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.

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:

http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1984/1984canlii54/1984canlii54.html

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.

In RiTides legal opinion?

I love RiTides - but... who cares?

It is all about the money now, so...

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

weeble1000 wrote:

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.

 judgedoug wrote:

 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.

 silent25 wrote:

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.

Does that about sum it up?

As far as I can tell, yes.

weeble1000 wrote:
]Let me know if this narrative is correct:

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.

 judgedoug wrote:

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.

bubba wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
]Let me know if this narrative is correct:

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.

@Bubba, thanks! You summed it up pretty well.

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?

 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...

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 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!

czakk, I think we need some help on this one. Do you know any case law related to palming off via use of a dead mark?

 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!

 judgedoug wrote:

 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.

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