Can a game be "Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast SRD?"

[Henry]

Odd thought occurred to me: I've seen various OGL games run hoops and hurdles around the compatibility issue, claiming, probably the most popular wording, "Compatibility with the Third edition of the World's most popular Role-Playing Game."

Could a product legally say, however, "Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document?" or "Compatible with the rules in the Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document?" Would this violate any trademarks?

I'm not using this as a basis for any work - I'm just aesthetically curious, and looking for lawyerly and non-lawyerly opinions.

 

[silver_wizard]

Non-lawyerly opinion: In you say "compatible with the 3rd edition of the most popular RPG" you avoid mentioning your primary competitor by name. May or may not have something to do with it!

 

[DungeonMaester]

Im guessing it is all in how you do it. Right now, Im working on a fantasy version of Rifts, by 'splicing' in D&D characters and class abilties with that of Rifts to get the Feel of a world torn apart by the 'Ley lines' and goverment control, only in the 17th centry rather then the present.

Really, all ive done was change the names of the OCC and RCCs and abilties to go with to match up with the D&D characters. In theroy, it would work in backwords.

On a side note, with so many rip-offs of paladuim games, its almost a dead sytem.

---Rusty

 

[SWBaxter]

IANAL.

I believe the point of the phrasing is to indicate compatibility without stepping on WOTC's toes by using any of their trademarks. So claiming compatibility with "the Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document" probably isn't a great idea, since "Wizards of the Coast" is obviously a WOTC trademark.

I don't really think competition has anything to do with it - any d20 publisher that operates under the delusion they're competing with WOTC is so far divorced from reality they're likely doomed to failure.

 

[Henry]

Yeah, come to think of it, using "WotC" answers my own question, doesn't it?

Forget I asked.

 

[Conaill]

Waitaminite...

As far as i know, it *is* permissible to use someone else's trademark to indicate compatibility, right?

<does some digging>

Ah, here we go :

When Can I Use Another Person’s Trademark Without Their Consent?

As a general matter, it is advisable to obtain the consent of a trademark owner before proceeding with use of their mark. U.S. trademark law, however, does permit the use of another’s mark (whether registered or unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is made in good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to which the mark relates or to accurately indicate compatibility with another’s goods or services. Note, however, that in many countries, comparative advertising is unlawful.

Relevant considerations for determining whether use of another ’s mark constitutes “fair use” include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

Bad faith. Intentionally using another’s mark for the purpose of benefiting from the good will associated with the mark is not a permissible use of another person’s mark without their consent.

How the mark is used. Use of another person’s mark should not be made for the purpose of promoting one’s own goods or services without their consent. Visual placement and prominence of the other mark can bear upon whether use of another’s mark may be construed as being for one’s own promotional purposes.

Confusion by consumers. Some uses of another’s mark can suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the mark’s owner and can confuse consumers into believing that there is an association between you and the owner of the mark. This is not a permissible use of another’s mark without their consent.

This is from the International Trademark Association's FAQ on Information & Publishing

Sounds like "Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document" should be fine. Heck, even "Compatible with D&D 3.x" should be ok. As long as it's not blatantly used for promotional purposes, and you attach some biolerplate to indicate the ownership of the trademarks and disavow any connection with Hasbro/WotC. This is no different from a software product indicating that it's compatible with Windows XP.

I think it's only when you sign on the OGL *license* that you voluntarily agree not to use WotC trademarks to indicate compatibility. If you don't use the OGL to begin with, you should be able to indicate compatibility, within the limitations quoted above.

(IANAL)

 

[Ranger REG]

Odd thought occurred to me: I've seen various OGL games run hoops and hurdles around the compatibility issue, claiming, probably the most popular wording, "Compatibility with the Third edition of the World's most popular Role-Playing Game."

Could a product legally say, however, "Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document?" or "Compatible with the rules in the Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document?" Would this violate any trademarks?

I'm not using this as a basis for any work - I'm just aesthetically curious, and looking for lawyerly and non-lawyerly opinions.

If you're using the OGL, they may see that as a violation since you do not have permission to use their trademarked company name for distributing/promoting your product.

 

[Slife]

Couldn't you just say "Compatible with the SRD"? Anyone who would need to know would know what it meant.

 

[arscott]

Waitaminite...

As far as i know, it *is* permissible to use someone else's trademark to indicate compatibility, right?

<snip>

I think that intentionally circumventing OGL or STL restricions counts as acting in bad faith. The Open Game Licence and the d20 System Trademark License are set up specifically to allow 3rd party publishers to indicate compatibility. I think that trying to grab extra name recognition by breaking those rules counts as "Intentionally using another’s mark for the purpose of benefiting from the good will associated with the mark".

IANAL

 

[trancejeremy]

Part of the terms of using the OGL (see paragraph 7 of it), is that you give up the right to claim compatibility with someone else's trademark, unless you have an agreement (like the d20 license).