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.

 judgedoug wrote:
But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."

I think it's at least possible, because nobody involved with this farce is likely to give them the benefit of doubt, but instead are busily spinning more and more elaborate theories and falsehoods. We only have GZ's word for how the negotiations, if any, between them and MD are going. We simply don't know, since we don't have access to the actual communications between the actors, just biased accounts from various observers, none of whom are disinterested.

 Alpharius wrote:
The only ting I know for certain is...judgedoug sure does love and want him some Heroquest!

That am true!

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."

I think it's at least possible, because nobody involved with this farce is likely to give them the benefit of doubt, but instead are busily spinning more and more elaborate theories and falsehoods. We only have GZ's word for how the negotiations, if any, between them and MD are going. We simply don't know, since we don't have access to the actual communications between the actors, just biased accounts from various observers, none of whom are disinterested.

Agreed. Applying motive to Moon Designs is just speculation. And they do own the US trademark, like it or not, and Kickstarter is a US-based company. That's how things work here... for better or worse, it's the basic reality of it.

All indications point to that this game won't be going back on Kickstarter with the name HeroQuest without Moon Design's permission... I'm really sick of hearing about it now because they're at a dead end and they're going to have to change tacks if they want to go forward.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
But, honestly, does anyone really believe Moon Design did it for anything other than as a money-grab? "Pay us to use the HeroQuest license, but also we want you to have Hasbro's permission, but also we want to make our own Heroquest boardgame, but WE won't need Hasbro's permission only you do, regardless give us lots of money."

I think it's at least possible, because nobody involved with this farce is likely to give them the benefit of doubt, but instead are busily spinning more and more elaborate theories and falsehoods. We only have GZ's word for how the negotiations, if any, between them and MD are going. We simply don't know, since we don't have access to the actual communications between the actors, just biased accounts from various observers, none of whom are disinterested.

Let me put it this way. The Gloranthan world is not a very popular one. Runequest has always been a niche RPG, with a small but ferociously loyal following - but never in the mass-market, nowhere near D&D or Pathfinder, let alone say even Call of Cthulhu, and certainly a miniscule number in comparison to the number of copies of HeroQuest '89 sold. I can guarantee you that the license to produce something in the Runequest world was a negligable fee, if there was any at all. Moon Design knows the value of the HeroQuest name when it comes to a board game - they know because they want to make their own HeroQuest boardgame! ("For some time now we have been working on creating a board game called “Heroquest”) I can guarantee you that it is the overriding factor with any negotiations with Gamezone ("We told Gamezone that they needed to immediately get a licensing agreement from us (which, among other things, would require that they pay us for the rights to the name since it would mean foregoing our opportunity to release our game using our trademark and to compensate us for that lost revenue)").

They claim Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission (" a statement that Gamezone has explicit permission from Hasbro"), despite their assertion that they own it (“Heroquest” is the registered US trademark of Moon Design and is the name of our “Heroquest” roleplaying game and assorted products. To allow a game using the same name to be promoted in the United States through Kickstarter without a license would be an unacceptable dilution of our brand and create market confusion to our detriment.")

Moon Design then hilariously states: "The project calls their game “Heroquest” which is identical to our registered mark and easily confused with it."

So my original point: they know Hasbro has nothing to do with it, otherwise they wouldn't have grabbed up the trademark and had plans to make their own Heroquest.

The funniest part of Moon Design's position, is of course, claiming that a Gamezone remake of HeroQuest would somehow create market confusion! Meanwhile they have a plan to make their own HeroQuest boardgame - yeah, a Gloranthan board game with anthropomorphic ducks called HeroQuest certainly wouldn't confuse a board game market that has extensive knowledge of HeroQuest '89 and almost no knowledge of Glorantha. Conversely, Moon Design releasing a HeroQuest board game would actually create true market confusion, riding the coattails of HeroQuest '89 because, undoubtedly, the market would be confused thinking it's a followup to HeroQuest '89!

Doug, you really missed the point on a number of those issues. It's a lot of circular reasoning, imo, but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now. Let's all wait for a new development and not keep this thread at the top when there is no news to report. I'm sure GameZone is planning their comeback as we speak, it probably won't be long to wait. But until then, it'd be good not to go in circles...

 Alpharius wrote:
In RiTides legal opinion?

I love RiTides - but... who cares?

