TSR TSR (2) Confirms TSR (3)'s Acquisition of Trademark (Updated!)

Jayson Elliot registered the TSR trademark back in 2011 and used it to launch Gygax Magazine along with Ernie and Luke Gygax. The two Gygax's left the company a few years later after Gary Gygax's (co-founder of TSR (1) back in the 1970s) widow, Gail Gygax, forced the closure of Gygax Magazine. Then, earlier this year, TSR (3) swooped in on the TSR trademark, after Jayson Elliot accidentally let it lapse, as TSR (2) confirms:

We have owned the TSR trademark since 2011. Last year, we missed a filing date, and another company registered it, though we are still using it in commerce. While we could win a lawsuit, we frankly don't have the money to litigate. So, we're licensing it back from them.

As a result, there are two companies now using the name TSR. You can tell when it's us because we're the only ones using the new logo.

They're opening a museum in Lake Geneva at the old TSR house, and we wish them success with it, it's important to celebrate the legacy that Gary Gygax created.

Ernie Gygax, formerly of TSR (1) under Gary Gygax, then working with Jayson Elliot as part of TSR (2), is one of the founders of of TSR (3), and confirmed in his (now infamous) interview --

The other TSR is a licensee because [Jayson Elliot] let it lapse. But he had absolutely ... love for the game and the products. There was no reason to say 'oh you've screwed up, oh it's all ours, ha ha ha ha!' Instead, Justin [LaNasa] came to him and said ... we love that you're doing Top Secret things, we have a much broader goal for the whole thing. But there's no reason for you to stop or even have any troubles. Justin said, I'll take care of the paperwork, you just give me $10 a year, and you put out all this love for old school gaming that you can. And we appreciate that you were there to try and pick up things, and you produced Gygax Magazine, for in its time that you're also working on a game that you love to play ... because Top Secret was Jayson's love, as a young man.

TSR (2), still run by Jayson Elliot, publishes Top Secret, and is not connected to TSR (3) other than now having to license it’s own name from them. TSR (3) has also registered the trademark to Star Frontiers, a game owned by and still currently sold by D&D-owner WotC.

In other news the GYGAX trademark appears to have lapsed.

UPDATE! TSR (2) has decided NOT to license its own name from TSR (3):

Update to our earlier tweet - we will NOT be licensing anything from the new company claiming rights to the TSR logos. We are not working with them in any fashion.

 

[Marc Radle]

Well, Luke seems competent and savvy, so I wouldn't expect he would have wanted to go off half-cocked like this.

Luke absolutely IS both competent and savvy

 

[darjr]

@AcererakTriple6 i don’t believe for a second he’d refrain speaking Ill of any dead if it suited his own purpose

 

[Zardnaar]

Not sure if not speaking Ill of the dead counts for famous figures.

I've always taken it to mean leave your family drama at the door for the funeral.

Alot of drama boils down to he said/she said and is kinda petty. It's not a blanket don't criticize the dead ever imho just let the family have their peace around time of death.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to speak ill of Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Osama Bin Laden, and I'll speak ill of my abusive grandparents when they die, and anyone else that is dead that deserves it, because criticizing the harmful things people did and said is how we progress as society, whether or not they're still alive. If we just put of a curtain down once someone dies and say "Ignore history, they're dead, no one gets to comment on what they did unless you have something good to say", that's harmful. Over 90% of the people that have ever lived are now dead, so saying "well, they're dead, so you don't get to say anything bad about them" is actively harmful and trying to prevent people from learning from the mistakes of people in the past.

If we're going with old quotes I'm feeling depressing enough to quote Shakespeare here. "The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones." I don't actually believe that - but believe that that's what happens when we beatify people. In reality we build mostly on what people have done that's good and it no longer seems so exceptional - while the badness gets polished out so in general it seems more extreme. And when people are beatifying a designer of the past it's often worth bringing up the flaws in their work and why we've left those parts behind.

As for Gygax' many flaws as a human being and as a game designer? There are two basic questions as to whether it's worth bringing them up. Firstly are we building anything based on their work for which their flaws are relevant (yes). RPGs are inherently about how we see the world and inherently political. Secondly is there a direct reason to (frequently, especially when someone is trying to trade on their name.

 

[imagineGod]

Ugh. Look. I honestly couldn't care less about "clearing Gygax's name" or whatever else this recent nonsense is about, but I want to address this super fallacious support of whatever you think the situation is.

"Do not speak ill of the dead" in the proverb's entirety roughly translates into "Of the dead nothing but good is to be said", and it originates from some guy from Sparta in the 6th Century BCE.

