Not many people agree on whether or not India was licensed to print Funskool Pokemon cards. Apparently you can just ask the Pokemon Company and they’ll straight up tell you that India was licensed to print Pokemon Tcg in 2004 through Funskool. Has anyone found anything to verify them more since the post made last year? Thinking about just asking them myself if you are able to.
16 Likes
100% bootleg
www.elitefourum.com/t/funskool-indian-pokemon-cards/22828/1
This thread was a great read but now i’m also after more information. What happened to the Smpratte video linked?
Vaguely legitimate or not these cards look awful, If it was a brief licence you can totally see why. Nothing against the artwork but everything else about the cards scream PiratePikachu 
1 Like
I sent an email out to the (then) licensor for Pokemon Asia and did not receive a reply. And that’s as far as I went with my research a few years ago.
The debate was distilled into whether Funskool’s license would have allowed them to produce a TCG product at all. With regards to that, of the multiple examples of Pokemon product produced with Funskool branding, many of them were done so without respecting the traditional licensing requirements as seen on other known authentic products from the time. For example:
Lack of accent over the “e” in the Pokemon logo
Lack of “TM” (trademark identifier)
Lack of copy-write identifier on certain products
Part of my conclusion (among many other reasons) was that it would be self damaging to the brand to allow production of TCG related items under a new design and format. Especially given that there was already a very significant investment into Pokemon TCG competitive play inside Asia, and that a Pokemon TCG®️ license was very valuable and difficult to obtain at that time (in 2003-4). It would have been a very big deal.
The answer I believe was that they’re very likely unlicensed, or at least not allowed under Funskool’s license. And I think Scott’s video was pretty spot on and covered this.
Edit: Copying and pasting my findings here (this info I believe was from a friend of mine, so not verified by me)
“Funskool obtained the license from Top-Insight International (TOP-IN, the official licensor for Pokemon in Asia [who mostly deals with the anime and movie related merchandise]) on or after August 2003 and [supposedly] released the cards in Nov. 2003. Ironically Hasbro owns Funskool, and WOTC [ALSO owned by Hasbro] lost their Pokemon license in Sept. 2003.”
To break down the above. They had a contract, but it’s been determined to only pertain to movie & anime related items, not the TCG. But again, India was running rampant with brand piracy in the early 2000s.
6 Likes
The Funskool cards have always been interesting to me because they seem relatively unique as far as bootlegs go. There was promotional material, consistency among the cards, a full set list, and were produced by a well known and legitimate Indian company. It seems like Funskool likely abused their license and produced bootleg cards, but from what I gather, many people in India who knew of these cards thought of them as legitimate. This led to a rather nasty situation where a well known collector was bombarded with hate and insults because he sold cards that he was led to believe were real.
EDIT: Wait, so the licence was provided while WOTC still had theirs? Does this mean Hasbro would be responsible for this and not Nintendo?
1 Like
All I see are cases being made that Funskool is not official tcg. Have yet to see someone make the case they are bootleg except for calling them bootleg. The burden of proof is on those claiming they are official tcg and those claiming they are bootleg because the licensing information is there. The accent and trade mark are on the back of these cards. The red hue is not a deal breaker as plenty of Pokemon products have Pokemon in a red hue. I made this post to see if any new information had come forth. The last threads include notable members of E4 arriving to the conclusion that these are neither official tcg nor bootleg. Funskool is a Hasbro company. I guess I’ll just contact the Pokemon Company myself. These don’t even look like bootlegs. Bootlegs in 2004 were not printed with this quality.
1 Like
I think these are unofficial TCG cards printed by a legitimate company who abused their license. If the license was acquired prior to Nintendo taking control, maybe there is some legitimacy to this, but it’s a big task to try and prove it. TPCi has given numerous conflicting responses, so unless you can get a hold of someone with some level of importance and knowledge, you’re likely getting nowhere by contacting them. Maybe Hasbro would have some information, but I doubt that as well.
Calling these “neither official TCG nor bootleg” is quite the semantic stretch.
They did not have a license to print Pokemon trading cards. Therefore, the Pokemon trading cards they produced are by definition unlicensed and in colloquial terms, “bootleg.” The fact that they had a license to produce other Pokemon products has zero relation to their production of trading cards.
Seems like we have yet another opinion confirmation thread masquerading as a question.
2 Likes
These look pretty cool! Are they always insanely rare and expensive (seems that way on eBay)?
An opinion masquerading as a question? My question was for new info since the last two threads. What I’m saying about them is coming from the last two threads which I took no part in. I have no opinion on whether or not there is new info? Plenty of Pokemon cards that are not bootleg exist through Topps and other japanese companies. All of which state the licensing on the cards. They are not official tcg. More so I’d say some of you notable members are very insulated and are constantly confirming your own opinions. Everyone does it to a certain degree, it’s a characteristic of humans. Most bootlegs do not have licensing info and if the claims are true that the Pokemon Company will to this day say that Funskool was licensed to print it’s atleast worth looking into. Thanks.
I’m not really sure about the rarity or if they are priced accurately. I recently picked some up for a few bucks. I would bank on them not being crazy rare or expensive.
Totally possible that they abused their license and I’ll try contacting both. I was not aware of conflicting responses or any of the responses. I was only aware that people have asked. Definitely surprised there’s no new info since it’s a very old topic.
BTW Quaador is the one who called them neither bootleg or official.
1 Like
It’s a grave sin to insult Quuador.
6 Likes
Aug 14, 2020 18:13:01 GMT -4 nietzsche said: I’ll try contacting both… Definitely surprised there’s no new info since it’s a very old topic.
That’s because you wont get a reply which leaves the road a dead end.
I didn’t insult anyone just sourced.
Have you contacted them yourself…?
yes, during the time that other thread was active. no reply to any method of contact