements they have put on the license to their trademark IP.
The other side issue is that they had plans, announced loosely back in June (I think) to develop boardgames and other products based on their own IP of Glorantha, which includes the concept of Heroquesting (which goes back to the creation of the setting in the sixties) so have even more reason to guard their IP for their own usage.
I don't think that is correct. Marks don't sit around with rights attached to them after death. They don't rise from the grave like the undead, thirsting for statutory damages. Hasbro and Games Workshop have lost all connection to the Heroquest mark, regardless of whatever rights they may or may not still retain when it comes to copyright in the game itself. As far as the US is concerned, only one individual has a Heroquest mark. Titles of products are also generally not governed by copyright law, because they fall within the realm of trademarks.
I also still have not really heard a narrative of what went down, which I would like to know. Can you break it down for me? I read through the thread but have been unsuccessful at piecing it together very coherently.
Also, having future plans to release a product is not itself a basis on which to claim trademark infringement. One factor to consider in an analysis of likelihood of confusion is likelihood of bridging the gap, that is, the likelihood that the senior mark will expand its related products towards the products of the junior user. But that is only one factor that could weigh in favor of a likelihood of confusion. Even if the senior user is currently developing such products, has a marketing plan, and has invested millions in the development of the exact same products that the junior user has already released, that does not in any way mean, on that basis alone, that there is a likelihood of confusion.
Basically, marks should be distinct, allowing consumers to accurately identify the source of a good or service. Moon Base has been using the Heroquest mark for...a year, on an as yet unrelated product in arguably a different category of goods. If they got caught sleeping at the wheel while another company produced a product they had planned to produce, well tough cookies. That's business. Stop planning and start selling. If trademark laws were principally about hedging off a planned empire of products that don't yet exist, it would defeat the purpose of trademark laws, which originated in Truman-era anti-trust laws.
rigeld2 wrote: To me it's crazy to ask "Hey, mind if we do this?" Get told "don't do it" and then go ahead and do it... while simultaneously saying "We are in the clear!"
To me, this explains why they went to KSCAD and not the US. GZ probably didn't realize that MD complaining to the KS US would have effect over KSCAD. This is why I think it's about ego at this point as to me it's crazy that MD would really care this much about a non-US company running a KS outside of the US.
So... right now, nobody owns the Class 28 on HeroQuest?
Two small companies acting like dill weed teenagers over it, and one medium and one very large company both asserting that it's theirs, but none of these clowns has actually bothered to do the homework that took Weeble 2 days at most to work out?
Meaning that it's DEAD, expired, vacant, available, right now?
Available. Right. Now.
Available.
I don't know if Hasbro and/or GW have actually claimed anything at this point. Again, I really am not very clear on the narrative of this whole affair, having arrived late to the discussion.
But yes, as far as the USPTO is concerned, no one has registered the Heroquest word mark in class 28.
Weeble, you might want to go back and read up so that you can really understand what went on. To give you my abbreviated version, which others can add to if they wish:
-GameZone reached out to Hasbro about making a 25th anniversary version, and got neither a "yay or nay"
-GameZone reached out to Moon Designs about their trademark (the person who owned the mark was closely connected to their company) and was informed that without written permission from Hasbro for GameZone to remake Hasbro's old board game, they would not license the use of their trademark for it
-GameZone launched the Kickstarter anyway, and told backers there was "No chance of a C&D"
-Moon Designs contacted Kickstarter stating the same thing, that they owned the trademark in the US (where Kickstarter is located) and would only license it to GameZone with Hasbro's written permission for GameZone to re-launch Hasbro's old game
So, while Moon Design is getting portrayed as the devil here, it's very likely they could have gotten into trouble with Hasbro had they not taken the above steps. Whether or not there is a legal leg to stand on, the GW vs Chapterhouse case makes it very clear that a big company can shut down a smaller one easily without a case, unless pro bono lawyers come to the rescue.
It would be nice if folks stopped portraying them as out for blood when they legitimately own the mark in the US, and made a legitimate complaint to Kickstarter (a US company) regarding it. If GameZone wants to launch the product in Spain, more power to them!!! But if they want to launch in the US using Kickstarter, they need Moon Design's trademark, and Moon Design won't risk a huge lawsuit from Hasbro by licensing it for a re-make of Hasbro's old game unless Hasbro gives the go-ahead. It's that simple.
If this doesn't get straightened out in the near future, I hope some of the other companies that make similar games decide to take a stab at recreating HQ without all the legal entanglements. Hell, the more entry/ gateway dungeon crawlers on the market, the better I say.
Mantic's got a Dwarf King's Hold that's supposed to be coming down the pipeline...
But that's the Trademark, not the copyrights. Which is Moon Design's issue with the Gamezone release. And as I understand it, class 16 is still games, and as an rpg contains no physical components, a class 28 would not be applicable. It's still a complete game. I am no lawyer or IP expert however, so if I am mistaken, I would appreciate an explanation.
Delurking to get this in before all the chatter shifts to the new GZ interview:
Class 16 and Class 28 are interrelated to a certain extent as lots of products are registered in both.
The difference between the two is that Class 16 is printed material, including cardboard and whatnot, whereas Class 18 is materials for games and recreation. So the New York Times would be a Class 16 mark, and fishing tackle would be a Class 28 mark. Monopoly is a Class 28 mark, and Candyland is a Class 16 mark, as you point out. I guess the idea is that if you read it, it is Class 16 and if you amuse yourself with it, it is Class 28. Board games are generally printed materials that you play with, so straddle the line, as far as I can tell.
Interesting read (though difficult due to translation issues)
Main points from what I understand
- Gamezone Heroquest is not a direct copy, but an homage, a "commemorative" version
- it is not a copy of the original game
- Does Gamezone need Hasbro's permission? "The idea has permeated that we need permission to produce the game we're doing, and that is not so." It is, in fact, Moon Division who has asked that Gamezone has permission from Hasbro to produce the game. Gamezone does not need it to produce their version.
- Gamezone has not mentioned Stephen Baker (original creator of HeroQuest) because "what I'm not willing to use is the name of this gentleman a mercantilist fashion during crowdfunding campaign" (ie, use his name to garner more cash)
- Stephen Baker (designer of HeroQuest and Heroscape) is "a senior manager of Hasbro and participation may involve conflicts of interest of company."
weeble1000 wrote: Board games are generally printed materials that you play with, so straddle the line, as far as I can tell.
Exactly. So, if you read my above timeline, particularly keeping in mind that Moon Design are planning to put out a board game, you can see that they have every right to act as they did.
GameZone launched a campaign on Kickstarter without the trademark holder in the US' permission. Because Kickstarter is in the US, this is enough for Kickstarter to disallow it.
GameZone also do not have permission from Hasbro to remake their game, regardless of the trademark. If they did have that permission, Moon Design would gladly license out the mark and thus get some financial gain from this, as well. But they don't, and so it's too risky for Moon Designs to license out the trademark, and risk a lawsuit (since Hasbro and Moon Design are both in the US).
GameZone can freely make this product in Spain, if they wish, but the way they went about it violated trademark law in the US, and Moon Design cannot risk licensing their mark to them due to the huge consequences of what Hasbro might do to Moon Design here if permission is not granted ahead of time. It's a non-starter without that permission from Hasbro for Moon Design, and thus a non-starter on Kickstarter as a US company (whether or not the trademark is "straddling the line", Kickstarter it is close enough that Kickstarter is not allowing this to proceed).
GameZone can thus simply launch their product in Spain, or change the name, etc. They are the ones that went forward foolishly without permissions, and you simply can't skirt the line that closely in the US when it's not worth any of the US companies' time and risk who would have been involved (being Moon Design and Kickstarter) and at risk from Hasbro.
judgedoug, regarding your above post- Of course, GameZone is saying they don't need Hasbro's permission. And they very well might not- in Spain, where they have the trademark. But the risk is high enough that Hasbro could sue Moon Design for licensing the trademark in the US for a re-make of Hasbro's game, that there's no way Moon Design will license it here without Hasbro's written permission to proceed, as they said in their statement regarding why they contacted Kickstarter.
Thus, this game is dead on Kickstarter, and if GameZone wants to proceed they'll have to simply do 1 of 2 things: Change the name, and continue on Kickstarter, or keep the name and launch in Spain. It's simple...
Don't make Moon Design out to be squeaky clean. If we're taking their statement at face value, let's take Gamezone's, too. Remember this little bit:
"For Moon Design P. to do so they are asking for two things: An official letter from Hasbro in which it states that they, Hasbro, will neither act against our HQ25th nor Moon Design P. They, Moon Design P., have also demanded a considerable sum and percentages from the Kickstarter project."
Gamezone's position is that there is no necessity to ask for Hasbro's permission... their game is sufficiently different enough from the original that no copyrights from the original text, art, etc, are violated.
Now, by Moon Design's own admission:
"We told Gamezone that they needed to immediately get a licensing agreement from us (which, among other things, would require that they pay us for the rights to the name since it would mean foregoing our opportunity to release our game using our trademark and to compensate us for that lost revenue)."
Money.
Money money money money.
This has nothing to do with trademarks or copyrights. Moon Design wants money. And who would blame them?
After they were contacted by Gamezone, they transferred the licensee to the trademark holder so shore up their position. Now they want money, by their own and Gamezone's admission. That's all this is now. Hasbro and GW do not factor into this at all.
What we're seeing is what it's worth to Gamezone: how much they'd lose by transferring it to indiegogo versus how much they'd lose by keeping it in the USA and paying Moon Design.
judgedoug wrote: Gamezone's position is that there is no necessity to ask for Hasbro's permission... their game is sufficiently different enough from the original that no copyrights from the original text, art, etc, are violated.
Of course this is GameZone's position, and they're likely right! As you've even stated, who is likely to get hammered by Hasbro if Hasbro took action? Moon Design, if they licensed their trademark in the US.
I'm not saying they're squeaky clean, I'm saying they'd be insane to license the US trademark for a re-make of Hasbro's game without Hasbro's go-ahead. They've said so, and this is a non-starter. GameZone can forget about getting the use of the trademark in the US without that permission, it's over.
judgedoug wrote:What we're seeing is what it's worth to Gamezone: how much they'd lose by transferring it to indiegogo versus how much they'd lose by keeping it in the USA and paying Moon Design.
IndieGoGo is also based in the US, they're going to have to use something else entirely.
judgedoug, regarding your above post- Of course, GameZone is saying they don't need Hasbro's permission. And they very well might not- in Spain, where they have the trademark. But the risk is high enough that Hasbro could sue Moon Design for licensing the trademark in the US for a re-make of Hasbro's game, that there's no way Moon Design will license it here without Hasbro's written permission to proceed, as they said in their statement regarding why they contacted Kickstarter.
But... why? Maybe I am just totally not understanding this part, and forgive me if I am. If Hasbro's trademark is DEAD, and Gamezone's game is sufficiently different - rules, art, models, design - what does it matter?
I'm not trying to be facetious, as this is a position a lot of people have taken and believe in, but I don't understand it, that's why I'm asking if I'm missing something. As far as I can tell Hasbro has nothing to do with it.
judgedoug wrote:What we're seeing is what it's worth to Gamezone: how much they'd lose by transferring it to indiegogo versus how much they'd lose by keeping it in the USA and paying Moon Design.
IndieGoGo is also based in the US, they're going to have to use something else entirely.
Sure, that was just the first non-KS crowdfunding I could think of. YouknowwhatImeanthough
RiTides wrote: Weeble, you might want to go back and read up so that you can really understand what went on. To give you my abbreviated version, which others can add to if they wish:
-GameZone reached out to Hasbro about making a 25th anniversary version, and got neither a "yay or nay" -GameZone reached out to Moon Designs about their trademark (the person who owned the mark was closely connected to their company) and was informed that without written permission from Hasbro for GameZone to remake Hasbro's old board game, they would not license the use of their trademark for it -GameZone launched the Kickstarter anyway, and told backers there was "No chance of a C&D" -Moon Designs contacted Kickstarter stating the same thing, that they owned the trademark in the US (where Kickstarter is located) and would only license it to GameZone with Hasbro's written permission for GameZone to re-launch Hasbro's old game
So, while Moon Design is getting portrayed as the devil here, it's very likely they could have gotten into trouble with Hasbro had they not taken the above steps. Whether or not there is a legal leg to stand on, the GW vs Chapterhouse case makes it very clear that a big company can shut down a smaller one easily without a case, unless pro bono lawyers come to the rescue.
It would be nice if folks stopped portraying them as out for blood when they legitimately own the mark in the US, and made a legitimate complaint to Kickstarter (a US company) regarding it. If GameZone wants to launch the product in Spain, more power to them!!! But if they want to launch in the US using Kickstarter, they need Moon Design's trademark, and Moon Design won't risk a huge lawsuit from Hasbro by licensing it for a re-make of Hasbro's old game unless Hasbro gives the go-ahead. It's that simple.
Thanks RiTides. I read through the thread, but there's a lot of conflicting information throughout. I appreciate the succinct recap.
I'm still skeptical about Moon Design having any sort of liability when it comes to Hasbro. What is Moon Design's relationship with Hasbro, do we know?
From where I am sitting, the only harm that I see happening as we sit here today is the harm done to Gamezone, and some minor harm Gamezone has arguably done to Hasbro, although I suspect Hasbro doesn't really care about that. Gamezone asked for it, but nevertheless, all we really know for sure is that Gamezone's Kickstarter campaign has essentially been torpedoed.
There has been a conspicuous rise in copyright and especially trademark disputes in the US in the past couple of years. Patent trolling has started to give way to trademark trolling (which judgedoug seems to be implying is Moon Design's intention), and it seems abundantly clear that this trend has been starkly reflected in our beloved niche. This is sad to see because people get hurt when things like this happen, and the table top fantasy wargaming market is full of small companies and individuals that don't have the stamina to take a hit.
I would like to see incidents like this one get plenty of attention, because I think they represent the 'wrong' way to handle such conflicts, from the perspective of all the parties concerned. The rise in such incidents is not due to any changes in statutes or torts, it has more to do with a cultural change regarding the manner in which people are handling such disputes. Incidents like this one should remind us of the damage that gets done to everyone involved when people decide to enforce their 'rights' in a particular way.
Do you remember the Jack Daniels trademark dispute a little while ago? That and other similar incidents represent a healthy, productive way to resolve intellectual property disputes in a manner that avoids causing irreparable harm and in which everyone can walk away happy. I think those in our relatively small industry should take such examples to heart and strive to avoid falling into patterns of behavior that reflect pugilistic and litigious trends in the broader society. This industry is small, and largely made up of people who know of or even know each other. Incidents like this one should be able to be resolved simply, quietly, and amiably, for the benefit of everyone, and especially us customers.
