Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`DAVID WEXLER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`against
`
`
`
`HASBRO, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: ___________________
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff, David Wexler (“Mr. Wexler” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Moses
`
`& Singer LLP, for his Complaint against Hasbro, Inc. (“Hasbro”), alleges, on knowledge as to his
`
`own actions, and otherwise upon information as belief, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Wexler is a renowned entertainment interest veteran who has had substantial
`
`critical acclaim and success as a director, screenwriter and producer of films, television and
`
`commercials. Mr. Wexler is also actively engaged in inventing and developing ideas for toys and
`
`games.
`
`2.
`
`Hasbro is one of the world’s largest toy and game manufacturers. In 2018, Hasbro
`
`reported nearly $1.6 billion in sales of toys, games and licensing.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Wexler’s family has a long and storied relationship with Hasbro. His father,
`
`Howard Wexler, is the inventor of Connect 4, which has been licensed to Hasbro and its
`
`predecessors for decades and has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. Connect 4 is
`
`only one of the more than 120 ideas that Howard Wexler has licensed to Hasbro and other toy and
`
`game companies over the last 50 years.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 21
`
`4.
`
`Toy companies, including Hasbro, regularly meet with toy and game inventors,
`
`such as Howard and David Wexler, in order to obtain ideas for toys and games to develop and
`
`market. Toy and game inventors have played a critical role in ensuring that the toy and game
`
`industry remains healthy and dynamic by providing a steady flow of ideas for new toys and games.
`
`5.
`
`Based upon longstanding toy and game industry custom and practice, toy
`
`companies compensate inventors by paying them a royalty calculated as a percentage of the
`
`revenues generated when they exploit an idea or concept created by an inventor.
`
`6.
`
`Over nearly a decade, Mr. Wexler, assisted at times by his father, repeatedly met
`
`with senior members of Hasbro’s product development team to pitch ideas that he had developed.
`
`Among the ideas presented by Mr. Wexler on numerous occasions between 2007 and 2015 were
`
`Mash-Ups, both the idea of a new line of toys and games that would permit Hasbro to further
`
`exploit famous games and toys that it already controlled, and specific applications of this idea for
`
`games to be potentially included in a line of Hasbro Mash-Ups.
`
`7.
`
`As pitched to Hasbro by Mr. Wexler, each of the games to be included in the Mash-
`
`Ups line would combine the trademarks, gameplay, style and artwork of two classic Hasbro games
`
`and toys into a single game or toy; thus creating a new game experience that would be both familiar
`
`and novel to players. As explained in an Inventor Review Record prepared by Hasbro’s product
`
`development team when Mr. Wexler first presented his Mash-Ups idea, Mr. Wexler’s concept was
`
`to “combine different Hasbro brands like songs.”
`
`8.
`
`In addition to this idea, Mr. Wexler presented Hasbro with fully developed Mash-
`
`Ups concepts, including detailed explanations of gameplay and artwork, for specific examples of
`
`new games using more than a dozen Hasbro classics that could be included in a Hasbro Mash-Ups
`
`line. For instance, among the specific Mash-Ups proposed by Mr. Wexler over several years were
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 21
`
`Yahtzee and Boggle, Monopoly and Trouble, Jenga and Twister, Transformers and Sorry, and
`
`Connect 4 and Nerf.
`
`9.
`
`Notwithstanding repeated meetings with Hasbro product development officers for
`
`nearly a decade, who accepted both the Hasbro Mash-Ups idea and specific combinations of
`
`Hasbro classic games for consideration as new games to be brought to market, Mr. Wexler was
`
`ultimately informed that Hasbro would not be using his ideas.
`
`10.
`
`However, in an incredible breach of trust and in violation of the terms under which
`
`Mr. Wexler shared his ideas with Hasbro for consideration, Hasbro began, upon information and
`
`belief, in or about 2016 to develop a line of Mash-Ups of classic Hasbro games that it brought to
`
`market in or about 2019 while refusing to pay Plaintiff a royalty.
`
`11.
`
`Hasbro even used the Mash-Ups name, conceived of by Mr. Wexler, for the line of
`
`combined Hasbro games, albeit with a “+” symbol, i.e., game mash+ups, rather than a “-” symbol,
`
`i.e., Mash-Ups.
`
`12.
`
`The game mash+ups line distributed by Hasbro includes a game that is strikingly
`
`similar to a combined game proposed by Mr. Wexler.
