You reap what you sow - GSL.

[pemerton]

Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges

Agreed, for the reasons I gave in my post above.

Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using somebody else's trademark to promote your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.

My understanding is that it actually happened like this: TSR and Mayfair reached a licence agreement, and then TSR sued Mayfair for breaches of that agreement.

 

[woodelf]

Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using somebody else's trademark to promote your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.

OK, i'm going on memory here, because i don't have good resources handy, but i know it's not that simple. For starters, there were two lawsuits. IIRC, one was settled, one was decided in court. And, again, IIRC, the one that Mayfair lost was a contract infringement--which, admittedly, was the result of the settlement of the first case. But, nonetheless, there wasn't a clear-cut "Mayfair is using TSR's trademark unfairly" court decision. Rather, that was the accusation that TSR leveled; TSR and Mayfair settled out of court, allowing Mayfair to keep using the trademark; TSR alleged that Mayfair violated the terms of that agreement and sued; the court agreed and found against Mayfair. [going on memory here, admittedly]

And, back to your fundamental point: i'm not sure the relationship was ever so clear-cut. Was Mayfair using the D&D trademark to promote it's products, or using it's products to promote the D&D trademark? Personally, i think it was both--they were giving as much as they were getting, roughly.

----
And, to answer a couple other people: yeah, there are some very complicated issues of derivative content, that have only become more complicated with court decisions in the last decade or two. But that's a rather distinct issue from the use of trademarks to indicate compatibility. [And that's before we even get to ideological concerns about the growing imbalance between large media companies and the public, where IP laws are concerned.]

 

[Greg K]

Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using somebody else's trademark to promote your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.

Wrong. Ray Winninger just recently stated on this site (or was it RPG.net) that there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support. Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.

He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.

 

[pemerton]

And, to answer a couple other people: yeah, there are some very complicated issues of derivative content, that have only become more complicated with court decisions in the last decade or two. But that's a rather distinct issue from the use of trademarks to indicate compatibility.

My intuition is that the two are not entirely distinct, because the relationship between your text and WoTC's copyrighted text might be relevant to determining what a reasonable person would take you to be intending by your use of WoTC's trademark on your product.

Now, I am not an IP lawyer so my intuition here may be wrong.

And that's before we even get to ideological concerns about the growing imbalance between large media companies and the public, where IP laws are concerned.

My response to this is constrained by the board rules, but one thing I will say is this: I'm not sure that I see many of the 3PPs as free spirits trying to liberate IP from huge media companies.

 

[jmucchiello]

My intuition is that the two are not entirely distinct, because the relationship between your text and WoTC's copyrighted text might be relevant to determining what a reasonable person would take you to be intending by your use of WoTC's trademark on your product.

Which is why you don't market your book as "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons(tm)". You market it as "Compatible with the fourth edition of the most popular fantasy RPG." Then you only have to overcome the copyright issue.

 

[cangrejoide]

Wrong. Ray Winninger just recently stated on this site (or was it RPG.net) that there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support. Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.

He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.

Can you post a link to this thread, this seems like a good info thread.

 

[jgbrowning]

Tree, would you quite it please.

OSRIC is, in my view, 100% illegal and infringing. I wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole. And doing what you call for is, in my view, similarly illegal.

Please quite holding up the fact that Wizards find OSRIC too irrelevant to take action against as some evdence of its legality.

Can you provide a specific example of what is illegal and infringing? It sounds like you are completely certain in your view, so I'm interested in what specific text examples you find illegal and infringing that leads to such certainty.

joe b.

 

[Nikosandros]

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Wrong. Ray Winninger just recently stated on this site (or was it RPG.net) that there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support. Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.

He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.

Not only their backstock, but future products. Unless I'm misremembering mucho, Chronomancer and Shaman were originally Mayfair products (perhaps not the final form mind you but...) It's a shame because Mayfair was pumping out stuff like Demons, and other greats and had plans for Assassins (with contracts and other handouts) as well as Undead II (the first Undead sourcebook fantastic!) and more Demons support.

 

[Jack Colby]

Wrong. Ray Winninger just recently stated on this site (or was it RPG.net) that there was two seperate suits brought at seperate times. In neither case was there a judgement against Mayfair. In the first case, TSR gave Mayfair exclusive licensing rights to avoid a potential loss in court and setting precedent for third party support. Then, later TSR sued again for a supposed breach of contract and both parties reached an agreement in which TSR bought Mayfair's backstock in exchange for Mayfair giving up the license.

He also mentioned how one could legally go about publishing compatible products without using a GSL or OGL.

Thank you! I remembered reading that great explanation, but forgot who exactly wrote it. I wish more people in this business (especially the retroclone folks) had seen this too. I just shake my head at how many hoops people jump through when flat-out stating compatibility is completely legal to begin with.