@Judgedoug- I'm not saying they NEED the permission, legally. I'm saying that the risk is HUGE that Hasbro would sue Moon Design for licensing the trademark for a remake of Hasbro's game.
Why go after the Spanish company, when you can nail the US company that has signed onto it? Moon Design stated that even if they didn't license the mark, but allowed it to go forward, they were afraid they'd be sued anyway.
It's not about whether they must have permission to remake the game, it's about whether a suit is likely when a company is blatantly re-using Hasbro's commercials to advertise their own product. If a suit is likely, who would be the target? The US company that licensed the use of the trademark for such purposes: Moon Design.
If I were Moon Design, I wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole without Hasbro's written go-ahead either. GameZone will simply have to launch in Spain, or change the name, and thus shoulder the risk themselves (considerably less risk, too, since they're not in the US).
--------------------------------------
@Weeble, I do remember the Jack Daniels story, and that got them tons of great press . I'm sure Moon Design would love to have their name attached to a release like this, even in a small way, in a positive way rather than the hugely negative reaction some people had as a result of this. But, if they license the trademark, they're the ones who risk getting sued by Hasbro... so they're never going to do it without Hasbro's go-ahead, as they've said.
The difference here is that Jack Daniels wasn't dealing with another much larger company in licensing their mark- they were dealing with a single individual and were able to come to a solution that benefited both. I don't see any way for Moon Design to do that here- the risk is all from Hasbro, which they have no control over other than to get written permission (as they told GameZone) or to simply not allow their US trademark to be used.
Well...the previous article linking to grey market goods I think shows pretty clearly that Moon Design has the right to contest the goods which are shipped into the US. Probably fair to apply for an injunction to a company with a stated intention of doing so. Same with Hasbro in the UK, though it should be pretty easy to kill that trademark (I provided the links to that in an earlier post).
There IS a potential copyright issue with Hasbro for the overall composition. Not ironclad by any means. I haven't checked if the UK has compositions protected, but I can provide a Canadian case that talks about the issue:
Although that's not binding even to all of Canada, the deciding judge is now the Chief Justice in Canada, so it's probably safe to accept as the law in Canada on the subject.
Who knows if it would properly apply to the board game being essentially rereleased (sounded like that was what was being done, regardless of the claim of just being commemorative).
RiTides wrote: @Judgedoug- I'm not saying they NEED the permission, legally. I'm saying that the risk is HUGE that Hasbro would sue Moon Design for licensing the trademark for a remake of Hasbro's game.
Why go after the Spanish company, when you can nail the US company that has signed onto it? Moon Design stated that even if they didn't license the mark, but allowed it to go forward, they were afraid they'd be sued anyway.
It's not about whether they must have permission to remake the game, it's about whether a suit is likely when a company is blatantly re-using Hasbro's commercials to advertise their own product. If a suit is likely, who would be the target? The US company that licensed the use of the trademark for such purposes: Moon Design.
If I were Moon Design, I wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole without Hasbro's written go-ahead either. GameZone will simply have to launch in Spain, or change the name, and thus shoulder the risk themselves (considerably less risk, too, since they're not in the US).
So would the removal of the commercial then placate everyone? We're looking at a different game that has the same name as HeroQuest '89, because the original designers didn't care enough and gave the name away.
By Moon Design's own admission, they were working on their own game called HeroQuest - in fact, that's the reason they said they want money FROM Gamezone! Are they going to get permission from Hasbro for use of the name they own if Moon Design makes their own HeroQuest boardgame?
We know it has nothing to do with the rules, as game mechanics aren't protected (ref TSR, ref Wargods & WHFB, ref Void/Urban War & 40k). It's entirely new art and writing assets.
Regardless of how "new" it is, if a company markets their game as a 25th anniversary of another company's old game, there is risk there.
I'm not disputing that anything is protected, and that GameZone couldn't do it. I'm saying if Moon Design license their US trademark for a re-make of Hasbro's game, they're clearly afraid they'll get sued. Otherwise, they'd do it in a heartbeat and reap the financial reward that would come with licensing the name.
The game they are considering is not a remake of Hasbro's, and thus they are not at nearly the same level of risk of being sued. Not even on the same planet of risk, imo.
If I was a small company, this would be a pretty obvious "no fly zone" to me, regardless of the actual legality. The risk is too high to license the trademark, that's their view and it makes sense.
RiTides wrote: Regardless of how "new" it is, if a company markets their game as a 25th anniversary of another company's old game, there is risk there.
I'm not disputing that anything is protected, and that GameZone couldn't do it. I'm saying if Moon Design license their US trademark for a re-make of Hasbro's game, they're clearly afraid they'll get sued. Otherwise, they'd do it in a heartbeat and reap the financial reward that would come with licensing the name.
The game they are considering is not a remake of Hasbro's, and thus they are not at nearly the same level of risk of being sued. Not even on the same planet of risk, imo.
If I was a small company, this would be a pretty obvious "no fly zone" to me, regardless of the actual legality. The risk is too high to license the trademark, that's their view and it makes sense.
Alright, so if they dropped the video from the KS and the "25th anniversary" from the name... would that be enough?
Again, I fear that I'm coming off as being facetious but I'm not. I'm trying to ascertain what the limits would be in your opinion.
If the video and the "25th" tagline were dropped, then the similarities become superficial - a boardgame with adventurers fighting monsters and rolling dice to do so. If Moon Design's HeroQuest boardgame involves heroes rolling dice and fighting monsters as well... (as that's what their HeroQuest RPG is)
The correct way to deal with it is probably just to make a deal with Hasbro to have permission to use the rules. Don't approach them with a "we have the right" approach. Register your trademarks, then approach them and say "We'd like to make this game and license it below your normal fee. This lets you avoid litigation which could create a precedent allowing others to remake your games whenever trademark has lapsed." Imagine the consequences to Hasbro (and any other company with a large backlog of games that have been ignored for 5+ years, including GW) to losing a case like that.
With Moon Design, it's probably best to just name the game something else for North America - figure out a way to change the name the least possible (should be able to make a name including "Heroquest" in the title).
RiTides wrote: Regardless of how "new" it is, if a company markets their game as a 25th anniversary of another company's old game, there is risk there.
I'm not disputing that anything is protected, and that GameZone couldn't do it. I'm saying if Moon Design license their US trademark for a re-make of Hasbro's game, they're clearly afraid they'll get sued. Otherwise, they'd do it in a heartbeat and reap the financial reward that would come with licensing the name.
The game they are considering is not a remake of Hasbro's, and thus they are not at nearly the same level of risk of being sued. Not even on the same planet of risk, imo.
If I was a small company, this would be a pretty obvious "no fly zone" to me, regardless of the actual legality. The risk is too high to license the trademark, that's their view and it makes sense.
I appreciate the sentiment RiTides, but there's a whole lot of 'ifs" in there. That's a whole lot of ifs to be demanding a cut of profits, an assignment of rights from Hasbro, and an indemnification.
The real question is why couldn't GameZone and Moon Design have agreed to go to Hasbro together before the launch of the Kickstarter? If all Moon Design was concerned about was indirect reprisal from Hasbro, why make demands from GameZone as opposed to jointly contacting Hasbro with a request for clarification with an agreement on the part of both parties to delay any legal action until such time as Hasbro responds?
I see stuff like this happen all of the time. Threats get people's backs against a wall and stifle responsible communication. I don't deal with lawsuits when they start, I deal with them when the parties are walking ten paces with loaded pistols, and I do that a whole lot. I see what kind of behavior it takes to get to a position that nobody wants to be in but that nobody can figure a way out of.
Responsible communication does't work unless both parties are being reasonable, but somebody has to make the choice to be the first to start being reasonable. That said, if all Moon Design really wants is to troll a $500,000+ Kickstarter campaign for a fat payday, no amount of reasonable communication would have worked.
Judgedoug- For myself, maybe, but as Alpharius notes that is pretty irrelevant as is really the opinion of anyone here. They question is whether it'd be enough for Moon Design, with where things have gotten by now, and they've said that they would require written permission from Hasbro to proceed.
Weeble- Moon Design makes other things, and are probably busy doing that... it's not their role to get approval from Hasbro. GameZone is the one that wants to make a game of this type. I agree that a mutual communication to Hasbro would have been best, but all indications are that GameZone has already tried to get approval from Hasbro, and failed... and their answer to Moon Design saying approval is needed is not "Let's go ask together", it's "We don't need approval."
They very well might not need it, I'm just saying I can understand why Moon Design feels they are at risk if they license their trademark in the US without that approval.
Nothing is stopping GameZone from launching the board game in Spain... they could go and do so right now without worrying about any of these US-based issues.
-------------------------------------------
Edit: Lol, Alpharius and exactly right. I am certainly not trying to represent a legal opinion, but just to communicate the timeline for Weeble; and to judgedoug the opinion the various parties have already shared (Moon Design, GameZone, or Hasbro). I think I've stated numerous times I have no idea if there is a legal leg to stand on, it is the risk of being sued that is the driver here.
That said, I think Weeble's up to speed now so we should be good here
I'm not saying Gamezone is not to blame here, but Moon Base is being pretty petulant about a trademark snatched up from a defunct board game used to mark an RPG no one in the world has heard of. I just think people need to be a lot more reasonable about their intellectual property in general. The biggest fault I find with GZ was for pulling this stunt while playing with other people's money. It's one thing to take a risk like that on your own head, presume you'll be in the clear with Moon Roof's mark and figure on working it out later if it comes to that. It is another thing to do that when you are in the midst of collecting money during a Kickstarter campaign.
Weeble1000, Moon Design puts out the RuneQuest RPG which is the second oldest RPG game system behind D&D. The first and second editions were set in the Gloranthan world. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it is some patent trolling company looking for a quick buck. Also, was pointed out that Chaosium (the original publishers of RuneQuest) had announced they would be putting out a HeroQuest game in the early 80's, only to get a C&D from Hasbro because Hasbro had picked up the Trademark. Picked up after Chaosium had announced they would be publishing the game I might note. The HeroQuest game was meant to be a generic version of the RuneQuest rule set.
So while Design Moon may be going for a quick buck, Stafford has already seen a game he designed have the rug pulled out from underneath him due to trademark issues. Given he was messed with once by Hasbro, that likely explains the request for approval by Hasbro on the project. He doesn't want to get into a legal fight with Hasbro again.
RiTides wrote: Regardless of how "new" it is, if a company markets their game as a 25th anniversary of another company's old game, there is risk there.
I'm not disputing that anything is protected, and that GameZone couldn't do it. I'm saying if Moon Design license their US trademark for a re-make of Hasbro's game, they're clearly afraid they'll get sued. Otherwise, they'd do it in a heartbeat and reap the financial reward that would come with licensing the name.
The game they are considering is not a remake of Hasbro's, and thus they are not at nearly the same level of risk of being sued. Not even on the same planet of risk, imo.
If I was a small company, this would be a pretty obvious "no fly zone" to me, regardless of the actual legality. The risk is too high to license the trademark, that's their view and it makes sense.
Alright, so if they dropped the video from the KS and the "25th anniversary" from the name... would that be enough?
Again, I fear that I'm coming off as being facetious but I'm not. I'm trying to ascertain what the limits would be in your opinion.
If the video and the "25th" tagline were dropped, then the similarities become superficial - a boardgame with adventurers fighting monsters and rolling dice to do so. If Moon Design's HeroQuest boardgame involves heroes rolling dice and fighting monsters as well... (as that's what their HeroQuest RPG is)
That would definitely reduce the risk greatly, but at the same time it's already been done, so Hasbro could potentially have a case that funds raised for the new game is due to the hype generated by the original association. It would be harder for Hasbro to hold that position, but there is still some risk there.
Weeble1000, Moon Design puts out the RuneQuest RPG which is the second oldest RPG game system behind D&D. The first and second editions were set in the Gloranthan world. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it is some patent trolling company looking for a quick buck. Also, was pointed out that Chaosium (the original publishers of RuneQuest) had announced they would be putting out a HeroQuest game in the early 80's, only to get a C&D from Hasbro because Hasbro had picked up the Trademark. Picked up after Chaosium had announced they would be publishing the game I might note. The HeroQuest game was meant to be a generic version of the RuneQuest rule set.
So while Design Moon may be going for a quick buck, Stafford has already seen a game he designed have the rug pulled out from underneath him due to trademark issues. Given he was messed with once by Hasbro, that likely explains the request for approval by Hasbro on the project. He doesn't want to get into a legal fight with Hasbro again.
You seem to know plenty about this Stafford guy, so who is he? Can you give me a rundown of what companies he has been involved with, his relationship to the various incarnations of the Gloranthan RPG, and so forth?
Let me know if this narrative is correct:
The Gloranthan world is an fictional universe of Stafford's creation from back in the 70s, and Stafford wanted to use the name "HeroQuest" for an RPG set in this universe back in the 80s and ran afoul of Milton-Bradley at that time, who wanted to use the same name for a board game unrelated to the Gloranthan fictional universe. Because of that dispute over the HeroQuest mark, the RPG was instead titled RuneQuest. Later, once the HeroQuest mark had been abandoned by Hasbro, who acquired Milton-Bradley, Stafford's company, Issaries, picked up the mark and released an RPG called HeroQuest set in the Gloranthan universe. At some point, Issaries was dissolved. Later, Stafford personally registered the HeroQuest mark in connection with the same RPG that had been produced by Issaries. Is this all correct? Are there any details that should be added or facts corrected?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm trying to get a sense of the background behind all of this.
Moon Design Studio currently produces and sells both the RuneQuest and the HeroQuest RPGs, along with a slew of of related print material. RuneQuest is in its 6th edition. The RPG is a classic game sold in paperback and primarily available via internet retailers or direct from Moon Design rather than being carried by independent brick and mortar retailers. Is that fair to say?
At some point, Gamezone figured on remaking a once-popular board game designed by Stephen Baker for Milton Bradley back in the 80s. The game has been out of print for decades, though is a fun nostalgic throwback for now adult gamers. Hasbro and GW had both abandoned the HeroQuest mark, and Gamezone intended to redesign the rules and artwork for the game, and release it as a 25th Anniversary Edition of the out of print HeroQuest game.