`
`13. Mr. Wexler proposed a specific Mash-Ups game combining Jenga and Twister that
`
`incorporates elements of Twister into Jenga tiles, artwork, and gameplay (pictured below-left), and
`
`Hasbro’s line of game mash+ups includes a combination of Jenga and Monopoly that incorporates
`
`elements of Monopoly into Jenga tiles, artwork, and gameplay (pictures below-right):
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4 of 21
`
`14.
`
`Hasbro has even commenced selling a specific Mash-Up that was proposed by Mr.
`
`Wexler, a combination of Connect 4 and Nerf. (Compare picture below-left of idea submitted by
`
`Mr. Wexler with pictures below-right of the product being distributed by Hasbro).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`In a blatant, albeit doomed, effort to hide its deceit in stealing Mr. Wexler’s idea of
`
`a collection of Mash-Ups, Hasbro manufactured and sold the Connect 4 and Nerf Mash-Up, but
`
`did not include it in its mash+ups collection.
`
`16.
`
`Hasbro’s game mash+ups have been a commercial success. After being initially
`
`offered exclusively at Target in 2019, game mash+ups are now widely available, including at
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 21
`
`Walmart and on Amazon. Indeed, upon information and belief, game mash+ups are generating
`
`millions of dollars in revenues for Hasbro and are expected to substantially more in revenues as a
`
`result of, among other things, their broader availability and the addition of more games to the game
`
`mash+ups collection.
`
`17.
`
`Hasbro is also earning revenues from its widely distributed theft of Mr. Wexler’s
`
`idea for a Mash-Up of Connect 4 and Nerf.
`
`18.
`
`Hasbro’s conduct in stealing Mr. Wexler’s ideas violates a core element of the toy
`
`and game inventing industry’s custom and practice, and if left to stand, could destroy the trust
`
`between toy and game inventors and toy and game companies that has played a critical role in
`
`sustaining the toy industry for decades.
`
`19.
`
`After learning in 2019 of Hasbro’s intent to market a line of newly combined
`
`Hasbro classic games under the game mash+ups collection brand, Plaintiff contacted Hasbro to
`
`demand compensation for use of his ideas and specific game concepts. In response, Hasbro
`
`rejected Plaintiff’s demand, incredibly claiming that Hasbro had independently come up with the
`
`idea of creating a collection of new games based on existing Hasbro classics that would be
`
`marketed as game mash+ups.
`
`20.
`
`By this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for Hasbro’s brazen theft of
`
`Plaintiff’s ideas and Hasbro’s refusal to live up to its contractual and moral obligation to pay
`
`Plaintiff royalties for exploiting his ideas to Mash-Up classic Hasbro games.
`
`PARTIES
`
`21. Mr. Wexler is an individual who resides in New York and is a citizen of New York.
`
`22.
`
`Hasbro is a corporation that is incorporated in Rhode Island and has its principal
`
`place of business in Rhode Island.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 6 of 21
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`23.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
`
`because it is a civil action between a citizen of New York and a citizen of Rhode Island, and the
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`24.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
`
`FACTS
`
`25. Mr. Wexler is an entertainment industry veteran, who, carrying on a family
`
`tradition, also works as a toy inventor.
`
`26. Mr. Wexler’s father, Howard Wexler, the inventor of Connect 4 and numerous
`
`other successful toys and games, is recognized as one of the most successful toy and game
`
`inventors in the United States.
`
`Custom and Practice in the Toy and Gaming Industry
`
`27.
`
`To facilitate the full and fair exchange of ideas between inventors and
`
`manufacturers in the toy and game industry, the standard custom and practice calls for companies
`
`who meet with inventors to treat the ideas submitted by the inventors for possible commercial
`
`development as confidential.
`
`28.
`
`In accordance with this standard custom and practice, if the company subsequently
`
`desires to use the disclosed idea, it must first obtain the permission of the inventor.
`
`29.
`
`If the company commercially develops the disclosed idea, industry standard custom
`
`and practice provides that the company shall compensate the inventor with a royalty fee of 5% of
`
`the revenues generated. In certain circumstances, where another royalty is being paid in
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 7 of 21
`
`connection with the product, either to another inventor or for licensing the use of a trademark, such
`
`as a cartoon character, a reduced royalty of 3% will be paid.
`
`30.
