TSR TSR3.5 Launches IndieGogo Campaign to "Stop" WotC

The latest in the TSR3 saga, which has gone quiet for a while, is a new IndieGoGo campaign launched to "stop Wizards of the Coast". They cite wrongful bullying of TSR, and refusal to answer requests that WotC show TSR "proof of their claims" (although the campaign page doesn't mention what those claims are).

The IndieGoGo campaign was launched yesterday and has so far raised $675 (at the time of writing).

The action TSR seeks is a "Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership" which is a court declaration about the status of something in dispute.

TSR has launched a campaign to stop Wizards of the Coast

Become a Champion of TSR and Support TSR’s campaign against Wizards of the Coast!

TSR is taking a stand against Wizards of the Coast (“WOTC”) and its wrongful bullying of TSR, our trademarks, and its public libeling and slander of all those who helped create TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and products.

Wizards of the Coast has continually bullied TSR regarding TSR’s legally owned Trademarks. Wizards of the Coast has refused to answer all of TSR's repeated requests that they show any proof of their claims. Wizards of the Coast has the vast resources behind them and is implying to bring them to bear down on TSR.

The new TSR suffered widespread pushback when it launched, which they blamed on WotC, claiming that they were under a "coordinated assault across various channels being mounted.... by [WotC]" The company announced itself earlier this year, having acquired the TSR trademark after the previous holder accidentally let it lapse. It was run by Ernie Gygax, Justin LaNasa, and Stephen Dinehart. After several weeks of controversy, the company split into two -- Wonderfilled (Stephen Dinehart), and TSR (Ernie Gygax and Justin LaNasa).

TSR - TSR3 Blames Widespread Pushback On WotC

In an unexpected turn of events, the primary individuals behind TSR3 have claimed the pushback they've received on social media and elsewhere was orchestrated by .... D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast (a company which has thus far remained completely silent on recent events). TSR3 is run by...

www.enworld.org

The page also indicates an intention to "fight to have WotC's legacy product disclaimer removed" from older products (that's the disclaimer on the older books available on DMs Guild which indicates that those books are products of their time) by claiming that the disclaimer portrays the creators of those older products as "as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products".

TSR will also Fight to Have the WOTC Legacy Disclaimer Removed

TSR is suing WOTC for Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership . TSR will also pursue in the near future having WOTC remove the legacy content disclaimer placed on TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and other products, and retractions of any other libel and slander which alleges that racism and other heinous beliefs are incorporated into those products.

This disclaimer attempts to make a statement of fact argument, and therefore paints all of the writers, editors, artists and consumers of those products as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products. This statement by Wizards of the Coast opens the possibility for the producers and players of these "Legacy Products" to face ridicule, and face the labeling as "bigots", "racists", "misogynists", and worse Cyber & Physical Attacks!

Wizards of the Coast legacy content disclaimer.

"We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end".

TSR3's Justin LaNasa spoke about the campaign in a YouTube video.

TSR - Companies & Freelancers Distance Themselves From The New TSR

The new TSR (which I refer to as TSR3 to avoid confusion) has doubled down on its stance--which has been widely condemned online--via an ongoing series of tweets and replies from its TSR Games, Giantlands, and Dungeon Hobby Museum social media accounts (possibly operated by Justin LaNasa) in an...

www.enworld.org

 

[Maggan]

If I've learned anything from this kerfuffle it is that WotC letting the name TSR lapse was not an optimal decision.

 

[grimslade]

If I've learned anything from this kerfuffle it is that WotC letting the name TSR lapse was not an optimal decision.

The Trademark is worthless without the associated IP. WotC owns the IP copyright in toto. They purchased it in 1997 and continue to sell that IP to this day. What WotC cannot do is market new material as TSR, which why would they?
Apparently, NuTSR can't even pitch new material without using WotC owned IP. I do not like their chances as a publishing company...

 

[Mallus]

Holy crap - 12 pages in 12 hours. This is one fast moving thread. Good for the entertainment value I suppose.

The secret to a good pile-on is speed.

 

[MGibster]

The Trademark is worthless without the associated IP. WotC owns the IP copyright in toto. They purchased it in 1997 and continue to sell that IP to this day. What WotC cannot do is market new material as TSR, which why would they?
Apparently, NuTSR can't even pitch new material without using WotC owned IP. I do not like their chances as a publishing company...

I think this is the case. And, honestly, I seriously doubt there are a significant number WotC's customers who have strong feelings about the TSR name. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since TSR went out of business. While I have positive memories about all the nice products TSR made, I can't say I'm really concerned about any TSR.

 

[Estlor]

When it comes to things like this, what the past two years have taught me is we should never lose sight of a fundamental truth.