Gamezone contacted Hasbro, and received no response. Gamezone did a trademark search and identified Stafford as the holder of the HeroQuest mark in the US. GameZone contacts Moon Design Studio about GameZone's planned HeroQuest 25th Anniversary game. Moon Design demands that GameZone get a license from Hasbro and that Moon Design Studio gets a cut of the funds raised in the Kickstarter, as opposed to a reasonable royalty on profits related to the sale of the game itself. Having received no response from Hasbro, GameZone proceeds with the Kickstarter despite Moon Design's objections to licensing the trademark to GameZone. The Kickstarter project raises multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moon Design Studio requests that Kickstarter suspend the campaign due to trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is not subject to DMCA, but Kickstarter nevertheless agrees to suspend GameZone's Kickstarter project pending resolution of the dispute.
As yet, Hasbro has not responded substantively to the issue.
Pretty good. Since we're being pedantic, a few adjustments in boldface: (EDITED TO FIX MY TAGS!)
The Gloranthan world is an fictional universe of Stafford's creation from back in the 60s [1966], and Stafford started talking about an upcoming RPG named "HeroQuest" set in this universe in 1978 but was infamously slow in getting it to the market. By the time he was ready to release a product under that name back in the 90s and ran afoul of Milton-Bradley at that time, the board game unrelated to the Gloranthan fictional universe had come and gone. Later, once the HeroQuest mark had been abandoned in 1999 by Games Workshop (!), which had held the actual U.S. trademark since 1989, Stafford's company, Issaries, picked up the mark in 2002 and renamed their RPG HeroQuest set in the Gloranthan universe. (RuneQuest remained a separate product with its own history.) Issaries was dissolved in 2013 but well before that point (2009) Stafford personally registered the HeroQuest mark in connection with the same RPG that had been produced by Issaries. As part of the dissolution of Issaries, Moon Design -- which had manufactured HeroQuest under license since late 2005 -- Moon Design bought the mark for an undisclosed sum but has apparently not yet changed the registration. Money to fund this transfer probably originated in the Moon Design December 2012 kickstarter, which raised $260,000 and left the company unexpectedly flush with cash.
Moon Design Studio currently produces and sells the HeroQuest RPG, along with a slew of of related print material. RuneQuest is in its 6th edition but is technically manufactured by an allied company under license. The RPG is a classic game sold in paperback and primarily available via internet retailers or direct from Moon Design and in whatever independent brick and mortar retailers still exist in the RPG field.
At some point, Gamezone figured on remaking a once-popular board game designed by Stephen Baker for Milton Bradley back in the 80s. The game has been out of print for decades, though is a fun nostalgic throwback for now adult gamers. Hasbro and GW had both abandoned the HeroQuest mark, and Gamezone intended to redesign the rules and artwork for the game, and release it as a 25th Anniversary Edition of the out of print HeroQuest game. For some reason GZ has a live Spanish mark on HeroQuest even though it has no record of "real and effective use" in commerce.
Some people speculate that Gamezone contacted Hasbro, and received no response but I am unaware of any evidence and welcome correction. Gamezone seems to have done a trademark search and identified Stafford as the holder of the HeroQuest mark in the US. GameZone contacts Moon Design Studio about GameZone's planned HeroQuest 25th Anniversary game. Moon Design demands that GameZone produce written approval from Hasbro and that Moon Design Studio gets [cut] a reasonable royalty on profits related to the sale of the game itself. GameZone breaks communication at that point and eventually proceeds with the Kickstarter despite Moon Design's objections to licensing the trademark to GameZone. The Kickstarter project raises multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moon Design Studio requests that Kickstarter suspend the campaign due to trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is not subject to DMCA, but Kickstarter nevertheless agrees to suspend GameZone's Kickstarter project pending resolution of the dispute.
As yet, Hasbro has not responded substantively to the issue except to confuse the situation by asserting Hero Quest as "a Hasbro property."
So while there's all kind of finger waving and rampant speculation, I'm wondering what's stopping other kickstarter- savvy companies from jumping into the ring with their homage to Heroquest.
Make up a new name, label it as inspired by Heroquest, and watch the funds roll in? How come CMON or Mantic hasn't really taken a stab at this yet?
I honestly kind of hope that GameZone cancels the current campaign, renames it, labels it as a fan reimagining of HQ, references it as much as possible during a new campaign, and everyone can get on with life and get the damn game out to market.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: So while there's all kind of finger waving and rampant speculation, I'm wondering what's stopping other kickstarter- savvy companies from jumping into the ring with their homage to Heroquest.
Until this issue is settled?
Looks like there's plenty to stop anyone from doing this on Kickstarter or IGG...
highlord tamburlaine wrote: So while there's all kind of finger waving and rampant speculation, I'm wondering what's stopping other kickstarter- savvy companies from jumping into the ring with their homage to Heroquest.
Make up a new name, label it as inspired by Heroquest, and watch the funds roll in? How come CMON or Mantic hasn't really taken a stab at this yet?
.
They have in a sense, it's called Dwarf King's Hold. It's getting a re-launch next year apparently, no doubt Mantic will be hoping this nonsense continues so they're able to take hold of that much more of the market.
Alright, so if they dropped the video from the KS and the "25th anniversary" from the name... would that be enough?
Again, I fear that I'm coming off as being facetious but I'm not. I'm trying to ascertain what the limits would be in your opinion.
If the video and the "25th" tagline were dropped, then the similarities become superficial - a boardgame with adventurers fighting monsters and rolling dice to do so. If Moon Design's HeroQuest boardgame involves heroes rolling dice and fighting monsters as well... (as that's what their HeroQuest RPG is)
So your wife comes home and starts talking about her plans for her upcoming twenty fifth wedding anniversary this year. Which marriage is she talking about, and isn't it going to be surprising if you weren't married twenty five years ago?
So, yeah, "Xth Anniversary Edition" is pretty specific about which of the many possible HeroQuest games is involved--the one from X years ago.
Pretty good. Since we're being pedantic, a few adjustments in boldface: (EDITED TO FIX MY TAGS!)
I'm not trying to be pedantic bubba, and I apologize if I came off that way. In fact, I think I specifically said that it was not my intention to be pedantic. I think it is helpful to understand the background of what is going on here, as it has come up already and been referenced by various folks in the course of this discussion. I am genuinely interested in understanding it correctly, and I appreciate your additions.
I made several mistakes, and I really do appreciate the corrections. Getting the facts straight allows one to have an informed opinion. So where does your info on Moon Design come from, out of curiosity? I figured I'd get better info if I threw up some rough guesses as opposed to just asking for it.
I'm still a little fuzzy about the distinction between the RuneQuest and HeroQuest RPGs. Stafford planned the HeroQuest RPG, but didn't release it, and then renamed an RPG "HeroQuest" while maintaining RuneQuest as a distinct product. What was the RPG that was renamed?
I didn't mean to be offensive about the brick and mortar retailer thing either. I've frequented many a FLGS in my day carrying robust lines of RPGs and have never run across RuneQuest or HeroQuest.
Why does Moon Design want GameZone to have written approval from Hasbro? I'm curious about that. Hasbro's initial response about HeroQuest being "a Hasbro property" was probably just boilerplate. Does anyone know details of the deal between Milton Bradley and Games Workshop?
It seems that Moon Design's only connection to the HeroQuest board game is picking up the word mark for an unrelated product coupled with baggage left over from having the name lifted by Milton Bradley/Games Workshop. I do not see the connection between that and GameZone's desire to release a 25th Anniversary Edition of the HeroQuest board game.
And isn't Super Dungeon Explorer also a HeroQuest style game? Haven't played it, but reading the reviews, sounds very similar. Just with a super cutesy art style.
As I mentioned previously, back in the late 80's Enix wanted to bring it's popular "Dragon Quest" game to the USA (on the Famicom/Nintendo Entertainment System). However, the "Dragon Quest" trademark already existed in the USA, so for the USA market the series was retitled "Dragon Warrior". The same product existed in both Japan and the USA (with localization translations) but with slightly different names. Everyone knew it was the Dragon Quest series but was marketed in the USA as Dragon Warrior.
Could Gamezone...
- remove the HeroQuest commerical from their video
- call the product HeroQuest in Spain, but The Hero's Quest for the USA market (or something else, Quests of Heroes, etc)
- launch the Kickstarter with the name The Hero's Quest 25th Anniversary Edition
- explicitly explain in the opening paragraph that it is called HeroQuest in Spain and has been retitled The Hero's Quest for the international/non-Spanish market
With new art assets and redesigned rules, no copyrights are affected. With a different name for USA/international distribution, there is no trademark conflict.
silent25 wrote: And isn't Super Dungeon Explorer also a HeroQuest style game? Haven't played it, but reading the reviews, sounds very similar. Just with a super cutesy art style.
@Bubba, thanks! You summed it up pretty well.
*edit* Weeble1000, yea you got most of it.
@Judgedoug But then it loses any artificial sense of legitimacy that it had. As pointed out, there are other similar games out there that did their own take on the HeroQuest theme. This would come across as just another one of those.
judgedoug wrote: As I mentioned previously, back in the late 80's Enix wanted to bring it's popular "Dragon Quest" game to the USA (on the Famicom/Nintendo Entertainment System). However, the "Dragon Quest" trademark already existed in the USA, so for the USA market the series was retitled "Dragon Warrior". The same product existed in both Japan and the USA (with localization translations) but with slightly different names. Everyone knew it was the Dragon Quest series but was marketed in the USA as Dragon Warrior.
Could Gamezone...
- remove the HeroQuest commerical from their video
- call the product HeroQuest in Spain, but The Hero's Quest for the USA market (or something else, Quests of Heroes, etc)
- launch the Kickstarter with the name The Hero's Quest 25th Anniversary Edition
- explicitly explain in the opening paragraph that it is called HeroQuest in Spain and has been retitled The Hero's Quest for the international/non-Spanish market
With new art assets and redesigned rules, no copyrights are affected. With a different name for USA/international distribution, there is no trademark conflict.
Would that satisfy the conflict?
I would argue that the sucess of Gamezones is tied extremly closely with the title HeroQuest...
judgedoug wrote: As I mentioned previously, back in the late 80's Enix wanted to bring it's popular "Dragon Quest" game to the USA (on the Famicom/Nintendo Entertainment System). However, the "Dragon Quest" trademark already existed in the USA, so for the USA market the series was retitled "Dragon Warrior". The same product existed in both Japan and the USA (with localization translations) but with slightly different names. Everyone knew it was the Dragon Quest series but was marketed in the USA as Dragon Warrior.
Could Gamezone... - remove the HeroQuest commerical from their video - call the product HeroQuest in Spain, but The Hero's Quest for the USA market (or something else, Quests of Heroes, etc) - launch the Kickstarter with the name The Hero's Quest 25th Anniversary Edition - explicitly explain in the opening paragraph that it is called HeroQuest in Spain and has been retitled The Hero's Quest for the international/non-Spanish market
With new art assets and redesigned rules, no copyrights are affected. With a different name for USA/international distribution, there is no trademark conflict.
Would that satisfy the conflict?
I would argue that the sucess of Gamezones is tied extremly closely with the title HeroQuest...
And yet this is what is odd, because GameZone's use of the mark is a direct reference to a source that is not Moon Design. It is a reference to Hasbro/Milton Bradley/Games Workshop. Arguably, this cuts across likelihood of confusion because the junior use recalls a very different source from the source of the senior mark. Do you see what I mean?
GameZone is essentially attempting to palm off its product as being sponsored or endorsed by Hasbro, or at least it can be viewed in that light. What is clear is that GameZone's use of the mark is intended to recall the 25 year old board game, not the Moon Design RPG.
Is Moon Design worried about liability incurred by licensing the use of its mark in a way that could be viewed by Hasbro as an intention to palm off a product as a Hasbro product? I don't know if that would expose one to liability? I also do not know if one can palm off via a dead mark. The market likely does not associate HeroQuest strongly with Milton Bradley, and certainly not Games Workshop, and I have trouble conceiving of the mark actually calling to mind the Hasbro mark. This lack of association is because the mark is dead, and has been dead for a long, long time when it comes to Hasbro/Games Workshop/Milton Bradley.
Any license deal between Moon Design and GameZone could easily contain an indemnification clause. I mean, that's pretty basic isn't it?
This is an interesting legal question and it really should have been worked out before the launch of the Kickstarter.
Maybe GameZone figured it could always hide out in Spain if things went badly.
@silent25 and @catyrpelius
Ah, I see what you're saying. Personally, to me, I don't care too much about it being "officially official", all I care about is the feel. If the core mechanics stay the same (which are not protectable), then it'll still be HeroQuest to me but with much cooler models.
Basically, I could easily have a copy of HeroQuest '89 and buy all new sweet minis and terrain and have nicer cards made, but I'd rather be able to buy it all in one go, which is why the Gamezone HQ redux was so appealing to me.
silent25 wrote: And isn't Super Dungeon Explorer also a HeroQuest style game? Haven't played it, but reading the reviews, sounds very similar. Just with a super cutesy art style.
SDE & Dwarf Kings Hold are similar but different. DKH is more like a scenario based skirmish for the Kings of War Setting.. set up a simple floorplan, play out the scenario, rinse repeat.
SDE Doesn't have scenarios and is pretty much just a grid-based PVP game where you pick up equipment along the way.
The only thing that is really close to HeroQuest on the market is Descent, which is pretty much an improved clone of HeroQuest.
judgedoug wrote: @silent25 and @catyrpelius
Ah, I see what you're saying. Personally, to me, I don't care too much about it being "officially official", all I care about is the feel. If the core mechanics stay the same (which are not protectable), then it'll still be HeroQuest to me but with much cooler models.
Basically, I could easily have a copy of HeroQuest '89 and buy all new sweet minis and terrain and have nicer cards made, but I'd rather be able to buy it all in one go, which is why the Gamezone HQ redux was so appealing to me.
Someone really should just come up with a Warmace Dungeon Questing game too then!
judgedoug wrote: @silent25 and @catyrpelius
Ah, I see what you're saying. Personally, to me, I don't care too much about it being "officially official", all I care about is the feel. If the core mechanics stay the same (which are not protectable), then it'll still be HeroQuest to me but with much cooler models.
Basically, I could easily have a copy of HeroQuest '89 and buy all new sweet minis and terrain and have nicer cards made, but I'd rather be able to buy it all in one go, which is why the Gamezone HQ redux was so appealing to me.
If this is the case I'd recommend checking out descent 2.0. It's the basis of Heroquest but with modern rules and beautiful components.
weeble1000 wrote: I'm not trying to be pedantic bubba, and I apologize if I came off that way. In fact, I think I specifically said that it was not my intention to be pedantic. I think it is helpful to understand the background of what is going on here, as it has come up already and been referenced by various folks in the course of this discussion. I am genuinely interested in understanding it correctly, and I appreciate your additions.