`
`This toy and gaming industry custom and practice (the “Custom and Practice”)
`
`encourages the frank and collaborative development of toys and games by and between companies
`
`and inventors.
`
`31.
`
`Hasbro has at all relevant times held itself out to inventors, including Plaintiff, as
`
`abiding by the industry’s Custom and Practice of treating disclosed ideas as confidential and
`
`promising, expressly or impliedly, to compensate inventors for those ideas that are commercially
`
`developed by Hasbro.
`
`32.
`
`Indeed, at all relevant times, Mr. Wexler presented the inventions, ideas, and
`
`concepts at issue in this action to Hasbro in reliance upon the industry’s Custom and Practice and
`
`Hasbro’s commitment to comply with this custom.
`
`Mr. Wexler’s Development and Presentation of the Hasbro Mash-Ups Concept to Hasbro
`
`33.
`
`From 2007 through 2017, Mr. Wexler invented, developed, and refined his general
`
`and specific ideas for Hasbro Mash-Ups. After studying the toy and game industry, Mr. Wexler
`
`concluded that Hasbro’s position as the home of numerous classic games and toys provided it with
`
`a unique opportunity to create new games and toys by combining famous games within its
`
`catalogue of games and toys. These new games could exploit the trademarks, gameplay, style and
`
`artwork of existing classic games, which would serve as brand extensions of successful games and
`
`revitalize other games that had become tired.
`
`34.
`
`In addition to developing the general concept, and recognizing the benefits, of
`
`Hasbro combining games already under its control, Mr. Wexler also came up with and shared a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 8 of 21
`
`detailed concept for Hasbro to market a collection of combined games under the Mash-Ups brand,
`
`and built and presented models of the Mash-Ups.
`
`35. Mr. Wexler also identified and shared with Hasbro specific combinations of games
`
`to be included within the Hasbro Mash-Ups collection, and built models and developed detailed
`
`presentations as to how the trademarks, gameplay, style and artwork of such existing games could
`
`be combined to create new game playing experiences while highlighting marketing opportunities.
`
`36. Mr. Wexler repeatedly pitched his Mash-Ups ideas, including the concept and
`
`specific applications, to Hasbro between 2007 and 2015.
`
`37.
`
`The ideas were presented to senior members of Hasbro’s product development team
`
`for possible commercial development, in confidence, and with the understanding that Hasbro
`
`would act in accordance with industry Custom and Practice with respect to the ideas.
`
`38.
`
`At the first of these meetings, on February 10, 2007 in New York, New York (the
`
`“February 2007 Meeting”), Mr. Wexler, assisted by his father, Howard Wexler, introduced the
`
`idea of a line of Mash-Ups as a revolutionary, new category of Hasbro games, in which familiar
`
`elements of two classic Hasbro games and brands would be incorporated into new, “mashed-up”
`
`combination games.
`
`39. Mr. Wexler also presented Hasbro with prototypes of specific Mash-Ups using 14
`
`Hasbro game brands, including Connect 4, Scrabble, Guess Who, Memory, Jenga, Twister,
`
`Yahtzee, Boggle, Monopoly, Trouble, Candyland, Chutes and Ladders, Transformers, and
`
`Battleship, which demonstrated how the rules and themes of different games could be combined
`
`to create new “mashed-up” game experiences.
`
`40.
`
`Hasbro was also shown logo and artwork for the proposed Hasbro Mash-Ups line,
`
`demonstrating how the Mash-Ups could appear to consumers and showcasing the tremendous
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 9 of 21
`
`potential value to Hasbro of the Mash-Ups concept through the cross-marketing of classic Hasbro
`
`brands.
`
`41.
`
`Following Mr. Wexler’s presentation at the February 2007 Meeting, a senior
`
`Hasbro product development executive, Mike Hirtle (“Mr. Hirtle”), acknowledged that the Mash-
`
`Ups idea presented was novel, and compelling, and entitled to be considered as a submitted idea
`
`separate and apart from the specific Mash-Up combinations presented.
`
`42. While not prepared at every meeting between inventors and Hasbro, a regular part
`
`of Hasbro’s practice at such meetings is to prepare an Inventor Review Record that logs ideas that
`
`are submitted. The Inventor Review Record created at the February 2007 Meeting includes,
`
`among other submissions, separate entries for the Mash-Ups concept generally, which is described
`
`as “COMBINE DIFFERENT HASBRO BRANDS LIKE SONGS,” and several specific proposed
`
`mash-up games, and identifies the materials submitted to Hasbro.
`
`43.
`
`The Inventor Review Record from the February 2007 Meeting also includes
`
`Disposition Codes regarding the submissions. For instance, the entry for submission of the Mash-
`
`Ups collection idea and several specific potential game combinations, including Jenga Twister and
`
`Transformer Games (Robot Transformer to Connect 4 or Battleship), were marked with
`
`Disposition Code “1”, which means “Hold/Send In”, reflecting Hasbro’s interest in further
`
`considering the idea. Several other specific ideas for Mash-Ups game combinations were given
`
`Disposition Code “3”, which means “Inventor To Do More Work.”
`
`44.
`
`Hasbro retained information related to the submissions coded “1” following the
`
`meeting.
`
`45.
`
`Consistent with industry Custom and Practice and as a condition to Mr. Wexler’s
`
`presentation of his ideas to Hasbro at the February 2007 Meeting, Hasbro and Howard Wexler, on
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 10 of 21
`
`behalf of Mr. Wexler, signed the Inventor Review Record, which, among other things, required
`
`Hasbro to treat Mr. Wexler’s submissions as confidential and prohibited Hasbro from using the
`
`ideas submitted for commercial purposes without Mr. Wexler’s consent or payment of the industry
`
`standard royalty. (The “2007 Agreement”).
`
`46.
`
`The 2007 Agreement defines “use” as “conscious consideration of the Information
`
`in conjunction with deliberate implementation of the Information.”
`
`47.
`
`The 2007 Agreement defines “commercial purpose” as “the incorporation of the
`
`Information into products or product concepts which are offered for sale or license.”
`
`48.
`
`In the years that followed, and in reliance upon Hasbro’s feedback that (i) the Mash-
`
`Ups idea was unique and worthy of further development, and (ii) specific Mash-Ups Games should
`
`be further developed, Mr. Wexler invested significant time, money, labor, and resources further
`
`developing and refining specific Mash-Ups, including games that had been coded “1” and “3”.
`
`49.
`
`Following the February 2007 Meeting, Mr. Wexler periodically met with
`
`representatives of Hasbro in New York to discuss his toy ideas, including his idea of a Hasbro
`
`classics Mash-Ups collection and specific Mash-Ups to be included in such a collection. These
`
`discussions often occurred in or around February, when key players in the toy industry, including
`
`senior members of Hasbro’s product development team, would assemble in New York for Toy
`
`Fair.
`
`50.
`
`In June 2010, Mr. Wexler continued pitching his Mash-Ups collection idea to
`
`Hasbro product development executives and submitted additional specific Mash-Ups Games,
`
`including various prototypes, artwork, and gameplay ideas, for consideration when he met with
`
`Mike Gray and other Hasbro executives (the “June 2010 Meeting”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 11 of 21
`
`51.
`
`At the June 2010 Meeting, Hasbro again responded positively to the Hasbro classics
`
`Mash-Ups concept, encouraged Mr. Wexler to continue working on the novel and creative concept,
`
`concept or creating specific Mash Ups.
`
`52.
`
`Among the materials presented by Mr. Wexler at the June 2010 Meeting was a
`
`prototype for a Mash-up combining the Hasbro classic games Monopoly and Trouble.
`
`53.
`
`Consistent with industry Custom and Practice and as a condition for Mr. Wexler’s
`
`presentation of his ideas to Hasbro at the June 2010 Meeting, Hasbro and Mr. Wexler, again signed
`
`an Inventor Review Record, which, among other things, required Hasbro to treat Mr. Wexler’s
`
`submissions as confidential and prohibited Hasbro from using the ideas submitted for commercial
`
`purposes without Mr. Wexler’s consent or payment of the industry standard royalty (the “2010
`
`Agreement”).
`
`54.
`
`Notably, the Inventor Review Record used at the June 2010 Meeting was different
`
`than the one used in 2007 as it included an additional disposition code - “4” - Already in house.”
`
`Tellingly, none of the Mash-Ups presented by Mr. Wexler at the June 10 Meeting were coded “4”.
`
`55.
`
`The terms of the 2010 Agreement were substantially similar to those of the 2007
`
`Agreement and again required Hasbro to maintain the confidentiality of Mr. Wexler’s submissions
`
`and prohibited Hasbro from using Mr. Wexler’s ideas without his agreement or payment of the
`
`industry standard royalty.