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

LOL, you've been uncharacteristically saucy the last week or so. Early Holiday resolution?

 RiTides wrote:

Agreed. Applying motive to Moon Designs is just speculation. And they do own the US trademark, like it or not, and Kickstarter is a US-based company. That's how things work here... for better or worse, it's the basic reality of it.

Their press release is the only official word, where they demand permission from Hasbro for Gamezone to use Moon Design's trademark and pay a licensing fee as well as extra money to compensate them for loss of revenue from their own planned HeroQuest game (which Moon Design wouldn't need permission from Hasbro for, of course).

I believe, at this point, Gamezone should just do the Enix Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior route and vaguely retitle HeroQuest for the USA market. Have Kickstarter change the name of their page to The Hero's Quest (HeroQuest*) with the * footnote being "HeroQuest is trademark owned by Gamezone in Spain) and mail Moon Design a check with "zero dollars and 00/100" written on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now.

aye aye! Agreed. Sorry, as Alpharius said, I just want me some HeroQuest - and not one filled with anthropomorphic ducks!

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

They claim Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission (" a statement that Gamezone has explicit permission from Hasbro"), despite their assertion that they own it (“Heroquest” is the registered US trademark of Moon Design and is the name of our “Heroquest” roleplaying game and assorted products. To allow a game using the same name to be promoted in the United States through Kickstarter without a license would be an unacceptable dilution of our brand and create market confusion to our detriment.")

Let me clarify my understanding of MDP's position.

Gamezone needs MDP's permission to use the name "Heroquest" in the USA because MDP owns that Trademark.

Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission to reproduce the original Heroquest board game because Hasbro owns the copyright on the game, regardless of what the name of said game is.

There's a difference betwen trademark and copyright. For example, you couldn't take a copy of the Pathfinder rulebook, change every instance of Pathfinder to Awesome RPG, and then be ok. The name Pathfinder is Trademarked, the contents of the book are copyrighted.

 judgedoug wrote:
Moon Design then hilariously states: "The project calls their game “Heroquest” which is identical to our registered mark and easily confused with it."

That's actually an important line because the standard for trademark infringement is likelihood of confusion.

 RiTides wrote:
Doug, you really missed the point on a number of those issues. It's a lot of circular reasoning, imo, but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now. Let's all wait for a new development and not keep this thread at the top when there is no news to report. I'm sure GameZone is planning their comeback as we speak, it probably won't be long to wait. But until then, it'd be good not to go in circles...

I respect your opinion RiTides, but there are substantive issues to discuss related to this topic. I don't really think that cutting discussion down to just new factual developments is reasonable. A new Discussions thread could be started, but there's a lot of substance in this thread that it would be a shame to lose the coherency of. Maybe this thread can be moved to Dakka Discussions and renamed, and a new thread about related news updates started in News and Rumors.

Would that be a fair compromise?

Saldiven wrote:

Let me clarify my understanding of MDP's position.

Gamezone needs MDP's permission to use the name "Heroquest" in the USA because MDP owns that Trademark.

Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission to reproduce the original Heroquest board game because Hasbro owns the copyright on the game, regardless of what the name of said game is.

There's a difference betwen trademark and copyright. For example, you couldn't take a copy of the Pathfinder rulebook, change every instance of Pathfinder to Awesome RPG, and then be ok. The name Pathfinder is Trademarked, the contents of the book are copyrighted.

Yeah, trademarks are the mark used in commerce for branding, such as Coca-Cola. Copyrights are to protect the owner of a work (a photographer for a photograph, author for a book).

So, yeah, you may not copy things that are copyrighted. Thankfully Gamezone is not using copyrighted materials. Game mechanics are not protectable under copyright (TSR got knocked silly in the late 90's by trying to do that... but in very rare instances mechanics have been patented, such as Wizards of the Coast's "tapping" mechanic), and they are using entirely new art and design assets. The protected elements have been removed (such as "Fimir"). As far as I understand - and if weeble or czakk could clarify for me - with entirely new text, new art and design assets, removal of anything related to the Warhammer universe... so with all copyrighted materials removed, then they are perfectly fine, with the only similarity being some of the mechanics - rolling dice, moving figures around a board, and use spell cards, for example. (it would be similar to how Void / Urban War uses a modified 40k ruleset and Wargods uses a modified Warhammer ruleset).

