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]

I saw someone try and argue that this is the beginning of a new era of WotC being sue happy. Which I also think is an attempt at a dodge.

How many of these folks are already sympathetic to NuTSR tho? On social media there's a tendency to amplify the opinions of the loudest and make it seem like more folks hold that idea than really do.

 

[Wilphe]

I won't deny they will be some "waw corporations bad" going on

But its also a way to defend NuTSR without overtly outing yourself as a terrible person

 

[qstor]

1. Motion to dismiss is procedural- absent special circumstances, it doesn't get to the underlying issues. They want this case over, and they want it done forever.

2. Sanctions motions require a safe harbor- it's entirely possible that they sent one, but they can't file it with the court until a period of time elapses allowing the claims to be withdrawn. In addition, now that there are counterclaims filed, the case can't just "go away" if LaNasa dismisses it. Finally, given the allowance for attorney's fees with the underlying action, there is less need to file a sanctions motion.

It can go to failure to state a claim. Just my 2 cents...

 

[qstor]

How many of these folks are already sympathetic to NuTSR tho? On social media there's a tendency to amplify the opinions of the loudest and make it seem like more folks hold that idea than really do.

@MikeHovermale (LOL) on Twitter has just 16 follower not many.

 

[qstor]

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.

Yeah but the attorney needs to do SOME investigation to see if the claims are legit.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It can go to failure to state a claim. Just my 2 cents...

Nope.

Look, this is getting into the weeds far beyond what we should be doing, but there are a bunch of basic issues here-

1. A motion to dismiss can't do anything but work with the complaint, and accept everything in it as true. WoTC can't let the court know about pesky things like "facts," for example. Even things that should be obvious (like a statute of limitations) often can't be done on a motion to dismiss.

2. Even if you win, that doesn't mean the case is over. Because ... (a) they can always re-plead and refile, and (2) it doesn't go to the merits, which means that nuTSR is still publishing their stuff.

(As a bonus point, while failure to state a claim is also usually raised as an affirmative defense, it shouldn't be, because the burden is on the plaintiff to state a claim, and affirmative defenses have the burden on the defendant; failure to state a claim is necessarily part of the prima facie case of the plaintiff)

 

[J.Quondam]

I saw someone try and argue that this is the beginning of a new era of WotC being sue happy. Which I also think is an attempt at a dodge.

Wait... didn't nu-TSR hit at WotC first?

 

[darjr]

Wait... didn't nu-TSR hit at WotC first?

Yes……

 

[Deset Gled]

NuTSR has been consistently radio silent on all social media channels.

It looks like they may have deleted a few comments on their social media from people that have been asking about the suit. But I found a Star Frontiers FB group where LaNasa often trolls, and he was posting the day after the counterclaim dropped:

[redacted]
Wow putting 2+2 together but could totally be coincidence…WotC filed their counter complaint against TSR in US District Court on the same day??????
Reply Share Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:52 PM

Justin LaNasa
[redacted] wrong they filed a cancellation of trademark that had been dismissed!
Reply Share Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:07 PM

It looks like he's still trying to sell the idea that NuTSR won the lawsuit. The audacity of continuing to push that narrative at this point is mind boggling to me. Is it possible that he truly doesn't understand what's going on ?

 

[Wilphe]

Yes but NuTSR were complaining about being attacked by WOTC way before things came to law

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

That is of course utter naughty words, but for the TSR Army Fireteam...