`
`56.
`
`Over the next few years, and in reliance upon Hasbro’s positive feedback that (i)
`
`the Mash-Ups concept was novel and creative and worthy of further development, and (ii) specific
`
`games should be further developed, Mr. Wexler invested significant time, money, labor, and
`
`resources further developing and refining specific Mash-Ups.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 12 of 21
`
`57.
`
`In or about the summer of 2014, Mr. Wexler again met with members of Hasbro’s
`
`product development team, including Dougal Grimes. At that meeting, Mr. Wexler again pitched
`
`his Mash-Ups collection idea and submitted specific Mash-Ups Games, including various
`
`prototypes, artwork, and gameplay ideas, for consideration. (The “Summer 2014 Meeting”).
`
`58.
`
`At the Summer 2014 Meeting, Hasbro again responded positively to the Hasbro
`
`classics Mash-Ups concept, encouraged Mr. Wexler to continue working on the novel and creative
`
`concept, and confirmed that Hasbro was not independently developing or pursuing the Mash-Ups
`
`concept or creating specific Mash Ups.
`
`59.
`
`Among the materials presented by Mr. Wexler at the Summer 2014 Meeting was a
`
`revised prototype for a Mash-up combining the Hasbro classic games Monopoly and Trouble.
`
`Hasbro retained the prototype for consideration after the meeting.
`
`60.
`
`Consistent with industry Custom and Practice and as a condition for Mr. Wexler’s
`
`presentation of his ideas to Hasbro at the Summer 2014 Meeting, Hasbro and Mr. Wexler agreed,
`
`among other things, that Hasbro would treat Mr. Wexler’s submissions as confidential and Hasbro
`
`would not use any of the ideas submitted for commercial purposes without Mr. Wexler’s consent
`
`or payment of the industry standard royalty (the “2014 Agreement”).
`
`61.
`
`On April 30, 2015, Mr. Wexler again met with Mr. Grimes and other Hasbro
`
`product development executives and submitted the Mash-Ups ideas, including specific game
`
`applications, for Hasbro’s consideration (the “April 2015 Meeting”).
`
`62.
`
`At the April 2015 Meeting, Mr. Wexler presented and supplied Hasbro with
`
`additional materials relating to the Mash-Ups collection generally and specific Mash-Ups,
`
`including various prototypes, artwork, and gameplay ideas.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 13 of 21
`
`63.
`
`Once again, Hasbro responded positively to Mr. Wexler’s presentation and
`
`acknowledged that the general and specific Mash-Ups Games ideas were novel and creative, and
`
`worthy of possible commercial development.
`
`64.
`
`At the April 2015 Meeting, Hasbro took particular interest in a Mash-Up Game
`
`featuring a combination of the Hasbro classic game Sorry! and the famous Hasbro toy-line
`
`Transformers. Mr. Wexler delivered a prototype of his Sorry!/Transformers Mash-Up to Hasbro
`
`executives at that meeting.
`
`65.
`
`At the April 2015 Meeting, an Inventor Review Record was again completed and
`
`signed by Hasbro and Mr. Wexler. As reflected in that Inventor Review Record, Hasbro was
`
`interested in numerous ideas submitted by Mr. Wexler and retained materials related to the
`
`Sorry!/Transformers Mash-Up.
`
`66.
`
`Consistent with industry Custom and Practice and as a condition for Mr. Wexler’s
`
`presentation of the Mash-Ups ideas to Hasbro at the April 2015 Meeting, Mr. Wexler and Hasbro
`
`signed the Inventor Review Record, which, among other things, required Hasbro to treat Mr.
`
`Wexler’s submissions as confidential and prohibited Hasbro from using the ideas submitted for
`
`commercial purposes without Mr. Wexler’s consent or payment of the industry standard royalty
`
`(the “2015 Agreement”).
`
`67.
`
`The terms of the 2015 Agreement were substantially similar to those terms of the
`
`2007 Agreement and 2010 Agreement (together, the “Agreements”).
`
`68.
`
`On July 28, 2015, Hasbro sent a letter to Mr. Wexler, accompanying the return of
`
`the Sorry!/Transformers Mash-Up prototype that communicated Hasbro’s intention not to license
`
`the game.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 14 of 21
`
`69.