If anyone has more factual knowledge than above, please correct me if I'm wrong on the above points.

Saldiven wrote:

Let me clarify my understanding of MDP's position.

Gamezone needs MDP's permission to use the name "Heroquest" in the USA because MDP owns that Trademark.

Gamezone needs Hasbro's permission to reproduce the original Heroquest board game because Hasbro owns the copyright on the game, regardless of what the name of said game is.

This may be Moon Design's position, but the proper answer is "not necessarily." GameZone might need Moon Design's permission to use the mark. On the other hand, GameZone's use of the word mark could be non-infringing.

Again, GameZone might need Hasbro's permission to make a 25th Anniversary edition of the '89 HeroQuest board game, but GameZone's product could be non-infringing.

Certainly, Moon Design's permission and Hasbro's permission would obviate any dispute, but otherwise disputes they would be, and not sealed and stamped self-evident facts.

Yup the beauty of IP law pretty much everywhere is you've got to tack on probably or might onto most of your statements because until you actually go to court and argue your case in front of a Judge you can't know for certain what the result would be

Personally (and from a non-legal background) Gamezone should have filed to use Heroquest for a boardgame which is a mark that Milton Bradbury (now Habro) used to hold but let expire

Moon Designs (previously Greg Stafford) having an active TM for using Heroquest RPG should not (nessesarily) interefere as under US TM law these seem to be separate classes. If Moon Design really had a boardgame coming in anything like the near future they'd have applied to protect that class too.

so they'd be able to show KS they had a right to do this project in the USA

but then that requires a US lawyer and costs money

(They should also push forward with negotiating with Hasbro to get some sort of deal to allow retail distribution in territories where Hasbro still have an active Heroquest trademark.... this should also mean they have official blessing to make a compatible product)

 judgedoug wrote:
...but in very rare instances mechanics have been patented, such as Wizards of the Coast's "tapping" mechanic

Even so, Wizards only has a copyright on the "tap" symbol and the term itself. Both are copyrightable. Many other card games effectively use the same mechanic except they term it "exhaust" or other similar terms for the same mechanic.

weeble1000 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Doug, you really missed the point on a number of those issues. It's a lot of circular reasoning, imo, but to avoid retreading old ground I'm just going to say I think we've covered this by now. Let's all wait for a new development and not keep this thread at the top when there is no news to report. I'm sure GameZone is planning their comeback as we speak, it probably won't be long to wait. But until then, it'd be good not to go in circles...

I respect your opinion RiTides, but there are substantive issues to discuss related to this topic. I don't really think that cutting discussion down to just new factual developments is reasonable. A new Discussions thread could be started, but there's a lot of substance in this thread that it would be a shame to lose the coherency of. Maybe this thread can be moved to Dakka Discussions and renamed, and a new thread about related news updates started in News and Rumors.

Would that be a fair compromise?

I'd love to see either a new thread in Discussions, or this thread moved there until the campaign is once again active, but I respect folks who think otherwise. I just don't want to participate in the same discussion round and round. And I guess the idea that a Spanish company with no connection to Hasbro or GW, making a 25th anniversary game called HeroQuest, somehow has the moral high ground over a company protecting that trademark in the US is a little rich . But to each his own... I'm tired of talking about it now . I also think the idea that Moon Designs should just go ahead and license the mark and take all the risk of getting sued in the US is a little insane, too... but okay, not getting sucked back in, you guys have at it

Looks like there might be some conclusion to this mess (might). This is an email sent to the backers from GZ:

Kraken says:

Dear Backers

After knowing the KS surprise pause, we made a statement we published on our heroquestclassic.com page, where we transparently reported you about the situation, and we wandered directly to you, our backers, what you wanted us to do.

Most of you requested to wait for KS response. So we did. Today we have that answer. We will publish a statement at heroquestclassic.com tonight, as we did before.

Please stay tunned to our website (heroquestclassic.com) and our twitter account (https://twitter.com/GamezoneMiniatu).

Hola a todos los que nos apoyáis:

“Tras conocer la pausa impuesta por KS de manera sorpresiva, nosotros hicimos un comunicado que colgamos en nuestra página heroquestclassic.com, en el que os informábamos con transparencia de la situación y os preguntábamos directamente a vosotros, nuestros backers, qué queríais que hiciéramos.