I agree 100% with the first part and apologize for the "since we're being pedantic" bit not having the right orkmoticon to reflect the right tone. Fielding calls at the office and typing as fast as I could. I thought your "let's get all the facts in one place" strategy was brilliant -- even if it might look pedantic to some people -- because there are so many claims flying around. I'm sure people will keep clarifying the record as we go because I definitely don't know the whole story. Maybe together we can put it together.
I'm an old RuneQuest and HeroQuest (Milton Bradley) fan who never really liked HeroQuest (Moon Design) but I love the Glorantha. So when this hit, I got curious about just how we got here and have been digging in ever since. The deal with them is that Stafford's HeroQuest was originally going to be wild and crazy -- maybe a board game, maybe an RPG, maybe some kind of weird hybrid from when the world was new -- and it was so ambitious he talked about it for a good 20 years but it never came out. You snooze, you lose and by the time he was ready to come out with something he wanted to call "HeroQuest," the Milton Bradley game had come and gone and he couldn't get the trademark.
So he had to call it "Hero Wars" instead for a few years while waiting for the HeroQuest mark to lapse. Once that happened, he was back on HeroQuest like a shot and now his pals / proteges at Moon Design are evidently pretty defensive where the mark is on the line. At least their official response is easy to find whereas the Gamezone statements are all over the place. (I wasn't paying attention because I still have my old MB box and wasn't looking to pay $100+ for a reissue.)
I have no idea why they want signoff from Hasbro. It was surprising for me to see GW actually had the U.S. trademark so I would think that would be the giant everyone should be nervous about here, but the MB/GW relationship is one of the vague points. I hear it was a MB game and GW just made the minis. I hear MB designed it and "borrowed" enough GW IP that it was really more of a creative partnership. I hear a lot of things. Probably someone here knows the real deal.
The funny thing is that GW and Stafford used to work together in the distant days. GW distributed RuneQuest and some other Stafford titles -- the Elric RPG, I think one or two others -- so maybe they still have an understanding. I kind of doubt it, but this thing is already extremely chaotic, so why not a little more? I agree that Hasbro's "property" can mean a lot of things.
On the brick and mortars, I wouldn't worry. RuneQuest hasn't been a real market force since maybe 1989. By the time HeroQuest (Moon Design) came around, most everybody's sales in that channel were direct online. Onward we go!
So... right now, nobody owns the Class 28 on HeroQuest?
Two small companies acting like dill weed teenagers over it, and one medium and one very large company both asserting that it's theirs, but none of these clowns has actually bothered to do the homework that took Weeble 2 days at most to work out?
the trademark situation has been known for a while - that GW and Hasbro's (tm)'s are listed as DEAD - and that Gamezone owns the (tm) in Spain... I referenced that info in a post at least a week or longer ago.
Now, I'm obviously a complete layman, but my query is why doesn't/didn't GZ register the Section 28 in the US if this is all so well known/easy to find out?
And at this point, I'm wondering why someone from Dakka hasn't registered it in the last 2 weeks - before GZ/GW/MR/HB do
@weeble1000 - I understand your source of confusion.
It seems that Moon Design was worried that it they ok'd the use of the Heroquest trademark, or turned a blind eye, that if Hasbro get angry about the new game that they (Hasbro) would come after Moon Design.
This has also been mentioned in many of RiTdes posts about it recently.
It doesn't make much sense however. Hasbro does not have any case in regards to the trademark. We've seen that clearly identified.
They might be able to raise a concern on copyright grounds, but even if that's the case their only beef would be with Gamezone, and not Moon Designs.
I guess Moon Designs was just worried that they would be pulled into any litigation anyway because of their licencing of the trademark, that they'd somehow 'approved' of the full content and what Gamezone was doing, and somehow became responsible.
Or the whole thing is a tactic to get more leverage on getting a piece of the KS pie.
bubba wrote: [a bunch of polite, friendly, and informative stuff]
Pedantic tends to have a pejorative connotation, and could be used with the intention of being insulting, so I just wanted to make sure I hadn't pissed you off or something. Yay for computer-mediated communication! Sometimes there's just not the right emoticon . See, what the Hell does that mean?
Now, I'm obviously a complete layman, but my query is why doesn't/didn't GZ register the Section 28 in the US if this is all so well known/easy to find out?
And at this point, I'm wondering why someone from Dakka hasn't registered it in the last 2 weeks - before GZ/GW/MR/HB do
No product, no trademark. You have to be selling something in order to have a trademark.
weeble1000 wrote: This is an interesting legal question and it really should have been worked out before the launch of the Kickstarter.
Maybe GameZone figured it could always hide out in Spain if things went badly.
I think that's the key, they should have had this worked out beforehand, and definitely shouldn't have told backers there was "No chance of a C&D" when Moon Design had flatly refused to license the US trademark to them (saying they would not do so without written permission from Hasbro for the project to proceed). From the posts Moon Design made after the fact, they were really clear about this with GameZone ahead of time, but GameZone tried to forge ahead anyway.
judgedoug wrote: @silent25 and @catyrpelius
Ah, I see what you're saying. Personally, to me, I don't care too much about it being "officially official", all I care about is the feel. If the core mechanics stay the same (which are not protectable), then it'll still be HeroQuest to me but with much cooler models.
Basically, I could easily have a copy of HeroQuest '89 and buy all new sweet minis and terrain and have nicer cards made, but I'd rather be able to buy it all in one go, which is why the Gamezone HQ redux was so appealing to me.
If this is the case I'd recommend checking out descent 2.0. It's the basis of Heroquest but with modern rules and beautiful components.
Not a big fan of either Descent or Descent 2.0. I tried, I really did... but they're too tactical-wargame-y for my taste. My group also plays WHQ and AHQ often (as well as Dragonstrike and others) but none have the feel that HeroQuest does.
You generally have a period after registering a trademark in which you can take your time to release a product. In Canada, it's 5 years, and it's likely similar in the US. If anyone feels like spending the money to register a trademark, feel free to later release your Heroquest paper doll cut out board game for 99 cents 3 years from now, you should be fine in terms of owning the trademark so long as it wasn't previously registered.
Not a big fan of either Descent or Descent 2.0. I tried, I really did... but they're too tactical-wargame-y for my taste. My group also plays WHQ and AHQ often (as well as Dragonstrike and others) but none have the feel that HeroQuest does.
Agree. HQ has a unique simpleness to it which allows for informal DMing instead of a rigid system which can be gamed and tactically impacted. And it is simple enough for non RPGers and non Wargamer to easily get in to with no explanation.
I backed MYTH hoping it turns out like that, but if not, I can still play HQ with my ratty old stuff. It would have been nice to have a shiny new box and board and a few new models and rules.
judgedoug wrote: But... why? Maybe I am just totally not understanding this part, and forgive me if I am. If Hasbro's trademark is DEAD, and Gamezone's game is sufficiently different - rules, art, models, design - what does it matter?
Because the first word in the Kickstarter's title should have been "Unofficial". I don't know Spanish IP law, but here an artist is recognised as possessing moral rights beyond those granted by trademark and copyright. They put a spin on their refusal to mention Stephen Baker, but they should have, because a refusal to attribute work to its creator looks a lot like plagiarism.
And frankly, this is the sort of thing trademark law is for: to protect the customer and the IP creator from third parties who would try to muddy the waters so it isn't crystal clear who did what.
Just read this over at BGG.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1081721/kickstarter-payment Anyone who used Gamezone's shipping calculator should check with their credit card companies. People are getting the shipping charges from the calculator charged against them.
Trying to find the source of it, but people at BGG are also tossing around MD was asking for $58,000 CAD as part of the deal to use the Heroquest trademark in the US. That is a hard nut to swallow.
They were asking for that and written approval from Hasbro to proceed, though- not just one or the other. So I don't think there is actually a path forward on Kickstarter due to the second part.
silent25 wrote: Just read this over at BGG.
Trying to find the source of it, but people at BGG are also tossing around MD was asking for $58,000 CAD as part of the deal to use the Heroquest trademark in the US. That is a hard nut to swallow.
Of course, totally conjecture, but that sounds roughly 10% of what it was when it was suspended. MD could have been asking for 10% of gross. 58,000 CAD is an odd number and does not correlate nicely to a nice even number like USD50,000 or EUR50,000.
@Rigeld2. Agree, though even if the KS had hit $2M, it would still be ~3% of the total. That could be the difference between making money on the project and losing money. Remember, Reaper only made ~$50K profit on their first kickstater.
@RiTides, sorry wasn't meaning to make it sound like that was the only thing MD was asking for. And agree, think this KS is done. Stick a fork in it.
silent25 wrote: Just read this over at BGG.
Trying to find the source of it, but people at BGG are also tossing around MD was asking for $58,000 CAD as part of the deal to use the Heroquest trademark in the US. That is a hard nut to swallow.
Of course, totally conjecture, but that sounds roughly 10% of what it was when it was suspended. MD could have been asking for 10% of gross.
Bubba says otherwise; that Moon Design had asked for a reasonable percentage of profits, which wouldn't be 10% I don't think, but I don't have any industry specific numbers. 10% for a license is absurd when it comes to patents, for example.
Asking for a percentage of gross Kickstarter funds would be pretty unreasonable. It would be like asking for a percentage of gross revenue, and I have trouble fathoming that as a license for a trademark.
silent25 wrote: @Rigeld2. Agree, though even if the KS had hit $2M, it would still be ~3% of the total. That could be the difference between making money on the project and losing money. Remember, Reaper only made ~$50K profit on their first kickstater.
@RiTides, sorry wasn't meaning to make it sound like that was the only thing MD was asking for. And agree, think this KS is done. Stick a fork in it.
The amount of money it made in the first few days (I think a record for this kind of KS right?) would be very surprised if it didn't appear in some form or another in the near future, even if this one ultimately gets stymied. Although, I don't think it will.
judgedoug wrote: As I mentioned previously, back in the late 80's Enix wanted to bring it's popular "Dragon Quest" game to the USA (on the Famicom/Nintendo Entertainment System). However, the "Dragon Quest" trademark already existed in the USA, so for the USA market the series was retitled "Dragon Warrior". The same product existed in both Japan and the USA (with localization translations) but with slightly different names. Everyone knew it was the Dragon Quest series but was marketed in the USA as Dragon Warrior.
Could Gamezone...
- remove the HeroQuest commerical from their video
- call the product HeroQuest in Spain, but The Hero's Quest for the USA market (or something else, Quests of Heroes, etc)
- launch the Kickstarter with the name The Hero's Quest 25th Anniversary Edition
- explicitly explain in the opening paragraph that it is called HeroQuest in Spain and has been retitled The Hero's Quest for the international/non-Spanish market
With new art assets and redesigned rules, no copyrights are affected. With a different name for USA/international distribution, there is no trademark conflict.
Would that satisfy the conflict?
I can see the new name: Hero Warriors - The Quest - 25th anniversary edition
These seem to be the facts: 1. They have the trademark to produce a game of some nature in Spain calling it "HeroQuest". This is legal, they could do a monopoly-like game calling it heroquest quite legally
2. They have developed a game derived from MBs HeroQuest by altering sufficiently all the features by which copyright is judged. This is also legal, indeed there are many examples in RPGs at the moment of doing this with old games such as D&D first edition, an example is Swords & Wizardry. http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/
The problem comes, as I see it, is where they take the second item and try to market it under the first giving the impression they have the right to produce a new edition of the actual game orignally made by MB. They acknowledge in the interview that this is a commemorative version, not a new edition. If they want to produce a clone in memory of HQ go ahead, just don't call it "HeroQuest".
Putting those two things together puts them back at risk of breaching copyright principles, as I understand them.
Moon Design didn't want to get sucked in to any potential legal wrangles over this, thus demanded to see evidence of Hasbro saying, "go ahead, make your version and call it HeroQuest, we're fine with that"
These seem to be the facts:
1. They have the trademark to produce a game of some nature in Spain calling it "HeroQuest". This is legal, they could do a monopoly-like game calling it heroquest quite legally
2. They have developed a game derived from MBs HeroQuest by altering sufficiently all the features by which copyright is judged. This is also legal, indeed there are many examples in RPGs at the moment of doing this with old games such as D&D first edition, an example is Swords & Wizardry. http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/
The problem comes, as I see it, is where they take the second item and try to market it under the first giving the impression they have the right to produce a new edition of the actual game orignally made by MB. They acknowledge in the interview that this is a commemorative version, not a new edition. If they want to produce a clone in memory of HQ go ahead, just don't call it "HeroQuest".
Putting those two things together puts them back at risk of breaching copyright principles, as I understand them.
So its OK to produce any type of game called "HeroQuest", and its OK to produce a specific game thats very similar to "HeroQuest", but its not OK to call the game thats similar to "HeroQuest", "HeroQuest"?
There seems to be more than enough publicity now for a KS for a game thats similar to HeroQuest, commemorating HeroQuest, and called HeroQuest in Spain but called something else in the USA... and to give Moon Designs the two finger salute (one finger in the USA of course - its their trademark after all.)
They could even presumably mention "Compatible with Milton Bradley's HeroQuest boardgame (1989)" in slightly smaller letters, even on the US version... think, aftermarket parts, rather than rip-off.
These seem to be the facts:
1. They have the trademark to produce a game of some nature in Spain calling it "HeroQuest". This is legal, they could do a monopoly-like game calling it heroquest quite legally
2. They have developed a game derived from MBs HeroQuest by altering sufficiently all the features by which copyright is judged. This is also legal, indeed there are many examples in RPGs at the moment of doing this with old games such as D&D first edition, an example is Swords & Wizardry. http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/
The problem comes, as I see it, is where they take the second item and try to market it under the first giving the impression they have the right to produce a new edition of the actual game orignally made by MB. They acknowledge in the interview that this is a commemorative version, not a new edition. If they want to produce a clone in memory of HQ go ahead, just don't call it "HeroQuest".
Putting those two things together puts them back at risk of breaching copyright principles, as I understand them.
So its OK to produce any type of game called "HeroQuest", and its OK to produce a specific game thats very similar to "HeroQuest", but its not OK to call the game thats similar to "HeroQuest", "HeroQuest"?
There seems to be more than enough publicity now for a KS for a game thats similar to HeroQuest, commemorating HeroQuest, and called HeroQuest in Spain but called something else in the USA... and to give Moon Designs the two finger salute (one finger in the USA of course - its their trademark after all.)