`
`Section 13 of the 2007 Agreement, 2010 Agreement, and 2015 Agreement provides
`
`that “in the event that [Hasbro] elects not to license any [submission or idea] from Inventor, such
`
`obligations of confidentiality shall extend for two (2) years from the date that such election is
`
`communicated to the Inventor.”
`
`70.
`
`Therefore, pursuant to Section 13 of the 2007 Agreement, 2010 Agreement, and
`
`2015 Agreement, following Hasbro’s July 28, 2015 letter, which notified Mr. Wexler that Hasbro
`
`elected not to license the Mash-Ups Games, the period of confidentiality under those agreements
`
`was extended through and including July 28, 2017.
`
`Hasbro Uses and Develops the Mash-Ups Game for Sale
`Without Plaintiff’s Consent and Without Remuneration to Plaintiff
`
`Upon information and belief, beginning in or about 2016, Hasbro began to prepare
`
`71.
`
`and develop the production of a line of Mash-Ups of classic Hasbro games in breach of its
`
`contractual and equitable obligations to Mr. Wexler.
`
`72.
`
`Upon information and belief, the individuals who worked on the project at Hasbro
`
`were from Hasbro’s product development group and had access to, and were aware of, both Mr.
`
`Wexler’s general concept for Hasbro classic game Mash-Ups collection and the specific ideas for
`
`Mash-Ups that he had presented, including, without limitation, the Connect 4 – Nerf Mash-Up.
`
`73.
`
`At the latest in 2019, Hasbro commenced selling, a collection of Mash-Ups of its
`
`classic games at Target under the name game mash+ups. In doing so, Hasbro was appropriating
`
`the very branding for the collection that Mr. Wexler had proposed, while replacing a “-” with a
`
`“+”.
`
`74.
`
`The general concept of the game mash+ups collection is identical to the concept
`
`that was repeatedly presented by Mr. Wexler to Hasbro.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 15 of 21
`
`75.
`
`The method of combining particular games used by Hasbro in creating the game
`
`mash+ups collection is essentially the same as the method for combining games proposed by Mr.
`
`Wexler. More particularly, in creating the game mash+ups collection, Hasbro has, as proposed
`
`by Mr. Wexler, combined the trademarks, gameplay, style and artwork of two classic Hasbro
`
`games into a single game or toy; thus creating a new game experience that would be both familiar
`
`and novel to players.
`
`76.
`
`Hasbro even copied Mr. Wexler’s proposal to create a Mash-up of Connect 4 and
`
`Nerf.
`
`77.
`
`Other games are also very similar to ideas that were presented to, and studied by
`
`Hasbro, including a combination of Jenga and Monopoly that incorporates elements of Monopoly
`
`into Jenga tiles, artwork, and gameplay, which is very similar to Mr. Wexler’s proposal Jenga and
`
`Twister Mash-Up.
`
`78. While earning millions of dollars from selling game mash+ups of classic Hasbro
`
`games and specific games copied from and inspired by Mr. Wexler’s ideas, Hasbro has rejected
`
`any obligation to pay Plaintiff a royalty for its obvious use of Plaintiff’s ideas in breach of its
`
`obligations.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Breach of Implied Contract)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 78 as if fully
`
`79.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiff prepared and submitted novel ideas to Hasbro at multiple meetings,
`
`between 2007 and 2015.
`
`81.
`
`The meetings between Plaintiff and Hasbro were conducted in accordance with
`
`industry Custom and Practice.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 16 of 21
`
`82.
`
`Pursuant to industry Custom and Practice, and the parties’ past experience in toy
`
`and game licensing, the parties understood and agreed that if Hasbro used the ideas provided by
`
`Plaintiff in any manner Plaintiff would be entitled to the industry standard royalty of 5% of revenue
`
`generated or, if another royalty was required to be paid related to the product, 3% of the revenue
`
`generated.
`
`83.
`
`Consistent with industry Custom and Practice, Hasbro agreed to review and
`
`consider Plaintiff’s submissions of the general and specific Mash-Ups ideas with knowledge that
`
`Plaintiff had submitted the ideas to Hasbro in confidence and for economic gain, and with the clear
`
`expectation of payment in the event that his ideas were utilized by Hasbro for a commercial
`
`purpose.
`
`84.
