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

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

glans Tijuana

 

[Bacon Bits]

Just skimming, but point 15 of Facts isn't a fact. One that they admit to on point #23. So there's that.

No, it's not that simple.

Paragraph 15 begins, "Upon information and belief," which is a common legal phrase that basically means they're basing the statement on what they have been told and believe to be true rather than on a stronger basis. It doesn't have to be true here, but they're deliberately stating it's what they believe to be true and highlighting that it's just their belief.

Paragraph 23 doesn't contradict paragraph 15. That's because paragraph 15 is about the truth (or what TSR believes to be true), and paragraph 23 is about what WotC's communication claimed.

In other words, they're claiming that WotC's communication contradicts TSR's own information and belief. They don't believe WotC's claim in their communication that those marks have been in continuous use. TSR says the claim is not true or not entirely true. It looks like they're planning to use the abandonment argument for the trademarks.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, it's not that simple.

Paragraph 15 begins, "Upon information and belief," which is a common legal phrase that basically means they're basing the statement on what they have been told and believe to be true rather than on a stronger basis. It doesn't have to be true here, but they're deliberately stating it's what they believe to be true and highlighting that it's just their belief.

Paragraph 23 doesn't contradict paragraph 15. That's because paragraph 15 is about the truth (or what TSR believes to be true), and paragraph 23 is about what WotC's communication claimed.

In other words, they're claiming that WotC's communication contradicts TSR's own information and belief. They don't believe WotC's claim in their communication that those marks have been in continuous use. TSR says the claim is not true or not entirely true. It looks like they're planning to use the abandonment argument for the trademarks.

That isn't much better. For a few reasons:

When you use the word "fact", that infers it's something objectively true, not an opinion. So to include something that is an opinion in a list of facts doesn't look good.

Especially when it is easily provable that TSR did in fact know WoTC has been using those marks the whole time, as evidenced by the fact they've been complaining about the disclaimers. Disclaimers that only appear on those old products...

It's weird to say you don't believe WotC has been using those marks the whole time when you admit that they sent you two links that prove just that.

I read it as if "We used those trademarks because we didn't know WotC was using them still (which I don't believe as per above), and WotC sent us correspondence with two links proving they had been the whole time."

therefore, my interpretation that 23 contradicts 15. Maybe not legally (IANAL), but for intents and purposes of context.

 

[darjr]

Fraud. That's what it is.

 

[Faolyn]

Anyone want to guess how long a disclaimer FATAL would need?

Remember, it has one, somewhere along the lines of "we love women and never stop thinking about them!" Which is kind of all the disclaimer a person needs to understand what they're getting into, really.

 

[Maxperson]

Fear not, Justin Lanaga! My opioions will never be swayed! Never!!

This is good! For if your OP Io Ions are fired in a straight line, nothing can withstand them!

 

[Maxperson]

(I just hope he spells better on clients' tattoos than he does on his "press releases.")

 

[Maxperson]

glans Tijuana

That one sounds in desperate need of a doctor and some antibiotics.

 

[Staffan]

That isn't much better. For a few reasons:

When you use the word "fact", that infers it's something objectively true, not an opinion. So to include something that is an opinion in a list of facts doesn't look good.

Especially when it is easily provable that TSR did in fact know WoTC has been using those marks the whole time, as evidenced by the fact they've been complaining about the disclaimers. Disclaimers that only appear on those old products...

It's weird to say you don't believe WotC has been using those marks the whole time when you admit that they sent you two links that prove just that.

I read it as if "We used those trademarks because we didn't know WotC was using them still (which I don't believe as per above), and WotC sent us correspondence with two links proving they had been the whole time."

therefore, my interpretation that 23 contradicts 15. Maybe not legally (IANAL), but for intents and purposes of context.

I think the argument is that the trademarks technically aren't being used by Wizards themselves, but rather by OneBookShelf* (aka RPGNow/DrivethruRPG), and that while Wizards claim that they are doing so under license TSR has requested to see that license but Wizards has not allowed them to do that. In other words, something like this:

TSR: "A-ha! Now we have the trademarks and for some reason copyright to the logos!"
Wizards: "No you don't, we've been using those even if the registration has lapsed."
TSR: "Prove it!"
Wizards: "Look, we're selling PDFs over here with those logos on and using those trademarks."
TSR: "A-ha! That's not you selling them, that's OneBookShelf. So you have allowed other people to use the trademarks already, even better for us."
Wizards: "But they're doing it on our behalf."
TSR: "Says who?"
Wizards: "Says us who aren't suing them out of existence."
TSR: "That's not proof! Let's see the licensing contracts!"
Wizards: "No, they're none of your business."
TSR (to court): "Look, look, Wizards says they've been using the TSR trademarks but won't show us the documentation."

I am not a lawyer, but this line of argument does not seem entirely solid.

* The lawsuit mentions two licensors. I don't know if they think that DTRPG and RPGNow are two different companies, or if the second licensor is some other company. Still, doesn't really affect the substance of the argument.

 

[darjr]

If target sells a WotC boxed set is it target using the logo or WotC?