La mayoría de vosotros nos pedísteis esperar la respuesta de KS. Y así hemos hecho. Hoy ya tenemos esa respuesta. Igual que hicimos la otra vez colgaremos un comunicado en heroquestclassic.com esta noche.

Por favor, permaneced atentos a nuestra página y nuestra cuenta de twitter (https://twitter.com/GamezoneMiniatu).”

Well there you go, thanks carboncopy! Will be good to have it resolved one way or the other on Kickstarter at least.

Or at least Kickstarter evaluated the situation from their POV. It could just make things messier.

So KS have given them a response but the project is still suspended doesn't look like it's going to go live again any time soon if it was good news the suspension would be lifted by now.

 RiTides wrote:

I'd love to see either a new thread in Discussions, or this thread moved there until the campaign is once again active, but I respect folks who think otherwise. I just don't want to participate in the same discussion round and round. And I guess the idea that a Spanish company with no connection to Hasbro or GW, making a 25th anniversary game called HeroQuest, somehow has the moral high ground over a company protecting that trademark in the US is a little rich . But to each his own... I'm tired of talking about it now . I also think the idea that Moon Designs should just go ahead and license the mark and take all the risk of getting sued in the US is a little insane, too... but okay, not getting sucked back in, you guys have at it

I don't think opinions are as polarized as that. The biggest problem I have with your opinion on this is Moon Design's concern about being held liable for something an entirely separate, unconnected entity chooses to do just because Moon Design holds a word mark that used to be owned by Hasbro.

I just don't see how Moon Design could reasonably believe any such potential liability would exist. It is a stretch that Hasbro could sue GameZone for infringement of an abandoned mark, let alone a company that actually holds that word mark and is not engaged in said allegedly infringing conduct in any way, shape, or form.

Rather, Moon Design asserted its mark against GameZone indirectly through Kickstarter. How was such an affirmative action a means to insulate Moon Design from a hypothetical suit by Hasbro? Is it more reasonable to believe that Moon Design's principle motivation was insulating itself from collateral liability, or that Moon Design intended to assert its rights to the US registered HeroQuest mark because it felt GameZone's junior use constituted infringement?

Was Moon Design protecting itself from Hasbro or demanding restitution from GameZone/protecting future business interests?

Until Moon Design complained to Kickstarter, the dispute was not a shooting war. Once the Kickstarter campaign was suspended and backers pulled out as a result, the conflict became a shooting war because demonstrable financial harm had undeniably been caused. GameZone could literally see itself losing money as a result of Moon Design's actions.

Regardless of whether those actions were appropriate or justified, when it comes to reasonable negotiation, that is not an action that is easily taken back, if you understand what I mean. If you are having an argument and you throw a punch, the conflict immediately becomes exponentially more difficult to diffuse without a fight to the death. We don't know what the parties' actual communications were. They may have broken down horrendously, but looking in from the outside, Moon Design objectively threw the first real punch.

You think it's a stretch that Hasbro could sue, honestly?

I think you mean it's a stretch that they could win. Not sue. GW didn't "win" against Chapterhouse, but would have surely put them out of business without pro bono representation, despite their lack of a case.

You think this case is weaker than trying to protect the word "halberd" or "jetbike"

I never said I thought the case was strong... I said if I had a small company, with an abandoned trademark of a big company being used for a different setting, I would not risk licensing that mark for a re-make of the big company's game. It's like dangling red meat in front of a lion, imo... and clearly this is what Moon Design thinks, it honestly doesn't matter what anyone else does as they hold the trademark and would be taking the risk, whether it is large or small. If they didn't believe there was a risk, they could make money licensing the name and it'd be a no-brainer to do so.

 RiTides wrote:
You think it's a stretch that Hasbro could sue, honestly?

I think you mean it's a stretch that they could win. Not sue. GW didn't "win" against Chapterhouse, but would have surely put them out of business without pro bono representation, despite their lack of a case.

You think this case is weaker than trying to protect the word "halberd" or "jetbike"

I never said I thought the case was strong... I said if I had a small company, with an abandoned trademark of a big company being used for a different setting, I would not risk licensing that mark for a re-make of the big company's game. It's like dangling red meat in front of a lion, imo... and clearly this is what GameZone thinks, it honestly doesn't matter what anyone else does as they hold the trademark and would be taking the risk, whether it is large or small. If they didn't believe there was a risk, they could make money licensing the name and it'd be a no-brainer to do so.