This phrase is flat-out wrong in most cases that people try to use it in. We should absolutely speak ill of the dead, as long as what we're saying is correct and with a constructive and beneficial purpose. If someone says "Oh, [insertdeadperson] is [insertinsult]" (basically smack-talking someone behind their back, but they're dead), that's a correct place to say "Hey, don't speak ill of the dead, they can't defend themselves", because that remark isn't constructive and is just bashing on an easy target. However, if someone says "[Insertdeadperson] did bad things, here's some examples" and continues to explain why you shouldn't idolize them or otherwise praise them as people, an incorrect response to that would be "Hey! You're not allowed to speak ill of the dead! Pretend that whatever bad things they did didn't happen, because they can't defend themselves!"

I'm going to speak ill of Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Osama Bin Laden, and I'll continue to speak ill of my abusive grandparents when they die, and anyone else that is dead that deserves it, because criticizing the harmful things people did and said is how we progress as society, whether or not they're still alive. If we just put of a curtain down once someone dies and say "Ignore history, they're dead, no one gets to comment on what they did unless you have something good to say", that's harmful. Over 90% of the people that have ever lived are now dead, so saying "well, they're dead, so you don't get to say anything bad about them" is actively harmful and trying to prevent people from learning from the mistakes of people in the past.

As you know, there's another famous saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

(And, no, I'm going to stop you right here and right now. I am not comparing Gary Gygax to Hitler, Bin Laden, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, or other awful dead people. I am merely rebutting the assertion that "Dead people are immune to being criticized", and any arguments that depend on being founded on this assertion. As I said above, I don't know enough about what is currently going on to have a real opinion on the matter (yet), I just say a logical fallacy and needed to call it out.)

But you just created a new logical fallacy in that you made a case for an objective stance of objective evil that some dead people did. We know that in our diverse world with cultures spanning eons, there are no universal objective standards by which to judge everyone equally all over the world.

This fallacy is made worse when we blindly single out a particular dead person we may personally dislike for specific criticism from a peculiar modern perspective. Using such an approach is self defeating for it condemns every human being into some evil category. Some major religions call this the original sin. Some even say before you remove the speck from a stranger's eye, remove from yours first.

Basically, because norms change over time and across the world, every human has an ancestor who committed acts considered wrong by today's standards. So we are all condemned.

To the single out Gary Gygax for special public lynching is hypocritical. Everyone here said something they regret sometime in life. If every statement is recorded and meticulously analysed, we are sinners all.

The issue I have is not with reasonable critique, but the hypocrisy of Wizards of the Coast issuing disclaimers only recently upon products they have been selling for profit for years.

It is like watching a big Western corporation issue disclaimers about child slavery yet doing business along their supply chain with some exploitative company in another country that uses child labor. Performative virtue signaling that does not actually solve the root problem.

People on this forum who called for more reasoned debate are not getting the same likes like those who ridicule Gary Gygax.

And if you visit the TSR Games Twitter, you see a large group of mostly internet savvy young people attack an old man who misspoke from anger that so many enjoy his father's game but hate his father so. That exchange when viewed from a wider holistic view looks more like a gang of youngsters beating up an aging defenseless fellow.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

People on this forum who called for more reasoned debate are not getting the same likes like those who ridicule Gary Gygax.

You will be a lot happier when you stop looking for scoreboards constantly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

imagineGod has been given a permanent ban from this thread due to multiple violations.​

 

[Dire Bare]

People on this forum who called for more reasoned debate are not getting the same likes like those who ridicule Gary Gygax.

Oh good lord.

Most folks in this thread, and on the TSR Games FB page, are expressing upset over the very real transphobic comments made by Ernie Gygax. No one is ridiculing his father, or even him, outside his recent behavior.

The general consensus seems to be:

1. Gary Gygax is beloved for his creation of D&D, alongside Dave Arneson. And rightly so.
2. Gary was a terrible businessman who made a lot of really bad decisions in regards to D&D and TSR, and some unethical ones as well (i.e. Dave Arneson).
3. Gary Gygax was held to be a pretty nice and decent guy, although Dave Arneson might disagree . . .
4. Gary held some unapologetically racist and sexist views until the day he passed. Views not uncommon at the time, but views that many then and now found offensive. Views that were debated at the time, both in society at large and within the gaming community.
5. Gary wasn't a bigot, clan member, or outright misogynist . . . someone upthread (or on a different thread) referred to his level of racism/sexism as "grandpa racist/sexist". I'd call it "unquestioned acceptance of systemic racism and sexism without acknowledging one's own privilege".
6. Gary, like most humans, was a complicated guy with both good and bad traits. We can talk about both, we can appreciate his good traits, and speak against his bad.
7. Ernie seems to be a chip off the old block. Bad as a businessman, including some unethical choices (i.e. Jayson Elliott). "Grandpa racist/sexist". But also a really nice guy trying to promote his father's legacy and celebrate the early history of D&D and TSR, of which he was a part, if a small part.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Luke absolutely IS both competent and savvy

He's also professional. I understand he had a private conversation with Ernie and don't expect him to publicly comment other than what he already said regarding him or GaryCon not being involved with the new TSR

Which is what I'd expect from a LT Col in the army. We military types tend to want to keep personal grievances with each other private.

