IBJNews

Phase 10 inventor's lawsuit sets up high-stakes fight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In the world of card games, Phase 10 is a whale. About 3 million copies of the rummy variation are sold each year, second only to Uno. The game has been the top seller for Plainfield-based Fundex Games Ltd. for years.

But now the 50-employee company has been dealt a wild card: The man who created Phase 10 in 1982, Michigan resident Kenneth Johnson, is suing to yank the firm's rights to make and market the game.

Johnson accuses Fundex of copyright infringement, trademark dilution, fraud, conversion and theft in the suit, which was filed in December in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. Johnson claims the privately held company has withheld royalties, granted sub-licenses without his consent, failed to include Johnson's copyright notice on card games, and registered the Phase 10 mark for itself in the United Kingdom and France.

Fundex has not yet responded in court, but an attorney for the company said the allegations don't have merit.

"Fundex denies the claims and will vigorously defend its rights to Phase 10," said Mitchell Roth, an attorney with Chicago law firm Much Shelist PC.

Johnson's attorney, T. Joseph Wendt of locally based Barnes & Thornburg LLP, declined to comment. Johnson could not be reached for comment.

The principals of Fundex struck a deal for the game in 1986, paying Johnson a flat $60,000 and assigning him royalties on all future sales. The parties amended the agreement in 1996 and 2003, but the gist remained the same: Fundex had the right to market and sell Phase 10 and the first right to market new products related to the game, in exchange for royalty payments.

The lawsuit says Johnson discovered in the summer of 2008 that Fundex wasn't living up to its end of the deal. He spelled out his concerns in two letters to the company. And he notified Fundex of plans to review its records on Phase 10, as allowed in the contract, but when his auditors arrived a month later the company refused to provide the requested information.

So Johnson, who received a trademark for the game in 1994, told the company on Nov. 1 that he was canceling the deal. When Fundex continued to market and sell the game, he filed suit. The featured game on Fundex's Web site at press time was a board game called "Phase 10 Twist."

The dispute appears to have arisen at least in part over the company's push to repurpose and repackage the card game in multiple forms, including a mobile version.

Fundex in 2007 sold Canadian mobile-game publisher Magmic Games the rights to develop a downloadable version of Phase 10, to be sold to mobile phone customers for a one-time fee of $6.99. Fundex gets about $1 per download. The company would not disclose the terms of the deal.

Fundex is a small player in the $20 billion box-game industry. Rhode Island-based Hasbro Inc., controls 75 percent of the segment. California-based Mattel Inc. has about 10 percent, with a handful of other companies fighting over the rest.

Fundex gets about half of its roughly $20 million in revenue from licensed games, with the rest coming from company-created games or standbys like chess and checkers and other products, CEO Chip Voigt said.

Voigt, 48, declined to discuss the lawsuit or describe the importance of Phase 10 to the company's prospects. He founded the company with his father, Pete, who was involved in the development of Uno for Illinois-based International Games Inc. before it was acquired by Mattel in 1992. Pete Voigt is now retired.

Chip Voigt said the dispute is the first time Fundex has faced a legal action related to a game it licenses.

"In our industry, from time to time disputes arise," he said. "We're continuing on."

The suit does not specify how much in damages Johnson will seek, only that it will exceed $75,000. 
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT