So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

[Brown Jenkin]

As I understand it, the facts are these.

WOTC owns the d20 trademark, lock, stock, and barrel. It is theirs to do with as they please.

Mostly correct. By licensing out the trademark though they are limiting their full rights by whatever limitations are in any contract they make concerning those rights.

WOTC permitted products bearing the d20 trademark to enter the stream of commerce unchallenged pursuant to the D20 System Trademark License.

Yes

The D20 System Trademark License was terminated in June. Products bearing the d20 trademark created in good faith using the license were granted a sell-off period. The sell-off period has ended.

That is what is in dispute. Please point to any official notice of termination. there is even dispute that version 6 can be terminated.

Therefore, I conclude that any product now bearing the d20 trademark which is in the stream of commerce technically infringes WOTC's trademark, because WOTC no longer grants permission for its use under any license whatsoever.

That is your interpretation. To be conservative it is a wise course to follow but it is not an official or necessarily legal interpretation.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Consider, however, the following: a company offering a license to use their trademarks can revoke that license at any time for any reason. The trademark is WOTC's property; they have the right to say "get off my lawn!" for no reason at all other than they want their lawn back.

The Termination for Breach portion of the d20 STL explained how a publisher could cause WOTC to unilaterally revoke the license in regards to that particular publisher and actually provided the publisher *extra* rights (a 30-day cure period) that WOTC didn't actually *need* to offer, legally.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Consider, however, the following: a company offering a license to use their trademarks can revoke that license at any time for any reason. The trademark is WOTC's property; they have the right to say "get off my lawn!" for no reason at all other than they want their lawn back.

The Termination for Breach portion of the d20 STL explained how a publisher could cause WOTC to unilaterally revoke the license in regards to that particular publisher and actually provided the publisher *extra* rights (a 30-day cure period) that WOTC didn't actually *need* to offer, legally.

Contracts can limit the rights of both parties beyond what would otherwise be legally allowed. A company can only revoke a contract at any time only if the contract has a termination clause that allows that.

Get off my lawn doesn't hold legal muster. This is similar to a lease. The landlord can't just evict tenants for no reason unless such a clause exists in the lease. As long as the contract/lease is valid the owner can scream all they want but until the contract expires or is terminated for some other reason all that screaming doesn't give them any legal rights to get someone off the lawn in question.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Here is the official notice that the D20 STL is terminated upon publication of the 4E GSL:

D&D 4th Edition Game System License

The D20 STL is in no way similar to a lease. Publishers were never given "tenant" rights in d20 trademarks. They were given permission to use them to market their products.

The "Termination for Breach" clause did not limit WOTC's right to terminate at will.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Here is the official notice that the D20 STL is terminated upon publication of the 4E GSL:

D&D 4th Edition Game System License

The D20 STL is in no way similar to a lease. Publishers were never given "tenant" rights in d20 trademarks. They were given permission to use them to market their products.

The "Termination for Breach" clause did not limit WOTC's right to terminate at will.

That was not a termination notice. That was a press release that stated intent, not actual action.

As for tenant rights, yes it is not a lease, but the comparison was because of the "get off my lawn comment." The point of contracts is that they are legally binding and give each party rights as spelled out in the contract. This contract does not have a terminate at will clause even though it could and even if it did no such termination has been announced. The point of most contracts is so that agreements are spelled out and can't be changed at will unless the contract says so.

 

[kenmarable]

Here is the official notice that the D20 STL is terminated upon publication of the 4E GSL:

D&D 4th Edition Game System License

The D20 STL is in no way similar to a lease. Publishers were never given "tenant" rights in d20 trademarks. They were given permission to use them to market their products.

The "Termination for Breach" clause did not limit WOTC's right to terminate at will.

This is getting into pretty nitpicky details of the license, but a pretty important word in that linked page is "replace". If the GSL can be considered d20 STL version 7, then yes it does update it, and it's officially terminated. However, given the terms in the d20 STL version 6, it's not clear that an entirely new license not called the "d20 System Trademark License" and not numbered "version 7" can be legally considered an "update" to d20 STL v6.

And as Brown Jenkin pointed out, your assumptions are what's being questioned. Yes WotC owns the d20 trademark, but, just to be concrete here, when I, Ken Marable, "downloaded the enclosed graphics" years ago, WotC and I formed a legally binding license/contract. I am well within my rights to cry foul if I think WotC is violating the terms of that license. The license isn't just "at whim" because they own the trademarks - WotC is as bound by that license as I am. Pointing out the "termination for breach" clause isn't a claim that they limited their other options, it is just a quick way to point out that the entire license is missing any other termination clauses. Both WotC and I are bound by the terms of d20 STL v6 whether we like it or not until either A) I breach the license, or B) WotC updates it, and there are terms in the license that address what constitutes a license update (Section 9).

(Side note - there is no exit strategy for either side in the d20 STL v6. As the licensee, as it stands, I can never technically terminate the license on my side of things. I can only stop using it. But until I breach the contract or WotC updates it to allow me to terminate it, I am bound forever. Insidious, isn't it?)

Of course, maybe the lack of the word "perpetual" in Section 2 of the license has a specific meaning in the arcane language of trademark lawyers, but considering there is no set term/time limit in the license, that's hazy as well.

 

[Marius Delphus]

The point of a unilateral contract, in contrast, is to put an offer "out there" that anyone may take the offeror up on; the offeror may generally retract the offer at any time (there is some built-in machinery in contract law that protects the offeree from bad effects of that retraction, but the 6-month "sell-off" period granted by Wizards takes care of that neatly).

If Wizards makes public its policy, via a press release, that the publication of the GSL means the D20 STL is no longer in force, what further notice is required? If there's substantial legal doubt over whether the D20 STL is in force, why are publishers scrubbing the d20 logos off their now-OGL products?

 

[Wicht]

This keeps coming up and I have to wonder why WotC has not actually addressed it beyond the one press release? A single statement from a WotC representative (preferably containing legal language) would go a long ways to stopping this speculation.

 

[Bacris]

If there's substantial legal doubt over whether the D20 STL is in force, why are publishers scrubbing the d20 logos off their now-OGL products?

Substantial legal doubt and willingness to pay court / lawyer fees to back it up are two very different things.

 

[Oldtimer]

Consider, however, the following: a company offering a license to use their trademarks can revoke that license at any time for any reason.

That is so false it's not even funny. They can revoke their offer, but certainly not a valid contract.

Owning a trademark doesn't make you God.