History of the board game Monopoly the facts about the game's history and differed from Parker Brothers' "official" account. The court also upheld a "purchasing motivation" test (described in the decision as a "Genericness Doctrine"), a "test by which the trademark was valid only if consumers, when they asked for a "Monopoly" game, meant that they wanted Parker Brothers' version..." This had the effect of potentially nullifying the "Monopoly" trademark, and the court returned the case to Judge Williams. Williams heard the case again in 1980, and in 1981 he again held for Parker Brothers. Anspach appealed again, and in August 1982 the appeals court again
History of the board game Monopoly were owned, and included "chips" to indicate improvements on properties. Magie again approached Parker Brothers about her game, and George Parker again declined, calling the game "too political". Parker is, however, credited with urging Magie to take out her 1924 patent. After the Thuns learned the game, they began teaching its rules to their fraternity brothers at Williams College around 1926. Daniel W. Layman, in turn, learned the game from the Thun brothers (who later tried to sell copies of the game commercially, but were advised by an attorney that the game could not be patented, as they were not