I'm not certain, but there still may be problems if they called it "HeroQuest" in Spain, due to the combination of original name attached to the clone boardgame suggesting authorised new edition therefore not paying royalties to the original designer etc., but I really don't know on that. I reckon they would be safer and much more secure simply renaming it.
Moon design, I believe, couldn't give a hoop what happens then, as they are not linked to a potential legal minefield, which, if you reread their statement, was their original condition in the first place, before Gamezone ignored their decision, and their demand for a license fee came into the picture.
The hiccup is the dead trademark. Forget copyright for a minute.
HeroQuest was at one point both a Hasbro and Games Workshop trademark. Those marks are lapsed and dead and the product is no longer in print.
However, GameZone's planned 25th Anniversary Edition of HeroQuest specifically calls to mind the now out of print Milton Bradley HeroQuest game and its associated, now defunct, trademark. That is the intent. GameZone has stated that this is the intent. I think one could probably make a colorable argument of trademark infringement via lingering association of the now dead HeroQuest mark with currently active marks, like Hasbro and Milton Bradley. There may also be room for a colorable argument of trademark dilution along the same lines.
That's a stretch, and I said earlier that dead marks do not rise from the grave thirsting for statutory damages, but having thought it over, a creative argument along the lines described above might just amount to the type of black sorcery aimed at doing exactly that. There's no telling if it would be successful, and I don't know if there is any US precedent along those lines. There's also no telling whether Hasbro or Games Workshop would dare to attempt such baleful legal necromancy.
Do any of y'all legal-minded folks have a thought on this hypothetical?
weeble1000 wrote: The hiccup is the dead trademark. Forget copyright for a minute.
HeroQuest was at one point both a Hasbro and Games Workshop trademark. Those marks are lapsed and dead and the product is no longer in print.
However, GameZone's planned 25th Anniversary Edition of HeroQuest specifically calls to mind the now out of print Milton Bradley HeroQuest game and its associated, now defunct, trademark. That is the intent. GameZone has stated that this is the intent. I think one could probably make a colorable argument of trademark infringement via lingering association of the now dead HeroQuest mark with currently active marks, like Hasbro and Milton Bradley. There may also be room for a colorable argument of trademark dilution along the same lines.
That's a stretch, and I said earlier that dead marks do not rise from the grave thirsting for statutory damages, but having thought it over, a creative argument along the lines described above might just amount to the type of black sorcery aimed at doing exactly that. There's no telling if it would be successful, and I don't know if there is any US precedent along those lines. There's also no telling whether Hasbro or Games Workshop would dare to attempt such baleful legal necromancy.
Do any of y'all legal-minded folks have a thought on this hypothetical?
My understanding is different.
The hiccup is Moon Design have a specific condition for permitting the use of the name "HeroQuest" for the proposed boardgame in the US. They can do this as they hold the Trademark for the name "HeroQuest" in the US. Their specific condition for granting the license, is an official statement from Hasbro, who hold the rights (copyright?) to the boardgame itself that Gamezone have permission to produce a new edition of the game, thus protecting gamezone and Moon Design from accusations of infringement of the IP of the actual game.
Gamezone haven't produced that, indeed have said on several occasions that they are altering all the components and rules sufficiently that they do not need Hasbro's permission. If they did this and gave the game a different name, it would be legal as game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, but changing details to avoid paying copyright royalties, then giving the game the same name as the original and selling it essentially as a new edition of the original, would appear unethical at best, and possibly open them up to accusations of IP infringement again.
So the issue is about the copyrights, its always been about the copyrights.
Gamezone are completely free to issue a game commemorating the old HeroQuest boardgame, cloning the rules, as they have planned, but the problem is actually calling it "HeroQuest" without authorisation from Hasbro. If the called it, say "25 years of Heroes Questing" or something like that, they would be fine becvause they are not claiming it is the same game.
The thing is, Moon Design might not have an objectively reasonable basis to be concerned about liability. If Moon Design is concerned about legal exposure, it might also have considered tortious interference.
Moon Design complained to Kickstarter, causing quantifiable harm to the campaign. Hell, I would have been more worried about that as opposed to what Hasbro might do, as there was a large and daunting dollar amount raised as part of the campaign like a big flashing beacon of potential damages. There's also the fact that Stafford is known to have desired to make a HeroQuest board game, and arguably has a motivation to interfere with GameZone's Kickstarter in order to prevent GameZone from successfully establishing business relationships along those lines.
That risk seems a lot closer to home than wondering whether Hasbro will somehow come back and try to foist liability on a completely unrelated company that just happens to have picked up a word mark that Hasbro had used at one point in time.
This thing could get really ugly really quickly even if Habro stays out of it (and maybe even especially if Hasbro stays out of it), and again, this is why such matters should generally be handled in a more cool-headed manner. In worrying about one type of exposure, Moon Design may have exposed itself to something far more damaging. Consider what GameZone might do if Hasbro steps in and states that it does not feel that it has any rights to enforce in the matter. Like I said before, the only harm I have seen to date is the harm done to GameZone in the form of the torpedoed Kickstarter campaign, and we all know the dollar value of that campaign.
weeble1000 wrote: The thing is, Moon Design might not have an objectively reasonable basis to be concerned about liability. If Moon Design is concerned about legal exposure, it might also have considered tortious interference.
Moon Design complained to Kickstarter, causing quantifiable harm to the campaign....[snip]... In worrying about one type of exposure, Moon Design may have exposed itself to something far more damaging. Consider what GameZone might do if Hasbro steps in and states that it does not feel that it has any rights to enforce in the matter. Like I said before, the only harm I have seen to date is the harm done to GameZone in the form of the torpedoed Kickstarter campaign, and we all know the dollar value of that campaign.
Wow, I hadn't even thought of that. But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."
judgedoug wrote: But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."
I think it's at least possible, because nobody involved with this farce is likely to give them the benefit of doubt, but instead are busily spinning more and more elaborate theories and falsehoods. We only have GZ's word for how the negotiations, if any, between them and MD are going. We simply don't know, since we don't have access to the actual communications between the actors, just biased accounts from various observers, none of whom are disinterested.
judgedoug wrote: But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."
I think it's at least possible, because nobody involved with this farce is likely to give them the benefit of doubt, but instead are busily spinning more and more elaborate theories and falsehoods. We only have GZ's word for how the negotiations, if any, between them and MD are going. We simply don't know, since we don't have access to the actual communications between the actors, just biased accounts from various observers, none of whom are disinterested.
Agreed. Applying motive to Moon Designs is just speculation. And they do own the US trademark, like it or not, and Kickstarter is a US-based company. That's how things work here... for better or worse, it's the basic reality of it.
All indications point to that this game won't be going back on Kickstarter with the name HeroQuest without Moon Design's permission... I'm really sick of hearing about it now because they're at a dead end and they're going to have to change tacks if they want to go forward.
judgedoug wrote: But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."
I think it's at least possible, because nobody involved with this farce is likely to give them the benefit of doubt, but instead are busily spinning more and more elaborate theories and falsehoods. We only have GZ's word for how the negotiations, if any, between them and MD are going. We simply don't know, since we don't have access to the actual communications between the actors, just biased accounts from various observers, none of whom are disinterested.
Let me put it this way. The Gloranthan world is not a very popular one. Runequest has always been a niche RPG, with a small but ferociously loyal following - but never in the mass-market, nowhere near D&D or Pathfinder, let alone say even Call of Cthulhu, and certainly a miniscule number in comparison to the number of copies of HeroQuest '89 sold. I can guarantee you that the license to produce something in the Runequest world was a negligable fee, if there was any at all. Moon Design knows the value of the HeroQuest name when it comes to a board game - they know because they want to make their own HeroQuest boardgame! ("For some time now we have been working on creating a board game called “Heroquest”) I can guarantee you that it is the overriding factor with any negotiations with Gamezone ("We told Gamezone that they needed to immediately get a licensing agreement from us (which, among other things, would require that they pay us for the rights to the name since it would mean foregoing our opportunity to release our game using our trademark and to compensate us for that lost revenue)").
They claim Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission (" a statement that Gamezone has explicit permission from Hasbro"), despite their assertion that they own it (“Heroquest” is the registered US trademark of Moon Design and is the name of our “Heroquest” roleplaying game and assorted products. To allow a game using the same name to be promoted in the United States through Kickstarter without a license would be an unacceptable dilution of our brand and create market confusion to our detriment.")
Moon Design then hilariously states: "The project calls their game “Heroquest” which is identical to our registered mark and easily confused with it."
So my original point: they know Hasbro has nothing to do with it, otherwise they wouldn't have grabbed up the trademark and had plans to make their own Heroquest.
The funniest part of Moon Design's position, is of course, claiming that a Gamezone remake of HeroQuest would somehow create market confusion! Meanwhile they have a plan to make their own HeroQuest boardgame - yeah, a Gloranthan board game with anthropomorphic ducks called HeroQuest certainly wouldn't confuse a board game market that has extensive knowledge of HeroQuest '89 and almost no knowledge of Glorantha. Conversely, Moon Design releasing a HeroQuest board game would actually create true market confusion, riding the coattails of HeroQuest '89 because, undoubtedly, the market would be confused thinking it's a followup to HeroQuest '89!
Doug, you really missed the point on a number of those issues. It's a lot of circular reasoning, imo, but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now. Let's all wait for a new development and not keep this thread at the top when there is no news to report. I'm sure GameZone is planning their comeback as we speak, it probably won't be long to wait. But until then, it'd be good not to go in circles...
Agreed. Applying motive to Moon Designs is just speculation. And they do own the US trademark, like it or not, and Kickstarter is a US-based company. That's how things work here... for better or worse, it's the basic reality of it.
Their press release is the only official word, where they demand permission from Hasbro for Gamezone to use Moon Design's trademark and pay a licensing fee as well as extra money to compensate them for loss of revenue from their own planned HeroQuest game (which Moon Design wouldn't need permission from Hasbro for, of course).
I believe, at this point, Gamezone should just do the Enix Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior route and vaguely retitle HeroQuest for the USA market. Have Kickstarter change the name of their page to The Hero's Quest (HeroQuest*) with the * footnote being "HeroQuest is trademark owned by Gamezone in Spain) and mail Moon Design a check with "zero dollars and 00/100" written on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now.
aye aye! Agreed. Sorry, as Alpharius said, I just want me some HeroQuest - and not one filled with anthropomorphic ducks!
They claim Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission (" a statement that Gamezone has explicit permission from Hasbro"), despite their assertion that they own it (“Heroquest” is the registered US trademark of Moon Design and is the name of our “Heroquest” roleplaying game and assorted products. To allow a game using the same name to be promoted in the United States through Kickstarter without a license would be an unacceptable dilution of our brand and create market confusion to our detriment.")
Let me clarify my understanding of MDP's position.
Gamezone needs MDP's permission to use the name "Heroquest" in the USA because MDP owns that Trademark.
Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission to reproduce the original Heroquest board game because Hasbro owns the copyright on the game, regardless of what the name of said game is.
There's a difference betwen trademark and copyright. For example, you couldn't take a copy of the Pathfinder rulebook, change every instance of Pathfinder to Awesome RPG, and then be ok. The name Pathfinder is Trademarked, the contents of the book are copyrighted.
judgedoug wrote: Moon Design then hilariously states: "The project calls their game “Heroquest” which is identical to our registered mark and easily confused with it."
That's actually an important line because the standard for trademark infringement is likelihood of confusion.
RiTides wrote: Doug, you really missed the point on a number of those issues. It's a lot of circular reasoning, imo, but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now. Let's all wait for a new development and not keep this thread at the top when there is no news to report. I'm sure GameZone is planning their comeback as we speak, it probably won't be long to wait. But until then, it'd be good not to go in circles...
I respect your opinion RiTides, but there are substantive issues to discuss related to this topic. I don't really think that cutting discussion down to just new factual developments is reasonable. A new Discussions thread could be started, but there's a lot of substance in this thread that it would be a shame to lose the coherency of. Maybe this thread can be moved to Dakka Discussions and renamed, and a new thread about related news updates started in News and Rumors.
Let me clarify my understanding of MDP's position.
Gamezone needs MDP's permission to use the name "Heroquest" in the USA because MDP owns that Trademark.
Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission to reproduce the original Heroquest board game because Hasbro owns the copyright on the game, regardless of what the name of said game is.
There's a difference betwen trademark and copyright. For example, you couldn't take a copy of the Pathfinder rulebook, change every instance of Pathfinder to Awesome RPG, and then be ok. The name Pathfinder is Trademarked, the contents of the book are copyrighted.
Yeah, trademarks are the mark used in commerce for branding, such as Coca-Cola. Copyrights are to protect the owner of a work (a photographer for a photograph, author for a book).
So, yeah, you may not copy things that are copyrighted. Thankfully Gamezone is not using copyrighted materials. Game mechanics are not protectable under copyright (TSR got knocked silly in the late 90's by trying to do that... but in very rare instances mechanics have been patented, such as Wizards of the Coast's "tapping" mechanic), and they are using entirely new art and design assets. The protected elements have been removed (such as "Fimir"). As far as I understand - and if weeble or czakk could clarify for me - with entirely new text, new art and design assets, removal of anything related to the Warhammer universe... so with all copyrighted materials removed, then they are perfectly fine, with the only similarity being some of the mechanics - rolling dice, moving figures around a board, and use spell cards, for example. (it would be similar to how Void / Urban War uses a modified 40k ruleset and Wargods uses a modified Warhammer ruleset).
If anyone has more factual knowledge than above, please correct me if I'm wrong on the above points.
Let me clarify my understanding of MDP's position.
Gamezone needs MDP's permission to use the name "Heroquest" in the USA because MDP owns that Trademark.
Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission to reproduce the original Heroquest board game because Hasbro owns the copyright on the game, regardless of what the name of said game is.
This may be Moon Design's position, but the proper answer is "not necessarily." GameZone might need Moon Design's permission to use the mark. On the other hand, GameZone's use of the word mark could be non-infringing.
Again, GameZone might need Hasbro's permission to make a 25th Anniversary edition of the '89 HeroQuest board game, but GameZone's product could be non-infringing.
Certainly, Moon Design's permission and Hasbro's permission would obviate any dispute, but otherwise disputes they would be, and not sealed and stamped self-evident facts.
