According to Findlaw, Hasbro, owners of the rights in the board game Monopoly, have threatened to sue David Chang for creating a new game, Ghettopoly, in which "playas" build crack houses on Cheap Trick Avenue instead of hotels on the Boardwalk. According to Hasbro, who describe the game as “reprehensible”, claim that Ghettopoly violates its intellectual property rights. Hasbro has licensed many variations of Monopoly, but it says Chang never sought the company's approval. Ghettopoly has outraged black leaders with its "playas" acting like pimps and game cards reading, "You got yo whole neighborhood addicted to crack. Collect $50”. Properties in the game include Westside Liquor, Harlem, The Bronx and Long Beach City.
On his website, Chang and promises that more games -- Hoodopoly, Hiphopopoly, Thugopoly and Redneckopoly -- are coming soon: "It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring together in laughter", Chang said. "If we can't laugh at ourselves ... we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness".
The IPKat accepts that Hasbro has every right to protect itself against attacks on the integrity of its Monopoly, but wonders whether Ghettopoly should even be construed as such an attack. The names are different; the games are different and it does not appear that the one is any sense a substitute for the other. How well would Ghettopoly in the marketplace -- and for how long – without the publicity generated by Hasbro’s complaint?
NEW DEVELOPMENT: On 22 October Hasbro commenced legal proceedings. Details from the Trademark Blog here
What they say about Ghettopoly here, here, here and here
Creating a new game? Click here
“In the Ghetto”? Click here, here or here
On his website, Chang and promises that more games -- Hoodopoly, Hiphopopoly, Thugopoly and Redneckopoly -- are coming soon: "It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring together in laughter", Chang said. "If we can't laugh at ourselves ... we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness".
The IPKat accepts that Hasbro has every right to protect itself against attacks on the integrity of its Monopoly, but wonders whether Ghettopoly should even be construed as such an attack. The names are different; the games are different and it does not appear that the one is any sense a substitute for the other. How well would Ghettopoly in the marketplace -- and for how long – without the publicity generated by Hasbro’s complaint?
NEW DEVELOPMENT: On 22 October Hasbro commenced legal proceedings. Details from the Trademark Blog here
What they say about Ghettopoly here, here, here and here
Creating a new game? Click here
“In the Ghetto”? Click here, here or here
GHETTOPOLY GAME UPSETS HASBRO
![GHETTOPOLY GAME UPSETS HASBRO]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Asking ourselves ‘Y’ – Are shape marks shaping complex products’ aftermarkets?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHwE0es_m0lzJpedp0KFtKOYBne_M3YPJ-qwQxiY_YMkHffLAAXkSW9F-pjQFKsy5kJJ-VWScQQkuEVb5-BxnDv10XIMAbYhvgzBSQadD1gdTiIjg9-Oj9Iekll-C3Ca9I76uI3Hh5nCI4QyLosLSNev9VzLq9lF1jM86ungheEDOBKLzGTbE3yw/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Flat rates supported by clauses on universality of repertoire in contracts between CMOs and users are anti-competitive, says Spanish Competition Authority](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBg7o3d7DPzH4YqNz3DUV5J5_sS4P7X7ZznFNETyQlLe0gonaSi3eE_jdjHD_aIjbPKhgpvUrkg6tPprYQYdwDGiyuWIXty9BOUlc07wUVbjDxI1bHoVxZA0ZCC9HBPjLXQwUioBSd9e9n-Z3uCeJ9UUgEvtJHLo1AllR20HGJETFdKoovxLBMw/s72-c/images.png)
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html