TSR Now it’s WotC’s Turn: WotC Moves Against TSR3

I guess after you provoke somebody enough, they’ll eventually bite back. The company has begun trademark cancellation procedures against the newest TSR.

TSR3 briefly filed for a court declaration on Dec 7th as to their ownership of the TSR trademarks — with an IndieGoGo campaign to fund it — and then voluntarily dismissed it a couple of days later on Dec 9th.

This filing is dated Dec 6th, the day before TSR3 launched its campaign.

In WotC’s response, they cite fraud as one of the causes of action, alleging that TSR3 misled the trademark office in its original application.

Mike Dunford, on Twitter, breaks down the action.

TSR - TSR3.5 Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed by TSR3 against D&D owners Wizards of the Coast a few days ago was voluntarily dismissed. Dismissal without prejudice means that the suit can be filed again. The suit lasted two days from the 7th to the 9th of December. The IndieGoGo fundraiser to fund it is still running...

www.enworld.org

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...

www.enworld.org

 

[Jer]

Thanks for the write-up Snarf.

Overall- this is an exceptionally strong response. They are looking to exact as much pain as possible. If I were the Defendants, I would be quite concerned. IMO.

Wouldn't the time to be concerned be when they filed the case? Not knowing how the law works, is it possible that this is the first time that their lawyer has heard of the fact that Wizards had been continuously publishing books with the marks involved on DriveThru for years before LaNasa filed the trademark claim on them? It really does seem like that aspect of the whole thing makes it all a slam dunk that LaNasa's claims are smoke and mirrors, but then IANAL.

I'm starting to see some talk online of people kvetching about "the big company throwing their weight around." Which, really, doesn't justify siding with a bigot and a grifter, not to mention someone quantifiably infringing on their IP.

People need to stop just assuming "corporations bad" means they can shut off their brains. This is a battle between two companies that nuTSR picked on purpose. Wizards would be perfectly happy to not have to defend their trademarks but nuTSR isn't giving them that option.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thanks for the write-up Snarf.


Wouldn't the time to be concerned be when they filed the case? Not knowing how the law works, is it possible that this is the first time that their lawyer has heard of the fact that Wizards had been continuously publishing books with the marks involved on DriveThru for years before LaNasa filed the trademark claim on them? It really does seem like that aspect of the whole thing makes it all a slam dunk that LaNasa's claims are smoke and mirrors, but then IANAL.

Yes, a good attorney should have apprised their client that there was some likelihood of downside liability exposure ... including the possibility of a severe downside risk.

Then again, if LaNasa was not honest with this attorney, it's possible that they were not aware of all the information going in.

 

[Emrico]

Yes, a good attorney should have apprised their client that there was some likelihood of downside liability exposure ... including the possibility of a severe downside risk.

Then again, if LaNasa was not honest with this attorney, it's possible that they were not aware of all the information going in.

Considering the nature of most of the claims and statements made by "Grits" LaNada, would it surprise anyone at all (other than his attorney) that he would misrepresent or omit VERY relevant details about the trademarks use or ownership by WotC?

 

[adamantyr]

Wouldn't the time to be concerned be when they filed the case? Not knowing how the law works, is it possible that this is the first time that their lawyer has heard of the fact that Wizards had been continuously publishing books with the marks involved on DriveThru for years before LaNasa filed the trademark claim on them? It really does seem like that aspect of the whole thing makes it all a slam dunk that LaNasa's claims are smoke and mirrors, but then IANAL.

In all likelihood, they will drop LaNasa as a client as a result of this counterclaim. Especially since he can't give them any way to refute the claims that have merit.

People need to stop just assuming "corporations bad" means they can shut off their brains. This is a battle between two companies that nuTSR picked on purpose. Wizards would be perfectly happy to not have to defend their trademarks but nuTSR isn't giving them that option.

Where are we seeing people defend LaNasa these days? His own Discord? He called down the thunder, so now he has to face the consequences.

On a side note, the seizure of the domains is particularly interesting, as I read somewhere they are actually presently held by Stephen Dinehart. (doing a whois on tsr-hobbies.com can't confirm, it looks like someone removed all the contact info except a phone and an email "abuse@godaddy.com")

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I'm seeing more and more posts of people saying they are on LaNasa's side because "all corporations are evil". Regardless of what one thinks about corporations, siding with someone like LaNasa just because you don't like corporations sure seems like an unwise thing to do.

Yeah, I’m not a fan of corporations myself, but it’s plain as day that Lasagna is in the wrong here. He’s also the person around whom the reactionary gamer crowd is currently rallying. At best, one could argue it’s a lesser of two evils situation, but… obviously the lesser evil is the one to support when there’s no alternative.

 

[Mannahnin]

On a side note, the seizure of the domains is particularly interesting, as I read somewhere they are actually presently held by Stephen Dinehart. (doing a whois on tsr-hobbies.com can't confirm, it looks like someone removed all the contact info except a phone and an email "abuse@godaddy.com")

I wonder if Godaddy (who presumably are the hosting company for the site?) automatically fills that in if the site owner deletes their contact info, so folks can report it as a violation of the TOS?

 

[CleverNickName]

"abuse at go daddy dot com" is one heck of an email address. It calls to mind all sorts of vivid mental images.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, a good attorney should have apprised their client that there was some likelihood of downside liability exposure ... including the possibility of a severe downside risk.

Then again, if LaNasa was not honest with this attorney, it's possible that they were not aware of all the information going in.

We like to bust on lawyers, but it has to be hard being a lawyer who represents dishonest clients. I imagine that has to be incredibly frustrating to come out looking like an idiot in court just because your client lied to you and you had no idea.

 

[Jer]

Yeah, I’m not a fan of corporations myself, but it’s plain as day that Lasagna is in the wrong here. He’s also the person around whom the reactionary gamer crowd is currently rallying. At best, one could argue it’s a lesser of two evils situation, but… obviously the lesser evil is the one to support when there’s no alternative.

I'd even find it hard to find a "lesser of two evils" argument hard to swallow here. This isn't like (showing my age) FOX coming down on fans making fan websites or TSR threatening to sue people who released rules that referenced D&D. This is a fight that LaNasa picked - he's the one who filed the lawsuit in the first place based on a claim to properties that he not only doesn't own, he was never involved with in any way.

If this were one of the logo artists going after Wizards to get their rights back it might be a different story but it's not that. It's just a guy who thinks he can claim ownership of something based on nothing at all. Anyone defending him on a knee-jerk anti-corporation basis needs to get their knees checked...

 

[adamantyr]

If this were one of the logo artists going after Wizards to get their rights back it might be a different story but it's not that. It's just a guy who thinks he can claim ownership of something based on nothing at all. Anyone defending him on a knee-jerk anti-corporation basis needs to get their knees checked...

Is that even a thing? I've never heard of an artist trying to get a logo's rights returned to them.