I would have full confidence in Luke taking over a business because he's got experience dealing with people, adversity, discipline, and leadership.

But we didn't get Luke. We got Ernie taking over. Maybe Ernie is a good guy who is just easily swayed. Dunno. Doesn't matter. He has a poor track record with projects and woeful PR.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But you just created a new logical fallacy in that you made a case for an objective stance of objective evil that some dead people did. We know that in our diverse world with cultures spanning eons, there are no universal objective standards by which to judge everyone equally all over the world.

I honestly do not care and am not willing to jump down that rabbit hole with you. Hitler was evil. His actions were and still are evil. Any reasonable person would think so, and whether or not there was or could be a society that considers his actions to not be evil is irrelevant. We judge actions by our own standards, not by the standards of a "what-if society".

(I also believe that you just committed the Fallacy Fallacy, or some variation of it, by saying "this is a logical fallacy" without explaining what part of it is a fallacy and actually addressing it.)

This fallacy is made worse when we blindly single out a particular dead person we may personally dislike for specific criticism from a peculiar modern perspective. Using such an approach is self defeating for it condemns every human being into some evil category. Some major religions call this the original sin. Some even say before you remove the speech from a stranger's eye, remove from yours first.

Again, I don't care what you're trying to spin this as, you're wrong. If we ignore the past and just say "they're dead, don't talk any bad about them", we are doomed to repeat their mistakes. I don't care if "every human being" is "condemned" into "some evil category", because humans are inherently flawed, and so in order for a society to attempt to become less and less flawed, we have to acknowledge the flaws as being bad and work to avoid them, instead of saying "nope! Can't talk about it! They're dead, what's done is done, and we cannot criticize a dead person for any reason whatsoever".

Basically, because norms change over time and across the world, every human has an ancestor who committed acts considered wrong by today's standards. So we are all condemned.

Good. That's awesome. If people in the future have progressed so much that they see my actions as evil in comparison to their actions, I will gladly celebrate that (you know, if I can . . .). If I get seen as "just a product of their time", I enthusiastically accept that now and am wholeheartedly on-board with never idolizing anyone for any reason. People are flawed, it's a part of our nature, so if society can move past the restraints of the past to accept higher standards, I see that as a good thing.

To the single out Gary Gygax for special public is hypocritical.

Removed an especially tone-deaf word. If I have to explain why comparing criticizing dead people to the horrific murder of black people is absolutely not okay, we're not going to get anywhere.

Everyone here said something they regret sometime in life. If every statement is recorded and meticulously analysed, we are sinners all.

Yep! Exactly. You're starting to get it now. We're all flawed, and the only way for society to progress is for us to admit that, and not have some weird taboo against admitting the flaws of people that no longer have a beating heart. Like I said above, I have absolutely no problem with that.

The issue I have is not the valid critique, but the hypocrisy of Wizards of the Coast issuing disclaimers only recently upon products they have been selling for profit for years. It is like watching a big Western corporation issue disclaimers about child slavery yet doing business along their supply chain with some exploitative company in another country that uses child labor. Performative virtue signaling that does not actually solve the problem.

That's not at all what you were saying, though, and it's not what I was addressing. I won't get pulled into that, because I honestly don't care and did not come into this thread to address that. I came in to address the extremely incorrect "don't judge dead people" statement that you made.

People on this forum who called for more reasoned debate are not getting the same likes like those who ridicule Gary Gygax.

I have absolutely no idea how this has literally anything to do with what my post was about. Like I said, my post was not made to bash Gary Gygax, it was made to call out your fallacious statement. My post was most definitely "reasoned debate", and it got plenty more likes that your post. Whether or not my stance is popular or yours is unpopular does not mean one is more correct than the other or that any of our stances are being silenced, it simply says that people in this thread seem to agree more with me and than you.

And if you visit the TSR Ganes Twitter, you see a large group of mostly internet savvy young people attack an old man who misspoke from anger that so many enjoy his father's game but hate his father so. That exchange when viewed from a wider holistic view looks more like a gang of youngsters beating up an aging defenseless fellow.

This is a red herring, as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post.