English Chess Forum

But the complainants are selling a "Staunton" set and I thought Jaques owned the name?

Jaques had a huge argument with BH Wood some years ago over the same issue, which ended in expensive court action. Jaques now have advertising material with the kings and queens on the wrong squares, so they shouldn't have won!

I have contacted a copyright expert for his views.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:But the complainants are selling a "Staunton" set and I thought Jaques owned the name?

Jaques had a huge argument with BH Wood some years ago over the same issue, which ended in expensive court action. Jaques now have advertising material with the kings and queens on the wrong squares, so they shouldn't have won!

I have contacted a copyright expert for his views.

Jaques did not win the lawsuit. The case went to the Appeal Court, and BH Wood won the case. It was established that "Staunton" means a pattern, and not a particular maker's product.

Thanks Gordon - I thought the court said Jaques owned the name "Staunton", but if BHW changed his wording to "Staunton pattern", he could get round it? But I may have it wrong - this is based on memory! It cost him money even if he "won" the case.

Expert opinion so far doubts you can "copyright" a chess set (in this country), but you may be able to register the design.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: I thought the court said Jaques owned the name "Staunton", but if BHW changed his wording to "Staunton pattern", he could get round it?

I think the word "genuine" came in somewhere, that BHW advertised his (cheap) sets as "genuine Staunton" which Jaques claimed implied that they supplied or approved them. What he claimed he meant was "Staunton pattern" in other words of the usual style rather than something exotic.

You could certainly have a unique design, whilst still being broadly Staunton pattern; the sets used in the London Candidates come to mind as an example. If someone else made and sold copies, there would presumably be some form of legal redress available. Would it be copyright though?

Roger de Coverly wrote:You could certainly have a unique design, whilst still being broadly Staunton pattern

Like this one, for example, which the blurb says is "based on an original Staunton chess set".