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.

 silent25 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 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.

weeble1000 wrote:


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?

weeble1000 wrote:


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.

weeble1000 wrote:

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.

 Azazelx wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

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.

Gamezone do not have hasbro or stephen baker permisson for the game?

http://www.jugamostodos.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4592&Itemid=47

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

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.

My response when I read that HeroQuest is suspended:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

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".

Psychman wrote:

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:

Most board games take class 28 but there are exceptions. In the United States, at least a few iconic titles like Candyland (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3vtarr.7.13) are currently sitting on the class 16.

 silent25 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


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).

 judgedoug wrote:

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?

bubba wrote:

Psychman wrote:

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:

Most board games take class 28 but there are exceptions. In the United States, at least a few iconic titles like Candyland (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3vtarr.7.13) are currently sitting on the class 16.

Ah, actual knowledge. Refreshing, thank you . So Class 16 can apply to board games in some cases.

Speaking of the GZ interview, though:

guru wrote:
Gamezone do not have hasbro or stephen baker permisson for the game?

http://www.jugamostodos.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4592&Itemid=47

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:

 judgedoug wrote:

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.

Psychman wrote:

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 KS CAD and not the US. GZ probably didn't realize that MD complaining to the KS US would have effect over KS CAD. 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.

 Azazelx wrote:

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.

Ugh.

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...

bubba wrote:

Psychman wrote:

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:

Most board games take class 28 but there are exceptions. In the United States, at least a few iconic titles like Candyland (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3vtarr.7.13) are currently sitting on the class 16.

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.

guru wrote:
Gamezone do not have hasbro or stephen baker permisson for the game?

http://www.jugamostodos.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4592&Itemid=47

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.

----------------------------------------------------

Edit:

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.

I'm shocked that this is all a bit murky and, in the end, all about the money!

Shocked!

 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.

 RiTides wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:

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.