Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 judgedoug wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

As a UK customer, I can buy Heroquest from GZ and have it shipped to me 100% legally.

And in Spain you can but Heroquest from MD and have it shipped to you 100% legally as well.

Herzlos wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

 judgedoug wrote:

 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.

A Captain Marvel/Shazam solution?

I like it!

 judgedoug wrote:

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]

 Cyporiean wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

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.

this popped up in the TGN thread:

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.

 Cyporiean wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

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.

 judgedoug wrote:

Spoiler:

 Cyporiean wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

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.

 Cyporiean wrote:
this popped up in the TGN thread:

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.

This reminds me of the whole mess with Bulmers and Magners Cider.

This looks like it may have been a fun game. I hope the issue gets resolved.

Yeah, at this point we just wait and see if:

money is paid

or

name is changed

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.

As superficial as it may sound, changing the name would really turn me off of this project.

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.. .

The clock isn't ticking. It's frozen.

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.

 Cyporiean wrote:
this popped up in the TGN thread:

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.

For some reason I don't trust anything about this that TGN puts out!

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".

overtyrant wrote:
For some reason I don't trust anything about this that TGN puts out!

Put the tinfoil hat away, my quote came from a user not TGN directly.

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.

Agreed. A "carboncopy" One might even say

 Absolutionis wrote:

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.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:

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.