Yup the beauty of IP law pretty much everywhere is you've got to tack on probably or might onto most of your statements because until you actually go to court and argue your case in front of a Judge you can't know for certain what the result would be
Personally (and from a non-legal background) Gamezone should have filed to use Heroquest for a boardgame which is a mark that Milton Bradbury (now Habro) used to hold but let expire
Moon Designs (previously Greg Stafford) having an active TM for using Heroquest RPG should not (nessesarily) interefere as under US TM law these seem to be separate classes. If Moon Design really had a boardgame coming in anything like the near future they'd have applied to protect that class too.
so they'd be able to show KS they had a right to do this project in the USA
but then that requires a US lawyer and costs money
(They should also push forward with negotiating with Hasbro to get some sort of deal to allow retail distribution in territories where Hasbro still have an active Heroquest trademark.... this should also mean they have official blessing to make a compatible product)
judgedoug wrote: ...but in very rare instances mechanics have been patented, such as Wizards of the Coast's "tapping" mechanic
Even so, Wizards only has a copyright on the "tap" symbol and the term itself. Both are copyrightable. Many other card games effectively use the same mechanic except they term it "exhaust" or other similar terms for the same mechanic.
RiTides wrote: Doug, you really missed the point on a number of those issues. It's a lot of circular reasoning, imo, but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now. Let's all wait for a new development and not keep this thread at the top when there is no news to report. I'm sure GameZone is planning their comeback as we speak, it probably won't be long to wait. But until then, it'd be good not to go in circles...
I respect your opinion RiTides, but there are substantive issues to discuss related to this topic. I don't really think that cutting discussion down to just new factual developments is reasonable. A new Discussions thread could be started, but there's a lot of substance in this thread that it would be a shame to lose the coherency of. Maybe this thread can be moved to Dakka Discussions and renamed, and a new thread about related news updates started in News and Rumors.
Would that be a fair compromise?
I'd love to see either a new thread in Discussions, or this thread moved there until the campaign is once again active, but I respect folks who think otherwise. I just don't want to participate in the same discussion round and round. And I guess the idea that a Spanish company with no connection to Hasbro or GW, making a 25th anniversary game called HeroQuest, somehow has the moral high ground over a company protecting that trademark in the US is a little rich . But to each his own... I'm tired of talking about it now . I also think the idea that Moon Designs should just go ahead and license the mark and take all the risk of getting sued in the US is a little insane, too... but okay, not getting sucked back in, you guys have at it
Looks like there might be some conclusion to this mess (might). This is an email sent to the backers from GZ:
Kraken says:
Dear Backers
After knowing the KS surprise pause, we made a statement we published on our heroquestclassic.com page, where we transparently reported you about the situation, and we wandered directly to you, our backers, what you wanted us to do.
Most of you requested to wait for KS response. So we did. Today we have that answer. We will publish a statement at heroquestclassic.com tonight, as we did before.
“Tras conocer la pausa impuesta por KSde manera sorpresiva, nosotros hicimos un comunicado que colgamos en nuestra página heroquestclassic.com, en el que os informábamos con transparencia de la situación y os preguntábamos directamente a vosotros, nuestros backers, qué queríais que hiciéramos.
La mayoría de vosotros nos pedísteis esperar la respuesta deKS. Y así hemos hecho. Hoy ya tenemos esa respuesta. Igual que hicimos la otra vez colgaremos un comunicado en heroquestclassic.com esta noche.
So KS have given them a response but the project is still suspended doesn't look like it's going to go live again any time soon if it was good news the suspension would be lifted by now.
I'd love to see either a new thread in Discussions, or this thread moved there until the campaign is once again active, but I respect folks who think otherwise. I just don't want to participate in the same discussion round and round. And I guess the idea that a Spanish company with no connection to Hasbro or GW, making a 25th anniversary game called HeroQuest, somehow has the moral high ground over a company protecting that trademark in the US is a little rich . But to each his own... I'm tired of talking about it now . I also think the idea that Moon Designs should just go ahead and license the mark and take all the risk of getting sued in the US is a little insane, too... but okay, not getting sucked back in, you guys have at it
I don't think opinions are as polarized as that. The biggest problem I have with your opinion on this is Moon Design's concern about being held liable for something an entirely separate, unconnected entity chooses to do just because Moon Design holds a word mark that used to be owned by Hasbro.
I just don't see how Moon Design could reasonably believe any such potential liability would exist. It is a stretch that Hasbro could sue GameZone for infringement of an abandoned mark, let alone a company that actually holds that word mark and is not engaged in said allegedly infringing conduct in any way, shape, or form.
Rather, Moon Design asserted its mark against GameZone indirectly through Kickstarter. How was such an affirmative action a means to insulate Moon Design from a hypothetical suit by Hasbro? Is it more reasonable to believe that Moon Design's principle motivation was insulating itself from collateral liability, or that Moon Design intended to assert its rights to the US registered HeroQuest mark because it felt GameZone's junior use constituted infringement?
Was Moon Design protecting itself from Hasbro or demanding restitution from GameZone/protecting future business interests?
Until Moon Design complained to Kickstarter, the dispute was not a shooting war. Once the Kickstarter campaign was suspended and backers pulled out as a result, the conflict became a shooting war because demonstrable financial harm had undeniably been caused. GameZone could literally see itself losing money as a result of Moon Design's actions.
Regardless of whether those actions were appropriate or justified, when it comes to reasonable negotiation, that is not an action that is easily taken back, if you understand what I mean. If you are having an argument and you throw a punch, the conflict immediately becomes exponentially more difficult to diffuse without a fight to the death. We don't know what the parties' actual communications were. They may have broken down horrendously, but looking in from the outside, Moon Design objectively threw the first real punch.
You think it's a stretch that Hasbro could sue, honestly?
I think you mean it's a stretch that they could win. Not sue. GW didn't "win" against Chapterhouse, but would have surely put them out of business without pro bono representation, despite their lack of a case.
You think this case is weaker than trying to protect the word "halberd" or "jetbike"
I never said I thought the case was strong... I said if I had a small company, with an abandoned trademark of a big company being used for a different setting, I would not risk licensing that mark for a re-make of the big company's game. It's like dangling red meat in front of a lion, imo... and clearly this is what Moon Design thinks, it honestly doesn't matter what anyone else does as they hold the trademark and would be taking the risk, whether it is large or small. If they didn't believe there was a risk, they could make money licensing the name and it'd be a no-brainer to do so.
RiTides wrote: You think it's a stretch that Hasbro could sue, honestly?
I think you mean it's a stretch that they could win. Not sue. GW didn't "win" against Chapterhouse, but would have surely put them out of business without pro bono representation, despite their lack of a case.
You think this case is weaker than trying to protect the word "halberd" or "jetbike"
I never said I thought the case was strong... I said if I had a small company, with an abandoned trademark of a big company being used for a different setting, I would not risk licensing that mark for a re-make of the big company's game. It's like dangling red meat in front of a lion, imo... and clearly this is what GameZone thinks, it honestly doesn't matter what anyone else does as they hold the trademark and would be taking the risk, whether it is large or small. If they didn't believe there was a risk, they could make money licensing the name and it'd be a no-brainer to do so.
Yea, I think it is a stretch Hasbro could sue Moon Design. It would be like me worrying I would be liable because someone stole the same model of car that I drive. Just because I drive a Hyundai Sonata does not mean that I should be worried about being held liable when someone steals a Hyundai Sonata.
RiTides wrote: You think it's a stretch that Hasbro could sue, honestly?
I think you mean it's a stretch that they could win. Not sue. GW didn't "win" against Chapterhouse, but would have surely put them out of business without pro bono representation, despite their lack of a case.
You think this case is weaker than trying to protect the word "halberd" or "jetbike"
I never said I thought the case was strong... I said if I had a small company, with an abandoned trademark of a big company being used for a different setting, I would not risk licensing that mark for a re-make of the big company's game. It's like dangling red meat in front of a lion, imo... and clearly this is what GameZone thinks, it honestly doesn't matter what anyone else does as they hold the trademark and would be taking the risk, whether it is large or small. If they didn't believe there was a risk, they could make money licensing the name and it'd be a no-brainer to do so.
Yea, I think it is a stretch Hasbro could sue Moon Design. It would be like me worrying I would be liable because someone stole the same model of car that I drive. Just because I drive a Hyundai Sonata does not mean that I should be worried about being held liable when someone steals a Hyundai Sonata.
It would depend on how MD's agreement with GZ is written. If it's just a trademark license, then probably no, Hasbro couldn't do anything. If the agreement is a bit more involved, such as a type of partnership, or MD agrees to do US distribution for GZ, then they could easily get dragged into any copyright mess that GZ might get into.
After knowing the KS surprise pause, we made a statement we published on our heroquestclassic.com page, where we transparently reported you about the situation, and we wandered directly to you, our backers, what you wanted us to do.
Most of you requested to wait for KS response. So we did. Today we have that answer. We will publish a statement at heroquestclassic.com tonight, as we did before.
It would depend on how MD's agreement with GZ is written. If it's just a trademark license, then probably no, Hasbro couldn't do anything. If the agreement is a bit more involved, such as a type of partnership, or MD agrees to do US distribution for GZ, then they could easily get dragged into any copyright mess that GZ might get into.
Well, there is no agreement. But if there were, it is a simple matter to put in an indemnification.
Because clearly the Spanish copyright holder is the one who deserves all the cash, despite not being connected to the original game in any way
It's not a big deal, but let's not pretend that this is GameZone's baby. A guy who owns the trademark in Poland could do the exact same thing, and have just as much right to it as GameZone.
RiTides wrote: Because clearly the Spanish copyright holder is the one who deserves all the cash, despite not being connected to the original game in any way
It's not a big deal, but let's not pretend that this is GameZone's baby. A guy who owns the trademark in Poland could do the exact same thing, and have just as much right to it as GameZone.
The original game is dead, trademark abandoned, with no interest from the creators to do anything with it anymore. Hasbro's in the same boat as Gamezone in that they'd have to license (or buy?) the trademark from Moon Design for the US.
And of course someone could do it in Poland. There's been dozens of dungeon crawlers inspired by HeroQuest '89 (which was in turn inspired by DungeonQuest '85, Dungeon! '75, Deathmaze '79)
It's Gamezone's baby in that they'd be paying money for rules writers to refresh the rules, artists for new art, sculptors for new sculpts, translators for different language editions, etc.
If hypothetical Poland guy also makes one and it's a superior product, then I'd buy that. Just because Hasbro has zero interest in their legally abandoned property does not mean that all of it's fans just go "aww shucks", kick the dirt, and resign themselves to never getting an update. There's a demand in the marketplace and no product to fill it. Gamezone has already invested into their new HQ property with the preliminary art and sculpts and want to fill that hole.
RiTides wrote: ...despite not being connected to the original game in any way
Neither is Moon Design.
(As an aside, I know that the RuneQuest creator claimed that he originally wanted to use HeroQuest. But since he sat on his hands for nearly 30 years, that dog doesn't really hunt. HeroQuest as a TM worldwide will be associated far more with the Milton Bradley/GW game than it ever will be with RuneQuest/Glorantha (sp?).)
So, honestly curious: Why does Moon Design's TM deserve primary consideration?
As I stated before, this whole affair smacks of Trademark-trolling of the highest order. With Hasbro being used as the leverage/threat.
RiTides wrote: Because clearly the Spanish copyright holder is the one who deserves all the cash, despite not being connected to the original game in any way
It's not a big deal, but let's not pretend that this is GameZone's baby. A guy who owns the trademark in Poland could do the exact same thing, and have just as much right to it as GameZone.
I think there is a little bit of a disconnect. I don't think that the 25th Anniversary HeroQuest game is GameZone's 'baby' or that GameZone is somehow inherently entitled to make the product. But it is a fact that GameZone ran a rather successful Kickstarter campaign.
If you look at the situation from GameZone's perspective, irrespective of the legality of the product, GameZone's Kickstarter campaign suffered considerable harm. It suffered this harm due to an action taken by Moon Design. Erogo, GameZone has a pretty concrete reason to feel harmed, especially considering that GameZone believes it is allowed to create and sell the product.
So if you consider how the situation can get resolved without harmful conflict going forward, all I am saying is that Moon Design made that a whole lot harder. I am also saying that Moon Design has virtually no reasonable basis to believe that it could be exposed to any liability in connection with GameZone's behavior regarding the 25th Anniversary HeroQuest game.
Taarnak wrote: So, honestly curious: Why does Moon Design's TM deserve primary consideration?
It doesn't. They're all in the same boat in my eyes- GameZone, Moon Design, hypothetical dude with the trademark in Poland. Somehow GameZone has been portrayed as having special rights to make this game, and all I'm saying is that they have no more rights than anyone else.
But, Kickstarter is in the US, and so Moon Design having the rights to the name in the US means they're the only ones who are going to be allowed (by Kickstarter) to greenlight a Kickstarter campaign using that name. It'd be pretty intersting if someone saw the half million raised and tried to get a HeroQuest off the ground in another country before GameZone gets theirs launched elsewhere... hence the hypothetical.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Well, they're promising an end to this uncertainty, at least. Anyone want to place bets on which way KS will turn?
The sooner the better! As DaveC said on the last page, the fact that the campaign is still suspended after Kickstarter has given GameZone their reply would mean the house money is on it being a negative for it to continue with that name. As someone above said, though, maybe they'll just tweak the name and be able to move on with it...
"Just so we said it first, here is our last email to Gamezone clarifying our position:
Dionisio and Daniel -
Since it appears likely you are going to announce that you plan to do a crowdsourcing campaign on a platform other than Kickstarter, let me make a few things perfectly clear:
1. Indiegogo is a US company (a California corporation) and subject to all the same issues as Kickstarter;
2. We are unlikely to object to a truly Spanish crowdsource campaign (i.e., a Spanish corporation is the crowdsource platform) - as we do not have a registered trademark in Spain (although since the Heroquest RPG has been in the stream commerce in Spain for over a decade we likely have some background rights to the name as we are currently using it), but we will strongly object to you using a "disguised" US corporation (such as doing a Kickstarter campaign denominated in pounds or Canadian dollars).
3. As you are aware, we weren't trying to get a "we won't get sued letter" from Hasbro (and although it was not discussed, we would be reluctant to rely on an indemnification clause from you) - what we wanted to see was a copy of a license from Hasbro allowing you to remake their game. We were - and still are - unwilling to give someone a license to our registered trademark to market an unlicensed remake of somebody's else's game.
4. Let us remind you that Hasbro (and potentially Games Workshop) likely have the legal right to challenge any unlicensed remake of their game. Making a remake called the "25th Anniversary Heroquest edition" in any country seems to us to be an extremely risky strategy and I'd strongly recommend that you hire legal counsel in the event that either Hasbro or Games Workshop objects to your use of their intellectual property.