Yea, I think it is a stretch Hasbro could sue Moon Design. It would be like me worrying I would be liable because someone stole the same model of car that I drive. Just because I drive a Hyundai Sonata does not mean that I should be worried about being held liable when someone steals a Hyundai Sonata.

weeble1000 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
You think it's a stretch that Hasbro could sue, honestly?

I think you mean it's a stretch that they could win. Not sue. GW didn't "win" against Chapterhouse, but would have surely put them out of business without pro bono representation, despite their lack of a case.

You think this case is weaker than trying to protect the word "halberd" or "jetbike"

I never said I thought the case was strong... I said if I had a small company, with an abandoned trademark of a big company being used for a different setting, I would not risk licensing that mark for a re-make of the big company's game. It's like dangling red meat in front of a lion, imo... and clearly this is what GameZone thinks, it honestly doesn't matter what anyone else does as they hold the trademark and would be taking the risk, whether it is large or small. If they didn't believe there was a risk, they could make money licensing the name and it'd be a no-brainer to do so.

Yea, I think it is a stretch Hasbro could sue Moon Design. It would be like me worrying I would be liable because someone stole the same model of car that I drive. Just because I drive a Hyundai Sonata does not mean that I should be worried about being held liable when someone steals a Hyundai Sonata.

It would depend on how MD's agreement with GZ is written. If it's just a trademark license, then probably no, Hasbro couldn't do anything. If the agreement is a bit more involved, such as a type of partnership, or MD agrees to do US distribution for GZ, then they could easily get dragged into any copyright mess that GZ might get into.

Update from the KS, news coming in soon perhaps?

Dear Backers

After knowing the KS surprise pause, we made a statement we published on our heroquestclassic.com page, where we transparently reported you about the situation, and we wandered directly to you, our backers, what you wanted us to do.

Most of you requested to wait for KS response. So we did. Today we have that answer. We will publish a statement at heroquestclassic.com tonight, as we did before.

Please stay tunned to our website (heroquestclassic.com) and our twitter account (https://twitter.com/GamezoneMiniatu).

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Yup the beauty of IP law... *snip*

This whole thing is about as beautiful as my avatar

Ninja'ed a few posts up by carboncopy, Pacific

I thought his user name was an instruction...

carboncopy wrote:

It would depend on how MD's agreement with GZ is written. If it's just a trademark license, then probably no, Hasbro couldn't do anything. If the agreement is a bit more involved, such as a type of partnership, or MD agrees to do US distribution for GZ, then they could easily get dragged into any copyright mess that GZ might get into.

Well, there is no agreement. But if there were, it is a simple matter to put in an indemnification.

To be honest I'd prefer the changed it to a "parody" of the original Heroquest than give MD any cash.

Because clearly the Spanish copyright holder is the one who deserves all the cash, despite not being connected to the original game in any way

It's not a big deal, but let's not pretend that this is GameZone's baby. A guy who owns the trademark in Poland could do the exact same thing, and have just as much right to it as GameZone.

 RiTides wrote:
Because clearly the Spanish copyright holder is the one who deserves all the cash, despite not being connected to the original game in any way

It's not a big deal, but let's not pretend that this is GameZone's baby. A guy who owns the trademark in Poland could do the exact same thing, and have just as much right to it as GameZone.

The original game is dead, trademark abandoned, with no interest from the creators to do anything with it anymore. Hasbro's in the same boat as Gamezone in that they'd have to license (or buy?) the trademark from Moon Design for the US.

And of course someone could do it in Poland. There's been dozens of dungeon crawlers inspired by HeroQuest '89 (which was in turn inspired by DungeonQuest '85, Dungeon! '75, Deathmaze '79)

It's Gamezone's baby in that they'd be paying money for rules writers to refresh the rules, artists for new art, sculptors for new sculpts, translators for different language editions, etc.

If hypothetical Poland guy also makes one and it's a superior product, then I'd buy that. Just because Hasbro has zero interest in their legally abandoned property does not mean that all of it's fans just go "aww shucks", kick the dirt, and resign themselves to never getting an update. There's a demand in the marketplace and no product to fill it. Gamezone has already invested into their new HQ property with the preliminary art and sculpts and want to fill that hole.