People are not prejudiced/bigoted/misogynistic/homophobic/transophobic, ideas are. We were not born to hate; we learned it. And once we stop internalizing ideas as if they were core components of our being and identity, we are better able to reflect on, reevaluate, and let go of ideas that were never good to begin with. We can accept that the fact we held on to those ideas for a time before we let them go doesn't tarnish us; only the refusal to let them go does. It's like our parents told us as children - "It's okay to make mistakes so long as you learn from them."

TSR3.5's problem is twofold.

• They are focused on the wrong parts of what made sitting around the table playing with EGG and company such vibrant, fun experiences.
• They believe they cannot accept some of the trappings of the olden days were bad without feeling it tarnishes them and the people they looked up to.

If anything, I'm truly sad for the people involved in TSR3.5 because they've lost sight of what was truly special about those days for them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just as a quick FYI-

1. The case is filed in North Carolina (federal court), not Wisconsin.

2. The complaint is only ten pages and a quick read.

3. It's not a terrible complaint, but it's also not very persuasive. It seems to not really grapple with the difference between a copyright and a trademark (which are very different things), and just kind of goes, "Oh, and copyrights to, for reasons." It does stupid mistakes (for example, it incorporates the first claim into the second ... which is the type of stupid error you see from lack of proofreading). It lacks professionalism (for example, it refers to the correspondence from the Defendant as the exhibit, then refers to it by the name of the attorney, which is both a no-no and also sloppy because it's confusing).

4. The complaint, notably, mis-states or omits key facts and keeps claiming that WoTC did not prove things to TSR(cubed), but never provides further correspondence as an exhibit (hmmmm) and elides the fact that the C&D letter states clearly the basis for the C&D letter. It's in the second full paragraph, including a link to current use.

Finally, the complaint doesn't have any attempt to make a claim for libel or to force WoTC to remove the warnings on older products- that's just inane and puffery, and a sure sign that the legal fundraising is a grift.

If I had to guess, I'd assume that at best they are hoping to get a payout to avoid litigation. At worst, they have no idea what they are doing. Based upon their prior actions, I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jer]

The Trademark is worthless without the associated IP. WotC owns the IP copyright in toto. They purchased it in 1997 and continue to sell that IP to this day. What WotC cannot do is market new material as TSR, which why would they?
Apparently, NuTSR can't even pitch new material without using WotC owned IP. I do not like their chances as a publishing company...

INAL, but all of these trademark games became idiotic once Wizards realized they could keep everything in print on DriveThru forever. The fact that they're currently publishing Star Frontiers means that another company who doesn't publish Star Frontiers owning the trademark is going to have an uphill battle in any lawsuit. From the lawyers I've seen write about this topic having an actual product you show a history of selling gives your side a lot of weight in a trademark dispute over just filing for the mark.

It's interesting that a cursory glance through the trademark database suggests that much of what they're publishing on DT now is registered EXCEPT for Star Frontiers. And I suspect that's partly because they didn't let a lot of those marks lapse in the first place (Gamma World, for example, periodically gets a new edition and trademark renewal), and partly because they figured out they could do this after Evil Hat registered the Star Frontiers trademark (which IIRC was when the Star Frontiers stuff showed up on DriveThru).

 

[Umbran]

Is this true about Wisconsin? Can any y’all confirm?

It seems to be true that Wisconsin (and NOrth Carolina, where Snarf notes the suit actually sits) doesn't have solid anti-SLAPP protections.

The only way that seems relevant is to call WotC's action a SLAPP suit, and claim that nuTSR's only defense is a countersuit. It seems to me that contention over ownership of marks does not qualify as SLAPP. NuTSR can make stuff, in general. This is only contention over what they call it and what images they can use to market it.

 

[Parmandur]

ON THE OTHERHAND, the question is whether WotC can continue using them as well

That's not so murky: they have copyright for the visual imagery, better than trademark, and have been selling products with that imagery consistently since the 90's.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

INAL, but all of these trademark games became idiotic once Wizards realized they could keep everything in print on DriveThru forever. The fact that they're currently publishing Star Frontiers means that another company who doesn't publish Star Frontiers owning the trademark is going to have an uphill battle in any lawsuit. From the lawyers I've seen write about this topic having an actual product you show a history of selling gives your side a lot of weight in a trademark dispute over just filing for the mark.

It's interesting that a cursory glance through the trademark database suggests that much of what they're publishing on DT now is registered EXCEPT for Star Frontiers. And I suspect that's partly because they didn't let a lot of those marks lapse in the first place (Gamma World, for example, periodically gets a new edition and trademark renewal), and partly because they figured out they could do this after Evil Hat registered the Star Frontiers trademark (which IIRC was when the Star Frontiers stuff showed up on DriveThru).

Quick thing on marks (trade or service)- they are not acquired through registration, they are acquired through use.

There are definitely benefits to registering a mark that you are using, but it's not the case where one day, Coca Cola will let their mark "lapse" and some person will be like, "Oh, look, I can register that mark and they will have to pay me lots of money!!!!! Yay me!!!!!"

That's not how things work.