Still, it’s good to see these details spelled out plainly. According to P&F, in 2011, GOG cut a parallel deal with Atari to license the SCI&II trademark rights, to go with the copyrights they licensed from P&F. But the details of the Atari TM license were kept confidential, and never disclosed to P&F (nor to us; it was apparently filed under seal), so when it apparently expired in 2015, they had no way to know.
This expiration became important last year, because Stardock amended its complaint to say that it means that P&F were violating its trademarks from 2015-2017, as well as its copyrights on SC3. P&F reacted by invoking an indemnification clause in their contract with GOG, and GOG refused to honor it. So P&F added GOG to the lawsuit, saying that any liability to Stardock is the result of GOG’s failure to disclose material information to them.
There’s something odd about Stardock’s accusations here. Stardock is using those GOG sales as exhibits in its trademark applications, including images taken after it edited the store pages in 2017 to add “The Ur-Quan Masters” subtitle to the SCII page. But if Stardock had the power to edit the games’ store pages, and was accruing the trademark rights from their sales, then how can it simultaneously claim that P&F were the ones selling the games, and therefore liable to it for trademark/copyright violations?
EDIT: I also just noticed that the schedule of assumed contracts from Atari to SD shows the GOG deal’s dates as 3/10/2010 - 2/23/2016, which does not quite match the 2015 dates being talked about. It also only shows the agreement pertaining to SC3, and does not mention SCI&II.