`
`The general and specific Mash-Up ideas presented by Plaintiff to Hasbro between
`
`2007 and 2015 were novel, generally, and specifically to Hasbro as a potential buyer of the idea.
`
`85.
`
`Despite multiple opportunities to reject the general and specific Mash-Ups ideas
`
`submitted to it by Mr. Wexler over several years as unoriginal and with an understanding of
`
`Plaintiff’s expectations to be compensated if the submitted ideas were commercially exploited,
`
`Hasbro accepted the ideas for consideration and is now commercially exploiting them.
`
`86.
`
`The facts and circumstances of Plaintiff’s disclosure of his novel and original
`
`general and specific concepts for Mash-Ups of Hasbro classics to Hasbro and the subsequent
`
`conduct of the parties created an implied-in-fact contract, pursuant to which Hasbro agreed to
`
`compensate Plaintiff if it used Plaintiff’s Hasbro Mash-Ups concept for a commercial purpose.
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiff fully performed his obligations under the implied-in-fact contract
`
`described above, and Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this claim.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 17 of 21
`
`88.
`
`Hasbro has breached the parties’ implied-in-fact contract by, among other things,
`
`paying Plaintiff the industry standard royalty of 5% of revenue generated or, if another royalty was
`
`required to be paid related to the product, 3% of the revenue generated.
`
`89.
`
` As a direct and proximate result of Hasbro’s actions, Plaintiff has been and
`
`continues to be damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`90.
`
`Hasbro’s conduct has been willful and malicious.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Breach of Express Contract)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 90 as if fully
`
`91.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff and Hasbro entered into the Agreements and the 2014 Agreement.
`
`The Agreements and 2014 Agreement are valid and binding contracts.
`
`Plaintiff fully performed his obligations under the Agreements and the 2014
`
`Agreement, and has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this claim.
`
`95.
`
`Hasbro breached the Agreements and the Agreement, including by using the ideas
`
`submitted by Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s consent and without paying Plaintiff the industry standard
`
`royalty of 5% of revenue generated or, if another royalty was required to be paid related to the
`
`product, 3% of the revenue generated.
`
`96.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Hasbro’s actions, Plaintiff has been and
`
`continues to be damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`97.
`
`Hasbro’s conduct has been willful and malicious.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 18 of 21
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Misappropriation)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 97 as if fully
`
`98.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`99.
`
`The facts and circumstances of Plaintiff’s disclosure of his novel and original
`
`Mash-Ups idea to Hasbro and the subsequent conduct of the parties created a duty on Hasbro’s
`
`part that it would compensate Plaintiff in the event Hasbro exploited Plaintiff’s novel and creative
`
`idea for commercial purposes.
`
`100. Hasbro’s use of Plaintiff’s ideas in its development and sale of games and toys as
`
`part of the Hasbro mash+ups collection and specific Mash-Ups, including the Connect 4 – Nerf
`
`Mash-Up, without Plaintiff’s consent and without remuneration constitutes misappropriation.
`
`101. As a direct and proximate result of Hasbro’s actions, Plaintiff has been and
`
`continues to be damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`102. Hasbro’s conduct has been willful and malicious.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Unfair Competition)
`
`103. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 102 as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`104. Hasbro’s aforementioned acts constitute unfair competition under New York
`
`common law.
`
`105. Hasbro acted unfairly and in bad faith where it encouraged Plaintiff to develop,
`
`refine, and submit his novel and creative general and specific Mash-Up ideas on numerous
`
`occasions over several years.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01100-VEC Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 19 of 21
`
`106. Hasbro caused Plaintiff to expend tremendous labor and resources, and then
`
`wrongly exploited Plaintiff’s novel and creative ideas for commercial purposes without Plaintiff’s
`
`consent and without remuneration.
`
`107. Hasbro acted unfairly where it violated industry Custom and Practice by using
`
`Plaintiff’s general and specific Mash-Ups ideas for commercial purposes without Plaintiff’s
`
`consent and without remuneration.
`
`108. As a direct and proximate result of Hasbro’s actions, Plaintiff has been and
`
`continues to be damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Unjust Enrichment)
`
`109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 108 as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`110. Hasbro obtained Plaintiff’s novel and creative general and specific Mash-Up ideas
`
`and applications on numerous occasions over several years, which Plaintiff expended tremendous
`
`labor and resources to create, develop, and present to Hasbro.
`
`111. Hasbro used and