Assuming that you are going to use a crowdsource platform that is a not a US corporation, we hope the best for you.
But, Kickstarter is in the US, and so Moon Design having the rights to the name in the US means they're the only ones who are going to be allowed (by Kickstarter) to greenlight a Kickstarter campaign using that name. It'd be pretty intersting if someone saw the half million raised and tried to get a HeroQuest off the ground in another country before GameZone gets theirs launched elsewhere... hence the hypothetical.
Again, that's not correct. Moon Design has a mark registered in Class 16 described as an RPG and related written materials, which does not ipso facto give Moon Design special exclusive rights to a HeroQuest board game. It might, it could, but it does not necessarily. The relevant consideration is likelihood of confusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, but what the Hell business is it of Moon Design whether GameZone exposes itself to infringement of Hasbro or Games Workshop's rights?
If Moon Design wants to assert its rights, fine. Assert them, but lecturing the target of your assertions and making license to your property contingent on the party's unrelated negotiations with a third party is incredibly unreasonable.
"3. As you are aware, we weren't trying to get a "we won't get sued letter" from Hasbro (and although it was not discussed, we would be reluctant to rely on an indemnification clause from you) - what we wanted to see was a copy of a license from Hasbro allowing you to remake their game. We were - and still are - unwilling to give someone a license to our registered trademark to market an unlicensed remake of somebody's else's game. "
If Moon Design used its alleged trademark rights to torpedo a Kickstarter campaign based on its belief that the product infringed the rights of a third party, all while it maintained designs on entering the market with a similar product...
...isn't that tortious interference? Maybe Moon Design could use some lecturing, because I guarantee you that $500,000.00+ in potential damages is probably leaps and bounds above the sort of exposure GameZone would face from Hasbro or Games Workshop.
You misread my post, weeble- I said (underlining the key part) "they're the only ones who are going to be allowed (by Kickstarter) to greenlight a Kickstarter campaign using that name."
I know we're talking past each other a bit by mistake, but note the distinction...
Since it appears likely you are going to announce that you plan to do a crowdsourcing campaign on a platform other than Kickstarter, let me make a few things perfectly clear:
1. Indiegogo is a US company (a California corporation) and subject to all the same issues as Kickstarter;
2. We are unlikely to object to a truly Spanish crowdsource campaign (i.e., a Spanish corporation is the crowdsource platform) - as we do not have a registered trademark in Spain (although since the Heroquest RPG has been in the stream commerce in Spain for over a decade we likely have some background rights to the name as we are currently using it), but we will strongly object to you using a "disguised" US corporation (such as doing a Kickstarter campaign denominated in pounds or Canadian dollars).
3. As you are aware, we weren't trying to get a "we won't get sued letter" from Hasbro (and although it was not discussed, we would be reluctant to rely on an indemnification clause from you) - what we wanted to see was a copy of a license from Hasbro allowing you to remake their game. We were - and still are - unwilling to give someone a license to our registered trademark to market an unlicensed remake of somebody's else's game.
4. Let us remind you that Hasbro (and potentially Games Workshop) likely have the legal right to challenge any unlicensed remake of their game. Making a remake called the "25th Anniversary Heroquest edition" in any country seems to us to be an extremely risky strategy and I'd strongly recommend that you hire legal counsel in the event that either Hasbro or Games Workshop objects to your use of their intellectual property.
Assuming that you are going to use a crowdsource platform that is a not a US corporation, we hope the best for you.
Regards -
Jeff Richard
Moon Design Publications
So GameZone can launch in Spain no problem... more power to them!
RiTides wrote: You misread my post, weeble- I said (underlining the key part) "they're the only ones who are going to be allowed (by Kickstarter) to greenlight a Kickstarter campaign using that name."
I know we're talking past each other a bit by mistake, but note the distinction...
So GameZone can launch in Spain no problem... more power to them!
Fair enough, but you also misread Moon Design there, which states that GameZone cannot launch in Spain "no problem."
" (although since the Heroquest RPG has been in the stream commerce in Spain for over a decade we likely have some background rights to the name as we are currently using it)"
They also said right before that that they are "unlikely to object" to their launching it in Spain, and similar statement again afterwards. Just because they're leaving themselves an out doesn't mean it's a threat... sheesh.
RiTides wrote: They also said right before that that they are "unlikely to object" to their launching it in Spain, and similar statement again afterwards. Just because they're leaving themselves an out doesn't mean it's a threat... sheesh.
In the context of them having already torpedoed a $500,000.00 Kickstarter campaign, yea, I think it is okay to consider it a threat. "Unlikely to object" is entirely meaningless.
RiTides wrote: They also said right before that that they are "unlikely to object" to their launching it in Spain, and similar statement again afterwards. Just because they're leaving themselves an out doesn't mean it's a threat... sheesh.
In the context of them having already torpedoed a $500,000.00 Kickstarter campaign, yea, I think it is okay to consider it a threat. "Unlikely to object" is entirely meaningless.
Okay, have it your way weeble, I really don't want to debate it further. I greatly appreciate and agree with your take on the law (and love reading your take on such things!) just not your interpretation of the motivation of the parties.
Regardless, GameZone will be making their update in about an hour and I'm sure will give their take on it then.
Got it. Cashgrab disguised by a 'Hasbro/GW gonna sue you'.
Maybe MD should let other companies stand up for their own protections on their own? A Copyright/trademark holder actually has to take action to protect their rights. No one can take action on their behalf. Someone is perfectly allowed to ignore infringement if they simply don't give a piss.
Wow, it's like a dogpile in here. But most of the comments on BGG don't have the same sentiment at all... or even the Spanish insiders who have posted on here regarding GameZone. Ah well, will let you lot have at it.
If Moon Design wants to assert its rights, fine. Assert them, but lecturing the target of your assertions and making license to your property contingent on the party's unrelated negotiations with a third party is incredibly unreasonable.
It doesn't sound unreasonable to me. If GZ were to make a game under their Trademark, there is potential that their mark could become polluted with whatever negative press is associated with it.
...isn't that tortious interference? Maybe Moon Design could use some lecturing, because I guarantee you that $500,000.00+ in potential damages is probably leaps and bounds above the sort of exposure GameZone would face from Hasbro or Games Workshop.
Why? They're just defending their trademark. Granted, what they've done with the mark is pretty small, but it's still their trademark. GZ is attempting to distribute what would most likely be 1,000's of games into the US via Kickstarter funding where they hold the trademark. MD informed Kickstarter of the potential infringement. It's Kickstarter's call to pull the plug. Also, how much of that 500,000 plus dollars wouldn't have been raised if GZ didn't directly associate it with the original? Should that money go to the original copyright holder?
This could get interesting. No clue who William Cabell is. Don't know if he is representing GameZone, Moon Design or money grubber taking advantage of the situation.
*edit* People on BGG are stating he is registering the trademark on behalf of GameZone.
Well, DM could continue to try to challenge GZ, but at this point GZ in the clear.
This could get interesting. No clue who William Cabell is. Don't know if he is representing GameZone, Moon Design or money grubber taking advantage of the situation.
*edit* People on BGG are stating he is registering the trademark on behalf of GameZone.
Well, DM could continue to try to challenge GZ, but at this point GZ in the clear.
Well if Gamezone get the 28 trademark, Moon Design are safe from their feared potential litigation by Hasbro or GW. So they can get back to work with the final production work on their completed Kickstarter project, the Guide to Glorantha, which has suffered delays due to the very small team having to deal with this debacle.
And they'll need to come up with a new name for the boardgame they are designing featuring Gloranthan heroquesting, but that is no bad thing, considering all the back-and-forth that has occurred over this.
Can't. Sierra released a PC adventure game called Hero's Quest in 1989, got in legal trouble from Milton Bradley, ended up changing the name to Quest for Glory. So, court precedent already made regarding too much similarity in HeroQuest and Hero's Quest.
Last Friday we were surprised by the pause placed on our kickstarter Project of HQ25. We wrote a communiqué to you, which was also posted on our site heroquestclassic.com. In our letter we tried to communicate to you in the clearest fashion what was happening and as well to share with you all, our petition to kickstarter to have the project reopened. To do all of this publicly was to us the correct way for you as our backers to be informed of the situation and the most correct and transparent way to communicate with you as well, as our backers you have the right to know what was going on with this project.
We have done what you have ask for, we have waited in silence for KS’ answer. It has arrived. KS would prefer to keep the project on hold and wait for us to come to an agreement with third part.
The KS answer can be seen at this LINK.
KS’ position does not agree with as at all. The situation produced by the pause of the project has been harmful.
We do not feel that our legitimate rights over the Trademark have been protected and above all we do not wish to do business with third part under threats or duress of any sort. As a result we are proceeding to solicit KS to cancel our project on their platform.
Is this the end of HQ25? Of course not! Keep reading!
We accept the all of the respectful critics that has come our way because we learn from these things and if someone thinks differently they are free to express those opinions. What we do not accept is the disinformation y distortions that have been happening during the project's pause on KS in which we have remained silent and waited.
During these past few days our creative design crew has still been working on the development of various components, the same as always, the idea being to not lose any energy with this controversy.
The thirteen on the gallows, as we have fondly started calling the 13 professionals that are implicated in the creation of the project, have as a priority the development of this commemorative game.
We are truly more worried about you, the backers. We want thank you for the messages of support that have been rolling in. The public reaction to the news of a new edition of this classic provided undeniable and sincere joy to many. We will hold onto this as the rout to follow.
After this communiqué is sent out we will proceed to ask KS to cancel the project on their platform. After this is done we will immediately restart and continue the HQ25 project. More info at heroquestclassic.com. Therefore the HQ25 project will return to active status. We will move from victims to survivors and conquer as we go.
We understand that KS has a larger public base than any other crowed funding platform today; we understand that moving the project to another site will mean that out backer support will decrease. However we are ready and willing to continue this campaign in a place that will offer us the correct guaranties for our trademark. We would prefer to raise fewer funds and still move forward with and produce it in time for the 25th anniversary.
We await your support and enthusiasm in this renewed crowed funding campaign.
Again, we would like to thank our backers from the bottom of our hearts, please do not regret supporting us. Let us all together get this back on track and make this dream a reality.
Gamezone Team
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the project has been officially cancelled on KS.
So on to IndieGoGo then and hope they side with GZ if DM challenges them there? Though I would expect them to if GZ officially has the Class 28 trademark.
@AlexHolker, GZ associating with upright and outstanding citizens I see.
Indigogo will be the same issues so I am guessing something europe or even spain based, if its a cloud funder at all. They would be better off just doing it as a retail project from Spain at this point
And there you go, the end of Chapter 1. Good luck to them, and hopefully they get better legal counsel, and don't deceive their backers/customers in the future.
It's true - they could just do a pre-order thing on their own website now.
I mean, they've certainly gotten plenty of publicity from the KS campaign. And a way to email the people who already backed it. So why not host it themselves and save giving someone else a 10% cut?
Soda Pop Miniatures continued their cancelled cardgame-campaign on their own site, so similar solution could work for Gamezone.
Less people will pledge though, as kickstarter is the king of ... well ... Kickstarting.
silent25 wrote: @AlexHolker, GZ associating with upright and outstanding citizens I see.
To be fair, he could be acting on his own initiative and not in the service of one of the existing parties. After all, he is demonstrably scummy enough that other lawyers don't want anything to do with him and stupid enough to not get away with it.
silent25 wrote: @AlexHolker, GZ associating with upright and outstanding citizens I see.
To be fair, he could be acting on his own initiative and not in the service of one of the existing parties. After all, he is demonstrably scummy enough that other lawyers don't want anything to do with him and stupid enough to not get away with it.
Look at the third page of the filing. It's pretty clear he's representing GZ's interest. I'm curious, he was disbarred 20 years ago in DC. Wonder if he's a member of the bar elsewhere still?
RiTides wrote: ...despite not being connected to the original game in any way
Neither is Moon Design.
(As an aside, I know that the RuneQuest creator claimed that he originally wanted to use HeroQuest. But since he sat on his hands for nearly 30 years, that dog doesn't really hunt. HeroQuest as a TM worldwide will be associated far more with the Milton Bradley/GW game than it ever will be with RuneQuest/Glorantha (sp?).)
So, honestly curious: Why does Moon Design's TM deserve primary consideration?
As I stated before, this whole affair smacks of Trademark-trolling of the highest order. With Hasbro being used as the leverage/threat.
~Eric
Not the highest order - more of an opportunistic money grab.
I do know that I am never going to purchase anything from Moon Design... which differs from before this Kickstarter mess in no functional way.
I love Glorantha, and have hated the Glorantha based HeroQuest since I first looked at it - it is just not a good system (I also loved the old 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of RuneQuest. HeroQuest was being compared to an excellent system, and was only mediocre, in my jaundiced opinion. It's only real crime was in not being half as good as the system that it replaced.)
My actual suspicion as to motive is that Moon Design is not dong any better than Issarries did - Stafford kind of needs the money, and is willing to use extortion to get it.
*Shrug* There are worse reasons to try to abuse the law to your own benefit, I suppose.
Triple9 wrote: Look at the third page of the filing. It's pretty clear he's representing GZ's interest. I'm curious, he was disbarred 20 years ago in DC. Wonder if he's a member of the bar elsewhere still?
Ah, thanks. I didn't notice the second attachment.
RiTides wrote: ...despite not being connected to the original game in any way
Neither is Moon Design.
(As an aside, I know that the RuneQuest creator claimed that he originally wanted to use HeroQuest. But since he sat on his hands for nearly 30 years, that dog doesn't really hunt. HeroQuest as a TM worldwide will be associated far more with the Milton Bradley/GW game than it ever will be with RuneQuest/Glorantha (sp?).)
So, honestly curious: Why does Moon Design's TM deserve primary consideration?
As I stated before, this whole affair smacks of Trademark-trolling of the highest order. With Hasbro being used as the leverage/threat.
~Eric
Not the highest order - more of an opportunistic money grab.
I do know that I am never going to purchase anything from Moon Design... which differs from before this Kickstarter mess in no functional way.
I love Glorantha, and have hated the Glorantha based HeroQuest since I first looked at it - it is just not a good system (I also loved the old 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of RuneQuest. HeroQuest was being compared to an excellent system, and was only mediocre, in my jaundiced opinion. It's only real crime was in not being half as good as the system that it replaced.)
My actual suspicion as to motive is that Moon Design is not dong any better than Issarries did - Stafford kind of needs the money, and is willing to use extortion to get it.
