What I was aiming for was I realised I forgot animated, and was trying to offer an blatently poor excuse. C'est la vie indeed!

That nine more to go really got me scratching my head before it clicked where the extra few came from!

For shame on us both for overlooking a significant fact.
The fact that unlike with the marvel movie lines, it seems if anything turns up in the TF movie line if becomes co-owned by the studios (Assuming the mold didn't appear anywhere else first). The studios own the likeness rights to the distinct style for the robots, as well as the setting. So, in the past if Hasbro *had* used this the way they use the Ironman and Wolverine movie, then they would automatically lose the ability to reuse the mold outside of future movie lines. Had they stuck in a true Neo G1 Jazz in the first movie to supplement the defunct Classics line, then they could never use it in Universe as Stepper. And Botcon could never use it for G2 Jazz.
Though, this seems to be changing with Reveal the Shield in ways that I'm sort of unsure about. And some of the latter RotF toys like Bludgeon don't quite seem off limits.

Good point, though I think it only applies to characters that actually appeared in the films and even then, they would be co-owned since it's Hasbro's IP. Also, I wouldn't think the studios could lay any claim to off-screen/supplemental characters like Bludgeon. Otherwise, the entire ROTF line would be co-owned by Paramount and I'm pretty sure Hasbro is business-savvy enough to avoid that pitfall.

If anything, Paramount probably gets residuals from toy sales just as Hasbro gets residuals from ticket/DVD sales.

Also, GM and Shelby get a piece of the action any time one of their vehicle likenesses is the alt mode for a toy.

Well, I'm a member of the TF club, and the club forums are my primary message board.
This is what we've all pretty much put together from cryptic responces based on what they club says.
They are *not* allowed to use any molds from the movie lines, in any shape or form.
They've made a few other remarks that have made us realize that if the package has the movie studio trademark on it, it's definatively off limits (Unless the molds appeared before the line, and were repainted into it, like the target scouts, and the walmart classics exclusives).
This means that Hasbro cannot use the molds anywhere, without paying the studio, and without giving them credit.
And save for the Real Gears, the entire first movie line, onscreen and offscreen characters have the movie studio logos on them, and the RotF line propper has the logos on them. Now, we're getting into sketchy areas. Some of the Hunt line doesn't have studio logos, and this Reveal the Shield campaign gets REAL dodgy. So we're no longer clear on the stuff that's currently out, like Bludgeon, HftD Dirge, and Seaspray. (Maybe Hasbro got themselves a better contract)
But, at least for the first line it doesn't matter if the character never appeared on screen, it was owned by the studio (Stocade, and ospray for examples). And if the mold used the distinctive movie style, it was owned by the studio. Hasbro may own the intellectual property, but it does seem that the studio owns the likeness rights for not only the characetrs in it, bt the likeness for the style.

But, we're unsure on the latest molds that mixes the style, and doesn't have the Dreamworks copyrights, but are still set movieverse. The club hasn't commented on that, and they won't know until they try to use one, or Hasbro announces to them they're available.
(I haven't bought a movie TF in so long, I can't even remember if Bludgeon has the studio logos on them)

I know that Hasbro has said that movie toys are off-limits to Botcon or other conventions wanting to do exclusives. The reason I stated that the toys would be co-owned is that regardless of how he looks, Optimus Prime is a trademarked character owned by Hasbro. Dreamworks/Paramount may co-own likeness rights to that particular version of Prime, but ultimately Hasbro still owns Prime. Keep in mind, the "Revenge of the Fallen" logo is co-owned by Hasbro and the studios, so that alone would warrant the Dreamworks and Paramount logos to appear on the package.

Now, I'm no expert in copyright laws, but I would think "style" is too vague for the Patent office. I know to obtain a copyright, you have to be very specific about it. Anything too vague or generic won't pass anymore. Otherwise, what's to stop Hasbro from suing over the C.O.R.P.s figures, since they're the same "style" as G.I.Joe (i.e. 3.75"-scale military-themed posable/articulated action figures). Or Disney suing Dreamworks over their animation style.

Chances are, the real reason most of the movie toys are off-limits is because either Hasbro would have to pay the studios residuals and/or that the studios would be involved in the approval process.

There's also a third possibility: most retailers love the movie line, so Hasbro doesn't want anyone but themselves to release redecos of those toys since Hasbro might do it themselves at some point. Nine times out of ten, the reason TFCC is unable to use a mold for a particular character is because Hasbro's planning to do it themselves at some point.

This is pretty much it, in a nutshell.

And as for copyrighting a look? Car companies do it all the time, all over the world. Movie studios do it all the time for various things (You really think the Na'vi, or the Xenomorph look and style isn't copyrighted?).