*Shrug* There are worse reasons to try to abuse the law to your own benefit, I suppose.
So I'm not sure its fair to bandy round words like "extortion"
That looks awesome & I regret on not pledging on that. The books are gamesystem independent and the lore parts were always better part than the actual mechanics in RQ.
On other half, they still haven't finished & shipped their products, so they might get heavily hit by the same Postage cost hikes that Original Reaper Bones 1-kickstarter suffered from.
Wait... so if the class 28 trademark goes through, is it completely possible for Gamezone to relaunch the Kickstarter and proudly proclaim they are the owners of the HeroQuest trademark for boardgames? Weeble?
After this communiqué is sent out we will proceed to ask KS to cancel the project on their platform. After this is done we will immediately restart and continue the HQ25 project.
...
We understand that KS has a larger public base than any other crowed funding platform today; we understand that moving the project to another site will mean that out backer support will decrease. However we are ready and willing to continue this campaign in a place that will offer us the correct guaranties for our trademark. We would prefer to raise fewer funds and still move forward with and produce it in time for the 25th anniversary.
We await your support and enthusiasm in this renewed crowed funding campaign.
Screw KS, screw Moon Designs, and quite frankly screw anyone not willing to back HQ25 on any platform other than KS!
I'm going to get multiple copies and then stick them on eBay. There is more than enough demand to fund my pledge threefold, and i am going to laugh thusly : Mwahahahaha!
If you ever get the actual products, which given the rumors of GZ's status, should be in doubt.
In fact, I will gladly make a prophecy here, and leave myself a "told you so" card that I can cash in at a later date, that HQ25 will have one or more serious delays, problems, translation issues or just plain unsatisfying results that will cause people to throw hissy fits at a later date. The writing on the wall is clear for all with eyes to see, and who have not been blinded by the side issue of the IP being in doubt.
Project is 'cancelled' in its current KS form, although from the sound of it this project will live on in one form or another.
Dear Backers
Last Friday we were surprised by the pause placed on our kickstarter Project of HQ25. We wrote a communiqué to you, which was also posted on our site heroquestclassic.com. In our letter we tried to communicate to you in the clearest fashion what was happening and as well to share with you all, our petition to kickstarter to have the project reopened. To do all of this publicly was to us the correct way for you as our backers to be informed of the situation and the most correct and transparent way to communicate with you as well, as our backers you have the right to know what was going on with this project.
We have done what you have ask for, we have waited in silence for KS’ answer. It has arrived. KS would prefer to keep the project on hold and wait for us to come to an agreement with third part.
The KS answer can be seen at our site.
KS’ position does not agree with as at all. The situation produced by the pause of the project has been harmful.
We do not feel that our legitimate rights over the Trademark have been protected and above all we do not wish to do business with third part under threats or duress of any sort. As a result we are proceeding to solicit KS to cancel our project on their platform.
Is this the end of HQ25? Of course not! Keep reading!
We accept the all of the respectful critics that has come our way because we learn from these things and if someone thinks differently they are free to express those opinions. What we do not accept is the disinformation y distortions that have been happening during the project's pause on KS in which we have remained silent and waited.
During these past few days our creative design crew has still been working on the development of various components, the same as always, the idea being to not lose any energy with this controversy.
The thirteen on the gallows, as we have fondly started calling the 13 professionals that are implicated in the creation of the project, have as a priority the development of this commemorative game.
We are truly more worried about you, the backers. We want thank you for the messages of support that have been rolling in. The public reaction to the news of a new edition of this classic provided undeniable and sincere joy to many. We will hold onto this as the rout to follow.
After this communiqué is sent out we will proceed to ask KS to cancel the project on their platform. After this is done we will immediately restart and continue the HQ25 project. More info at heroquestclassic.com tomorrow. Therefore the HQ25 project will return to active status. We will move from victims to survivors and conquer as we go.
We understand that KS has a larger public base than any other crowed funding platform today; we understand that moving the project to another site will mean that out backer support will decrease. However we are ready and willing to continue this campaign in a place that will offer us the correct guaranties for our trademark. We would prefer to raise fewer funds and still move forward with and produce it in time for the 25th anniversary.
We await your support and enthusiasm in this renewed crowed funding campaign.
Again, we would like to thank our backers from the bottom of our hearts, please do not regret supporting us. Let us all together get this back on track and make this dream a reality.
Gamezone
Poor luck for the fans who just wanted some nice miniatures, and to re-invoke the experience of playing a game that so many of enjoyed when younger, and really it's going to be them that are the losers here.
'Men in suits' may make keep the modern world turning, but at the same time they're also the worst fething thing about anything to do with art or creativity.
But personally? http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1634/warhammer-quest That's the one I want to see rereleased. No complicated multiple-company rights confusions there. GW should do a special rerelease in the same vein as Space Hulk of this beauty, and we'd all be happy.
For those that don't mind there dungeon crawlers to have a western / supernatural / pulp scifi theme then Shadows of Brimstone are working on a warhammer quest like game which should be hitting retail next autumn (kickstarter finished for it last month).
GZ should just relaunch as a preorder on there own website with a ticker showing total backing figures and announcing stretch goals as they reach them.
This could get interesting. No clue who William Cabell is. Don't know if he is representing GameZone, Moon Design or money grubber taking advantage of the situation.
*edit* People on BGG are stating he is registering the trademark on behalf of GameZone.
Well, DM could continue to try to challenge GZ, but at this point GZ in the clear.
I really hope that I am in no way responsible for this. I had hoped that the important part of my take on the whole situation was that everyone should calm down, shake hands, have a cup of coffee in one of the many fine Spanish cafes, and come to an amiable resolution without murdering each other or bringing in the lawyers.
This quote from Other People's Money is apropos:
"Lawrence Garfield: They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they feth up everything."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
judgedoug wrote: Wait... so if the class 28 trademark goes through, is it completely possible for Gamezone to relaunch the Kickstarter and proudly proclaim they are the owners of the HeroQuest trademark for boardgames? Weeble?
I aint got no idea. The USPTO will likely register the mark, but Moon Design may attempt to block it or something. I'm not very hot on the trademark registration process, but the USPTO generally allows the courts to square away conflicts. I know plenty about patents on the prosecution perspective, not so much on trademarks. All I knew was that most board games are registered in Class 28 or Class 28 and Class 16.
This situation has now gone off the deep end where it need not have gone. Too many folks acting before thinking things through.
I really want to see Kickstarter's reasoning. Can someone post that? The project update posted did not have a working link.
Here it is. This does not indicate the content of Moon Design's communications with Kickstarter, although Kickstarter did not make reference to any copyright violations or complaints.
When it comes to the question of tortious interference, it all depends on what Moon Design communicated to Kickstarter. Clearly, Moon Design interfered with GameZone's ability to establish business relationships and ability to maintain existing business relationships. Was that interference tortious? That would require, so far as I am aware (and IANAL) an attempt to mislead or deceive on the part of Moon Design. Given Moon Design's communications with GameZone that I have seen, if Moon Design's communication with Kickstarter was in any way similar, I think there could be a colorable argument for tortious interference. If Moon Design could be said to have mislead Kickstarter into thinking that it had some sort of right in the '89 HeroQuest game, or that it was acting on behalf of Hasbro or Games Workshop, or even that Moon Design unnecessarily brought up the rights of Games Workshop and/or Hasbro, that could have affected Kickstarter's decision to suspend the project.
Kickstarter probably has itself protected from liability with its terms of use/trademark policies, though I don't really know. In any case, that's what I meant when it comes to tortious interference; not that Moon Design does not have the right to refuse to license its mark based on the rights of a third party (Moon Design can refuse to licence on any basis), but that if Moon Design went any farther than asserting its rights to its HeroQuest mark, that could open the door to risk, which given the success of the GameZone project would be both substantial and likely beyond Moon Design's ability to survive.
Given even the potential for a risk like that, Moon Design is pretty ballsy to be lecturing GameZone, was my point. If a suit was filed along those lines, much would depend on testimony from Kickster's representative.
At the end of the day, wouldn't it have been nicer if all of this could have been squared away before the Kickstarter was launched?
Agamemnon2 wrote: If you ever get the actual products, which given the rumors of GZ's status, should be in doubt.
In fact, I will gladly make a prophecy here, and leave myself a "told you so" card that I can cash in at a later date, that HQ25 will have one or more serious delays, problems, translation issues or just plain unsatisfying results that will cause people to throw hissy fits at a later date.
That stuff would hardly be unique to Gamezone or HeroQuest. Heard of Sedition Wars? Zombicide S2? Relic Knights? Dreamforge Games Leviathan Project? Red Box Games Hellsvakt Horde? Secret Weapon Tablescapes? Trollforged Assimilation Alien Host? Cthulhu Wars? and on and on and on..... In fact "serious delays" is now taken to be a given for any KS project, and it's a surprise when one doesn't have them. Of course, that doesn't stop the project creators for new projects telling us that their project really, truly will be on time...
But yeah - your "told you so" card is sadly worth less than nothing in the context of crowdfunding and the results in those categories.
weeble1000 wrote: I aint got no idea. The USPTO will likely register the mark, but Moon Design may attempt to block it or something. I'm not very hot on the trademark registration process, but the USPTO generally allows the courts to square away conflicts. I know plenty about patents on the prosecution perspective, not so much on trademarks. All I knew was that most board games are registered in Class 28 or Class 28 and Class 16.
The USPTO would be wrong to register this trademark. It would be like allowing someone to trademark "Hamlet" as the title of a play, when the sole reason for seeking the trademark is for its association with someone else's work.
So anyway, have we heard any more on the issues people were having being charged by Gamezone for "shipping" after using the shipping calculator for the Heroquest KS project? (as reported on BGG?)
weeble1000 wrote: I aint got no idea. The USPTO will likely register the mark, but Moon Design may attempt to block it or something. I'm not very hot on the trademark registration process, but the USPTO generally allows the courts to square away conflicts. I know plenty about patents on the prosecution perspective, not so much on trademarks. All I knew was that most board games are registered in Class 28 or Class 28 and Class 16.
The USPTO would be wrong to register this trademark. It would be like allowing someone to trademark "Hamlet" as the title of a play, when the sole reason for seeking the trademark is for its association with someone else's work.
RiTides wrote: You probably are responsible, weeble. Take it for what it's worth
Lol, yea, it's probably all me . In any case, it would be a shame if the various discussions about all of this spurred some kind of escalation.
Who is this William Cabell? I assume this is the guy. And also this. But there's also this on Martindale. And then there's this case.
AVVO lists his interim suspension in 1992, which roughly coincides with that last case in which W.H.C. Venable was a party. Then he's at least practicing law again by 1998, as evidenced by the PAF inc v Bank of America case.
Yes, I have. One example being a patent for a technology that I was able to invent independently in about thirty seconds - namely, synchronising the input of a video camera and the output of a screen to film the objects sitting on the screen but not the image being displayed. But being stupid in the past is no excuse for being stupid in the future.
Agamemnon2 wrote: If you ever get the actual products, which given the rumors of GZ's status, should be in doubt.
In fact, I will gladly make a prophecy here, and leave myself a "told you so" card that I can cash in at a later date, that HQ25 will have one or more serious delays, problems, translation issues or just plain unsatisfying results that will cause people to throw hissy fits at a later date. The writing on the wall is clear for all with eyes to see, and who have not been blinded by the side issue of the IP being in doubt.
I'll tackle the first one, as the second one is like saying "Gamezone is not Mantic who is the only company ever to ever deliver a Kickstarter on time or early"
I've ordered hundreds of Gamezone models, I've even ordered directly from them, and have never had a problem. Should I have?
Yes, I have. One example being a patent for a technology that I was able to invent independently in about thirty seconds - namely, synchronising the input of a video camera and the output of a screen to film the objects sitting on the screen but not the image being displayed. But being stupid in the past is no excuse for being stupid in the future.
I never said it is. But expecting behavior to suddenly change from a long established pattern is also unrealistic.
judgedoug wrote: I'll tackle the first one, as the second one is like saying "Gamezone is not Mantic who is the only company ever to ever deliver a Kickstarter on time or early"
I've ordered hundreds of Gamezone models, I've even ordered directly from them, and have never had a problem. Should I have?
We will see, won't we? The auspices are troubled, and by auspices I mean the recent rumors that GZ is these days a one-man operation. Have you noticed they've not put out anything since their resin dark elf spearmen, and those were a while ago? Now, it could be they've been working on HQ25 all this time, but the hiatus has been very long indeed.
I really hope that I am in no way responsible for this. I had hoped that the important part of my take on the whole situation was that everyone should calm down, shake hands, have a cup of coffee in one of the many fine Spanish cafes, and come to an amiable resolution without murdering each other or bringing in the lawyers.
This quote from Other People's Money is apropos:
"Lawrence Garfield: They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they feth up everything."
The owner of Moon Design came out on BGG and openly stated they will be opposing trademark registration. It's going full nuclear.
much as I want a HQ remake I'm not touching this now given the mess it's in. If it hits retail and they can sell it unopposed I'll pick it up then.
Verkami appears to be based in Barcelona. If you back you can't back out by yourself you have to email the site and request they release you from backing the project.
Can't. Sierra released a PC adventure game called Hero's Quest in 1989, got in legal trouble from Milton Bradley, ended up changing the name to Quest for Glory. So, court precedent already made regarding too much similarity in HeroQuest and Hero's Quest.
judgedoug wrote: I'll tackle the first one, as the second one is like saying "Gamezone is not Mantic who is the only company ever to ever deliver a Kickstarter on time or early"
I've ordered hundreds of Gamezone models, I've even ordered directly from them, and have never had a problem. Should I have?
We will see, won't we? The auspices are troubled, and by auspices I mean the recent rumors that GZ is these days a one-man operation. Have you noticed they've not put out anything since their resin dark elf spearmen, and those were a while ago? Now, it could be they've been working on HQ25 all this time, but the hiatus has been very long indeed.
Actually when was the last new figure they put out? The resin dark elf figs are essentially recasts and one individual in this thread claimed the sculptor of all those figs doesn't work for GZ anymore.
much as I want a HQ remake I'm not touching this now given the mess it's in.
Verkami appears to be based in Barcelona. If you back you can't back out by yourself you have to email the site and request they release you from backing the project.
175 projects most of them well below 10,000 euros, most of them unfunded...
I wish them the best of luck and would recommend that they talk to a competent IP lawyer before their next project.
) obviously there was a breakdown in communication at some point that has lead to this. Having spent a lot of time travelling between asia and the 
?"
. See, what the Hell does that mean? 
